Human Resources Committee on April 1st, 2008

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Yes. I believe Finance is having a briefing tonight to talk specifically about the EI fund. Apparently there was a message sent. I'm just waiting on my staff to see what it said exactly, but I believe there is a briefing specifically by Finance on this particular fund.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you. And if you hear anything before we're done, Lynne--

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I think that's why--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

--you'll let us know.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

--we should cease speaking about something that we can maybe be more informed about if we see what Finance is doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sure.

I have Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

There is a briefing tonight on the whole budget issue, so I assume that will be part of it.

I think this is very important. The government clearly, I think, can benefit from the discussions here in the committee once we have a better understanding of exactly what the intent is. It is involved in the whole issue of what we're trying to do when we talk about poverty, because the employment insurance backdrop is there as part of those issues to help people from falling into those traps of poverty.

I think it's important that we look at this--it's part of it--and that the government, since they've already indicated that they'll be setting it up next year, could clearly benefit from the kinds of information this committee could forward while they're doing it for consideration. There's no sense doing it after the fact. And given the fact that the government plans to deal with this next year, taking a couple of meetings and getting a better understanding of the government's intent here, we may be able to enhance it and make it that much better when the government moves forward.

I think it's an important thing to do, and it's linked to the study that we all want to get started on anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Judy.

Mike, and then Mr. Savage.

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

I agree with what Ms. Sgro is saying. The challenge, of course, is that we have a great many great things that we can study in this committee. I've been approached, and I'm interested in a study having to do with disability issues. We have the poverty study and now we're talking about this. And now Mr. Savage has said he's willing to not attach a timeline to it. I guess my argument would be then that we can bring this up at the appropriate time to actually vote on whether we should do it at that time.

If we're not going to do that, if we're not going to attach a timeline to it, if we're just going to vote on it right now, then that would indicate to me that it comes before the poverty study. In my personal view, I think the poverty study is the most important thing we have to do right now.

I'll move an amendment actually here because I am interested in studying this. I think there are many ways we can do it in conjunction with the poverty study. It will probably be discussed right within the poverty study.

My amendment would be that after the word “that”, I would add a comma and say, “upon completion of the poverty study”. That way we can make sure we have our priorities set. The poverty study is the priority. If at the end of the poverty study we want to conduct these hearings, then we can do so.

Given that we're in a minority government situation, and further, I guess, to Mr. Godin's comments, I would say all the more priority should be given to the poverty study to ensure that we complete it before the next election.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have Mr. Savage on the list. Do you want to speak to the amendment?

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

Yes. I don't think I'd want to support an amendment that says we would shelve this until after the poverty study, if that's what Mike is proposing. I'm intrigued and interested and willing to pursue the idea that this study might go on as part of our discussion of poverty. This affects a lot of people. It affects businesses and employers, so it's not strictly on poverty, but certainly poverty is very closely intertwined with our EI system, as it is with the other parts of the social network we have in Canada.

Personally, what I would like to do is canvass the opinion of members here, take it to the subcommittee, where our regular NDP member, Tony, would be as well--or is he here now?--and figure out.... I want to canvass my own colleagues in private.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Of the subcommittee.

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

I want to say one thing. Ms. Yelich indicated that Finance is looking at this. EI bills come to HUMA for a reason, because this is the committee that should be looking at these things. I think we should be looking at it, and if there's a way to incorporate it into the poverty study, I'm entirely open to that, but I want to make sure we spend some significant time discussing with people. I would think the government would find that beneficial too as they go about their plans, being a government that wants to hear what the people have to say, on occasion. I would think they would want to make this part of their deliberations as they decide how to formulate this new crown corporation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mike.

Mr. Godin, Mr. Lessard, and Ms. Yelich.

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

As I read it, employment insurance has to be considered a problem of poverty, and this would be part of it.

I think because in this budget the government has chosen to say they want to have a separate fund through a crown corporation, it's important within the study. If we just do studies to make reports, it's just going to go on. This is something to deal with it, as part of the problem of poverty.

I think the way to go about it is to have it in the motion, to accept the motion as it is, and then when you're getting into it, attack this one right away, change it to have everybody involved, to know where they're going with this. Bring in some experts to see what it means.

Does a crown corporation mean, for example, when we raise a question about Radio-Canada or CBC and we are told to speak to the president of Radio-Canada that the government has no say in it anymore? Is that what it means? Does it mean when you talk about Canada Post in Parliament, the government says it's at arm's length to the government, so go talk to Canada Post? And then there's nothing they can do because the government is on the sidelines.

Is that what all this will mean? That's the type of question we have to raise. What will be the difference between having a corporation and having a separate fund as we wish it to happen? That's the type of study we need. It's all to do with people who create poverty in our country. But this is one I believe should move because of the government's intention in the budget to take direct action. People had better study it and know what the impact will be. What will the impact be?

That's why I will support this motion. I would have liked the motion to go farther, to say it would be the first priority of the committee, but I will leave Tony Martin to make that decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I've got Mr. Lessard, Ms. Yelich, and Mr. Lake.

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

Mr. Chairman, the poverty study will involve a lot of work. Our mandate is every bit as weighty as the one that we had for our employability study, which took two years. The Crown Corporation is to be set up in 2009. That means that if we pass Mr. Lake's amendment, we will not begin the study until after the agency is up and running. That does not make any sense. We should carry out the study and table our recommendations in the House before the summer recess.

I propose that we adopt Mr. Savage's motion as it stands, and that we heed his suggestion that the subcommittee determine how to fit it into our agenda without disrupting our study on poverty. I think that it is possible, but it is for the subcommittee to iron out the details and report back to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Ms. Yelich, and then Mr. Lake.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I just want to make a comment.

Mr. Savage was saying that we, the Conservatives, haven't made poverty a priority and this employment insurance fund is just something of our own agenda. I think the study of poverty should be first and foremost, and we can perhaps make this part of that study. But I don't see them really working hand in hand, because what I understood the poverty study to be is to help people get out of poverty. That usually is something about affordable housing or about jobs—creating jobs, not finding ways to get people on unemployment or finding different ways to change the unemployment act. I thought we were going to work on trying to see what we can do to assist people to get a good job and good, affordable housing.

So I'm not sure why we would ever think poverty wouldn't be first and foremost, and that's what we should be studying. Then, on the employment insurance, first of all, let's see the framework. It is not going to be quite as Mr. Godin had dreamt about. It's going to be a managed board that's going to oversee a fund that can never become surpluses for other governments to raid and to spend as they wish.

First and foremost, I would hate to see this poverty study go like the employability study. I think it went on far too long. We do have other pieces of legislation that we'll probably have to study in the meantime.

Mr. Martin has waited patiently for this poverty study. We've already made suggestions on witnesses, and so on. Can we put that first and foremost, make it a priority and set a deadline for it to finish, and then put the EI fund second, as Mr. Lake has suggested? Perhaps we can find out a little bit about the framework of the fund before we start making suggestions that it's going to become part of our poverty study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Lynne.

Last on the list is Mr. Lake.

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

I come back to the question of priorities here. As a committee, we have to decide what our priority is. We took over two years to do the employability study. If we take the same amount of time to do the poverty study, we won't get it done.

We know from experience in this committee that we're going to have several pieces of legislation come before us. We're going to have several politically motivated issues that are going to be brought up from time to time that are going to require two meetings here or three meetings there, and if we continue to slot those in instead of dealing with the poverty study, then there is absolutely no substance to our committee's discussion about poverty; it's just talk.

If we're serious about doing a poverty study, if as a committee there's substance behind our talk on poverty, then we need to make an absolute priority of our poverty study. We need to not let anything get in the way of that poverty study. If anything, it will motivate us to get through the poverty study so that we can actually conduct hearings on the other things that we need to conduct hearings on.

In my view, the poverty study is first and foremost. It's the most important thing we have to study. What I don't want to see us do is to slot three meetings in here to study this issue, three other meetings in there to study another issue, and then fall four committee meetings short of finishing our poverty study at the end. That's the road I see us going down right now. If we don't start the poverty study now and stick to it, we will not finish it.

So I think we really need to question ourselves on whether that poverty study is our priority. I believe it should be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. If there's no other discussion, I'll call the question.

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

No. I have a small comment on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Godin.

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

You really moved my colleague Tony to tears this morning.

Mr. Martin really appreciates the support of the Conservatives now, since 2006, on the poverty in our country. He really appreciates it. He's in tears.