Evidence of meeting #20 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Bill James  Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

That's correct, but there were two clauses deleted.

So shall the bill as amended--in this case, as the clauses have been defeated--carry?

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?

That's probably not essential. Normally we would have a reprint of the bill, but given the fact that just two clauses have been deleted, the question is whether it's necessary to have the bill reprinted. I think it's pretty straightforward. There wasn't anything major added to it.

Is that okay?

Yes, go ahead, Monsieur Godin.

April 1st, 2008 / 10:15 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Could we add in the report that through a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives, Bill C-269--the 360 hours for the workers across the country--was not carried? Maybe we could add an amendment to that; maybe Liberals would agree with me.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Oh, it's too late for amendments; I'm sorry.

That is it for the business of the bill. We do have some committee business to get to.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to discuss the issue, but Mr. Lessard had raised a point about the royal recommendation.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

We could do that. We could talk about that.

To the witnesses, thank you very much for coming back again.

All right, Mr. Savage, we can address that right now. Go ahead, sir.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Lessard's point is correct: the government has indicated that they will be setting up an employment insurance commission; I forget the exact acronym. It means that this will be at arm's length from government, which, in my view, impacts upon the decision of whether or not a royal recommendation is actually required. I'm wondering what the procedure is for questioning and putting forward the view of the committee that we think it shouldn't require a royal recommendation based on that.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

My thoughts are that this will go back to the House, so if you want to address it at that stage of the House, that would probably....

The board, as I understand it, isn't being set up until next year. It falls into this calendar year, as we look at it, so my thinking is that your whips may want to raise it again with the Speaker. I'm also reminded that an announcement has been made for the separate financing board, but that has not yet been passed by Parliament.

Once again, Mike, if you guys want to have your whips talk to the Speaker, maybe that's an option there.

Mr. Lessard, sir.

10:15 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I did not hear what you said. I think it was important, but the interpreter was unable to interpret as you were not speaking into the microphone. Could you please repeat it?

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

The question was on whether or not this should be looked at separately. I've been reminded that although there's legislation pending to set up a separate financing board, that has not happened yet. That hasn't been approved by Parliament.

So that's one thing. The second thing is that, by all means, if whips and House leaders want to take this back to Mr. Milliken...because another suggestion is to have him take a look at it again.

Okay? Thank you very much.

Mr. Savage, did you want to bring your motion forward, or how did you want to deal with that?

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I look to the indulgence of the committee and to you as chair. Let me just explain the motion.

Should I read it?

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Why don't you read it while it's being handed out?

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

The motion reads:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conduct hearings on the Government of Canada's intent to create a Crown Corporation for the purpose of administering the Employment Insurance Fund and that the Committee call such witnesses as deemed necessary to assess the implications of transferring the administration of Employment Insurance from the department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada to a Crown Corporation.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Did you want to speak to that, Mike?

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

There is a lot of concern when people hear about arm's-length organizations, particularly dealing with something as important as employment insurance. There's also support for the idea that there should be a separate fund that would be responsible for parts of the administration of employment insurance, i.e., premium setting.

One assumes and understands that the ultimate responsibility for employment insurance benefits would still rest with Parliament, but we need to find out exactly what the government has in mind with this crown corporation, because it does send some shudders down the backs of a lot of people across Canada. I think it would be helpful not only to this committee but also to the Government of Canada if we had some public hearings at this committee to find out from the minister, the department, others from labour, workers' groups, and business what they think about this idea and what they'd like to see involved in it. That would be my view.

I want to give one caveat, Mr. Chair. I think it's very important that we embark on the poverty study. This is something we've needed to do for a long time. I'm not suggesting we do this on Thursday, next Tuesday, or next week. I would be prepared to have this adopted by the committee as part of our work plan at some point in the near future. I think it's very important that we, with all expeditiousness, embark on the poverty study, and I do want to fit this in at some point in time. I think it's something a lot of people would like to see done.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Okay. I'm taking some names here.

We'll hear from Mr. Lake, Mr. Godin, and then Mr. Lessard.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

The only point I want to make is that I understand what Mr. Savage is getting at. I think if we are going to be serious about embarking on our poverty study, then that's what we need to do. We can bring forward this motion any time we want to and decide to study it, but right now the last thing we need is to muddy the water, put more things on our plate, and add something to our list of priorities.

Our number one priority right now needs to be the poverty study. It's something we've been talking about doing. I understand it's been talked about since way before I ever got here, and we've been talking about it for over two years now. I think we need to move on to it.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thanks, Mike.

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

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I sit here considering the motion tabled by our Liberal colleague, Mr. Savage, I hear Mr. Big Brother, Mr. Lake, say that he wants to study poverty in Canada. It is certainly something we can discuss because, as 800 000 workers are not eligible for employment insurance, the employment insurance regime is one of the causes of poverty in Canada. Such a high number of non-entitled Canadians means that children are suffering. There are 1.4 million children in Canada who go hungry and, in my opinion, the cuts to the employment insurance program have contributed to this poverty. Do we really need to study the underlying causes of the problem? If, after all the years we have spent here, we still do not understand the origins of the problem...I know that the study has to be done, but the EI fund project is moving ahead fairly quickly. Minister Solberg wants to move ahead with it and plans to hold hearings to gain a better understanding of the state of affairs across the country and to find out what people really think of the fund.

The stand-alone fund that was suggested—and I do not want to get into a debate about it—sought to remove the money from the general revenues and put it aside to prevent it being pilfered. Setting up a Crown Corporation, however, is not without consequence. I think that we ought to study the matter and convene experts to explain exactly what a fund administered by a Crown Corporation would entail. What changes would it create in the employment insurance system? What would the consequences of such a change be?

I would support this becoming a priority. If the Minister decides to go ahead with a Crown Corporation we would have to initiate a study. This way, the Committee would have already expressed its view on the matter.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Lessard, sir.

10:20 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

I think that our colleague, Mr. Godin, has explained the situation well. The EI fund is a key element of our study on poverty. People speak as if poverty and employment insurance were two separate issues when in fact they are closely intertwined. The ineligibility of 60 per cent of workers who lose their jobs, workers who should be entitled to benefits, is one of the factors that aggravates poverty.

I understand that this is a matter of little importance to the Conservatives, but we are going to support this timely Liberal motion. I do not know whether Mr. Savage would agree with me, but it is one of the issues that we should perhaps study as part of our poverty study. However, we cannot wait too long, as the Conservatives are trying to delay studying it until after adjournment. They are putting off a lot of decisions until after the House has adjourned. We have to study the ramifications of setting up a Crown Corporation over the course of the next few weeks.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you.

I have Ms. Yelich, Ms. Sgro, Mr. Lake, and Mr. Savage.

Ms. Yelich.