Human Resources Committee on May 8th, 2008

[René Roy]

It is the Canada-Quebec labour force training agreement, which was signed in 1996. The transfer is based on a certain percentage of the assets in the employment insurance fund: 0.008 percent. This provides Quebec with about $597 million a year.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Does the Government of Quebec give the money to Emploi-Québec?

[René Roy]

That's right. It's a fund. The Government of Quebec injects $240 million. Emploi-Québec and the commission of partners manage about $850 million intended for worker training. Emploi-Québec's operating budget is about $120 million and that is not taken from the fund; it is provided by the Government of Quebec.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

It is a partnership, about 70 percent from the federal government and 30 percent from the provincial government.

[René Roy]

Yes, but the money that comes from the federal government is used strictly for training unemployed workers, based on the criteria.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

But that money is administered by Emploi-Québec.

[René Roy]

That's right.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move now to Madame Savoie, then, for five minutes.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to come back to a couple of questions. Those kinds of agreements exist in every province. What I was concerned about was the lack of accountability with respect to how that public money, workers' money, is being used for the benefit of sometimes--

[Robert Blakely]

In some of the most recent agreements, there's no accountability whatsoever.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Exactly, and that's a huge concern.

I'd like to come back to something. We know that in the mid-1990s the conditions, the eligibility criteria, were modified to really allow the government to protect itself from any downturn in the economy. It was really an insulation. It was no longer to help the workers; it was to insulate the government.

Given the fact that this new office will have, as you said--I think some of you have said--very narrow functions and will be not representing the people who pay into it.... Some of you have said that this is a step in the right direction. The problem we will have is that if we approve or allow for such a flawed organization, it will give the impression to Canadians that we've gotten the job done, when really what we will have created is a very flawed mechanism that won't address the issues, for example, of eligibility criteria. And it will be less accountable by being removed, far off the books, to a crown corporation. That's what you do with Radio-Canada, and you see how accountable that is.

I guess I'd like more clarity about your position. Some of you have said that it's a step in the right direction. But with all those flaws.... And as the government has said, this is a confidence issue. So bringing forward amendments that would make this worth considering are just not within the realm of possibility.

Monsieur Céré said, paroles, paroles. That's all we'll be able to say. This thing is going to go through. So I'm just wondering if you would make a last comment on that for me to bring back to my colleagues.

We'll start with you, Mr. Blakely.

[Robert Blakely]

In principle, having a separate board is not something I'm opposed to. I'm not opposed to a separate bank account. I do believe the Government of Canada needs to have a role in being a reliable backstop without discretion.

I've heard comments that the bill is for transparency and to create accountability. I have some difficulty with that. I do not see it as a transparency bill. So I think this piece of legislation, although I can agree with a number of the things in it, is too flawed to go forward.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Jackson.

[Andrew Jackson]

I agree with that. I don't want to get into the politics of the situation, but it seems to me the government can agree to amendments on the legislation moving forward. I think I was being quite careful in my comments to say that there were points in the bill that could be clarified to meet the major concerns.

With respect to “shall” versus “may”, I do take the point that this is taken from the original act, but given that the context has shifted somewhat and given that the government is prepared to give an assurance that the backstop exists, I don't see why that shouldn't be there. I think the intent is clearly that the new board would not intervene with respect to program design issues, that this remains for the government, with input. There's a clause in the bill that states that reasonably clearly, but I think it could be tightened and improved.

I guess my plea would be for the government to consider revisiting the legislation to see if some of those things couldn't be changed. I don't want to impute ill motives around some of the flaws, which might--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have, but I see some other hands up here--Mr. Roy, Mr. Campeau--so I'll get some quick comments and then finish it off.

Mr. Roy.

[René Roy]

At present there is no employment insurance fund. The federal government has spent the money in the fund. So anything we did would be better.

Based on my experience in Quebec, the CSST or other government agencies the partners sit on are very easy to track. The financial reports and the management of that fund are much easier to track than a complete government account.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Campeau, sir.

[Georges Campeau]

Thank you.

I would have liked to speak about various things at several points. I am going to come back to what I said earlier, because I didn't have time to finish.

We are all in agreement that premiums must be used only to pay benefits. That is where the problem lies, in my opinion.

With this bill, the government is completely hiving off this little board, which will not be financing anything, in spite of its grand name. Ultimately, it will only be managing the $2 billion in premiums. The premiums and benefits will still be controlled by the federal government. The danger I see is that more and more emphasis is being put on reducing premiums, and this will have repercussions in the medium and long term. And yet everybody agrees that what is desperately needed at this time is adequate coverage for workers who find themselves unemployed, in various sectors affected by the economic recession. We have to provide protection, like the CSST or another responsible agency. That is not the case here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. We appreciate your input and your concerns about this bill as we go forward. And thank you for coming on such short notice.

I will dismiss the witnesses now, and then we have some committee business that we need to take of before we're finished here today.

Once again, witnesses, thank you very much for appearing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Members, this should not take a long time.

You have in front of you the fourth report. It outlines how we're going to handle some business over the next month or so. I'm hoping we can adopt that report. If everyone has the chance to have a look at what was talked about in our last subcommittee meeting, it's pretty straightforward in terms of how we would handle business as we move forward.

The suggestion is that on May 13 we look at Bill C-362. In the first hour will be the presenter of the bill. In the second hour will be any witnesses. Right now the clerk has only one witness, but a couple more witnesses have been brought forward by Mr. Lessard since our subcommittee meeting.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, this is on Bill C-362.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Oh. I'm sorry, I was reading the employability study--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Follow the report along here. Follow the bouncing ball.