Human Resources Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

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

Excuse me for interrupting you—

[Louis Beauséjour]

This is why there is a greater number of people who are affected.

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

You understand how important it will be to do this.

I would like to discuss another aspect, that my colleagues also discussed. You can determine in a targeted way the number of older workers whom you will help because of the aging of a part of the population and of the populations of the smallest communities, as you call them. The last time we met you, we learned that you could get your data straight from the income tax returns.

I understand that you did not go through the exercise of determining the number of people by region and by sector, but I think that it is possible to do this. Could you give us the figures by region and by sector of activity, for things like forestry, the oil sands, the fisheries and other things? Will fishers from the Gaspé Peninsula or from the Acadian region, for example, benefit from these measures? At first sight, these people will not receive anything. I wish I were wrong, but nothing up to now shows that this is the case. You could tell us if this is so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'll get you to wrap up with that question and we'll finish on that note.

[Paul Thompson]

As we explained, it is very difficult to make projections. We have historical figures regarding employment insurance benefits and premiums. We have done some studies of the use of the benefits by the beneficiaries of the program, but it is important to note that it is not the same as making projections on the way in which the measures will be used.

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

Maybe something was omitted. If the crisis lasts for a long time, is there any question of extending the measures if, perchance, it was found to work well?

[Paul Thompson]

The bill provides for very precise dates for implementing and for winding up the measures. It will be up to the government and to Parliament to decide whether or not to extend the measures.

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

All right. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much Mr. Clarke, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Beauséjour. We appreciate your being here today.

You gentlemen can leave when you want. We have some committee business to take of.

Members, I have a couple of motions before you. The first motion I would like you to look at is for witnesses:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be granted an operational budget of $21,100 for its study of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits.

It's the standard motion the clerk makes up so we can have witnesses come to hearings and present to us.

Do I have any discussion on that?

Do you want to move it?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All those in favour? Any objections?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much.

The next motion we have is from Mr. Martin. Mr. Godin, if you'd like to read the motion, sir, and then speak to it, we'll then talk about it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, the motion reads as follows:

That the committee schedule all meetings related to the study of Bill C-50 in the week of October 5-9, 2009, in order to return it to the House prior to the next break week and in time for its speedy passage, in order to ensure that employment insurance benefits begin to reach long-tenured workers without undue delay.

It's quite clear that it is before the break week. The bill should undoubtedly be sent back to the House by Friday, before the break week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do we have any discussion on this? I'm going to start taking names.

Mr. Lessard, you are the first one. I'll start with you, sir.

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

Perhaps we could listen to our colleague to understand what he's afraid of.

Last week, we had adopted a schedule for our business, so four days this week and two when we return. It seems that this does not involve any delays to the schedule already set out in the bill. We have checked, and to date, I don't think that this will delay anything.

What is important, Mr. Chair, is that we be able to hear from witnesses. Last week we had agreed to submit a witness list, and we did so. I think that it would be unrealistic to sit more often than scheduled this week, because we are already all extremely busy, unless we add meetings next week. We could look perhaps at that option.

For now, I would like to hear more from our colleague, in order to learn why he is concerned that the deadline will not be met, when last week, everything seemed to be fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

When the four meetings had been proposed, I must admit that we had not taken into consideration the fact that Parliament would not be sitting the week of October 15, I wasn't here when you discussed that.

To respond to Mr. Lessard's question as to the urgency, it is that, every day that we lose after October 15, is a day that a worker will also lose, meaning January 4, 5, 6 and 7. We want to do something for workers, but we are in danger of losing workers, and I don't want that to happen. That is the reason for this proposal. I want to make sure that workers can benefit from this measure.

For our part, we are prepared to add a meeting this week, either Wednesday or tomorrow afternoon, it doesn't matter to me. I would be okay with working in the evening too. I used to be a miner, and working the night shift does not bother me. We could do it for workers, especially if it is to help them as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mr. Godin.

I have on the list Mr. Vellacott, Mr. Lessard, and Mr. Savage.

Based on looking at the schedule, this won't affect benefits at all. It was my understanding, and looking at our getting it back, this will not affect anything in terms of making sure it comes into effect. That is my understanding, but we'll keep moving up the list.

Mr. Vellacott, do you want the floor?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Just temporarily—I think it is an important enough measure that we want to get it through expeditiously. We had this previous agreement from other parties here, and I think we want to hear from the witnesses to confirm the merits of the bill. If Michael has questions about loopholes or whatever, then those need to be responded to, and they will be fulsomely, I'm sure.

I don't think we want to be just flipping into this without the due diligence, but in an expedited fashion. That is the whole point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That is the balance we were trying to strike when we met last time. We would not hold this up unduly, but we would hear from some witnesses.

I'll go to Mr. Lessard, then Mr. Savage.

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

First, Mr. Chair, I understand why our colleague wants to move quickly. However, I don't want it to be a futile exercise for our witnesses. If we invite witnesses to come, we need to respect their own occupations. These people are extremely busy. We can't ask them to come here in two days just like that. We need to give them notice, plan, etc. By acting quickly, the only thing that's guaranteed is that not many people will be able to come and testify. I do not think that is my colleague's objective. I think that he has too much respect for workers and the unemployed for that. That concludes my point.

Second, if there is a majority who truly agrees to pass the bill and if delaying it for one week hangs on one small amendment, Mr. Chair, our NDP colleague who is sponsoring this bill with the Conservatives could make a small amendment when the time comes. That way implementation could perhaps be delayed one week so that people can be consulted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm starting to get a consensus around the room that this is probably not going to work, but let's hear from Mr. Savage. Then, if there aren't any further comments, we'll have a vote.

Mr. Savage.

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

Thank you, Chair.

As usual, our colleague Monsieur Lessard has said it all and said it very well. I think the original schedule makes sense. We have prepared an amendment we would use if necessary. It would amend the bill to replace subclause 8(1) so that subsections 1(1), 2(1), and 2(3), together with sections 3 to 7, would be deemed to have come into force earlier. That can be done to ensure that there would be no delay in getting benefits to people.

I think we go with the schedule, we do our due diligence, and we get the work done. If we need to make a change at the end, we'll be happy to consider it to make sure nobody suffers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks.

All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion negatived)

It looks like we'll go with the original schedule.

We already have witnesses booked for Thursday. The minister will also be here then. We will continue with the schedule.

Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I wanted to ask a question on a point of information about the papers you circulated on travel to Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That is just to bring in witnesses, actually; it is not complete right now.