Evidence of meeting #31 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 countries.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Stewart-Patterson  Executive Vice-President, Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Garth Whyte  Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Corinne Pohlmann  Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Nathalie Martel  Acting Director, Old Age Security Policy, Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada
André Thivierge  Acting Director, International Policy and Agreements, Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada
Michel Montambeault  Director, Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada, Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Michael Savage

Good morning. Bonjour. I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108, we will resume our study of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. That will be for the first hour, from 9 o'clock until 10 o'clock. At 10 o'clock we will take a break and then come back to clause-by-clause consideration of Madam Beaumier's bill, Bill C-362.

Welcome, all members.

I welcome new members who don't normally sit with us: Penny Priddy for the NDP, good morning; and Carolyn Bennett for the Liberals, who, among other things, is our critic for the status of persons with disabilities.

I want to first explain why I'm in a wheelchair this morning. I'm spending the day in a wheelchair as part of an experience with the Canadian Paraplegic Association. As some of you will know, the CPA was formed in 1945. It started because of the veterans who were coming back from World War II.

In Nova Scotia, in 1952, the Nova Scotia branch of the Canadian Paraplegic Association was formed. Tonight in Halifax there will be a big dinner of the CPA, with Dr. Ivar Mendez as guest speaker. Two MPs--myself and Alexa McDonough--are spending the day in wheelchairs. Alexa is in Halifax; I'm here on Parliament Hill. I'm very pleased that David Hinton and Bobby White are with us today, in the back row. They are both with the CPA.

As members of Parliament, we know we have a colleague, a quadriplegic, Steven Fletcher, who has highlighted for many of us the personal experience of what it's like to live with this kind of injury. In spite of that, going around Parliament Hill you find there are a lot of barriers. Transportation is provided through a van, but there are issues, but there are many more issues in the rest of the country. So today I'm very pleased to be part of this experience, and in particular to do so in this committee. Part of its mandate is the status of persons with disabilities, so I think it's appropriate.

We're not talking about that today, but I do want to thank David and Bobby for their assistance. And if you believe in the issue, you can always support them by pledging your support personally to me for the CPA today, and I'll give you a website you can follow. Anyway, thank you all for your indulgence on that.

We will move to our witnesses on the study of the Employment Insurance Financing Board. We have with us this morning, from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, David Stewart-Patterson, the executive vice-president. From the CFIB, we have Garth Whyte and Corinne Pohlmann. Garth is the executive vice-president and Corinne Pohlmann is the vice-president of national affairs.

We know you couldn't join us last week. Members, I believe from all parties, expressed the wish that you could both have the opportunity to be with us to give us some thoughts on this new employment insurance crown corporation. We're delighted you could join us.

I know from past experience on finance and other committees that you're both familiar with how parliamentary committees work. We'll ask each of you to give us a 10-minute presentation and then we'll take questions from members.

Thank you for joining us, and I'll start with Mr. Stewart-Patterson.

May 15th, 2008 / 9:05 a.m.

David Stewart-Patterson Executive Vice-President, Canadian Council of Chief Executives

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry we were not able to be with you last week. We were holding our own members' meeting in Calgary at the time, so all of us were occupied with that. I'm delighted to join you this morning. I don't think I'll take up too much time with initial comments, because it's probably of most interest to the members to get into a discussion as quickly as possible.

Let me make a few brief comments. You're here, I think, to talk about the establishment of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. Of course, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives has argued for many years in favour of comprehensive reforms to the employment insurance system. In particular, we've said the system should be managed by an independent body, with premiums flowing into and benefits flowing out of a segregated account; we've said the premiums should be set at a level designed to break even over the course of a business cycle; and we have suggested that the mandate of the employment insurance system should be narrowed to focus on protecting Canadian workers against the specific risk of temporary job loss.

The changes being proposed today take an important first step in the right direction by setting up a crown corporation that would be responsible for setting the premiums and managing the funds collected through a segregated account.

In establishing the new account, one critical goal is rate stability. As much as possible, we should be trying to avoid raising premiums during an economic downturn, when both workers and employers can afford it least. To this end, the government intends to maintain the current maximum annual change in the premium rate of 15 cents per $100 of insured earnings.

To ensure the new segregated account is able to cover a spike in benefits during a severe downturn, the government also plans to add a cash reserve of $2 billion. This may or may not be sufficient. Traditional actuarial analysis has called for a cushion of between $10 billion and $15 billion. However, I would suggest that demographics are continuing to drive Canada toward a structurally lower rate of unemployment.

Furthermore, a growing share of the money flowing out of the EI fund is providing benefits for purposes such as maternity leave that are not related to the economic cycle. Indeed, regular benefits now count for barely more than half of the total costs being covered by EI premiums.

In short, the size of the cushion needed going forward may not be as large as it has been in the past. I guess my conclusion here is that we may need a bit more thorough analysis of what the exact number ought to be.

A related issue, of course, is how to funnel the necessary reserve into the new account. The existing EI account has been run in surplus for many years. In theory, it has racked up an accumulated surplus of some $54 billion. In practice, in the absence of a segregated account, all this money flowed into the government's general revenue account and has been used up. Whether you say it was used up for tax cuts or debt reduction or spending in other areas, the money is gone.

Whatever initial reserve is put into the new account, therefore, is going to have to come out of current resources. If more thorough analysis suggests the need for a reserve greater than the $2 billion that's proposed, I'd suggest the most practical path forward might be to shift future year-end surpluses into the EI account instead of into debt reduction, until we have a sufficient reserve established. I think that might be the least intrusive way to do it—not the only way, but perhaps the least intrusive.

In the meantime, the general revenue account would of course have to backstop the EI account—and I think that is covered by the proposed legislation—topping it up in the event of a recession severe enough to exhaust the available funds.

Let me conclude by returning to the issue of longer-term reform of the employment insurance system. Over the years, successive governments have chosen to fund benefits for a variety of purposes through employment insurance premiums. I would suggest that many of these benefits would be characterized more accurately as social programs. These programs may indeed serve laudable aims—I'm not arguing with that—but they're not consistent with the core mandate of the employment insurance system, which, as I said earlier, is to provide insurance against the specific risk of temporary job loss.

Once the management of the system has been shifted to an independent body operating through a segregated account, I would suggest that the government should move such benefits out of the EI system and fund them through the general revenue base. I say that because the division of employment insurance premiums between employers and employees was based on the original insurance mandate. The funding mechanism that was established that way, therefore, ought to be restricted to the costs of that core mandate.

I want to recognize that the mandate of the EI system is not what's on the table for discussion today, but I do want to suggest that this remains a longer-term issue that ought to be taken into account as we're establishing the governance structure and responsibilities of the new board.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude and look forward to questions and comments from the committee.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Michael Savage

Thank you very much. We appreciate that.

We will move to Mr. Whyte and Ms. Pohlmann from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

9:10 a.m.

Garth Whyte Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the 105,000 business owners we represent, I want to thank the committee for inviting us to provide comments on the creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

Small and medium-sized businesses play a major role in Canada's economic growth and job creation, accounting for almost 50% of the GDP and 60% of total employment.

I'm asking the committee to refer to the graphs in the presentation I have submitted. You can see that the first graph tracks the GDP and the CFIB's business barometer, based on small business owners' expectations for their own businesses. As you can see, our members are cautiously optimistic concerning the current economic downturn.

There is some good news on the second page. In this area they are experts. They are experts in their own businesses on employment plans, and 30% of small business owners said they plan to increase employment in 2008, compared to 8% who plan to decrease employment. This is good news when considering future unemployment rates, EI premiums, and the EI surplus.

I have included several surveys based on thousands of responses from business owners. I may not have time to get through the entire presentation; however, I thought it important for the committee to have this information. Perhaps you can discuss it during the questions afterwards.

The overall message we are delivering today is that EI is a major concern of small business owners, as you can see on the third slide. They feel that the EI system needs to be fixed because of three things: one, they think the rate-setting process is flawed; two, they think the EI surplus should not be allowed to continue to grow at the rate it's growing; and three, they feel that the EI program does not address today's labour market needs. This concern is so high that I have over 20,000 action alerts like the one I've given to you sitting in my office right now, and we will be delivering these alerts to HRSDC Minister Solberg in a few weeks.

As you can see on page 4, of all the various taxes a business must pay, business owners identified payroll taxes like EI as the kind of tax that affects the growth of their business the most. The graph on page 5 shows that reducing taxes and EI premiums allows business owners to increase wages, hire additional employees, and provide more training.

Page 6 shows that the majority of our members feel a good first step toward fixing EI is to move the EI account from general government revenues to a separate fund. They also think there's a need to improve the management and governance of the EI account. As you can see on page 7, currently only one-third of our members are satisfied with the federal government's approach to managing EI. They believe that EI premiums should be used exclusively for EI purposes.

The punchline is that CFIB supports the creation of the Canadian Employment Insurance Financing Board. The rate-setting mechanism has improved, while still retaining some of the positive aspects such as a fixed date, November 14, to publicly announce the premium rate and ensuring that there are not widely fluctuating rates from year to year.

We're very pleased that the EI operational surplus will no longer flow back to general revenues, and the new reporting mechanism should ensure accountability and transparency.

However, we do have some concerns on issues that we feel should be addressed. For example, will there be significant operating costs that employers' and employees' premiums must cover? Will this be a truly arm's-length board, or will it be a partisan board, with members changing as political parties are newly elected? Will the board be able to address the issue of hundreds of millions of dollars paid by employers through EI overcontributions? As you can see on page 8, this issue is a high priority for our members, with 95% of our members feeling that this issue should be fixed.

We are concerned that the new system will create pressure to increase rates rather than to decrease rates because of administrative costs, the limited EI surplus provided, and the annual increase on the maximum weekly insurable earnings.

Finally, we are concerned that employers and employees must bear the risk of paying for economic downturns after already building up a $54 billion surplus. It is shameful and unfair. At the very least, the federal government should cover off any future shortfall in the EI account if the need arises.

However, it is a good first step to fixing EI.

We agree that the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board should not be involved in EI policy and programs, but that is where there is dire need to fix EI.

The EI system is failing. It doesn't address employer needs. In 2006, only 44% of EI premiums were spent on regular benefits. The vast majority of the more than 9,000 business respondents listed on page 12 were unaware of or did not use EI programs such as labour market partnerships, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships, and employment assistance services.

It's not fair that businesses, especially small business owners, continue to pay 60% of the EI premiums. The rate should be gradually moved to a 50-50 or even a 40-40-20 split for premiums, where the government pays 20%.

Finally, the EI system needs to be fixed because it does not address today's labour market trends. With the aging population, many companies are begging for employees. If you look at the graph on page 14, it clearly shows that as the unemployment rate decreased over the past decade, our members' concern about the shortage of qualified labour increased dramatically. This is not a coincidence. Both are linked to demographic trends caused by an aging workforce. The shortage of qualified labour has steadily increased and is expected to increase over many years to come.

In March of this year, CFIB released its Help Wanted report. The report looked at long-term vacancy rates. As you can see, the long-term vacancy rate has almost doubled since we first did a study in 2004. Our study found a 4.4% long-term vacancy rate--which means jobs being vacant for four months or more--which means there were an estimated 309,000 long-term vacancies last year. You can see that this long-term vacancy exists in every province. It's not surprising that our members have told us that it's getting harder and harder to find employees for the future.

Canada needs a long-term, comprehensive strategy to deal with the shortage-of-labour challenge. CFIB has been working with the provincial and federal governments in several areas to deal with this critical issue. We've been dealing with issues such as education and training, apprenticeship programs, co-op education, business succession, and immigration strategy. However, EI policy is one area in which little has been done.

EI policy can play a significant role in either alleviating or exacerbating the shortage of labour. We are concerned that the current EI program is hindering rather than helping employers and employees in dealing with the shortage of qualified labour. As you can see on page 18, one in five of our employers stated that they had difficulty hiring people, because prospective employees would rather stay on EI benefits. In some provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, the rate is closer to 40%.

We need to fix EI so that it's better and so that it meets the needs of employers and employees. It's too important a program to leave in its current state for another 15 years. The creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board is a good first step, but much more needs to be done in the near future.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Michael Savage

Thank you very much, Mr. Whyte.

We'll move to questions. These are seven-minute rounds. We'll start with Mr. Cuzner from the Liberals.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Thank you very much for your presentations, gentlemen.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Vice-Chair Liberal Michael Savage

Welcome back.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

It's nice to see you. I thought it was visual impairment you were expressing, looking at that tie today.

With regard to your statement that the EI system is failing, is it your sense that it's failing workers or failing business owners?

9:20 a.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Garth Whyte

My sense is that it's failing both. I feel we need to do what we did back in 1996. We worked closely with the Liberal Party, with Minister Axworthy, to look at how we could make it more responsive to employees' and employers' needs. It hasn't been changed since then.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

There have been a number of changes, but they have been more to the benefit of the workers, I would suggest, in the last number of years.

You're suggesting that people are making the decision to receive benefits when there are work opportunities. They're stepping back from the work opportunities to receive benefits.

9:20 a.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Garth Whyte

This is what we found when we asked our members. We did a comprehensive survey. We didn't just focus on EI. We did a comprehensive survey, and what popped out was that one of the reasons they felt they were having difficulty finding employees, for all types of jobs, was a reluctance because of the EI program.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Would we be able to get a copy of that report as well?

9:20 a.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Garth Whyte

Yes. By the way, we haven't released this information. We're just releasing this one graph today.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

You have that. Could you make that available?

9:20 a.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Are there fairly significant regional disparities in that information you put together?

9:20 a.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Garth Whyte

Well, there are, and you can see the regional breakouts on page 18.

It varies from 39% of respondents in Newfoundland to 18% in Ontario saying they had difficulty hiring people because people would rather stay on EI benefits.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Coming from a rural community, I would challenge that. They would sooner stay in their own communities and not abandon them. If the work was in close proximity, then I would think they would take it, but when you're talking about relocating the family and abandoning the community, there are other....

9:20 a.m.

Corinne Pohlmann Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

We're still analyzing the data, and one of the things we do want to look at is the rural-urban split, because all our business members are in rural as well as in urban settings. So we'll be able to look at whether you can find that in a rural setting as well.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Would you not think that some of your members who live in rural communities would understand that it's imperative that people continue to live in those communities to support those businesses that are established there?

9:25 a.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Garth Whyte

I agree with everything you said, and, yes, they do. I personally have met with members in rural communities who have a hard time finding people, whether it's on the farm or whether it's a world-famous Canadian artist in Moose Jaw. It's in rural as well as in urban communities.

9:25 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

One thing your organization is apt at doing is you guys survey like nobody else. Is there a comparison with the attitude of your members toward the rate-setting process pre-2005 and currently? Has there been a change since 2005 when the rate-setting process was taken outside the department?

9:25 a.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Garth Whyte

There was a bit of cooling. They thought at least there was some improvement in the rate-setting process--for example, a fixed date they liked, November 14. They liked the fact that there'd be parameters, no big swings. What they didn't like was the continued build-up of the surplus, because we were under the assumption that it would be capped and it just kept growing. What they didn't like was a set-up whereby the actuaries couldn't look backwards or forward; they only could look at the current year to determine the rates.

9:25 a.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Do you like the fact that the unemployment rate has continued to drop? The more people were working, the more people were contributing to the fund.

9:25 a.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business