Human Resources Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

How do you propose that the additional revenue be raised to fund this $1 billion? Are you proposing that it come from a hike in EI premiums?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I said, and I repeat, that one of the solutions would be to take the money from the surplus that accumulated over the years and that was often used for other purposes. Some of the surplus is still there, and it belongs to the workers and to the employers who paid employment insurance premiums to that end. If you prefer, there could be a slight increase in premiums. As Mr. Céré said, it is a very small amount that would be added to the premiums paid by workers.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Perhaps you didn't hear me say the extra revenues that were raised during the Liberal time in office were spent from general revenues; they don't exist there now. You would take it, then, that it would have to be paid for from an increase in premiums.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

In my opinion, the first thing one has to realize is that this is an unfair measure. It would cost a very small amount from each and every worker to deal with this. It would be more logical, of course, to take this money from the amounts accumulated over the years that came from workers at a time when there is high unemployment and therefore fewer people working. However, it could still potentially come from an increase.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Excuse me, we talked about Bill C-50, and that has been opposed by the Liberal Party. Even if they support this bill, I can't understand why they would oppose helping 190,000 people in another area.

But let's put that aside for a moment. If we had a billion dollars to deal with, have you done any studies as to whether the unemployed would sooner have it applied to eliminating the two-week waiting period, as you suggest, or they would want to apply it to the end when their benefits are exhausted and they find themselves without work at that point? Have you done any studies, or do you have any statistics, about what the unemployed might want, as opposed to what any one of us, or you, might want?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I can tell you that I haven't come up with new statistics. However, I organized meetings in my riding and near my riding in order to discuss the issue. In general, workers and workers' groups all agreed that a measure that would benefit all unemployed people would be much more useful than a measure that would benefit only 6.3% of the people entitled to receive employment insurance.

It is a universal measure. The word "universal" is important in a social measure. Employment insurance, as I was saying at the beginning, is social insurance.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Let me ask whether you have talked to anyone who has said they would rather have payment for the two-week waiting period as opposed to an extension to 20 weeks at the end. Have you talked to anyone about that?

[Pierre Céré]

They do not have the right to an extension.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

They do not have the right to an extension. I have yet to meet anyone who has the right to these famous 20 extra weeks. But I have met unemployed people who are affected by the two-week waiting period.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

In addition, something we put forward this year was extending all benefits across the board by five weeks and increasing them from 45 weeks to 50 weeks in certain regions. Have you talked to anyone who has said they would sooner not have that additional five weeks and they would rather have the initial two weeks up front?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Currently, the five weeks exist. I said earlier on that it results in about the same length of time that people in my riding had in the past. What we want to do is to put these two weeks back in. I do not understand why you absolutely insist on putting one measure up against the other. Why do you want to pit one against the other when the reality today is that the entire employment insurance program is unfair for the people who pay into it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Komarnicki.

We're going to move to our second round and try to get a couple in.

We're going to start with Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to say I support this bill. My question will come at the end.

I don't understand the rationale, and I never have, of asking low-income Canadians, especially those who are on minimum wage or living from paycheque to paycheque, to forfeit two weeks of income right after they become unemployed and somehow are having to forfeit, I guess, buying groceries or paying mortgages or what have you.

I understand the comments of my colleague across the way about 45 to 50, but all that means is that instead of 50 you get 48, and you still get it because you get the two plus, so it doesn't change that. For me, it is about equity and responsibility.

You probably can tell us the economic impact this has on certain families, especially certain families in certain income brackets, both on the family and their immediate community. I'm assuming, of course, that they'd spend this money on survival in many cases. I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on your opinion on the economic impact on these families this type of change would have.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I want to give Mr. Céré the opportunity to answer that, but first of all, I would like to say that 61% of Canadians are living from week to week. They are surviving on that week's pay. In the case of the unemployed, there is a 60% chance that we are talking about people who have not set any money aside and who live from week to week. Therefore, when they lose their jobs, they have no money saved. They are not putting this money into the bank; they are participating in the economy immediately by buying food, paying their rent or their mortgage, and putting gas in their car in order to look for new employment. In my riding, people need a car in order to look for work because there is no public transportation. So they need money to go job hunting. Thus, the money is poured immediately back into the economy.

I would like Mr. Céré to be able to comment.

[Pierre Céré]

Members of the committee, do you realize that the employment insurance fund is currently in deficit? Do you understand that we do not have the billion dollars needed to fund Bill C-50? The money will have to come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Do you understand that the billion dollars needed to fund the extension of the benefit period for some recipients simply does not exist? Economists estimate that the employment insurance fund is currently running a deficit of approximately $4 billion.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Some even estimate that it stands at $8 billion.

[Pierre Céré]

The estimate for 2010 is a deficit of between $7 billion and $8 billion. How can that be covered? Contributions will have to be raised. Contributions under the employment insurance system must be in keeping with expenses. That is how it used to be done. However, the government froze contributions for 2008, 2009 and 2010, deliberately creating a deficit, and thus enabling them to tell us that there is no money. If a billion dollars is found, what should be done with it? Should the waiting period be abolished? Should we provide five weeks of extra coverage? No.

Sometimes temporary measures are introduced in response to a crisis situation. The five-week extension provided for in the spring budget is an example of a temporary measure. There is nothing wrong with a temporary measure that addresses a crisis situation and helps people; however, there are also other measures that could help workers in a crisis situation. Other measures need to be introduced to fix the employment insurance system and adequately address the issue of eligibility.

I would remind those on the government side that all of the provincial premiers are telling you to sort out the eligibility issue. How much will it cost? A billion dollars? Two billion dollars? Who is going to pay for it? We are, through our contributions. Would Canadian workers be willing to pay 10¢ or 20¢ more than the current level of $1.73? Of course they would. Why? Because they were paying a $3.08 premium 13 years ago. Employment insurance contributions must match employment insurance expenses.

In times of economic slowdown, the employment insurance system may well have to pay out more money; however, in good times, expenditure falls and more money comes into the system. That was what happened for a number of years in the 1990s and 2000s. That is what led to the surplus in the employment insurance fund.

When the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board was being set up, a topic we came before the committee to discuss in 2008, we all said that the reserve had to be greater than the $2 billion provided for in the legislation. The $2 billion reserve is proving to be completely inadequate for coping with the expenditure levels required today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to Mr. Lobb for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

First, Mr. Céré, you alluded to the amount of time it takes to process a claim. Do you see where the bill attempts to rectify the situation you see? I don't see it here.

[Pierre Céré]

The issue of administrative delays relates to the internal organization of HRSDC in regional branches, meaning at a provincial level. There is a lack of organization. Too many jobs were cut to allow staff to process claims quickly. It is a matter of administrative organization.

With regard to the waiting period, recipients will no longer have to wait two weeks as they will start receiving benefits immediately upon becoming unemployed.

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

Fair enough.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, I said earlier that it would reduce the waiting period as benefits would have to be paid out sooner. I did not say that the bill contained a provision seeking to reduce wait times. I said it would be a consequential effect.

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

I don't see anything in this report that says it's going to reduce wait times. But that being said, based on the fact that this bill was read December 1, how can you reconcile to the people of Huron--Bruce that voting against the budget, which would have added five weeks, voting against Bill C-50, which would have added 20 weeks for long-tenured workers--there's over $2 billion right there--work sharing, freezing of EI rates, older workers, retraining, dollars invested in the Building Canada fund and the infrastructure stimulus fund, all these things that deal with unemployment and create jobs...? You and your party voted against all of them. Yet you bring this here, read on December 1, and you say you want two weeks.

How do I reconcile that with the people here in Bruce? We've offered billions of dollars for job creation. Bill C-50, 190,000 people--that's 600 per riding. Yet we're supposed to come here today and accept two weeks when we know one piece of the puzzle was to add five weeks at the end. That alone I would have a tough time defending to the people here in Bruce and saying two weeks is better than five. I've never heard that.

Mr. Ouellet, you voted against everything, yet you're offering this. Help me.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

As you well know, sir, the reason that we sometimes vote against Conservative bills is that they contain a hidden agenda or some unacceptable provisions, and we have to vote on a bill as a whole.

You are mistaken when you say that we did not approach these as separate issues. We did not support certain proposed employment insurance measures because, to our mind, they were not comprehensive enough. The only reason that we often did not support proposed government measures to help the unemployed is that they are not universal enough.

That is why we are tabling a universal motion to help all unemployed workers.

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

That being said, your bill does not deal with anything to do with eligibility. It deals with nothing for people who qualify for hours--nothing, zero. So with the logic you're using today, how did you vote against Bill C-50?

What you're presenting here today does not deal with any of the issues you've talked about. You use the words “most urgent need”, “target all who lose their jobs”. This bill does not do what you said. It does not target all those who've lost their jobs.

You could have done more by voting for Bill C-50 and done more for the people in your riding, more for Mr. Lessard's riding, and instead you voted to help nobody.