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.
Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office
Do I see this as the thin edge of the wedge for that? The answer is no. But am I crossing my fingers and hoping? The answer to that is yes.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
You also mentioned the makeup of the board. I heard that you think this board cannot represent the working people in Canada or their interests in a better way. How would you suggest changing the makeup of that board if it goes ahead?
Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office
I think if there is going to be a separate and independent board, it should have people who represent the interests of workers and people who represent the interests of employers--the contributors to the fund. They can go out and buy the talent that is necessary from the insurance community, the investment community, from whatever other community. They can get advice, as is done now by a number of other boards.
If you've never been on pogey, you don't know what it's like. The people who work in my industry, in construction, sometimes work 4,000 hours in a year, sometimes 500. It's a fact of life. If you know what it is like to think, “Okay, Christmas is coming and I'm getting $413 from the pogey commission. What am I going to do for the kids this year?”, you'll know it's really a mind-altering experience. Those are the people who ought to form any commission that deals with EI. Let them go out and buy the talent.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Chairman, through you, do you mean that the present makeup of the board, the present setup, is going to jeopardize the interests of the working people in Canada--yes or no?
Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office
In my respectful submission, yes.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Are there any other members on the panel who want to contribute to this discussion?
Conservative
National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
Just to state that it's my understanding that the nominations to the board will be on the advice of the employer and worker commissioners as part of a group of three, with somebody from the government, right? I think there's one person from the government. So I think it anticipates a sort of consultative process around those appointments. But we really don't know how that is going to proceed, and I think that's going to be an issue--whether the board is going to be representative of the constituencies or just a very narrowly technical board.
As my colleague here said, it's probably important that it is a representative board with some expertise around the issues, but then, technical skills can be paid for. The functions really are very narrow, if you think about it. My understanding is that because it's a crown corporation, when it invests, all it can invest in is interest-bearing assets. All you're really deciding is whether you buy Ontario bonds or Saskatchewan bonds, or whatever. It doesn't require deep layers of financial expertise. To the extent that it's not really about running the EI program, it doesn't need any particular expertise on EI issues. And as I said before, their economic assumptions come from the Department of Finance, so probably any economic expertise might be a liability.
So I think the issue of representativeness is probably important.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Given some of the comments around the table, in your view, is this just another way of passing on tax breaks through lower contributions--i.e. from the companies--and starting to starve the EI system?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That's all the time we have. Who do you want to address that to, Judy?
Secretary General, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
I agree with my two colleagues. We are asking for one thing specifically, among others: this entire appointment question has to be clarified, and there have to be employer and union representatives on it. As Mr. Blakely said, if they need experts, all they have to do is hire them.
The part of the bill that interests us relates to the creation of the fund itself. The agency itself is going to manage its fund. That is minor, but it is in fact a lot. In the past, a problem arose when the Act was changed in relation to the employment insurance fund: no employment insurance account was created.
It comes in and it goes out. And then the representatives of the government tell us that the money has been spent. If we win in the Supreme Court next Wednesday, they will have to find the money. I am not the one campaigning. You do that, your election campaigns. That will be your problem: you will have to find the money and repay the workers and employers who put money into an insurance fund.
Myself, Ms. Sgro, what I find interesting is that at the CSST there is a structure that administers billions of dollars. It is made up of employer and union representatives. The account belongs to us. Obviously, we are not completely independent. We are not out in left field somewhere. There is in fact a government above us. Here too, we expect there will be a responsible government authority. Obviously, the people who are elected are always responsible.
So that is how we see it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Mr. Roy.
We're now going to move over to Mr. Gourde for five minutes.
Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office
Ms. Sgro asked a question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
She did ask a question, but she's over her time.
But do you know what? I'm in a good mood; I'm going to let you answer that.
Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office
Thanks. It's because of your very good-looking haircut, I think.
Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office
Ms. Sgro, your point is one of those sort of lie-awake-at-night things for me. If the intention is to make EI into a tax cutter or whatever else, it reduces the usefulness of the program. It withers the program, and when the program starts to wither, it benefits fewer and fewer people and it is easier for somebody to say this program is of no use anymore and suggest just getting rid of it.
It is, and it has been for at least 75 years, an important part of the social safety net of this country, and it is something that needs to be preserved. So it's a worry, and it's a worry all the time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
Now we're going to move to Mr. Gourde. Five minutes, sir.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses who are here and take advantage of their expertise.
There was some discussion of the surpluses in the employment insurance fund during the 1990s. Given that we are talking about $54 billion, there must have been years...
I know that Mr. Roy does a good job with statistics: were there years when there were surpluses in excess of $4 or $5 billion? Given that $54 billion accumulated in 15 years, there must have been relatively substantial amounts in some years.
Secretary General, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
[Editor's Note: inaudible] There were years when it was above $5 billion. I have been told there were surpluses of $7 billion some years.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Because that money is part of a lump sum inherited from the previous government, was it used to balance the budget over those years, at the expense of workers?
Secretary General, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
We know there is no employment insurance account. The money goes in and is recorded in the federal government's current expenditures, and it pays out benefits.
In terms of the accounting, the government, whether it be yours or the previous one, has acknowledged that debt in court. In fact, it acknowledges it, because it applies a certain percentage for interest. Even the judges in the lower courts have held that the government acknowledged the debt.
To answer your question, I would say that the money was used, but I don't know where. You're the members of Parliament, so you ought to know. Was it used to pay the debt, to pay for tires for the Canadian army? I don't know. The money must have been used for something.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Chair, there was a reference to an agreement involving Emploi-Québec. I learned from you today that money was transferred from the federal government to Emploi-Québec. The amount is $580 million.
Can you enlighten me about this agreement, which was signed in 1996?