Human Resources Committee on May 6th, 2008

[Dannie Hanson]

I believe we should take the word “insurance” and define whether it's insurance to look after you when you're not working or insurance to enhance your training and qualifications so that you can continue in employment. Those are two different things, I believe, especially for us in our area.

I would like to see things like parental leave, sick leave, and disability moved over there. Employment insurance would be just for when you're out of work. Training is done by provincial adjustment programs, with federal, so they're more attached to our Nova Scotia community colleges and more hands on. The three of them can work together and get us out of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We could have a final comment from Mr. Morrison.

[Jeff Morrison]

Just to repeat a comment that I think has already been made, it's important to recall what this board is and what it is not. This board is not to set social policy. That is the purview of parliamentarians and the minister. This board is about management of the account. So at the end of the day, to your question of what should be the social role of EI, that's in your hands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Let me follow up on that last comment. It has been made clear by officials and by the minister that this new board is not to determine the benefit side but strictly the premium side. One the concerns people have is that there's maybe a backdoor way to have an impact on workers. That's the concern that's caused us to have this study.

As I said earlier, in my case some of that concern was alleviated last week, but there still are some issues. Clearly we've had some recommendations here. This committee is meeting today and we're meeting Thursday. We'll decide whether we have to have any more witnesses, but our plan is to have these two meetings. We want to write some kind of report and recommendations.

If this morning is representative, we're getting a very strong sense that $2 billion is not enough of a fund to be transferred over. That might be one recommendation, conceivably. I want to get at others.

You didn't have a lot of time, which meant we didn't get a chance to see your presentations in advance, but we've had some recommendations. The Construction Association talked about, among other things, a reinstatement of equal premium rates. Monsieur Gagnon talked about a reserve fund of at least 20% of costs, of $3.5 billion. Our other Monsieur Gagnon referred to five- to seven-year premium rate-setting and $15 billion in the account. I think Mr. Murphy suggested $10 billion to $15 billion. So that's one area.

I'd like to give you a chance to elaborate. For example, Lynne Yelich, as the parliamentary secretary, mentioned that this might be an issue of communications. Maybe it is, I don't know. The point is that this committee has had some hearings. Absent this committee, we don't know of any consultation taking place before this new board is set up and in advance of enabling legislation coming to Parliament.

Each one of you represents a group. You have colleagues, you have confreres. There are thousands of companies like the one that Mr. Hanson works on, and other construction trade associations. Does it make sense to you that there should be more public discussion of this board in advance of it being set up?

[Michael Atkinson]

Mr. Chairman, my only concern here would be that its set-up gets delayed inordinately. That would be my only concern, and I think there is some tweaking we're going to have to do down the road in any event. But please, in your deliberations, don't delay this. When you get your pocket picked once, you don't want to walk around with your pockets open forever. I think it's important that this be established. It's going to have some warts and wrinkles that we'll have to look after, but please don't delay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Hanson.

[Dannie Hanson]

I believe we do have time to have some consultation done in some of the areas that have higher EI. I don't want to delay it so that we don't know where we're going or anything like that, but warts and wrinkles—and I would agree with Mr. Atkinson all day in what he's talking about—can hurt us and hurt us severely when we're waiting to go through the winter to next year.

We do have time to make sure the bureaucratic system within the crown corporation does not have too many.... And you might think I'm obsessed with that, but Mr. Savage, you said earlier—and I agree with you—that you have to be careful. Rules have to be in place. So we should take the time to make sure there are solid bureaucratic controls of that corporation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Anybody else? Michel.

[Michel Kelly-Gagnon]

I'm told that the anticipated administrative costs for the current system for the management of EI are about $1.6 billion. I don't know if that figure is correct, but if it is correct, it seems to me considerable. Could you take the opportunity in setting up this new structure to also do some thinking as to how you could cut down that $1.6 billion of administrative costs? I'm not talking about benefits; I'm talking about the machinery, the bureaucracy. Can it be made more efficient, and can you take the opportunity of a new structure to make it more efficient?

I think these are interesting questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Jeff, did you have a final comment?

[Jeff Morrison]

I will comment just very quickly. Given that, as I understand it, the appointments to this board will be made essentially through the minister's office, through order in council, there could be a concern about these being seen as patronage appointments. There should be, in the spirit of accountability and transparency, some independent body that can look at these appointments--perhaps this committee.

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

That's a good idea. I could see that one. We have seen changes in government policy that have turned out disastrously because they were implemented too quickly. With the summer jobs program, we suffered through a horrendous situation last year, and many Canadians suffered. It doesn't have to be that way, and maybe this could be done, but it seems to me that you want to do this right. As somebody said, this is a huge change in the social system, the social fabric of Canada.

But I appreciate the point of view. Thank you again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

I'm going to move to Mr. Lake, for five minutes.

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

I'll quickly start by commenting on the points Mr. Dhaliwal made earlier. I was 15 when Mulroney became Prime Minister, so I can't really be held responsible for any of the good or bad decisions that may have been made at that time.

I understand that Mr. Dhaliwal wasn't here last meeting, but the witnesses clarified that the $54 billion we're talking about, the notional surplus, was virtually entirely collected and spent by the Liberal governments from 1993 to 2005. So that is just to clarify that.

Mr. Atkinson, I want to talk about the $31.5 billion of that $54 billion that would have been collected from employers and, to use Mr. Savage's words, went out the back door on a variety of social programs.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, did I say that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll have to check the blues later.

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

The back door part you said—

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

I didn't say anything about money going out the back door.

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

Well, you were concerned about the back-door spending—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right. We'll clarify that later.

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

—and the reality is that, during that time, the money went out the back door on a variety of programs. It was basically a back-door tax increase—that's all it was—on the backs of employers and employees.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I've indicated to Mr. Lake that I didn't use that term. I'm not talking about back-door spending. I was talking about a back-door way for the government to reduce benefits to workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Mr. Lake, would you like to finish?

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

What I want to have from you, Mr. Atkinson, is a comment on the importance of this decision to the folks you represent, the employers you represent. Do you have a comment on the importance in the future of not having $31.5 billion taken from them to cover social programs and a variety of other government decisions?