Human Resources Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

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

I understand that, but I would remind you that the Liberal 360-hour proposal was a temporary measure too, for one year, the same as this, and we were told it would have a 2% increase in unemployment. So there was no labour market implication done or study done on this piece of legislation.

[Paul Thompson]

I would say that with this population of long-tenured workers who have a long history of attachment to the labour force, combined with the fact that this is a temporary measure...most economists would argue that this is very limited.

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

As they would also argue with the Liberal measure of the 360 hours because of its temporary nature.

There seem to be a lot of unanswered questions. How long have you been working on this in the department?

[Paul Thompson]

How long have we been working on this in the department? The tabling date of the legislation...I don't have it in front of me. Do you know that?

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

September 18, I think.

[Paul Thompson]

September 18. Obviously for a period of time some policy work was done in the department leading up to that.

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

Was it weeks or months?

[Paul Thompson]

It's hard to pinpoint a date at which work on a measure begins, because it's an evolution and you arrive at a finished product on the date of tabling the legislation.

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

I'm just curious why it wasn't presented to the EI working group.

[Paul Thompson]

I believe there was some discussion, if I'm not mistaken, on long-tenured workers as one of the subjects.

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

There was a point of discussion. There was no proposal or anything. So either it was something that was worked on that wasn't presented to the group--which was the purpose of the group--or else it's kind of a haphazard thing in reaction to later events. In either case, it seems to me that it's one of the reasons we need to have witnesses to have a look at this and find the loopholes and perhaps assist you.

One of the concerns about the EI system in the last number of years, for which we all probably bear some responsibility, is that it's become increasingly complex. This bill seems to make it even more complex. Even the Prime Minister indicated back in June that we should be trying to simplify the system, when you look at regional rates and a whole bunch of other things. Under this bill, subsection 12(2) becomes subsections 12(2.1), 12(2.2), 12(2.3), and 12(2.4). It creates a distinction as to when EI benefits are claimed. There are four periods; it sets out six possible types of extension, different payments. This seems incredibly complex.

In light of that, have you added new people to Service Canada? Have you hired new people to administer this? The last time new measures came in there were delays as a result of that.

What is the cost to the department for the administration of this new program?

[Paul Thompson]

I will ask my colleague, but we have not sought additional resources to implement the measure.

[Philip Clarke]

That's correct. We aren't staffing up additionally to take care of this measure. We're redeploying staff to be able to deal with the manual work that falls out of here.

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

That doesn't sound great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mr. Savage.

Mr. Lessard, maybe just a couple of minutes and then we'll wrap it up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to come back to the figures that we were provided with. This is important because it helps us to understand the scope of the program in its application. More specifically, I am addressing Mr. Beauséjour.

Let us begin with the fact that 30% of all beneficiaries are considered as long-tenured workers. We agree on this point. In July 2009, 787,700 people received employment insurance benefits. Let us round the figure off to 780,000. Taking 30% of this figure of 780,000, we get a figure of about 200,000 long-tenured workers who would be affected. Of these 200,000 long-tenured workers, about 21% would be eligible. This amounts to about 40,000 long-tenured workers.

Would this not be the result of implementing Bill C-50, Mr. Beauséjour?

[Louis Beauséjour]

No, and I would like to give you a more elaborate answer.

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

In that case, you will have to do it in writing.

[Louis Beauséjour]

We will do it in writing, but let us continue anyway.

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

Do it in writing, because these are the resullts we came up with.

[Louis Beauséjour]

We must make a distinction. You said that there were 780,000 people—

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

—in July.

[Louis Beauséjour]

These people, on the average, do not receive benefits for a year. The average period of time is more generally 20 or 30 weeks. They do not stay as long. For every unemployed person, there are about 2.5 to 2.6 clients in any given year—

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

—who would be affected.

[Louis Beauséjour]

Let us suppose that on the average during one year, there are about 780,000 unemployed people for the entire year. Given the fact that the claimants do not receive benefits during the full year, there would be 2.5 different claimants.