I am, thank you.
It's a pleasure to be here today. Thank you for the invitation.
My name is Kevin Lee. I'm the chief executive officer of the Canadian Home Builders' Association. Here with me today, as the chair has pointed out, is our national president, Bard Golightly. Bard is chief operating officer for the Christenson Group in Edmonton, Alberta.
I'd like to start off by saying we're pleased to see the federal government working constructively with the provinces in aligning labour market programming with market demand. As you may know, CHBA has supported the introduction of the employer-directed Canada job grant, and we are pleased to see special consideration being assured for small employers, which was something CHBA was calling for, with many of our members falling into this category.
At the outset, I should say that the association has long-standing policy positions regarding employment insurance that relate to LMDA funding, training, and support programs. We believe that EI premiums should be reduced or maintained at levels appropriate to sustain the program, and the funds in the EI account should be dedicated to the purposes intended. The industry believes the design of the EI program should be dictated by policy and must be the outcome of evidence-based analysis. So we're pleased to see the work going on here to further that exercise.
Given the association's goal of helping connect our members with labour market programming as part of our human resources strategy, the association has carried out research on LMDA funding, training, and support programs in the past. Our goal was, and is, to support our provincial associations in providing input on labour market programs to provincial governments so that such programs can best serve industry and worker needs. As well, many of our members have limited human resources capacity in their own shops, being small and medium-sized firms, and rely upon information provided by the association to help them understand changes in programs and changes in regulations.
What we found in the past was that it could be very challenging to determine what specific LMDA-funded programs are available in each province, and how our members in local provincial associations could best engage with these programs. There are, of course, some exceptions and very positive examples, but from a national perspective it has been a challenge to gain a good understanding of all of the various LMDA-funded programs available in each province and the results of those programs.
So for these reasons, CHBA has supported the expansion of reporting requirements for LMDA-funded programming. We're pleased to see things headed in this direction. Additional information on specific programs at the provincial level would allow industry at large to better engage in program development and participation at the provincial level on a collective basis.
I want to be clear, though, that we are not suggesting more reporting just for the sake of reporting. That's not a wise investment of EI ratepayer dollars or tax dollars. What we are asking for is that we see the information on the specific programs being delivered by the provinces with the LMDA funding, and that we see the results and the data. Further, CHBA can see great value in expanding the stated objectives and accountability framework now being applied to the revised labour market agreements and moving those on to labour market development agreements.
We'd be pleased to provide the results of our research carried out on publicly available information on the LMDA-funded programs at the provincial level, although I should note that our research predates the recently published information in the “EI Monitoring and Assessment Report 2012/13” on medium-term impacts of employment benefits and support measures on EI claimants. We are certainly interested in learning how these research results that have come out more recently will be considered as part of the LMDA transformation process.
I should also add that although it hasn't been an issue yet with LMDA funding programs, we must emphasize the importance of recognizing all apprenticeable trades under any federally supported programs. As I emphasized in our last appearance before this committee, and I'm hoping we don't have a vote called today—that would be nice—the residential construction industry comprises Red Seal trades but also many other apprenticeable, provincially designated non-Red Seal trades. These other trades are equally deserving of federal support, and programs that limit funding to only the Red Seal trades are not in line with the government's current directions in its attempt to connect Canadians with jobs.
I'd also add that it has been suggested by some that this would cause administrative complications, but our position is that it would in fact not do so. All apprenticeable trades are designated by the provinces, and information on each trade is very readily available. The system is therefore already in place to easily and more fairly accommodate this additional collection of trades, particularly in the residential construction industry.
With that, I'd like to pass the mike over to our president, Bard Golightly, who will close with his comments and some recommendations.