Human Resources Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2007

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

I thought of that. If it had come up under my watch, I might have considered that.

Anyway, it's a wonderful program. I urge your consideration. I put a question on the order paper, asking what the status of it was, and I got three measly sentences.

I appreciate the bluntness you've shown today on a lot of issues. I just urge you to have a very serious look, you and your colleagues, at the millennium scholarship. I hope it gets replenished.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I appreciate your points with respect to the millennium scholarship fund.

I think what we're attempting to do is ask, where is Canada falling short in terms of producing students? We know we have a great record of getting students into post-secondary education--the highest in the world. We don't graduate as many as we'd like, and we don't know about how well they do in terms of going on to graduate school and this kind of thing. Our challenge is getting them into the maths and sciences. So we're trying to take all of that into account as we consider where we go next. We're aware that we're 18 months away from the wrap-up of that program.

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

Maths and sciences are very important, but so are the social sciences and humanities, very important as well. I hope they wouldn't be in any way sacrificed.

Thank you for your time.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Yes, I hear what you're saying. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

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

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I want to return to the issue of employment insurance, since it is such a big part of what your department does and also because it seems to come up frequently in Parliament, the issue of using employment insurance as a way to deliver a whole range of new benefits, whether it be enhanced worker training or enhanced worker mobility or leave for families who have a member of the family who is ill, and the like.

I want to return to this for those two reasons. It seems to me we are constantly being presented with proposals to enhance employment insurance, to use employment insurance as a panacea for all our problems, whether they be poverty or labour mobility or otherwise. The problem with employment insurance, as we all know, is that it's not universal, in the sense that not everybody is eligible to pay into it. If you're a contract employee, if you're self-employed, you're not eligible to use the program. If you're a cab driver in Toronto, if you've opened a falafel shop in Montreal, if you're a bricklayer on contract in Calgary or Vancouver, you are simply not eligible to pay into the program. The biggest group that's not eligible to pay into it, ironically, is the unemployed. New Canadians and those who are chronically unemployed are not eligible for the program because they simply don't have any way to pay into the fund and receive its benefits.

I'm wondering if you could tell this committee a little bit more about the rules around which people are eligible for the program, and why, in your view, some of these private member's bills that come in front of us from time to time are not the best way to proceed?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

A lot of issues are wrapped up in that excellent question. With respect to private member's bills, I appreciate the help my colleagues from the opposition are giving us in trying to suggest new uses for the employment insurance fund, but I would make a couple of points.

First of all, private member's bills have rules to follow, and very often they're completely outside the rules. Secondly, if we implemented a fraction of them, the employment insurance fund would be running a huge deficit.

We're trying to make sure we reduce premiums whenever possible. We've done that. We announced there will be a premium reduction on January 1, the second year we've done that.

Secondly, we do enhance benefits when we believe it's a way of helping encourage workplace attachment. And if you look at the compassionate benefits we extended, we made it possible for other family members to be included in that group, and that allows people to stay attached to the workforce. So that's a good thing.

But this raises the larger issue. For a long time, my department was all about providing people with income support. That's obviously extraordinarily important, and we will continue to do that and enhance it where it's necessary. But the challenges of the future are much different. They are about filling these yawning labour market needs.

Training is obviously key to doing that. We've invested heavily in that. The new labour market development agreements are not a panacea, but they provide the provinces, working with employers, a lot of flexibility so they can take potential employees, no matter what their background, and try to develop training that fits their needs. In some cases it might be literacy, in other cases it'll just be making sure they're accustomed to the Canadian workplace. Other people have other challenges.

This is a pretty exciting new development. One of the best programs--I already touched on it--is the aboriginal skills and employment partnership. We've more than doubled its size. It's extraordinarily popular with employers. I can tell you it's a sea change in attitudes. A few years ago, I don't think anyone would debate that large employers were not very interested in hiring aboriginals. Today they can hardly wait to get into this program and work with aboriginals to get them into the workforce. That's tremendous news for aboriginal workers, who want the same thing as everybody else has: the chance to be successful. It's tremendous news for large employers who need good workers. And you see it, whether it's at Voisey's Bay or at Manitoba Hydro or VanASEP or Syncrude or Suncor, they're all engaged in this, and it's a win-win.

It's very exciting, and I'm excited about the future of the country, in terms of that, and for the department as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chong.

Everyone has now had a chance to go once.

Minister, I have one quick question from Mr. Lessard and one quick one from Mr. Cuzner, just to finish off. Everyone has had an opportunity.

Mr. Lessard has a quick intervention, then Mr. Cuzner, then Mr. Lake, and we'll wrap it at that.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I very much appreciate it, particularly since our question period was shortened at the start of the meeting.

I also appreciate Mr. Chong's question. I think it accurately reflects a reality. Most unemployed persons do not receive employment insurance benefits. I clearly understand the philosophy you're developing. You say that, if they don't receive any employment insurance benefits, they will go to work. I find that a somewhat cavalier and unrealistic way to do things. This is a situation that cannot last.

Minister, I find your answers very breezy given the situation. I'm not saying that in a gratuitous manner. Let's take the situation of Aboriginal people, for example. It is not accurate to say that it is easy for them to access and adjust to employment. It's very difficult for them in their present situation.

You also cited the literacy programs to help people adjust to employment as an example. Minister, you've cut $17 million from a budget of $52 million. What you said is not correct. I would appreciate more concrete answers concerning a situation that is much more serious than the one you're describing to me now.

I'll close by asking you a question. This didn't occur during your mandate, but it may be repeating. With regard to compassionate leave, there was a budget of approximately $78 million. It cost $70 million to administer and approximately $10 million at most was paid out in benefits for 2005-2006. I put the question to two ministers who previously visited us, and an answer was postponed each time. Have you had the opportunity to check that?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'm going to check that, but with respect to literacy, we have put more money into literacy, all told, than any government ever has. I don't disagree that we made cuts to specific programming, but we also have doubled the size of settlement funding so that newcomers to this country can get the language and literacy skills they need. Through the new labour market agreements there is $500 million a year. A big chunk of that can and will be used to provide basic literacy so that people can step into jobs. It's simply not true that we've reduced spending overall. We've increased spending dramatically when it comes to literacy.

With respect to aboriginals, I didn't suggest that it was easy for aboriginals. Quite the contrary, I'm suggesting that it has been very difficult for aboriginals to land in the workforce, which is precisely why we've doubled the size of this program that gives them those opportunities.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I'm going to clarify one point, Minister. I'm referring to the economic statement of September 25 or 26 of last year, according to which you cut $17 million for literacy. Go and see; it's actually cut from literacy. We feel there is an equation. It is hard to say you're investing in literacy when you cut such large amounts.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I would simply say that if you take $17 million out and put $1.3 billion back in and another $3 billion in labour market agreements, you're still a long way ahead. We're making the argument that we're putting a lot of money into programming, including literacy programming, that will leave people better off, and that's our goal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We're going to go to Mr. Cuzner and then we're going to finish off with Mr. Lake.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

My question is really more specific. The New Horizons for Seniors program was never really expanded to take in a whole lot of.... It says here, “for building and equipment upgrades”. There weren't a lot of dollars. There were more program-specific dollars before.

Could you expand on the types of building or equipment upgrades that would be eligible here?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

We have increased the funding overall from $25 million to $35 million. As I recall, $10 million will be used for capital upgrades, so it would be a number of things. Things that make--

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Accessibility.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Yes, accessibility-type things would be a major focus of that.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Are you looking to get into windows and doors? Are those components that score as well?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I can't tell you exactly all of it, but remember that we've also announced the enabling accessibility fund, which is $45 million over three years, a chunk of which will be for small projects. That will also ensure that seniors and, really, anyone who has some kind of barrier will have a chance to apply for that funding and use it to help them make a church, or a school or something, more accessible. Now I'm saying things...maybe not a school, but buildings of different kinds, to make them more accessible.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

So what types of building upgrades would this apply to?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'd have to get back to you with the particulars, Rodger, on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'd be interested in seeing that.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Yes, sure. Absolutely.

Mr. Chairman, may I correct the record too? I made a mistake earlier and I wouldn't want the committee to think I was spreading misinformation. I told my friend from the NDP that the WITB was in place. It's before the House right now. It was announced in the budget; it's before the House right now in the budget implementation act and hopefully it will be in place for the 2008 year.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

No, it's not. It's in the budget implementation act.