Human Resources Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Not yet; I'm hoping to go one day. Anyway, I don't know what kind of labour market is out there. Is it a problem getting the workers to go out there? Why is it? That's what you actually need to define: why is it that they're having trouble attracting? Are they horrible employers? Are they not paying enough? I don't know. That's what you need to look at.

I can tell you that there are a lot of workers out here who are looking for jobs, and I can tell you that from my riding, people are actually having to travel by plane to go to different work sites. Whether it is in Yellowknife or anywhere like it, they get flown in, in order to get jobs. So it's not because these people are not looking for jobs.

I need to go back to the employment insurance aspect. We have to be clear. There was $57 billion in the fund, and it should still be there. And that insurance money was actual insurance; it wasn't money that should have been used for anything else. That's like you having a mortgage and the bank all of a sudden saying, “I want you to pay your mortgage, so I'm going into your bank account and am taking the savings you've put aside and putting them into the mortgage.”

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

Let me just interject at this point. We were on the record very clearly that this was the wrong way to handle the EI account. But the money's gone now. That's the other issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Vellacott, I'm going to let Ms. Byers finish up. That's all the time we have.

[Barbara Byers]

It's just because I'm from Saskatchewan.

One of the things is that the unemployment rate in Saskatchewan has gone up. I still get the notices from the Leader-Post and so on, so I still keep up with the news at home. But the other part of it is, if we're talking about real labour shortages, one of the ways to deal with them—and our people in the construction industry constantly tell us this—is to bring in mobility assistance for them through the UI system. That's typical. Employers can get assistance to bring people in from Germany or Chile or all sorts of places, but the worker can't get assistance to move to a job that might be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

During our employability study, that was one of the recommendations; it would probably be a good idea.

I'm going to say to the witnesses that you're allowed to be released from the table, if you wish.

Carol, do whatever you like.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I actually have a CPAC meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, we'll let you go. Thank you for being here and for taking the time to be part of our committee.

Now we're going to go to clause-by-clause.

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

Just for clarification before clause-by-clause, Chair, can you or the clerk confirm that this bill will require a royal recommendation? Has the Speaker ruled on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That is correct. It requires a royal recommendation.

We're going to pass out the one amendment that we have, and then we're going to go clause by clause.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know what point you call this, but Mr. Lessard referred to a number for 12 weeks at 55%. I wonder if he would repeat that number. I didn't catch it when—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Was he talking about the amendment?

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

No, he was talking right in the actual—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll wait until he gets back to the table.

We'll get started again with the clause-by-clause.

Mr. Lobb had a point of clarification for Mr. Lessard.

Why don't you ask for that point of clarification?

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

It's just a friendly little point of clarification. Mr. Lessard referred to some costings from a previous report, I believe it was. I didn't quite catch it when he mentioned it. It was on the costs of the 55% and the 12 weeks. If he hasn't put it away, could he repeat the figure again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Is it the name of the report that you want?

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

No, it's the cost.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do you have those figures, Mr. Lessard?

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

I have these figures which were supplied by the department and again, I will put them in context. Some of my colleagues were present at the time, including Mr. Godin and Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours for the Liberals. A number of members were on hand and all parties were represented on the committee tasked with examining EI reform. The report contained 28 recommendations, eight of which had been formulated and unanimously endorsed by the Standing Committee on Human Resources.

One of the 28 recommendations called for the creation of an independent account and for the repayment of the money diverted from the EI fund. I will spare you the details of each individual recommendation. Suffice to say that we asked the department to do some evaluations for us.

There was more cooperation on the part of officials at the time, because they had the minister's authorization. Since you were asking, they came up with the following figures. The cost of increasing the benefit level from 55% to 60% of insurable earnings would be $1.2 billion and the measure would apply universally. The cost of setting a 360-hour threshold for EI benefit qualification was $390 million, with that measure affecting 90,000 unemployed workers. Introducing a measure based on the 12 best weeks would cost $320 million, with 470,000 unemployed workers targeted.

I could give you additional figures, because we have all of that information. It was provided to us by Mr. Michael Bron, Assistant Deputy Minister at Human Resources and Social Development on December 7, 2005.

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

Well, that's good. I appreciate the information. I didn't need the dissertation on his previous work, but I appreciate it. Thank you again for the answer to the question on the 12 weeks and the 55%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I think the context is important, so you got the context.

We're now going to go to clause-by-clause consideration. I'm going to ask the committee if we can group these clauses together again. We're going to consider clauses 1 to 4. The amendment is on clause 5. Does the committee agree to do it that way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

(Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

We now have the amendment that you see before you.

I'll put this in context. Because this is money, it would normally require royal recommendation and it would be out of order. The bill needs royal recommendation. The clause would need royal recommendation as well, but we're going to vote on it anyway because it has come before us and we'll do that.

The amendment is that Bill C-280 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 27 on page 2 with the following: “to a claimant is 60% of the average of their”. That is the amendment.

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Lessard.

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

I'd like to speak to that, Mr. Chair. I believe we have done that in other forums, specifically in the House of Commons. I think the comment made earlier by Ms. Byers from the CLC summed up the intent of the proposed amendment quite well.

The aim is by no means to only improve accessibility, but also to improve people's income. A weekly benefit of 55% or 60% of insurable earnings is not that great an amount. Some maintain that the bill will require royal recommendation. As it now stands, I think you will all find that the bill will require royal recommendation.

As parliamentarians, we need to ask ourselves if we are really improving the EI system with this bill. This amendment is a step in that direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lessard.

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Savage.

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

Thank you.

This amendment is consistent with other bills that we've looked at on EI. I think Mr. Godin's bill was Bill C-265. I think Madame Deschamps had Bill C-269, and moving from 55% to 60% is part of that.

I can't speak for what governments have done prior to my coming to Parliament, nor can I speak for what future governments will do, Liberal or otherwise, but I will support the amendment because I think it's important that we send a message to the government that changes need to happen to EI for lots of people. We'll support the amendment for that reason.