Human Resources Committee on April 29th, 2008

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

Take it off Mr. Lessard's time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to move to Ms. Yelich, for five minutes, please.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I think it's unfortunate that it wasn't recognized how much we have done for post-secondary education. You don't even have to go to student organizations. I'm sure you can find individual students who have really benefited. One of our initiatives was the exemption from student scholarships.

I know lots of kids who really struggle to go through school. Their parents have worked to try to save so that they don't have to be in deep debt, and they have applied for many grants. I know that has been a terrific asset. And also the transfer to the provinces, even to recognize that....

For Mr. Cuzner's benefit--because it sounded like he was saying this hadn't been discussed at committee--the guaranteed income supplement was huge in the committee. It came around twice, with many witnesses. In fact, it was recommended, the recommendation was passed, and then it was brought up again. So I think it was great that you acknowledged that.

I think you talked about increased funding. I'd like to hear what you meant when you were talking to Mr. Savage, when you said the funding will increase. Perhaps you would like to speak to that a bit.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Sure.

The funding will increase from $350 million to $430 million over five years, I guess it is.

But I just want to say a little bit more about this. The Canadian Federation of Students did come out strongly in favour of what we're doing. Here's what Jen Hassum said. She said, “The new system ensures that the money will go directly into the pockets of the students who need it the most.” And we had someone from Carleton University, Feridun Hamdullahpur, the provost and vice-president of academics, who congratulated the federal government “for taking really good, solid, long-term initiatives to ensure higher education is affordable to all Canadians”.

I heard that across the country. Not only did they thank us on that side of it, but they also thanked us for the huge investment in the granting councils—$80 million going into the granting councils—the Vanier awards, these kinds of things, which will help us attract some of the brightest people from around the world to our universities. That's not only important for students, but obviously for the impact people like that have in terms of making us more productive as a nation, creating new ideas and new innovation. It's difficult to place a price tag on that. But I think it's a pretty good sign of how dedicated we are to ensuring that we meet that goal of creating the best educated, most flexible workforce in the world.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Yes, and as you cited earlier, this new initiative does definitely have a broader scope. It's not just people who go to university, because we have heard over and over again that not everybody wants to go to university and that many people who have done that have turned to other trades.

Also, another initiative worth mentioning is some of our apprenticeship programs. I'm sure you've had compliments on that, because we have heard lots of positive remarks.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I just want to say a word on that.

Perhaps you're someone who comes from a low-income family and never thought you could go to school, but maybe you're good with your hands and you want to go to trade school. There is $250 up front in cash grants going in. If you successfully complete the first year of your Red Seal trade, you get another $1,000. In the second year you get $250 upfront in cash grants, and another $1,000 from the apprenticeship incentive grant if you successfully complete your second year. That's a pretty serious support for people on the low end. I can't believe it won't do anything but encourage people in families where there's not a lot of money to really think about going on to post-secondary education in some form.

I'm pretty excited about it. I have talked to provincial ministers, to educators, and even to students. We spoke to students in Victoria the other day in a school where incomes tended to be a little lower. They were very excited about a lot of those changes and they could see some possibilities, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

Now we're going to move to Mr. Lessard, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You have admitted that the $54 billion were used in a way that did not respect the principles of the employment insurance fund. As a minister, you can note that the reasoning you use to justify not returning this money to the fund is the same as the reasoning served up by the Liberals in their day.

No one can justify the fact of appropriating money that does not belong to them by stating that they are using it for other purposes. Your party agreed with us on this point. Nevertheless, you are now serving up the same argument. The fact that the money was used for other purposes does not, in our opinion, justify the fact that $54 billion was diverted . I believe that you will agree with us.

You said that we cannot put the $54 billion back into the fund, because it would put our budget balance in jeopardy. Let me remind you that you fully agreed with the opposition—the Liberals were in power at the time—to restore this money to the fund and to consider that the money was lent to the government by workers and employers, in the same way as loans are contracted on the financial market to respect Canada's financial commitments.

I also want to remind you that in Bill C-280, we proposed the very same thing as was recommended by the committee in its third recommendation, which was to spread the reimbursement of the $46 billion—which was the amount at the time—over a 32-year period at the rate of one and a half billion dollars per year.

Mr. Minister, are you ready to heed this recommendation and consider that the diverted funds were a loan that must be paid back to the fund within a reasonable timeframe, as required by the government's financial commitments?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lessard.

I guess I would make two points. First of all, our government is putting $2 billion into the reserve fund, which I think recognizes the fact that since the time we came to power--

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

Mr. Minister, we already know what you are about to say. You already owe the two billion dollars to the workers and employers. There's nothing to be gained by this.

Pursuant to the unanimous recommendation of this committee, are you ready to consider reimbursing the sums to the fund as a loan, over a period of a certain number of years, at the rate of one and a half billion dollars per year? Your own party recommended that the loan should be paid back over a period of 10 years, but we thought that this was not realistic. I am proposing a realistic reimbursement. Are you ready to consider this reimbursement as the reimbursement of a loan?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

If I can finish what I wanted to say, I'll try to answer your question as best I can.

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

I have only five minutes, Mr. Minister. You are about to tell us things that we already know. I would like you to answer my question, which is a simple one. Are you ready to consider this sum as a loan that will be reimbursed over a period of time at a rate set by the unanimous recommendation of the present committee?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I appreciate that you want me to answer your question in a particular way, but I'm going to exercise my right to answer it as I would choose.

I'm going to say that the $2 billion we put in, I think, does recognize the fact that premiums have come in during the time we've been in government and were utilized for things other than employment insurance benefits, and so we are fixing the problem going forward. That's an important point, because in making this an arm's-length body, it ensures that the funds going forward will only be used for these things.

Second—and this is a very important point, Mr. Lessard—our party and your party differed fundamentally on this aspect of the use of employment insurance benefits in the past. We were concerned about how that funding was being spent, and you were as well. One thing that separated us from your party is that your party was very excited and wanted to increase spending even more than the previous government was increasing spending, meaning that those funds that came from employers and employees were used to increase spending. You were supportive of that each and every time. We opposed that, partly because we opposed the idea of taking those funds for things other than improving benefits. That's a very fundamental difference between us.

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

You are not answering my question at all; this is not fair.

Mr. Chairman, I am addressing you. The minister rarely appears before the committee to give us an opportunity to put straightforward questions to him. He is wasting our time by talking about things that we know already. These things may be relevant to some other forum, but not to this one. I am appalled at his lack of respect for the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

I think he's been fairly clear that they're not going to be repaying that $50-some-odd million. Our government has been responsible for the money that's gone in.

We're going to move to the last individual. Mr. Lake had a few more questions. This will be the last questioner, and then we are going to dismiss the witnesses. We've got a vote on the estimates, but we'll do that in due course.

Mr. Lake, you had a couple of questions.

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

Mr. Minister, you commented a little on the labour shortages. It's a pretty significant issue across the country right now, especially given the economic questions and things like that.

One of the things I'm curious about is the Foreign Credentials Referral Office. The issue of foreign credentials is very important in my riding. It gets brought up a lot in light of the labour shortages. It seems there's a real opportunity where these two issues intersect.

I'm wondering if you could elaborate a little on the role of this Foreign Credentials Referral Office. What does it do, and how can it help us deal with these important issues?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

There are three things that office is doing.

First of all, the government is trying to do outreach through our missions around the world to make sure that before people apply to come to Canada, they understand there are going to be differences between jurisdictions in terms of recognizing credentials. That's very important. Obviously people may assume that because their academic credentials give them points toward getting into the country, they would then be recognized. That's understandable, but it's not correct. We need to make sure they're clear on that.

Second, we now offer services through all our Service Canada outlets—of which there are 620 around the country—so that people know they can come in there and get guidance on how they can go about either having their credentials recognized or, if they can't get them recognized, upgrading to meet Canadian standards.

Finally, we're working with professional bodies and are supporting them in some cases with funding, so not only do they undertake the process of having a look at people's credentials and what's involved in that, but they also make a good-faith attempt to help people upgrade.

If I can say—and this is a frustration for me and I get upset about it—some professional bodies are terrific when it comes to making a good-faith attempt to work with immigrants to Canada to find a way to help them upgrade. Others say, “You don't meet our standards, and too bad for you.” What's frustrating for me is that difference. I think we've got to work with our provincial colleagues, who have a lot of authority in this area, to ensure that pressure is put on some of these bodies to make sure they're making a good-faith attempt to actually help people meet Canadian standards. That is occurring with some professional bodies in some jurisdictions, but with others, I'm sad to say I just don't see evidence that it is.

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

Right.

In regard to the labour shortage as well, I want to come back to the GIS exemption, if we could. Can you speak to the importance of that decision to raise the exemption and what impact that should have on seniors and their ability in recognition of the efforts they make to contribute in the workforce?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Well, I'd be happy to. One of my colleagues, Myron Thompson, the member for Wild Rose, made this point to me a while ago when he told me about someone he knew quite well, who he ran into in a food bank. He was there to make an announcement or show support of some kind, and she was there to get some groceries. He was quite astounded at this, because he knew this woman well, and his point was that she was very willing to work, but she couldn't really afford to because her benefits would be clawed back.

I've heard this from others, and others of you in this room have heard the same thing.

While it won't touch every senior, it certainly gives options to tens of thousands of seniors who want to work. Maybe it's because they just like the interaction with people at work or maybe it's because they want to earn some extra money. If you can earn up to $3,500 extra a year without it affecting your benefits, that's a lot of money to help people make ends meet. It also addresses, obviously, in many parts of the country, the issue of labour shortages. I know I've heard from a number of employers who are pretty excited about the prospect of this passing and becoming the law of the land, because they can see the possibility of employing a lot of people and of meeting some of the labour shortages that are being experienced in big swaths of the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Minister, we're just about out of time here. We want to thank you and your team for being here today to answer questions.

What we need to do now is dismiss the witnesses and vote on the estimates. We're going to hand out the list that we're going to go through in terms of votes.

Once again, thank you very much, Minister, for being here today and taking the full two hours.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

What I'm going to do right now is hand out the votes we need to deal with in terms of estimates. This meeting was on the estimates; that's why we're here. As we hand these out, we will just go through the votes. It's votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25.

The reason we're moving this forward is that we have another meeting coming in here right at 11 o'clock. I'm just going to call the question, then.

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

Can we get a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You want a recorded vote. Is this a recorded vote on each one?

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

Just the first one.