Human Resources Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

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

Thank you.

Ms. Kozhaya, you are a statistician and you do a great deal of juggling with figures. I truly admire you. I do not have that gift. I wondered if you could share with us some more concrete figures on young people and women. I have had a hard time finding any. All those whom I asked were not able to give me any. I do not necessarily want firm figures. Perhaps you can give me an approximate idea, if that is all you can do.

[Norma Kozhaya]

Are you referring to figures on youth and women?

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

Yes; those whose status would not be improved by the bill we are studying today.

[Norma Kozhaya]

Well, the current situation has really had an impact on youth. We have talked at great length about the increase in youth unemployment. When things are going poorly, the last in are often the first out. People with the least experience and seniority in the company will perhaps be the first ones to be laid off.

As far as women are concerned, unfortunately, I do not have any other figures.

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

I can see that my time is going by quickly, Ms. Kozhaya. Pardon me, but I am going to have to interrupt you.

Since you did not know that we were going to be asking you these questions, I wonder if you could provide the chair and the clerk with figures pertaining to youth and women in Canada who have applied for employment insurance benefits, but who would not be affected by the new measures put forward by the government in Bill C-50.

[Norma Kozhaya]

Yes, I will do my best.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move over to Mr. Lobb. The floor is yours for five minutes, sir.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, guests, for coming today and providing your testimony. It's definitely appreciated.

It's important to note, and I mentioned this at our last meeting, that this is an amendment to an act. We've heard others from the Liberal Party and the Bloc talk about reform, and it's certainly an amendment to an act. The amendment will help 190,000 unemployed workers. That's a lot of Canadians who need help and who have paid into employment insurance for many years, and hopefully this will help them.

They've talked much about who they'd like to help and what they'd like to help, but their voting actions indicate they want to help nobody. They voted against this act. They had a choice to help 190,000 and they chose to help zero, and that's really unfortunate.

I wonder if you could give me a comment, Mr. Blakely, or if you could provide some insight about some recent changes to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. There are really two thoughts here. One is a system set up that generates excesses that go to Liberal slush funds or one that balances its books. I prefer the latter. I wonder which one you prefer.

[Robert Blakely]

We made quite detailed submissions in respect of the new funding board. We were opposed to it in a number of respects, one of which concerns the people who are on the board. Probably no one there will ever be unemployed or ever know what it's like to have to file for pogey. We thought that probably was a disincentive.

We didn't like how the board was structured and its ability to throttle—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Specifically, though, it's mainly to balance revenues to expenses.

[Robert Blakely]

Well, that's its statutory mandate. They have to balance the books. If they run out of money they can go and borrow from the people of Canada. If they don't have enough they can throttle the cost of the payroll tax slightly, within bounds. We thought that wasn't adequate.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Schumann, there have been billions of dollars allocated that are at work today as infrastructure dollars building Canada, in infrastructure stimulus funding, etc. Can you comment on what that has done for some of the people you represent?

[Steven Schumann]

Obviously, where the money has flowed, in some of these projects our workers have had their fair share. Remember, on the construction side we represent the unionized side, with 500,000 members. There are also non-union jobs and everything, so of course when a project comes out there is a competition among the contractors to get it, and if it's a union contractor who wins that contract, yes, our guys get to reap the rewards and work on it.

But the question is, how much of this money has come out? We've talked to many of our business managers about the stimulus funding, and they hear about the money rolling out. There are questions there, to be honest. In some areas we've seen more come out on certain projects, and in some of the other areas it hasn't. Particularly in British Columbia, our union hasn't seen the money because it's gone to one of the organizations out there called CLAC, which is the Christian Labour Association of Canada. So we have not seen the money in that sense out there.

So when some money flows, there is competition, but it's very hard to give you a proper sense of how many of our contractors have actually got the work and have done the jobs.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Blakely, are there any thoughts or comments from your organization on the red seal program insofar as the grants for completion of apprenticeships? I have two or three cousins who are currently involved in apprenticeship programs, and they're young, ambitious people. In my opinion, this is an incentive to complete the project they undertook. What is your position on that?

[Robert Blakely]

My take? Under the previous Liberal government there were some incentives to apprentices; we welcomed those. The first set of incentives that the current government put out for apprenticeship, we welcomed those. The second set, the apprenticeship completion grants, we welcome those. They help get people through their training.

Most people who are apprentices aren't dewy-eyed and 19 years old. The average age of an apprentice is 28. They usually have a family, and getting the $1,000 or $2,000 for completing is something that helps them get through, so we're grateful for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Ben.

We're now going to move over to the Bloc. We have Madame Beaudin for five minutes.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, guests, for being here today.

I have a dozen questions that I would like to ask you, but I have very little time. I have heard what you said and I have heard a number of other witnesses before you. The problem with this bill is not only that it is not perfect, but that it is fundamentally unfair. It is discriminatory because it creates two categories of unemployed people. This breaks down the solidarity among the unemployed, at times, even within the same company. This week, we heard from witnesses who told us that. In the same company, you can have workers who will be eligible and others who will not. That is where the problem lies.

We also talk about a scarcity of resources. Many witnesses have told us to accept this bill and hope to get something else later on, such as eligibility once you have worked 360 hours, the extension of weeks per year, and so on. We have doubts about that, first of all because there is very little money, and secondly, we doubt that anything else will happen. We would like to have seen a much more comprehensive and complete reform. This reform is unfair, because more than 50% of workers will not be eligible.

Mr. Blakely, you said a little earlier that you were hoping to amend this bill so that trade apprentices would be eligible. We would also like to amend it to include all seasonal workers and workers in unstable job situations.

Would you vote in favour of Bill C-50 if it were not amended to include your requirements?

[Robert Blakely]

If you look at our business, the business of construction, we have people who will be on a claim, but then they'll go to work. When they go to work, frequently they work 10 or 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, until the job is done, and they move on to the next job. Generally speaking, most construction workers who claim EI end up paying the money back at tax time.

[A voice]

Thirty percent.

[Robert Blakely]

Yes. They pay it back, and they pay it back at the highest rate.

If you look at the extended benefit for some of those people, they're not going to be able to even get the extended benefit if they're unfortunate enough to run through their claim, simply because they've had regular benefits paid over the course of the previous five years and those may have come to more than 36 weeks, even though they've worked well over 2,000 hours in every year.

Systemic—

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

So you would like them to have access to the measures contained in Bill C-50.

[Robert Blakely]

I would like it to cover seasonal workers, fishermen, construction workers, people who work in day care. I would like it to cover everybody who buys insurance, that contract of indemnity against a foreseeable event. If you pay, you should collect.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

We are in an economic crisis, as you said, Mr. Dorval. This is therefore a temporary measure for a particular situation. We are currently choosing to help workers who already have a number of weeks. These are the ones in least need, essentially, if you compare them to many workers who have already lost their jobs and are not even entitled to employment insurance benefits. As a temporary measure, this choice does not seem to make sense. Is it a choice that you would have made?

If you had to choose a measure which, in times of an economic crisis, would help workers in need—the fundamental objective of employment insurance—would you have made the same choice, given that other measures extending the number of weeks were adopted in the last budget?

[Yves-Thomas Dorval]

In all honesty, I would not be able to tell you which measure is best. We have not had an opportunity to study it and obtain all the information. This is one more piece that is added to another piece, with no thought for the overall picture. It is difficult for us to look at the relevance of a piece like that without having an opportunity to look at the overall picture, always bearing in mind people's ability to pay.

We cannot comment on the relevance of this measure in particular because it is, essentially, one measure on top of another. In essence, this is about adding $4 billion. We must make a distinction between social measures taken in a difficult situation and an insurance program which must comply with conditions. If we do not like these conditions, let us change them. But it becomes extremely difficult when you pay your premiums and see that the criteria have suddenly changed.

Since we are going through a temporary situation, this must also be a temporary measure. We are all hoping that the recovery will occur as quickly as possible, but that will require private investment. We have heard about infrastructure, and that might help, but at some point, we need to take measures to stimulate private investment.

Going back to your question more specifically, we say that the money must come from general revenue. We are prepared to examine the program in general terms to see how we could improve it, given the new economy and the situation. But not during a period of crisis, because a crisis is a poor advisor.