Human Resources Committee on March 6th, 2008

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

That seems to be pretty difficult.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

After all, the other three witnesses were not able to make it.

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

I notice that we got a letter from the Conseil du patronat du Québec speaking as opposed to this, but they were unable to be here today. What other organizations that were opposed expressed interest in being here, just so we can be aware?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The Restaurant and Foodservices Association, as well as the CFIB.

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

Okay, thank you.

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

On this point, Mr. Chair, maybe what we should do, instead of going ahead for next week with the bill, is prolong it for three weeks to a month and make a good study, because I agree with my friend Mike Lake that we should give good opportunity, good notice, and have a good debate. I totally agree with him to be fair. I think we should be fair on both sides, the workers and--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to end the debate at this point. You guys can take up your own time, not the committee time right now.

Mr. Savage, for seven minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Chair.

To Mr. Lake's point about balance, I think Mr. Cirtwill's far right point of view more than balances out the other witnesses we heard.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

Listen, he is a very smart man, following in the great line of Brian Lee Crowley and the other AIMS members, who are all too smart for their own good.

I want to welcome all of the witnesses and thank you for coming. We've met with some of you before on a number of issues and we appreciate that.

Charles did a little promotion on AIMS, and AIMS has become a very important part of public policy discussions in Atlantic Canada and, I would say, in Canada. The fact that they're usually wrong doesn't take away from the strength of the argument that they have and how well they make that case.

I must say that when I hear terms like “state-subsidized life”, I find that offensive when dealing with employment insurance, Charles, and people being paid well “not to work”. I know that part of what AIMS does is that they like to get out there and put these points of view, but basically in essence what you're telling me is that if somebody is living in Monsieur Godin's riding or Rodger Cuzner's riding and they're not working, they should move to my riding to work or not get any of the social infrastructure that Canada currently provides.

Is that an accurate reflection of what you're saying to me?

[Charles Cirtwill]

No, Mr. Savage, that's a characterization based on your political perspective of what I said, which is fair enough, because of course your business is very similar to mine.

Basically what I would say is this. If they have an opportunity to work elsewhere--and we have to remember now that we're not talking 15 or 20 years ago when, in order to get a job you had to move from River Bourgeois to Edmonton. We're talking about moving from River Bourgeois perhaps to Sydney or from Sydney perhaps to Halifax. So we're not talking about major disruptions in life and limb.

That being said, if industries and people in those communities want to stay there and want to have a system of employment insurance, all we're saying is that they should pay a little bit extra. If you want to have a system where you're being paid to be able to work six or eight or ten weeks of the year and stay the rest of the time in the community that you've come to love and are refusing to move from, then maybe we should be taking a look at whether or not your employer and you should be paying an additional premium for that.

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

Do you think that people who are on welfare should get less welfare the longer they're on welfare as well?

[Charles Cirtwill]

Now, Mr. Savage, we're not talking about welfare. We're talking about employment insurance.

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

I'm trying to make an extrapolation.

[Charles Cirtwill]

No, sir, it is not. Employment insurance is designed as an exercise to help you when you have an interruption in employment. Welfare is designed to help people who, for whatever reason, whether inside or outside of their control, can't work.

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

What you're suggesting is that the longer you get benefits from the Government of Canada, the less those benefits--

[Charles Cirtwill]

No, sir, I did not say that at all. I said the longer you get employment insurance benefits, the less you should get. That does not translate into the fact that if someone--for example, because of physical or mental infirmity--cannot work, they should not get more money.

In fact, what I would suggest, perhaps, is that if we can drive EI premiums down, maybe we should be able to raise our taxes and increase the welfare transfers a little bit higher, so that the people who really can't take care of themselves are taken care of at the highest possible levels.

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

On the EI premiums, you mentioned the rates. In the last 10 years or so we have seen a dramatic drop in the rates that are being charged to, particularly, employers and employees. We have also, though, seen a dramatic reduction in benefits to employees. There has to be a balance.

Do you not think we've overbalanced it on one side in terms of reducing the premiums, while at the same time cutting the benefits?

[Charles Cirtwill]

I would suggest to you that there are employer groups, such as the CFIB, that would disagree with your characterization that we've seen significant cuts in premiums, and in fact--

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

How much is the cut, then?

[Charles Cirtwill]

I don't know the hard number. I would have to look at it.

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

Well, I would call it significant.

[Charles Cirtwill]

Well, that would be your characterization, and as I say, those groups would characterize it differently.

I don't know the raw number. Do you know the raw number?

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

Yes, I could tell you the raw number, but I'll ask the questions, and you can answer.

I would have thought that someone as bright as you are, working for an organization as astute as AIMS, would have that information when you came to testify.

[Charles Cirtwill]

Well, unfortunately, I didn't have access to a library on the plane--