Evidence of meeting #7 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wage.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We are now in a public meeting. I have a list going here. We'll have Mr. Savage and then Mr. Martin.
Mr. Savage.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you.
I agree with many of the points made by Mr. Lessard. New members of this committee perhaps wouldn't be familiar with the level of discussion we had at this committee in the past years. I wasn't on the committee in 2005 when this report was tabled, but I certainly was here in 2006 when we went through all the fallout from the disastrous adjustments that were made. Mr. Lessard is quite right that it was really destructive, not only for students but for community organizations across the country.
I'm inclined to support this motion. I think it makes some sense. I want to make sure I've discussed with the clerk the actual process for what happens here. I have a question for the clerk, and then I have a question for Mr. Lessard.
For the clerk, this does not constitute an issue of confidence. This is a recommendation to the House. I think it's important to understand that.
For Mr. Lessard, your recommendation in the motion is specifically around the increase in minimum wage. You're not suggesting the adoption of the entire report from 2005, correct?
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Yes, the 2005 report because it contained this unanimous recommendation from the committee. I'm referring to that report. On two occasions, the committee questioned the minister about the report. We're asking the government to adjust the budgets based on the minimum wage paid in each province.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I can certainly support this motion under those circumstances. In fact, when the minister was here a couple of weeks ago, I suggested to her that she should double the budget of the summer jobs program--the summer career placement program, as it used to be called. With the economic difficulty that we're in, students are going to find it hard to get work. Also, not-for-profit organizations, youth recreation programs, or groups that deal with persons with disabilities or with seniors can use these students very effectively in the summer, and if we doubled the program for a mere bargain these days of less than $100 million, we could employ an extra 35,000 to 40,000 students and make life a lot easier for community organizations. I support, both in intent and in practice, this motion.
Thank you.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
I have a question, perhaps for you, Mr. Chair, on this. I would also note that the minimum wage in Ontario is going up to $9.50 an hour on April 1. That will create some pressure on the money coming into Ontario and on how we will employ the number of students that was predicted would be employed when the announcement regarding the money for this year was made.
There was also mention in the budget of more money for the summer student employment program. How is that going to play out? Is some of the money going to be taken up in actually reflecting the increase in minimum wage in various jurisdictions across the country? Or is that new money something that could be used to deal with the issue that was raised here this morning?
I certainly support and agree with the motion and what it's intending to do. I think we really do need to challenge the government to be realistic in terms of the changes regarding the increase in the minimum wage and how that will impact the number of students we'll be able to hire, particularly this summer given the very difficult economy we're in and the number of workplaces that have shut down that would typically and traditionally—particularly in northern Ontario—hire students over the summer. There will be less money, and if we do not recognize the increase in minimum wage, there will be fewer students hired this summer as well.
12:25 p.m.
Kevin Kerr Committee Researcher
You're correct, Budget 2009 does provide some additional money for the Canada summer jobs program. I believe it's $10 million per year over a two-year period. As to whether or not that increase is sufficient to compensate for increases in minimum wage rates since 2006, I can't answer that.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
On a point of order then, I would maybe suggest that for Thursday we get a report to this committee laying out how that extra $10 million is proposed to be spent by the government.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
To answer Mr. Martin's question, I would like to recall something that may be of interest to our Conservative friends. Mention was made in the Speech from the Throne of a new youth summer jobs program which will be announced sometime in the coming weeks. We're wondering what that means exactly. If new initiatives are being considered, then perhaps the budget should be increased as well.
What impact will this initiative have on the budget? The minimum wage is going up. As I mentioned earlier, the minimum wage in Canada will increase to $8.58 in May 2009. That's up from $7.30 in 2006. We're looking at a $1.28 increase in the minimum wage. In terms of how the current budget is impacted, this initiative translates into an increase of $7.1 million, or 6.6%. Still to answer your...
Mr. Chair, perhaps they are not interested, but I would at least appreciate a little respect. Speaking out loud when someone is commenting is very disruptive.
On a practical level, could the government take this kind of initiative this year? If we look at what was done in 2007 when the government restored funding that had been cut, the answer is yes. It advised its regional offices right away in April and they were able to make the necessary adjustments. They could do the same thing this time around by April. All they would need to do this month is accept our recommendation, provided of course that it is adopted by the majority of members.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have some concerns about this motion from a couple of perspectives. If it's saying the budget should be amended to allow for what this motion calls for, then it would ask for an increase of funds and that would eventually become a confidence matter. If it's not asking for additional funds to cover the notion behind this motion, then it's taking away funds from others who might have received them, in the sense that you would be reducing the pool of recipients.
The recommendation states that:
Additional wage subsidies would be paid on the condition that sponsors share in the cost (e.g., for every $1 paid in excess of the minimum wage rate in each province/territory, the federal contribution would be 50% in the case of not-for-profit....
etc., and 25% for private.
So it's not necessarily an issue about minimum wage in that recommendation. It's saying that if the sponsor pays more, we top it up to a certain amount. If you have a fixed pool of resources and you top up and match the amounts proposed in this resolution, you're going to narrow the pool of recipients. I ask this committee if that's what we want to do at this time. Do we want fewer people receiving more, or do we want more people receiving less but have more people out there working?
It would seem, based on what Mr. Martin said and given the state of the economy, you would want to have more people working than not, more students working than not. The budget itself, of course, has added $20 billion over two years, as has been mentioned, and you want that to be going out to as many out there as you can.
This motion has some problems for me, because all it's going to do is either increase the budget amount, which is a confidence measure, and I'm sure Monsieur Lessard and his party will not support it. In fact, they won't support the additional $20 billion because they voted against it, as did Mr. Martin's party. But that being said, it would be a confidence matter.
If you're saying it doesn't affect the amount, then it's going to affect the number of students receiving it, and that's a pretty big step for this group to take. Instead of having 1,000 students, we will narrow it down to 800, because we want to give the effect of this formula of a dollar for a dollar, or a dollar for fifty cents, or twenty-five cents for a dollar. I'm saying that before we go down that path we should think about it.
I don't like the motion as it sits. If it were to say you want the government to take some things into account in arriving, through the formula, at where the $2 billion goes, that would be one thing, but to say we want more for less, a smaller number of people, I would have to oppose it.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON
This will be brief.
I said earlier the minimum wage was going to $9.50. That was for adults. In Ontario, as of March 31, it's going to $8.90 for students, so there's a difference. I just wanted to make sure that was clear on the record.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
When the officials were here I asked them about this extra $10 million a year under the Canada summer jobs program, and they confirmed it was going to happen. My concern was that it was going to be re-profiled in the way that CCL's funding had been re-profiled, which in effect meant cut out. I asked if it was going to be in every riding equally, and they said they hadn't figured that out yet. I hope they do figure that out.
The summer jobs program has been changed a couple of times recently. One was when it reflected the new census of 2001. Another time, I think it was 2004, the loaded-up cost of students--in other words, benefits on top of wages--had to be factored into the summer jobs program, in effect reducing the number of students who might apply. That was a problem.
I don't see that this motion is in any.... This is a recommendation. This is basically a recommendation to the government, saying it should take this seriously. I have an e-mail from Irwin Cotler's constituency office indicating that the Province of Quebec stands to significantly increase its minimum wage.
Our budget [for summer jobs] has not moved in several years yet we face an increase in the minimum wage....
I raise this in the hope that the budget for this riding, as for all Quebec ridings similarly affected, might be adjusted to allow us to maintain the level of programming offered by worthy groups.
I think there's nothing wrong with this motion. This motion simply says we should take into account the fact that costs have changed. It's not imposing this on the government; it's recommending reasonableness. That may seem like a lofty goal these days, but it's only recommending reasonableness in the carrying out of this program. I think it's entirely worthy of support.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
I have Mr. Lessard, and then we'll go back to Mr. Komarnicki.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd also like to take this opportunity to answer the question raised by our colleague, Mr. Savage.
Eligibility criteria are not affected in the least by my motion. For example, the minimum wage is higher in Quebec and Ontario. In terms of the budgets allocated to the regions, this creates favourable conditions for regions that pay a lower minimum wage in that they receive more, because funding is based on the national minimum wage, which is set at $8.58. In some provinces the minimum wage is set at $9 or higher. Therefore, the funding breakdown will not be based on the minimum wage paid in each provinces according to current rules. I'm not sure if that answers Mr. Savage's question.
Regarding Mr. Komarnicki's comment, the Conservatives' arguments do not hold water. They cannot put forward just any old argument. If Mr. Komarnicki's argument was rational, then the Conservatives would have applied it in the budget. For instance, the budget announces $2 billion in spending for infrastructures as a job creation initiative. At no time did the government say that municipal infrastructures should be targeted for cuts, or that jobs in the mining, forestry and other sectors should be eliminated. That's not how it works.
This budget is truly unique. It can be improved, just as the government acted to improve the budget in April 2007 when it suddenly announced, without prior consultation, an additional $10 million in funding to correct its mistake.
We are talking about an additional $7 million, and our argument is entirely rational and sound under the circumstances, namely the fact that a new minimum wage rate is set to take effect. Organizations and businesses that hire students find themselves in a position where they cannot compete from a wage standpoint. Since they are required to pay minimum wage, they have to make up the difference.