Human Resources Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

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

If you are relying on their numbers, that's fair enough.

[Andrew Jackson]

I would just add that the TD Bank did a study that looked at 360 hours and 420 hours, and I think their costing was in roughly the same ballpark.

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

I'm just asking the question. We were talking about the bill. That's fine.

[Andrew Jackson]

What we might debate is the second-round impasse, but I think the straight 360 hours costing a little over $1 billion, everybody has sort of agreed on.

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

Whatever your numbers are telling me, that's what your numbers are.

Ms. Hughes, is there any costing on the part about the best 12 weeks? In regard to the 55%, are there any dollars put behind that or any expectations on that?

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

I'm just trying to go through my document here, because we have been talking about quite a few things.

The whole intent in putting this forward is to make sure that people actually have access to employment insurance. There will be some costing, of course, and we will have some differences in how much it's going to cost from one end to the other and the intricacy of what the impact will be when people actually have access.

Basically, with our concern that people who work flat out for long stretches, surrounded by less lucrative preparation and wind-down periods, are not getting the benefits they deserve, we need to look at whether the cost actually outweighs the benefits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm sorry to cut you off, Mr. Lobb, but that's all the time we have. We're going to have to kick it back over to the other side of the table.

Madame Beaudin, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

First, I would like to let Mr. Lessard clear up something.

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

I'd simply like to respond to two questions that were put to you, Mrs. Hughes. But first, let me put my answers in context.

The unemployment rate in December 2005 was similar to today's rate and the assistant deputy minister of the Department of Human Resources and Social Development was asked at the time to supply us with some figures. These provide an answer to Mr. Lobb's questions.

Regarding the 360-hour threshold, the ADM estimated that this measure would cost $390 million and would affect 90,000 unemployed workers, given that not all unemployed workers would automatically qualify.

As far as the 12 best weeks are concerned— and this answers Mr. Lobb's questions at the same time—that measure would cost $320 million and affect 470,000 unemployed workers. So then, $320 million would affect 470,000 unemployed workers.

There are the answers to your two questions.

Now I'll give the floor back to my colleague so that she can ask her questions.

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

Good day.

Thank you very much for joining us.

As you know, we will be doing a clause-by-clause study of the bill later. Basically, I have a straightforward, general question for you.

If you had to list the main strengths of this bill, what would they be?

Also, if you feel that there are some shortcomings to the bill, or certain provisions that need to be amended, what changes would you propose?

I'd like to heard about the strengths of the bill, and the areas that you think need to be improved before we proceed with our clause-by-clause study.

[Barbara Byers]

I think we've been clear in our documents and also in the discussion that obviously the 360 hours are vitally important. You can design the best EI system in the world, but if people can't access it because the threshold is too high, then you have a really nice document, but it doesn't really do anything for anybody. From our perspective, the 360 hours are what needs to be done.

The two improvements have already been talked about in this room. One of them is in our document, that we want a benefit rate of 60%, and people have already raised the question of benefit duration. We certainly would agree with 50 weeks. We understand what it means to people. So those would be the strengths.

You have to deal with access, you have to deal with benefit level, and you have to deal with benefit duration.

Again, you can deal with a whole bunch of other things, but if people can't get into the system, they can't access the other things either. They can't get a better benefit and they can't get a longer duration if necessary.

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

Do you feel this proposal would encourage people to work?

Many people are arguing that bringing in a 360-hour EI qualification threshold will have the opposite effect on some workers.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it would be an incentive for people to go out and work. Correct?

[Barbara Byers]

I think the reality is that nobody wants to be at home not contributing. I think Carol Hughes already said this earlier. We all want to contribute in whatever way we can.

I don't want to do an age scan in this room, but maybe some people are still living with the old 1960s kind of statement about.... I come from the west, from Saskatchewan, and people used to talk about “the UI ski team”, which was a myth then, but it still lives across the country. People want to work. They want to be able to contribute.

I would like to remind the parliamentarians here, too, that in about 2003—I think it was December 17, and parliamentarians can tell me whether it was 2003 or 2004—there was a parliamentary committee that studied EI very extensively. It came in with 28 recommendations, 20 of which I believe were agreed to by the Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals, and there were a few others that the Conservatives.... In fact, that might even be a high number.

I would just remind you to go back and look at it. It really talk did about this, and guess what's in there? It's 360 hours.

[Andrew Jackson]

Let me add one point, just to remind members that part of the package of changes to the EI in the mid-1990s was to make workers ineligible for EI if they quit their jobs. In the system prior to that, workers who quit could qualify, but there was a penalty imposed.

Basically it means that any worker who is unemployed today and claims EI cannot have quit their job. You can debate all these studies from the late 1980s or early 1990s, which as I said before show very small impacts at worst, but it's not open to workers to game the system in that way at all. To claim a benefit, you have to have a record of employment from an employer showing that you were laid off from the job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to come back for two quick questions, and then we're going to wrap it up before clause-by-clause.

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

I have one question, and then I'll pass it on to my colleague, Mr. Vellacott.

This question is directed to Barbara Byers. It flows from Mr. Lobb's questioning; he talked about the costing.

With respect to using the best 12 weeks and increasing the benefit from 55% to 60%, have you done a costing of what the amount might be? What would the corresponding effect be on premiums, if that were the route you were going to take? If you can answer that straightforwardly, I'd appreciate it.

[Andrew Jackson]

I don't have the number at my fingertips, but it's pretty simple to cost going from 55% to 60%: it would raise the cost of every claim by five divided by fifty-five, or one-eleventh.

To underline the significance of taking the best 12 weeks, the reason I think that's important is that often in a period before a layoff a worker works on a reduced hours basis. It's through no fault of their own that their normal earnings are interrupted.

If you average over 26 weeks, a lot of workers who get laid off, whether it was that the employer was in trouble....

But I don't know what that would cost.

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

I appreciate this, but that wasn't the question. If you can't answer it, that's fine.

[Barbara Byers]

In terms of costing, there's $57 billion that was taken from workers and their employers.

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

That wasn't the question.

[Barbara Byers]

I realize that, but that's the answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to move on to Mr. Vellacott for one question, and then we're going to move to clause-by-clause.

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

I guess I'd respond to my colleague, Carol, here. I live in the province of Saskatchewan, where Barb comes from, or originally was.

I'm surprised that you're not a little more on top of some of what's happening. At least in my office, I get calls on a regular, repeated basis from employers—I am not an employment agency—lamenting the fact that they don't have enough labour. There's a labour shortage in our province. They're talking in terms of the nominee program, getting immigrants in, doing what they can. They just can't get the workers.

How do you respond to those people, the employers in my riding, who are short-circuited, if you will, by this kind of bill and the labour shortage in the booming buzz of the province of Saskatchewan? How do you respond to them in the face of this kind of bill, Carol, when there are not enough workers, not enough employees out there?

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

I don't know. I've never been to Saskatchewan, so I don't know what kind of work is out there.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

What? You've never been to Saskatchewan?