Human Resources Committee on March 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. That's all the time we have.

We're going to move to Mr. Savage, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, let me thank the witnesses. This has been a good lively discussion on an issue that matters an awful lot to an awful lot of Canadians, so let me commend Monsieur Godin for bringing it forward once again as well.

I want to go to what I was talking about the last time, that I believe we need to do something on the EI side. It may be on the employer premium side as well, but we've done a lot on that side in the last 10 years. We need to do something with EI to make it meet the needs of Canadians in a more effective way.

The issue, what is it? We've had some private members' bills. We've looked at Bill C-269. We've looked at eliminating the two-week waiting period, which is very justifiable. It makes sense to me. Eliminating the black hole on the other side makes sense. We need to do something for part-time workers and for female workers. Self-employed people, creators, artists are discriminated against in the EI system, I would argue. Some of them are prepared to pay both sides of the premium if they can qualify for EI.

We can go from 55% to 60%, we can extend the benefit period, and we can look at the arm's-length provision whereby people in communities are discriminated against because they happen to work for a relative, for example. We can look at Bill C-278, Mark Eyking's bill. To go from 15 weeks to 50 weeks on sickness makes a lot of sense. I think the cost of that was in the range of $700 million, if I'm not mistaken. It costs $1.2 billion, I recall, to go from 55% to 60%. So we have to figure out the best thing.

I want to comment on Pierre's comment earlier about the fact that he has led a movement to bring the three opposition parties together on EI so we can go forward. The NDP and the Bloc are entirely well intentioned with their movements on EI. We're looking, as a government in waiting, at how we can really move forward with employment insurance reform that makes sense. It's not a burden that's carried by the NDP or the Bloc, with all respect. We have to look at what we can do, people like Mr. Rodriguez, who's joined us here, and Rodger Cuzner, and Dominic LeBlanc, and the people who are looking for EI reform. We want to do the right thing for EI, but we want to make some changes. I think some of the leadership that was shown by some of the labour groups, particularly in Quebec, to bring us together is worthwhile. We need to do something to be fairer to workers.

I want to ask a specific question. I was going to Laurell, but Barbara, perhaps anybody, maybe starting with you, tell us about a specific circumstance that a lot of women find themselves in on EI, which is the vicious cycle of child care and employment insurance, and the fact that, you know, you have to be able to go to work, and one of those conditions is that you have to have some child care, particularly in the case of single women who don't have it. Can you comment on that vicious cycle piece of it and how it affects women?

[Barbara Byers]

What we know is that women are taking time out to look after their children, or sometimes it's also taking time out to care for other dependent people in their family, which means they're out of the workplace. And if they've been out for a certain period of time, what you end up with is their having a higher entrance requirement again.

We're looking at this whole thing in terms of our women's economic equality agenda. It's connected to EI, but it's also connected to having child care. How can you go to work if there's no child care or no opportunities for those spaces?

I just want to go back to your opening comments, and I guess other comments. While we sit in rooms like this arguing about the best way to do it, nothing gets done for the unemployed. I want to say to people, “For God's sake, do something.” If you can do this bill, then that's a start, and then whatever your political careers are and whether you face unemployment or not, the reality is that the unemployed will actually be getting something from a program they pay into.

I'm sorry if I appear impatient, but if you ran into the people we run into across this country and in Quebec, who are absolutely devastated by short and long periods of unemployment, then maybe it would have more impact with people.

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

I want to ask you something very quickly, Pierre, Barb, and Andrew Jackson, if I could.

The government has announced a separate EI fund as a crown corporation. This committee, in a previous incarnation, called for a separate organization, not necessarily a crown corporation. There are a lot of people expressing concern that a wholly arm's-length agency, even if it's just on the premium side, will eventually lead to reduced benefits for workers.

Can I have your quick thoughts?

[Barbara Byers]

Okay. We need to see the bill, obviously, that's going to create this crown corporation, but we have some of those same concerns. We don't want to be in a position where questions can no longer be raised about EI because the government can say, “Oh well, it's over there that it's dealt with; go talk to the president of the corporation.”

There's $54 billion, some say $55 billion, owed to workers in terms of cut benefits and limited access. We've felt for a long time that workers should have a greater say in that, and that governments shouldn't just get to go and spend it. We don't want to be in a position where Parliament then can't review it, but we need to see the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Savage. That concludes your round.

We're going to move to the last questioner, Ms. Yelich, for five minutes.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Welcome to the committee. I will be sharing with Jacques. I just want to make a couple of comments.

First of all, I think unemployment insurance is for all workers across the country. So when Mr. Lessard zeroes in on the forest industry, that is why programs were created out of the EI part II, specifically because we have to take that sector and address some of the hardships with $127.8 million in the initiative of competitiveness. The forest industry has been going under some terrible hardships, and it's been for quite a while. That is why there have been programs like the community development trust and the targeted initiative for older workers. There's been an increase in that funding, because that is what the EI part II is trying to address. The unemployment we're talking about today, the insurable benefits, the premiums, that is all about changing some of these rules that really have nothing so much to do with that.

I want to ask a question, because one part that's missing here is from the small business and small enterprise people, and this is where I feel the women don't have a voice. The small and medium enterprises are really growing, very quickly, and it's because of women. They're all employing maybe fewer than five employees.

This is not just urban; this is rural. This is what a lot of our rural women have chosen, because many of them want to be raising their own children. Some have decided that starting businesses at home or in small communities is working and working really well. I think it's a very important statistic that has been missing here.

Do you have any statistics on that, Mr. Cirtwill, about women in small businesses and enterprises? I do feel that CFIB has raised a real concern about any changes. They are the ones who had a strong voice in making sure the benefits and premiums were more in balance.

Taking from them, because they make up a huge amount of the people who employ these same people we're trying to protect with employment benefits, can you give us some sort of indication of how important this is to women, to make sure we keep a balance here, that the organizations are also specifically going to help these women?

[Charles Cirtwill]

No, I wouldn't have numbers breaking down the percentage of small businesses started by women or led by women. I would say it's interesting that Mr. Savage made the suggestion that we need to take a look at self-employed people, because I think getting to your point around women starting small businesses, this is one of those risks. If they move from salaried employment into creating their own business, there's no sharing of the risk with the rest of us in Canadian society.

Certainly that's a conversation worth having.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

That's where I would like to see this go. I'd like to see these people suggesting that maybe we have to look at where we can help all the people who don't have accessibility.

Go ahead, Jacques.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to speak. There's only a couple of minutes left.

I'd like to ask the panellists, if they have time to respond, to paint a picture as to the differences between the regions, and the cities and towns which are mono-industrial. Unemployment levels are not the same everywhere. In some places, there's 4% unemployment, and in other places, 12%. Do the terms and conditions have to be the same everywhere? Under the new system, you would need 360 hours. Explain to me why you would want to better protect workers in areas where there's 4% unemployment, given the opportunity they'd have to find other employment. When you live in an area where there's 4% to 5% unemployment, it's easier to find a job. Is this about which political party you belong to? When you live in an area where unemployment is at 17% and you end up jobless, the likelihood of getting a new job is more limited. Explain to me why everyone needs to be put into the same basket.

[Pierre Céré]

My take on the matter is that the employment insurance system needs to be improved and that the eligibility criteria must be relaxed. This single eligibility criteria is no different from the health care single eligibility criterion. Medicare does not make a distinction between the various regions based on whether there are fewer or more sick people. Access to the health care system is universal. Employment insurance does not cause unemployment. Occupational health and safety systems don't cause workplace illness or accidents. If you have an accident at work—and I don't wish this on anybody and I'm glad that we instituted universal social systems years ago—or if you have a work-related illness, you're protected. When you have health problems, you have access to health care. Thank God, because it would be a bloody struggle if we didn't have access to a health care system. The same is true of employment insurance: an employment insurance system protecting workers is important.

I'd like to take this opportunity to make an aside. I respect employers. We've often had an opportunity of collaborating with them. Just two weeks ago, I was with the heads of Packard, a big Montreal area auto company. It is not a “hole-in-the-wall” kind of place, it's a company that employs over 1,000 people and makes trucks. It is having economic difficulties and orders are down because manufacturing has gone south. They needed information on the shared-work and employment insurance system. If you give these people access to pre-retirement, will they be entitled to employment insurance with the possibility of returning to work at some point in time? They need these workers who are familiar with the equipment and have experience. The employers need employment insurance to cover these workers at difficult intervals. They don't want to see them go to Alberta or elsewhere.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'll take 15 seconds to say this. Once again I strongly urge you to find a majority. I didn't say “a consensus”. Why didn't I say that? Because we're not expecting anything from the Conservative Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

That's all the time we have. We're over time. We have another meeting that goes on in here right after ours. That's why we have to disband now.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here, for taking the time on such short notice to be here.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.