Human Resources Committee on April 14th, 2010

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That means I have less time, so I'll be shorter with my questions, and I hope the answers are too. I have a question for both Minister Finley and Minister Raitt.

Minister Finley, I will start with you. With respect to the poverty study we're doing, I don't think it should surprise you that a major part of it is the issue of child care. To my question to you in the House, you responded that the reason you were not increasing the amount is that you're giving families choices, out of $250 million, when, under the former Liberal program that was cancelled, there was $254 million for Ontario alone in that allocation.

One of the mothers who came to see me about a week ago in my riding has lost her job and her child care. She couldn't get child care. She couldn't get another job because she had nowhere to put her children. She is now on welfare. That is not a choice, Minister. Can you tell me if you intend some time soon to increase the amount of money for child care spaces?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

When we developed the new program, the universal child care plan and the universal child care benefit, it was a two-part approach. Rather than invest all of the money in child care spaces our belief was--and this has been supported by Canadians across the country--that parents should have the choice of whether to put their children into child care or to stay at home with them. That's the funding we've provided. We have provided $250 million to the provinces to help them create the spaces--

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

Minister, I understand that argument. I apologize, but I've heard that argument before. For families where parents can afford to stay at home, yes, this is extra money and it's great, but we're pitting those stay-at-home parents with parents who have to work, and that's not fair, because you know full well that the $1,200 does nothing for the parent who has to go to work. Fifty dollars a month or a hundred dollars a month does not give them a choice in spaces. It gives them absolutely no opportunity to find child care.

But I'm just going to move on because I think this issue is really hot and you and I are going to have a long discussion about it some other time in this committee.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

But could I just respond? In fact, the provinces have announced over 84,000 spaces that they're creating--

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

That they're creating, but not--

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Because that is their jurisdiction and we respect their jurisdiction.

Also, I would beg to differ, in that I met several families, even in my riding, who have many children, two or three under the age of six, and they've thanked me. They say the universal child care benefit has made the difference for them. One of them can now stay home with the child and that was their goal.

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

I'm sorry... Maybe it does help some families, Minister, but you know it's not a solution.

I want to move to MinisterRaitt.

Minister Raitt, congratulations on your appointment.

I was looking at employment equity, which is part of the area that you're responsible for. There's supposed to be a report done every five years, a parliamentary report that is to go to committee. It has been eight years since the last parliamentary review.

Has there been an assessment on this that the department has received? If so, what does it say? And when do you intend to send it for parliamentary review, since it's three years overdue as it is?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you very much for the congratulations. I'm very much enjoying the portfolio and I'm enjoying the discussions that I've had, not only with you, Ms. Minna, but with the other critics as well.

With respect to the Employment Equity Act review, you asked about the current status. A motion was adopted on April 22, 2009, referring the review of the Employment Equity Act to the House standing committee on human resources. That would be this committee. Because the committee didn't deal with the motion prior to prorogation in January, a new referral motion will be required.

As you indicated, the Employment Equity Act contains a requirement for review every five years by a committee of the House of Commons. The assessment of advances in employment equity in the federal jurisdiction, presented each year in my annual report to Parliament, has demonstrated, however, that there's been progress in all four of the designated groups that I mentioned in my speech.

Since 1987 representation of aboriginal peoples has more than doubled and particular improvements are seen in the representation in crafts and trade supervisory occupations. Since 1987 representations of visible minorities in the federal jurisdiction has tripled and their representation has increased in all occupational groups since 2001.

As has been noted in the press, actually, in the last two days, before the creation of the Employment Equity Act, women accounted for only 5% of executive jobs in the public service. Now they're at 43% of executive positions.

I think these are wonderful accomplishments.

Just to finish, persons with disabilities, they're represented in private sector senior management and supervisory positions. The banking sector in particular has made some striking gains, including for persons with disabilities.

But in the interim, to answer the question on the review, the next annual report, to be tabled in Parliament in June, will report on progress for 2008.

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

When will it be sent to committee? When will it be referred to committee?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Can you say that again?

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

When will it be referred to committee for parliamentary review?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

A new referral motion will be required, as I indicated.

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

When will that happen?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I'll defer to the official on this.

[Hélène Gosselin, Deputy Minister of Labour, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

I think the government is considering the timing at this point, along with the other priorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

Now we will go to Mr. Vellacott, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First, right off the top, I want to ask Minister Raitt about something. We saw in the budget that the wage earner protection program has been expanded. I think that's a good thing. Can you share with us the importance of that, particularly as it is part of the economic action plan?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you very much.

When I first took over the portfolio in January, one of the opportunities I had was to talk to people associated both with the labour side and with the employment side. There was one thing that everybody had in common. From the CAW, from the Canadian Labour Congress, everybody agreed that the program itself was a huge help to workers and that it came at a very timely point in Canada's economy.

In essence, as I indicated, this program is designed to compensate Canadian workers for wages that are owing to them when their employer unfortunately goes bankrupt or goes into receivership. Just to give you some statistics about it--because I think it helps to give some context around it--since 2008 when it was created, almost 20,000 Canadian workers have received about $40 million in payments for wages owing in the six-month period up to the bankruptcy or receivership.

Prior to this program being put in place, interestingly, workers were rarely reimbursed for wages that were owed to them by bankrupt employers. In fact, studies have shown that payment was received in fewer than 25% of the case. The statistics demonstrate that the average worker received only 13¢ on the dollar, and often these moneys were received after several years of fighting with the employer for compensation. So the program itself has been put in place in a very timely way and has been very beneficial.

We also expanded the program to allow workers to claim both severance and termination pay, in addition to the wages and the vacation pay, up to the equivalency of four weeks for unemployment insurance. The economic action plan invested another $25 million in the program for this fiscal year and that's in addition to the $31 million set aside annually for WEPP payments to support the enhanced program.

It's increased the applicability of the program, obviously, to a larger number of claimants and the average payments increased as workers became eligible for the program. The average WEPP payment in 2009-10 was $2,210, compared to $1,300 in the previous year, but that remains below the current cap of $3,323.

In the end, it's a great example of the good work we're doing to help workers through the economic period we've just endured. Quite frankly, nobody wants to think about their company going bankrupt and workers being left on the street, and we filled the gap that was created. We've helped an awful lot of people. It's been a great program in that sense.

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

Thank you.

How much time do I have? Two more minutes?

I'll shift the focus to Minister Finley for the moment. I think it's pretty much agreed...or at least most people will make the statement that children are our most important resource as we look to the future. How we develop them, how we work with them, and how we take care of our children are pretty important.

You've already made some comments with respect to that, but our government doesn't believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to the diversity of Canadian families. That's why there's choice in child care in the manner in which we do it.

I certainly fully support putting money in the pockets of parents who make their own choices with respect to child care. My understanding is that, due to our actions, the typical Canadian family has about $3,000 more in their pockets than they did under the Liberals, and that's a very good thing.

This is the largest investment by the federal government in Canadian history. At least, that's my understanding. Is it correct that this would be the largest kind of investment of that nature?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Absolutely. Right now, each year we're investing approximately $13 billion in children: child care, early learning, and child benefits. That would include the tax credit, the child benefit, the universal child care benefit, and early learning investments. There's a wide range of programs--even in helping the provinces fund the child care, the day care centres, for which they have responsibility. This is an unprecedented investment in our young people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Monsieur Desnoyers, please.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My questions are for Ms. Raitt. Somewhat like my colleague, I will read them to you all at once. In five minutes, you may not have time to answer all the questions and I would like to have your answers in writing.

First, we're talking about the Wage Earner Protection Program and about $40 million that were given to workers. As you know, this crisis was dramatic for most workers, but also for tens of thousands of retirees. I could name businesses and prepare list after list. A number of them are claiming additional protection under this act. They have made requests to the government to amend the act and to ensure that pension plans are protected in one form or another.

Does the minister intend to introduce amendments to the act to protect pensioners? Currently we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that are lost in the Canadian economy, whereas you say it gave active workers only $36 million.

With regard to the act, you talked about modernizing federal standards concerning which consultations were held.

First of all, I would like to know how much time those consultations took. How much did those consultations cost? Who was consulted? I checked with a number of bodies and several told me they had not been consulted. That's why I wonder who was consulted. Lastly, was a consultation document used by your group when you conducted those consultations?

In addition, would the Minister of Labour be in favour of a precautionary cessation of work program, particularly for pregnant women with high-risk pregnancies?

For more than 25 years, Canada Post workers have been asking that an error be corrected under the former Pay Equity Act. Does the minister intend to solve this problem and how?

Lastly, I'll read you my final question. It's the last but not the least. In your strategic review of the Labour Program, you mentioned that decisions would be implemented this year, in 2010-2011. I would like to know which decisions you are going to make and what kind of additional spending will result from the implementation of those decisions.

I don't know how much time you have left to answer. However, as I mentioned, I would like to have answers in writing. I think that's important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

The ministers have just over one minute.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'll see what I can do, sir.

In terms of pension protection, as you know, the government understands the value of secure and sustainable pensions. The pension reform issue itself, though, falls under the mandate of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, so it's not appropriate for me to talk about what packages are being considered. The package that Minister Flaherty is--

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Minister, I don't agree with you that this is not under your responsibility.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is your responsibility, and we know that it is in situations of bankruptcy that these workers lost their pension plans. We're talking about as much as 85% of their value.

I think this act might be subject to improvement.