Evidence of meeting #29 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 money.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Professor, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (réseau québécois)
Yes, that's right
Professor, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (réseau québécois)
With serious mechanisms.
Professor, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (réseau québécois)
Yes.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Serious mechanisms are supposed to be serious. You see that there continues to be meddling in it. They want to make it legal to do something that is improper. You are a legal professional; I don't want to argue with you. I simply want to understand the meaning of what you are saying. We are looking at a situation where the government has siphoned off funds and wants to legalize that, which is entirely wrong and improper.
Professor, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (réseau québécois)
Entirely.
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I just want to be clear. Mr. Lessard says we have a government that did this and is now doing this. I want to be clear that we're talking about two different governments. We're talking about one government, a Liberal government, that siphoned off $54 billion. We're now talking about a different government in terms of this legislation. I just want to be clear on that.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, that is not a point of order. Both governments are doing the same thing. The Minister told us he had no intention of putting the $54 billion back into the fund. He acknowledged that this should not have happened, but he will not fix it. Well, the person holding the bag is as guilty as the person who filled it up. We agree on that. That is not a point of order.
Do I still have time for questions?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That's all the time we have, and I added your seconds back on for the point of order as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We're going to move to Madame Savoie, and you have seven minutes.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, and thank you all for your presentations.
I am relieved to see that people like you are thinking this much about these things. Workers need this fund and they can't think about the fact that they have been robbed, that they are no longer eligible or no longer have the benefits they are entitled to.
In Parliament, a lot was said about the sponsorship scandal, which involved a few million dollars. There is nothing being said in the newspapers about this $54 billion. This is a genuine scandal.
Ms. Sgro said that money was transferred to be used for training, but there is no accountability. How much was used for training? We don't know, not since the changes that were made. The government transfers huge amounts for training, to private institutions, increasingly. This is no longer necessarily the kind of training Mr. Blakely was talking about.
It seems that the Conservative government is not accountable for the money it transfers to the provinces for training, and that concerns me. In some cases, we don't know whether the money is really being spent for the unemployed. In my province, British Columbia, for example, the money is going to a private American company that provides training for unemployed people. We don't know what the results are. This money belongs to workers and it is being dissipated and we don't really know how. The tale of unemployment insurance and training is a complicated one.
How could we make rules to provide for accountability and responsibility for the money that is spent on training and the money that is given to unemployed people when they don't have jobs?
Secretary General, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
I am going to answer for Quebec. Under the Canada-Quebec agreement on worker training, the employment insurance fund transfers $597 million dollars to Emploi-Québec.
Emploi-Québec is managed by a minister, a deputy minister and a commission of partners. Twenty-four partners, who include workers, employers and community members, sit on the commission. There is very good accounting for training. Accountability lies directly with the commission of partners, the partners themselves and the deputy minister. A report is submitted to the National Assembly every year.
In Quebec, there is very adequate accountability for the money that is transferred for training under the Canada-Quebec agreement.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Has that money been taken out of the $54 billion? Is it being used properly? Should that money be considered separately from the $54 billion? I see Mr. Campeau shaking his head.
Secretary General, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
The money that is being used at present comes from the regular employment insurance fund and not the $54 billion, which was accumulated outside the spending by the fund. The money transferred under the Canada-Quebec agreement is part of the operating expenses of the employment insurance fund.
Professor, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (réseau québécois)
It can't be part of the surplus. Until 1990, all money paid out under agreements between the provinces and the federal government was taken out of the federal government's contribution to the fund.
The federal government stopped making those contributions. Starting in 1996, it entered into agreements with Quebec and the other Canadian provinces. The provinces are accountable to the federal government, as Mr. Roy explained. Obviously, that has nothing to do with the $54 billion.
I would like to clarify something regarding the board. The role of the board, as set out in the bill, is simply to manage the premium rate. It has absolutely no role to play in relation to these questions. I want that to be clear.
One difficulty is created. The premium rate for benefits is going to be managed, but the amounts reserved for Part II of the Act, which is called active measures, are based on a percentage of total insurable earnings in Canada.
Is there a risk of these two concepts being in conflict at some point? I don't know, but this is might be anticipated.