Human Resources Committee on March 17th, 2010

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

You didn't vote in favour of it in the budget.

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

You know, when something good is put into a pile of garbage, you don't accept the garbage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

With that, we'll end that round of questioning.

Monsieur Lessard, thank you very much for being here.

At this point, we will ask you to leave the witness area. We will ask the other witnesses to come forward, and we'll continue with testimony and presentations.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand I will have 15 minutes to present the things I was asked to put in writing. I would like to make a presentation of those things to complete my hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Right. We'll have more time to look at your bill, certainly.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We're ready to begin.

Welcome to the witnesses who are here with us this afternoon. We apologize for the rush, but we have votes coming up. We're just happy that you can be here and we can hear from you.

Pardon my French;

I am a beginner in French.

I will try to read your names accurately.

We have with us today, from the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, Pierre Céré and Danie Harve; and from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, François Lamoureux.

What I would suggest is that each of you keep your opening remarks to seven minutes. That way we'll have a little more time for questions.

We will begin with Monsieur Céré, s'il vous plaît.

[Pierre Céré, Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses]

Madam Chair, if I understand correctly, we have seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Oui, you have seven minutes.

[Pierre Céré]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Mr. Lessard, sponsor of the bill, I would like to thank you on behalf of our organization, the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses for this invitation to share our views on Bill C-308.

Indeed, there are two representatives from the Conseil national des chômeurs. Danie Harvey is a member of the CNC's executive and is involved with the Mouvement Action Chômage, or MAC, which is based in Charlevoix. Sitting with the public is Yvan Boulay, who is with the MAC in Saint-Hyacinthe, in the Montérégie, France Turcotte of the Comité chômage du Haut-Richelieu, and Ian Forand of the Comité chômage de Montréal, or CCM. This is not our first time before the committee to discuss employment insurance. To be blunt, we are absolutely in favour of this bill.

However, there is one little detail. It would be better to amend section 14 to abolish the notion of “rate calculation period”, and to define, as pilot project number 11 did, the rate of benefits on the basis of the 12 highest weeks of earnings in the reference period. As I said, Madam Chair, this is merely a detail.

More importantly, however, and what leads us to support this bill, is the implementation of a single eligibility criterion, which will be established at 360 hours. Improving the rate of benefits and extending the benefit period are necessary improvements to the employment insurance program.

However, Madam Chair, I do not have a crystal ball, even though I would sometimes like to have one. I know, and everyone knows, that this bill will die on the order paper. It will die, as other opposition bills which had the same purpose, namely to improve the employment insurance program, have also died.

This bill will not pass third reading because the government will not authorize royal assent. This is what awaits this bill after its review by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Yet on the issue of EI eligibility, a vast social consensus has been established.

I would like to remind you, Madam Chair, of what happened last year. This did not happen 30 years ago. It was in August 2009. Provincial premiers met in Regina to discuss the employment insurance program. Ten provincial premiers—not six or seven, but ten—agreed to call upon the federal government to solve the issue of EI eligibility. A large number of social movements, unions, the Church, various economists, political observers and institutions of all sorts joined their voices to those of the premiers.

At least one year ago, in the spring of 2009, we met with all of the municipal councils in Quebec, including large-, medium- and small-sized towns and localities. We all met with them in every region. We asked them to tell us what their position was on the employment insurance program. A majority of these councils debated the issue, adopted motions and signed statements calling upon the federal government to settle the issue of eligibility, rate of benefits and the benefit period.

I have here the original signatures and the original documents related to those motions. I also have a letter signed by the Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity of Quebec who supports these demands. If I have a moment during the question and answer round, I can tell you what it says.

This majority of municipal councils also represents a majority of the population. In any case, I am talking about Quebec. Here, in the House of Commons, there is also a parliamentary majority. This majority is confronted with the stubborn refusal of the minority government. For us, this represents the thwarting of democracy.

This same thwarting of democracy by the minority government is reflected in its refusal to abide by a Supreme Court decision that it repatriate Omar Khadr, who was a child soldier, from Guantanamo.

It's the same kind of thwarting of democracy which we are witnessing with this minority government, which is trying to slowly dismantle the firearms registry, despite the fact that in our society, at least in Quebec, there is a consensus around the matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes, Mr. Lobb.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One a point of order, I think the guest is brought before us today to discuss the bill, not the long gun registry or any of these other topics. I think it would be important for the committee to hear only about the bill in front of us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. There is no rule to that effect. Witnesses who appear before the committee can talk about what they want. It's their presentation, and the government should not try to prevent a witness from giving his presentation. This witness is using examples. We are not going to start splitting hairs in two, three or four. In my view, the point of order which my Conservative colleague is trying to make is certainly inappropriate. The witness should be able to make his presentation anyway he wishes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We have very little time; I can rule.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Indeed, it is ironic that the witness is talking about thwarting democracy. In fact, we have just had a living example of that. The witnesses can tell us what they want to say in the time which is given to them. We can raise points of order and raise issues of relevance amongst ourselves on the committee, but not with regard to witnesses. I think you will agree with me on that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

The witness can continue. He has one minute and 23 seconds left.

[Pierre Céré]

Madam Chair, are you telling me that I have 1 minute and 23 seconds left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes.

[Pierre Céré]

The time which has just been used up for this exchange has been deducted from my seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Sir, we stopped the time when we began the points of order.

[Pierre Céré]

We were talking about thwarting democracy. That is exactly what happens when a minority government breaks the Canadian social contract. For example, six administrators are appointed to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, which was created in 2008. In order to respect the Canadian social contract, there should have been two workers' representatives, but that did not happen. All of the appointments to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board were partisan, and that is exactly what is happening everywhere else.

Madam Chair, I am seriously and deeply ashamed of being represented by a government which acts against the best interests of society.

Let's come back to employment insurance—what is it that employment insurance is supposed to do, gentlemen? I saw the best example of this last year when I found myself facing the workers of Kruger. You all have the same card in your pockets, a card which looks like the health insurance card. In Quebec, it is called the “sun card”, but I don't like it very much because I don't like my picture. I am a little vain, but that doesn't matter. Further, I don't like illness, hospitals, doctors, nor do I like waiting rooms in clinics. I would not wish illness on anyone, well, almost anyone.

However, I am proud that our society, in Canada and Quebec, offers universal health care services that are accessible to everyone. In our opinion, the employment insurance program should be the same. What is the role of an employment insurance plan? It is to help people who have lost their job by providing them with a form of economic security.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

[Pierre Céré]

I only want to add one more sentence. It is up to a responsible government to ensure that the employment insurance program does precisely that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Merci beaucoup.

We will now hear from Monsieur Lamoureux.