Human Resources Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

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

But you still do not say where the money to balance it all should come from.

Mr. Blakely, you are quite right, and we agree with you entirely; we have to take care of people with grey hair or those with no hair at all. But seriously, there is something I would like to understand. Your two organizations complement each other in terms of the people you represent. In Canada, you represent the interests of sector-based employers groups, whereas Mr. Schumann defends the rights of workers.

You have a low profile in Quebec. I have to say that I do not know who you are, even though I have been heavily involved in labour relations for 40 years. In my opinion, your profile is low in Quebec because there are sectoral commissions there for every trade. I would like to hear your opinion on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Blakely, he's over time, but I'm going to ask you to finish and answer the question.

[Robert Blakely]

I will. I think I can do so briefly.

I will speak in English, because my French is not good.

We are involved in Quebec. We are 28% of the Quebec construction industry. We represent those international unions that are found in Quebec, together with the FTQ, CSD, the Syndicat québécois, and the CSN. In terms of being sectoral, we think our industry is one that adds a lot to the country. We would like to see EI dealt with holistically. Like my friend—I come from a very different philosophical base than he does, but I think the system has to be looked at holistically or we're never going to get the answers we want.

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

Just an aside, if I may.

You know that the FTQ does not support the bill. So your Quebec wing does not agree with your position.

[Robert Blakely]

Sir, it doesn't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll have to get that debate the next time around. We're going to move to Mr. Godin, sir.

You have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to all our witnesses.

Could you answer Monsieur Lessard's question?

[Robert Blakely]

I will. Our Quebec section does not belong to the FTQ. We stand apart from the FTQ, and we're a competitor of FTQ. In Quebec, the international construction unions stand with the position I put forth.

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

Everyone, be it the FTQ, your union or any other one, agrees that there is an economic crisis. Do you believe that the crisis is the same across the country and in Quebec?

[Robert Blakely]

No, sir, not even close. There are some provinces that suffer very significantly from this economic malaise. There are other provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, where people have been fat, dumb, and sassy for the last eight or ten years, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

It is certainly going to be a patchwork quilt. It depends on where you are. If you are in New Brunswick and at Canaport and a couple of jobs have just ended, construction will be doing fine. If you are in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, it's less fine.

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

Mr. Blakely, you brought up the question about the training program. I think this is very interesting, and I hope the government is taking note of this here. I think that's what they should check, because on the training program you said they were supposed to be available to work. I don't think so. I think they are on phase two of EI, because when they are in trade school or community college, they don't have to look for a job because it's already accepted through the program.

They are going to be there for six or eight weeks, doing their program and not looking someplace else, and they are allowed to finish their program and go back to their job—it could be in a mine or anywhere—that belongs to them. That could be considered as a special.... We would like to see clarification from the government, and if you're right, then I think they have the power to make amendments to this Bill C-50 to look after the apprentices.

[Robert Blakely]

Mr. Godin, the difficulty is this. I agree that they don't have to look for work. Section 25 of the act deems people who are in the in-school portion to be unemployed and available for work. They don't have to look. They are deemed to be available for the benefit. They are not entitled to special benefits as set out by section 12, so you're left with the only other benefit they get, which is the regular benefit, and the wording of the extended section says that if you've had regular benefits, you're not entitled to the additional ones.

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

That's why I'm pleased that you brought it here, so that maybe they could come back with an amendment. I don't think it was the intent that the workers having the training would be punished by having the training to be on the job. They didn't lose their job.

They continue to have their training, as many have directly in the plan. They don't even go to the community college. They work for a company and the money is given directly to the company, for example, to pay for the training. It's not a punishment to better yourself to make sure your trade improves.

I think you were very clear. You were saying that it's not what you were looking for, but is there something for workers who have lost their job, as small as it could be, that we should vote for?

[Robert Blakely]

Honestly, it isn't what we want, but there are so many workers in our business and in other businesses who will benefit that I would ask you to vote for it.

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

For Mr. Savage of the Liberty Party, which made the big cut to employment insurance in 1996 when we had the big crisis in the fishery—and they didn't care about it at that time—it seems to be that because we're not giving it to everybody, then we should not give it to some people who have lost their jobs, even as little as it is. You don't agree with that statement?

[Robert Blakely]

I think we should get the most for the most on this thing that we can, and if there is an unintended consequence that could act against people who are taking training, then the unintended consequence should be ruled out by an amendment to the bill.

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

Mr. Dorval, you represent employers in Quebec, and I want your position to be clear. There is also an economic crisis in Quebec, and you are also affected by it. I believe that employers also care about the welfare of their employees. It is not easy to lay off a long-term employee because of the economic crisis. I am sure that you want better than that. I do not want to put words into your mouth, but I would like you to think about my question before answering.

Previous governments and the current one stole $57 billion from the employment insurance fund and put the amount into general revenue. Certainly, that is where the money should come from. But some has already been taken, and there should be no more taxes. The federal government already has a $57 billion surplus in its fund.

Do you want the employment insurance program to provide income for people who have lost their jobs in the economic crisis, or do you think that the province should assume that responsibility through its welfare programs?

[Yves-Thomas Dorval]

Thank you for your question.

Ultimately, there is only one tax payer. Unfortunately, in discussions with parliamentarians or government representatives, certain clients, certain groups, and so on, receive more attention. However, we like to keep a global perspective because, ultimately, someone is going to pay. The more our deficit grows, the more difficult it will be to grow the economy again.

We fought against the removal of the $57 billion. Today, it is not realistic to think that $57 billion dollars will magically appear in general revenues and fix the problems of the past. We are in a recession. If the government and Parliament, by way of legislation, are convinced that they must make investments, these should not be paid for by increased taxes on employers' payrolls.

Like the other provinces, Quebec is affected by the economic crisis, but in a different way. In this province, employers, unions and social groups sit down at the same table. The group is called the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. We have developed a tight program. When a business in Quebec has to slow down its operations because of the recession, and, as a consequence, is forced to lay off employees, this program, which is mainly funded by employers under the 1% legislation in Quebec, provides financial support to train the employees and to save their jobs. This way, fewer people become unemployed. In addition, they receive training, so when the economy picks up again, both the employee and the employer are well equipped to respond. The program is a partnership between Quebec's unions and employers.

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

So should we vote for Bill C-50?

[Yves-Thomas Dorval]

At least the bill will only be valid for a limited period of time, but we still maintain that the funding should not come out of the employment insurance fund.

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

I would like to know whether we should vote for or against the bill.

[Yves-Thomas Dorval]

I would not want to take on that responsibility for you. But I still say that taxes on payroll should not increase because of this decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. That's all the time we have.

We're going to move to Mr. Vellacott. Sir, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you.

It's too bad Mr. Savage isn't here, because he's going to accuse me of having spoken in his absence with respect to some remarks he made. But I will, and he'll get it from the record here later.

He made some comments earlier, and he did at a point previously in the House today, and I think we need to get this out on the record. So through you, Mr. Chair, he was speaking about the 360. Just to get it on the record here, the cost for this bill is $1 billion over three years. We need to also point out the fact that with respect to the 360, he got the Parliamentary Budget Officer to cost it, and that was in terms of special benefits and part-time workers being excluded. Yet his platform, the Liberal platform, released yesterday, actually said that special benefits and part-time workers should have a 360-hour standard as well. So the cost of that proposal really is about $4 billion.

Mr. Savage is...misleading, I guess, to say it nicely or diplomatically, by saying something different in a different context.

But having got that on the record, and having corrected things in respect of that, I want to ask Mr. Schumann, off the top here, in terms of a clarification.... You spoke of certain workers who worked 10 to 15 years, but now they're not eligible with respect to this. There's something I wasn't catching there. I'm not sure if you meant 10 to 15 years but with periods of interruption along the way. Is that what you...?

[Steven Schumann]

Yes.