Human Resources Committee on March 4th, 2008

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

No, you said it, when you said we're not going to pay people to be at home and not working.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have for this round.

Thank you, Ms. Yelich, and thank you, Mr. Godin.

We're going to move to Mr. Lessard. You have five minutes, sir.

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

Our Conservative friends are very much concerned with cost. Cost is a concern for us as well, but it must be considered as it is. For every dollar that an employee pays into the Employment Insurance Fund, an employer pays $1.40. I remember that the employee's employment insurance contribution in the 1990s was $3.20. So the employer's contribution was $4.30 or $4.35 per $100.

Mr. Godin is entirely right in saying that employers aren't complaining about the cost of employment insurance contributions because they pay 50% less today. They would like to pay the same amount as employees. According to the rationale adopted and the regulations, it's not employees who decide to leave their jobs. If they decide to leave their jobs, they can't receive employment insurance. Employers are responsible for layoffs. They must therefore plan the work accordingly. That's what explains the 40% difference between employer and employee contributions.

That being established, are revenues sufficient to pay for the improvements made to the employment insurance system? Yes. There are two revenue sources. First, there are the contributions as such, which generate surpluses every year. Two successive governments have tried to cut contributions enough to offload their responsibility for improving the system and to justify the system as it was, given the fact that they did not have enough revenue. That's not what employers or employees want. Employers have come and told the committee that, when they have to lay off employees, they would like those employees and their families not to starve. Employers aren't heartless.

I remember that, in the Gaspé Peninsula, for example, it was employers who rose up against the decision by Ms. Robillard, at the time, not to make sufficient improvements to the system. We could cite further examples of this kind. So there is this source which generates surpluses. The fund has revenues of $15 to $16 billion a year.

The accumulated surpluses are the second source of income. Remember that our committee unanimously recommended that the money that must be considered as having been borrowed be returned to the fund at a rate of $1.5 billion a year. We say that it's been diverted. It has definitely been diverted until it's been decided that it has been borrowed. Since $46 billion had been diverted at the time, we said that, at the rate of $1.5 billion a year, it would take 32 years to return the money to an independent fund. In the same way as the government borrows in the financial markets, we'll consider that amount as a loan from the fund. Returning that amount to the fund will provide sufficient funds not only to fund the two measures introduced, but also the measure concerning the benefit rate of 60% of an employee's income. You can adopt these two measures at the same time only by returning that money to the fund.

I wanted to clarify this point before asking my question. My colleague Mr. Godin said that he was concerned about what's coming. Am I to understand that you're abandoning the idea of returning the $54 billion that was diverted to the Employment Insurance Fund?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Absolutely not. If I remember correctly, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Mr. Peter Van Loan, told us that there had been a diversion of funds and that they had been placed in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. You can check the blues. The government clearly said at the time that the $52 billion had to be returned to the fund. So there is money. There's no reason to be ashamed. It's not the government's money; it's the money of companies and employees.

In addition, employers were asked whether they were complaining about the fact that employees could receive employment insurance. The best example occurred two years ago. There was a protest at Forestville that I was invited to attend. All the Forestville merchants closed their businesses and walked through the streets with the workers, from the church to the arena. The merchants said they wanted their employees to be able to access the employment insurance program in the event they lost their jobs. They're the ones who pay. They were very vocal about that.

Let's look at the protest in New Richmond. At the time, in the Gaspé Peninsula, at the stroke of noon, when the protest started, all the church bells on the Peninsula rang at the same time. The parish priest said that it wasn't a political issue, but rather a human issue. People were suffering. I never hear the government talking about that. I'd at least like to know the government's impressions of the matter. It says it's working on the labour market and economic development. What's been done for the people who lose their jobs? I never heard the government's response. I think workers would like to hear the government announce that it's going to lower contributions so that companies pay more money. What do we do about employees who have lost their jobs? Mothers and fathers come home on Friday night saying they won't be going to work on Monday morning. They won't have any pay the following week. What do we do about them? That's the question I'm asking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Godin, and thank you, Mr. Lessard.

We have two questioners left--Mr. Cuzner, followed by Mr. Brown, for five minutes each--and then we'll be completed.

Mr. Cuzner, five minutes, sir.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Chairman, since coming to Ottawa...and I know that regardless of the political stripe or the party, the responsibility of an elected official is to bring the experience on behalf of their constituents to Ottawa and hopefully get a fair deal from the centre. Certainly, in representing similar communities--coastal, rural communities--it's always been a challenge to bring that experience to the centre and make the case in point.

For example, I know we had some success in some training of older workers from the fishery. The nature of the fishery is that there's an immense amount of work for a short period of time, and you need the bodies on hand to get this done, whether it's crab or finfish you're processing, or whatever it might be. You need the people for long hours in difficult situations for a short period of time.

We put a call centre in one of these communities and we couldn't get people. We were looking at filling probably 100 seats, and we got 50 seats filled. The last 50 seats were very difficult to fill because some of the women from that community had to travel half an hour to get to their work. Their husbands would be working in another section of the area, and there's no mass transit in some of these rural communities. I know you're laughing at the half-hour travel, guys, but when you can't access public.... You see, that's where you have to make the point. There's no public transit in these rural communities, and that's where the problem is. There's no day care. They can't just leave the kids at home watching Jerry Springer--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

There are these other social infrastructures that aren't accessible in rural communities, and that's a difficult one. So I'm trying to share that message about all the challenges faced by the workers who work in these seasonal industries.

I want your comments on something that's come to light in the last couple of weeks: EI within the fishery as it applies to the NAFTA agreements. The ability of those in the fishery to receive EI may be at risk right now through NAFTA negotiations.

Monsieur Godin, I'd like it if you could enlighten the committee as to what impact that would have on the fishers in your community.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, and I just want to touch on this a little bit. I think this is what people don't understand, that when you're talking about getting on the bus for $2 or $3 to go to work and come back home, there's a difference when you're living in a rural area. You have to get in a car. You have to buy the second car, pay for the insurance, pay for the gas--at the price of gas today--to get to work, for minimum wage. Because many of those jobs at those call centres.... We have those call centres in Bathurst, at eight bucks an hour. Anybody who goes to work there needs a car because we live in a rural area.

I don't want to lose much time on it, but I think you understand. If you go around and check what's happening in the field, that's what's happening. And that's why people say, “If I go to work, does it make sense that it costs me money to go to work instead of making money?” That's the difference. People go to work and say that at the end of the day it costs them more money to go to work than they make. That's where the problem is.

The other one is about the fishery. The message that this country has to send to other countries is that we will not sell out our sovereignty. It could come to the point.... They're talking about the fishery now. What will be next? If they say that it's a subsidy to the fishermen, that means they'll say business has EI and that's a subsidy too, so then we'll have to cut EI all across, on every job. If they open that door....

That's why we said NAFTA has to be reopened and renegotiated. It's the same thing with the WTO. We have to stand up for Canada. We have to stand up for our people, and if that's what free trade is all about, to big business...and I say that again, that the WTO is all big business saying that's the way they want it, if you want to do business with their country. As a sovereign country we have to say no, that's where the buck stops--because it's not a subsidy; it's a payment for wages that you're losing because you're not working, and there's a difference between that and a subsidy. It's not a subsidy.

With EI, what Canada has to say in Geneva is that it's off the table. This is an insurance that people pay into for when they lose their jobs, and it's off the table. If they start to talk about EI, I think they'll be skating on very thin ice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to now move to the last question today.

Mr. Brown, we're going to start off with you, sir.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

That was a very short hour, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, we're just slightly over the hour.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

I think he got quite a bit more than that, but thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm delighted to make my maiden intervention here at this committee. It's interesting, with this bill here and what Mr. Godin's presenting to us. I happen to be part owner of a business in the lodging, food service, and attractions business in a seasonal area, so I understand this concept very well. But I was a little concerned about two comments from Mr. Godin.

Number one is when he talked about tax cuts being only for large corporations. I can tell you from my experience in our business--it's a family business as well, and it's been around for a long time--that when money becomes available, it gets reinvested into the company. I can tell you that in our case we continue to invest in our company, and it creates jobs every time we invest more money. So those tax cuts are not just for large corporations; they're for small companies that take people off the EI rolls.

Also, I was a little concerned about his comment about small business owners not being out in the street protesting the EI premiums they have to pay. I can tell you once again that money.... And I'll give some credit to the former government and our government, which has continued to cut those premiums so that there are more dollars left in a company. It's not just fat cats making big profits who are putting it in their pockets. Many of these companies are reinvesting.

Maybe you could address those two comments that I made, but I'm also interested...and this will be to my question. The fact is that in our area we do have to lay some people off because of the seasonality of our operation--much of it still operates on a year-round basis--but I know for a fact that some of those people who work for us actually do wish to not work in the winter. What many of them, if we have to lay them off, would be more interested in doing is getting training to be able to do a better job and be more employable.

There are also things going on in the economic development side, so those are government dollars going in that are helping to make the season a little longer.

So here is my question. Does the member think that pushing this forward might be a disincentive to work and that maybe more money should go into economic development and training, rather than into keeping people on the EI rolls?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Some of the employers we've heard from are businesses. They didn't realize that if you just turn around and you take a community.... I'm talking about a community working at seasonal work. There's nothing you can do about it.

Baie des Chaleurs, like it or not, freezes, and you don't catch lobster underneath the ice. They found out that when the people were laid off and not getting their employment insurance, they couldn't buy the cars that the businesses were selling. Car sales went right down. Business when right down.

On Friday, when the guy received his pay on Wednesday.... On Wednesday, do you know who was getting it? It was all the business people, the banks and the business people. But they noticed that when the change in employment insurance happens without a change in economic development, instead of putting more people to work, the target becomes the businesses. They said, “Hey, they don't come to my store anymore. They just get what their needs are.” They needed some food. So that's what happened.

The Chamber of Commerce said, “Did you talk to the businesses?” We invited the Chamber of Commerce of P.E.I., and they disagree with the big Chamber of Commerce of Canada here in Ottawa. They said no, they're not seeing the reality of seasonal work that they have.

I don't know what type of business you have. I'm not going to challenge the type of business you have, but I've never seen a person getting well paid who wanted to be on EI in the winter and listening to the television and Oprah. People want to work. I have more trust in Canadians than that.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Okay. Monsieur Godin, when I left the Thousand Islands yesterday morning, the river was pretty rock-solid frozen. There were no boat cruises going, so many visitors weren't visiting at this time of year.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Then you know what I'm talking about.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

But there are ways to get the economy a little more diversified, and I can tell you some of the efforts that are going on currently through economic development programs with the government that are helping that situation. So I'd rather see that money going in than making it easier—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, but the tourist business you're talking about, that tourist business took a person and trained him and trained him and trained him, and then because the channel froze, another business took the employee and brought him or her along. Thereafter, they have to retrain again. Go and talk to those people about how happy they are that other businesses come and take their employees. You have to talk to everybody.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, that's all the time we have.

Monsieur Godin, thank you very much for being here.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I appreciate the meeting we had here this morning. There are going to be some for and some against, but at the end of the day, I'm looking at the working people, the men and women, the families and the kids. It's a program that they're paying into themselves; it's not a government program. That's why I am concerned. It's a business and employee program where they pay to help the family survive when they're looking for a job, until the government or businesses have good economic development to give jobs to people.

I trust Canadian men and women.

I trust them; they're good people. I think they have to be given credit for that. It will ultimately be up to the government to decide whether or not it supports the bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mike.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

My understanding is that on Thursday we're going to hear from some witnesses on this bill. Mr. Lake mentioned a number of $1.5 billion that he said was a departmental estimate of the cost of this.

Is that something that's going to be shared with us? Is there any analysts' costing, departmental costing, or anything that we're going to have a look at on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The department officials are going to make themselves available when we go to clause-by-clause. So I would suggest that at that point in time, if you want, we can have them for a couple of questions before we go to clause-by-clause, by all means. That will happen on Tuesday.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

They're not coming on Thursday?