HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 20, 2001

• 1518

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we continue our consideration of Bill C-2, the Employment Insurance Act.

Before I welcome our witnesses, I would like to remind you about the amendments. I hope that all members who have amendments will get them to the clerk as soon as humanly possible.

I would also point out to you, colleagues, that it is my understanding—and this is important for the witnesses also—that there may well be a vote at 5:30. If that is the case, then for the witnesses, it means that we will effectively be finished. By the time we would get back here, it would likely be well after six o'clock, so if we possibly can, we should aim to finish by 5:30. I apologize for that, and if there isn't a vote, we will continue until six o'clock, but I've been informed that there may well be a vote.

I would like to inform the witnesses that these hearings are televised. Because the House of Commons is sitting, the televised proceedings of the House of Commons go out now. These hearings will be broadcast at another time, perhaps in the evening, perhaps at the weekends. That's how it's being done, but they are televised.

I know you've been told that initially you have about five minutes for presentation, and I would be most grateful if you would keep to the five minutes. Any written material that you provide will be included in the record of the committee. We keep to the five minutes because we have seen a lot of witnesses from all over the country and we would like to hear what you have to say, to see what you have written, and then to have the members of all parties engage in a dialogue with you. So that's what we're trying to do.

• 1520

You should know that the members' time is also confined. It's not a matter of us just confining the time of the witnesses.

I'll introduce the groups who are represented and then I would suggest, if it's okay with you, that we proceed in the order in which you're entered here on the agenda. Is that okay?

Colleagues, our witnesses today are the

[Translation]

Coalition Gaspésie/Les Iles Matapédia, Matane; l'Exclus de l'été 2000; L.A.S.T.U.S.E. du Saguenay; and the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (réseau québécois); and le Regroupement des sans-emploi de l'Abitibi-Timiscamingue.

Welcome to the Committee.

[English]

I would ask the representatives of the Coalition Gaspésie/Les Iles, Matapédia, Matane to begin. Please introduce yourselves and continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau (Coordinator, Movement Action-Chômage, Coalition Gaspésie/Les Îles, Matapédia, Matane): Gaétan Cousineau, spokesman for the Coalition. I would like to introduce Ms. Aline Smith, who has been delegated by the 48 members of our Coalition to appear before you today.

Shall I begin now?

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Mr. Chairman, over the last two weeks, we have heard a number of groups state and repeat that Bill C-2 is absolutely unacceptable. From what I have heard during that time, the groups had more to say about what was not in the bill and what would be acceptable than what is already in the bill.

I would like to remind the Committee of the promise made by Ms. Jane Stewart, in December 1999, when she commissioned a broad study of the Gaspé—Les Îles region in order to have a true picture of areas of high unemployment and areas where there was seasonal work. Moreover, in April, she herself came to see what was happening in the Gaspé region, and promised sweeping changes to the system in order to help these regions.

Unfortunately, the elections probably interrupted the Minister's train of thought, because what was introduced is the old Bill C-44, which, as everyone knows, died on the Order Paper. Then, because of all of the election promises that were made, the unemployed became somewhat calmer, but now, we find ourselves with Bill C-2. The Coalition Gaspésie/Les Îles and its members all agree that the bill must be rejected out of hand. All of the members of this Committee should come together to reject the bill and suggest that the government undertake an in-depth study of the employment insurance plan.

Successive cuts have caused the economic and social climate of many regions to deteriorate since 1990. Even the Chief Actuary states in his year 2000 report that the problem does not lie with the unemployed. The problem is the result of successive amendments to the employment insurance plan since 1990. Mr. Chrétien has also reminded us that the amendments made in 1996 were not a good idea. Also, in my brief, we have documents showing that even in 1996, this government was aware of the negative effects of the 1996 legislation for all regions in Canada.

Therefore, we are not stupid. We know full well that the Liberal government does not intend to amend the employment insurance plan. I am not saying that the government does not intend to amend C-2, but a few small changes to improve Bill C-2 will not go over that easily with us.

• 1525

The plan has been deteriorating since 1990. People have become poorer. The eligibility requirements are three times more stringent. The fund has grown by astronomical proportions. For Gaspé and Les Îles, this represents $390 million that has been taken from the pockets of those whose jobs are seasonal and unsteady. In view of the enormous surplus in the fund, it is high time that the government take a close look at the poor decisions that have been since 1994 and open the door to eligibility in the plan.

This plan is based on exclusion. More and more employment insurance beneficiaries must resort to income supplements through income security. We are really in a very sorry state.

I might point out that there will be a parallel drawn between this program and other income replacement insurance schemes. The study to be presented later has our full support.

If, as the Minister says, this is such a good bill, then why is there nothing in it to put an end to discrimination against various workers? Some workers need 900 hours. There are female workers who require 600 hours to be eligible for family benefits. Other workers must have 700 hours for sick benefits. And others require between 420 and 700 hours. It is absolutely unthinkable that we could let this type of discrimination continue in a plan where everyone pays the same amount. It isn't a question of choosing to buy insurance worth $10,000 or $20,000, according to one's financial means. This is a type of group insurance, and everyone is at the same level.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would simply like to say that this bill is unacceptable to the unemployed in the Gaspé and Les Îles region. There should be an immediate, in-depth study of this bill. We will not accept the improvements included in Bill C-2, because there is really nothing in this bill.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Gaétan.

[English]

We now proceed to the Exclus de l'été 2000.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Lebrun (Spokesman, Regroupement des exclus de l'été 2000): My name is Yvan Lebrun and with me is Rodrigue Vaillancourt. We represent Les Exclus de l'an 2000. These are seasonal workers in the maple-growing industry.

I apologize because we aren't used to appearing before a committee. We feel more comfortable in the woods.

Our aim is to improve the situation of seasonal workers and draw attention to the injustice caused by Ms. Jane Stewart, Minister for Human Resources Development, who, in wanting to correct the unfairness to workers in eastern Quebec, used transitional measures to change the implementation rules, which resulted in new boundaries. This decision means that workers whose applications were filed between July 9th and September 17th 2000 cannot benefit from the more flexible eligibility requirements and the extra weeks of benefits. A number of these people have found themselves unemployed and were unable to draw EI benefits because their application was filed after the 17th.

I can tell you about my own case. There are two of us who work for the same maple-growing business. We had each worked for the same length of time, that is, 15 weeks; we had the same number of hours; we travelled together. Therefore, our situation was identical. I applied for employment insurance benefits two weeks before him because I was owed some time from the previous year. I had 15 weeks of unemployment. Since I applied two weeks earlier, I was given 23 weeks of EI.

• 1530

My divisor was set before the 17th while that of my friend, here, was determined after September 17th. For the same number of weeks and the same hours, he was entitled to 32 weeks of employment insurance benefits. My benefits ran out in January, but he still has some left. There is nothing left for me.

With all of that, what do seasonal workers have to live on? If nothing changes, we will find ourselves in a black hole like the one in which I found myself last fall. Within three years the government wants to implement what was set in place last fall, and within three years, we will all be lagging far behind.

This year alone, I have earned $5,000 less in EI benefits than my colleague. I wonder if very many people can survive with $5,000 less when they can find only seasonal employment. The sap runs only in the spring. And spring is the only time that we can plant. So there is a big black hole looming ever closer. We workers earn only $200 to $300 a week; we can't survive on that. It's impossible.

I don't know whether you understand exactly what I mean. I don't know if I'm being clear. In any case, when we get to questions, it might be easier to answer your questions than to make a presentation.

The system will have to change, but for the better. And as for the changes, we should not wait three years to implement them—workers will all find themselves in the same position. After all, it is workers who enable Parliament to exist. If you have a reason for being here, we have a reason for being in the forest. You have work, but if we don't get employment insurance, we get nothing, and Parliament in Ottawa has no reason to exist.

The Chair: Thank you. Thank you, Yvan and Rodrigue.

[English]

And I thank you, Yvan, for your presentation and for the written version.

[Translation]

We have only a minute left. Rodrigue.

Mr. Rodrigue Vaillancourt (Spokesperson, Regroupement des exclus de l'été 2000): We wanted the transition measures to be abolished and retroactive to July 9. We want seasonal workers to be in a specific category. Eligibility should be determined by the minimum number of hours required under the Act, 420 hours, and not set by the unemployment rate. Benefit duration should cover the entire unemployment period. We want the rule which excludes short weeks to be maintained. Lastly, we want the divisor to be the real number of weeks worked.

Those are our demands. Thank you very much.

The Chair: We will now hear from the representative of LASTUSE du Saguenay.

Ms. Judith Fugère (Coordinator, LASTUSE du Saguenay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, our organization is called LASTUSE du Saguenay. It is a community organization which defends the rights of unemployed people in Saguenay. We have been in existence for 20 years. We are submitting this brief in the hope that the voices of the unemployed in regions elsewhere in Canada will be heard.

In the Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean region, unemployment is very high. In the past several years, there have been increasingly significant annual layoffs by regional companies. Jobs are precarious. In addition, young people are leaving the region, and this is a matter for concern. We consider it very important to attend these hearings and present our brief, in order to help committee members understand our views on the amendments in Bill C-2.

• 1535

Since we have little time, I will simply speak on a few salient points from the brief.

On the whole, we consider that the amendments in Bill C-2 are only minor corrective measures. We also note that substantively, Bill C-2 is part of the process to dismantle the system, which began in 1989 with a series of amendments, and reached its peak with the Axworthy reforms in 1996.

We would like to go over a number of issues which we consider fundamental and which are in no way affected by Bill C-2: the $38 billion being diverted from the employment insurance fund. We find this all the more unacceptable because the government ceased to contribute to the employment insurance fund in 1990. This is a reprehensible process that takes away the money of workers and employers, who have paid the premiums.

Another issue that Bill C-2 does not touch on is the principle serving to determine maximum insurable earnings. For example, the government has announced that it wants to base maximum insurable earnings on the average industrial wage. In addition, it proposes freezing the maximum at its current level of $39,000 until the average industrial wage, which now stands at $32,413.42, reaches that level. We believe that this change will once again penalize workers who, for 10 years, will not see their benefits indexed to cost of living increases. The change will also penalize people receiving special benefits.

On the whole, we find that Bill C-2 makes some minor corrections, and also adds some new measures that will hurt contributors to this collective insurance system even more.

In addition, there is the whole question of lower contributions. The regrettable thing about all this is that, since the reform implemented by the Liberal government a few years ago, there have been structural changes to the labour market. This whole dismantling was done on the orders of the OECD, at the expense of workers. As a result, there is currently—and there will be in future years—profound structural upheaval in the labour market, leading to unstable employment and impoverishment. There is a collective insurance system paid for by the contributors, who are the workers and the employers, and who are penalized by this system. Meanwhile, the employment insurance fund is making colossal profits. We find that quite simply repugnant.

We endorse the demands presented by the MASSE, the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi. These demands are as follows: a single universal eligibility criterion of 350 hours; a minimum of 35 weeks of benefits; a benefit rate that is increased to 60% of gross wages from 50%, which is what Bill C-2 proposes; and the reinvestment of the 38 billion dollars in the employment insurance system.

To conclude, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, we would like to remind you that you were elected to represent the people and to look after its collective well-being. Within the population, there are more and more individuals who are left out of the labour market because of the fundamental structural changes that are now taking place. I would remind you that we work with groups and people at the grassroots level. We deal with these people on a daily basis. Every day, we are able to observe the harm that poverty causes in their lives.

• 1540

We would also like to remind you that this bill is limited in scope and does not constitute an equitable foundation for the people who pay into the system. Therefore, it is important to review this system. Furthermore, ladies and gentlemen, you have been legitimately elected by the people to look after its collective well-being, and we sincerely hope that you will give serious attention to the demands that we are presenting to you on behalf of the people that we represent. Thank you.

The Chair: Judith, thank you very much.

[English]

I thank you for your presentation now. And thank you for the details you've provided in the written report.

We now procced to Le Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, (réseau québécois).

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Céré (Spokesman, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (Quebec network)): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I represent the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, a network of 20 organizations of unemployed persons throughout Quebec. I am joined today by Georges Campeau, a specialist who is a law professor and has studied the employment insurance program for many years.

I would like for us to have a five minutes of speaking time each, since our organization represents 20 groups across Quebec, and a number of these groups are being represented by us today. Is that possible?

[English]

The Chair: I regret that I would have to say no. To give you an example, this morning we had a group that was representing 50 groups. It was a coalition. But I assure you, when we get to the questions and the answers you'll both have an opportunity. I will make sure you get an opportunity to make your points there.

I do apologize for that, but we have received more than 60 witnesses and it really is very difficult. I mean, five minutes more for each of 60, as you can see, is five hours. But I do apologize.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Céré: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to cause trouble, but there are a number of our local groups from different corners of Quebec, who agreed that we would represent them and that there would be two of us. The members of Parliament who represent the Abitibi and Témiscamingue regions told us earlier that each of us would have five minutes of speaking time.

We based our presentations on this amount of time, especially since our briefs are as concise as possible. Five minutes for both would not give us the time to say much; it is not enough. We have a democratic right to express ourselves, if only for five minutes each, and then to answer any questions there may be. We are here representing 20 groups of unemployed people, from throughout the province of Quebec, and I think that 10 minutes would be fitting.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, then I do apologize. We have your written presentation. We have been having hearings now for many, many hours, from more than 60 groups from across Canada. I do apologize to you, but we can't make changes of that type. I've already had to turn down other similar requests. And I do regret it.

Again, I would say to you that in the question and answer session, you will have plenty of opportunity to make....

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Céré: Excuse me, but I have just been told—from Abitibi—that you can take it or leave it.

[English]

The Chair: Sorry?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Céré: Take it or leave it. Give us ten minutes. We are all groups affiliated with the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi. Give us ten minutes or else we are leaving, because it is a mockery of democracy not to let us speak, if only for ten minutes. People have just travelled 600 kilometres; they have come from far away. With all the work we have done to prepare our presentations, I think we deserve five minutes each.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry for that. We have dealt with 60 groups from across Canada and we're grateful for your written presentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like a clarification. There are two groups on the list: the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi and the Regroupement des sans-emploi de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Did both groups get five minutes each? The Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi would like to have ten minutes. Right?

Mr. Pierre Céré: Yes. We were promised that earlier, because the Abitibi region was represented by two groups, and they were given five minutes each. But apparently it does not work that way. For our part, we represent lots of groups, from the Lotbinière region, from the Quebec City region and from all over the place. With the time we have just wasted, Mr. Chairman, we would have had our five minutes.

Mr. Paul Crête: Could we not reach a consensus on giving them ten minutes?

• 1545

Mr. Vital Gilbert (Social Rights Adviser, Regroupement des chômeurs et chômeuses de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue): If they do not give us ten minutes, we are getting up and leaving. They are not taking us seriously. We fight day in day out on behalf of the unemployed. They wind up in our offices in a full-blown crisis or deep depression. They lose everything they own. And you would silence us? That is not democracy! In a democracy, you would let us speak. You have stolen $38.5 billion from us. We want questions, and answers too. We have things to say. Please, let us speak.

[English]

The Chair: We have two groups here. The others have had five minutes. We have received their written presentations. We have two five-minute periods allocated for it. Colleagues, you should know, gentlemen, that this morning there was a group that represented 50 different groups. We have been consistent with these five minutes. Each group was advised five minutes with the discussion, question and answer afterwards.

[Translation]

Georges Farrah.

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, this could create a lot of confusion because all of the groups of witnesses have had five minutes each. If it will solve the problem, I am willing to give up my five minutes. I do not know whether that can be done, but I am prepared to give up my five minutes of questions. I will stay out of it so that these people can have the time they want. I do not know whether that is proper procedurally, but that is what I am offering.

[English]

The Chair: By the way, I need unanimous consent for this if we're going to do it. My understanding is that instead of two five-minute presentations, you want four.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): I can give up my five minutes of questions too, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow Georges Farrah.

[English]

The Chair: I know, I have it.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James-Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): I will also give my five minutes to Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: We will all give up our time.

An honourable member: I will give up my 5 minutes, and that makes 20 minutes; there will be time for everyone.

[English]

The Chair: Again, if we're going to do this, and two colleagues are giving up time, I have to ask for unanimous consent.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: When you get right down to it, they are not here to listen to us; they are here to... [Editor's note: inaudible]

[English]

The Chair: For five minutes each. Right? Two of my Liberal colleagues are going to stand down. Right? Do I have unanimous consent for that?

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, you cannot change the rules of the game in the middle of the game. This is most unfair. We had the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Coon Come, who was here last week. We denied the first nations an extension.

Even though this intercession has brought a new mechanism where we are giving of our own time, it is most unfair if that was not the rule at the beginning of the deputations. We have had numerous people who have asked for extensions. I will not give my consent. It's breaking faith with those who we denied it to, regardless of whether that mechanism could have been applied.

The Chair: Okay. We do not have unanimous consent. So we have the time for two presentations of five minutes each, or four presentations of two and a half minutes each. Gentlemen.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Céré: Do the Abitibi representatives from Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or have five minutes each to speak?

[English]

The Chair: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Céré: Five minutes for both? Could you make that five minutes?

The Chair: Yes, that's right. Certainly.

Mr. Pierre Céré: Okay. We are to have five minutes.

[English]

The Chair: You have five minutes between the two of you.

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: We belong to a group called...

[English]

The Chair: And you have five minutes.

[Translation]

An hon. member: We have five minutes all together?

An hon. member: More. We have 10 minutes, and you have no time.

An hon. member: We will make due with five minutes.

An hon. member: You will get five minutes.

[English]

The Chair: Let me say this. At the moment we are dealing with the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (réseau québécois). Then, when that is finished, we move to the same thing for l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Okay? It's five minutes each.

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: So we have five minutes each, and you have just five minutes.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: No. You have five minutes, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Céré and Mr. Campeau have five minutes.

Mr. Georges Farrah: We need everyone's consent in order for my motion to carry.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: If we ask a question, they can simply take four minutes of our time to answer. That is allowed.

[English]

The Chair: We didn't get unanimous consent, so when you get to question and answer, as I said, you will have time to make your case during question and answer. I did not get unanimous consent.

• 1550

We would thank that group for their written presentation, and we'll now proceed to the....

That's fine.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Céré: We are leaving because in our opinion, that is not enough and this committee is making a mockery of democracy.

[English]

The Chair: Just a minute. Okay.

So who...? Would one of you like to begin, please? If you could give your name, would you proceed? Okay?

[Translation]

It is the Regroupement des sans-emploi de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Good afternoon. My name is Vital Gilbert, and I am with the Regroupement des chômeurs et chômeuses de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

I agree with my colleagues and support them. This has been some debate. We find that five minutes is indeed not much time to say everything we would like to have said.

Be that as it may, thank you for thinking to invite us, and thanks to our Member for helping us to get invited here.

We were anxious to come here because we find that there is actually not very much to Bill C-2. It borders on insulting, considering what Liberal members said during the last election. There is really not much here.

To the average person, when you say a bill has been dropped, it has been dropped. Bill C-44, if I remember correctly, was dropped before the elections, and during the election campaign, people were given vague assurances that there would be improvements. Thus, people could interpret that however they liked. People tend to be optimistic. They truly believed there would be a new bill that might meet their needs. That was not the case, because the bill that was tabled is virtually identical to the one that was dropped.

The people we meet and talk to tell us that in order to understand the Unemployment Insurance Act, you have to live it, to have been a claimant. That is how you find out all the little ways investigators can cause trouble.

In our daily practice, we see that the successive reforms, and especially the 1996 reform, have truly had serious consequences.

Prior to 1996 in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, we had no food banks. Now there are food banks in every city. Last week, the Maison des Jeunes de Rouyn-Noranda set up a soup kitchen. This is a consequence of our shrinking regional economy and also largely a consequence of the latest reform, under which many people lost their entitlement to employment insurance. Young people entering the job market, because of the 910-hour rule and the fact that their jobs are seasonal, will never get up to 910 hours. They go from employment to social assistance. That is no life.

Visit the offices of Human Resources Development Canada. See how your officials administer the Act. They administer it very restrictively. And yet, the Supreme Court, in one of its judgements—if I recall correctly, it was Madam Justice Wilson—held that the Unemployment Insurance Act was legislation of a social nature that should be administered liberally. This is not at all what we have witnessed.

When an officer meets with a claimant in our region, the claimant is guilty at the outset. The officer only has to find the slightest bit of evidence in order to deprive him of his benefits. Therefore, people are deprived of their benefits for a certain number of weeks. An appeal is made, and since almost all of the appeals to the Board of Referees are won, maybe something should be done with respect to the officers. Somewhere along the way, they are dropping the ball and they lack judgment in a good number of cases.

• 1555

Young people who are 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 years old and starting to work are asking themselves why it's 910 hours for them. Did legislators not vote, at some point in time, for a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Discrimination based on age, that should be included, shouldn't it? This is discrimination against them. Because of the fact that they are 18 years old, they need 910 hours, whereas someone who is 35 or 40 years old, needs only 420 hours. I have a hard time explaining this to them. If someone here could explain it to me, then I would be happy to share it with them. In their eyes, this is discrimination.

Are you conscious of the fact that this has caused an increase in poverty among families of our region? It has caused a loss of dignity, of self-esteem, a great deal of stress, depression, and a rise in the number of depressions and suicides. In our region, we already had a record high suicide rate. We did not need your help in increasing this.

Our brief contains examples of cases that we've met. We would invite you to read this carefully. We have also included a short section on inquiry officers—I have included some information on this—and on collecting officers. People come to our offices panicking because they have received a bill. They owe $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $50,000. It takes three or four days to get any information. Once the math is done, often times it's cancelled out. But these people go through a living hell for several days. I have seen people who have had to live through hell for six months because there had been no decision made.

So, the program needs to be improved. Go back and do your homework. This bill needs to be dropped. You need to come up with a bill that will allow people to have access to better rates and to a longer benefit period.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Vital,

[English]

and thank you also for the written material. I do appreciate it.

And now for the witnesses we go to the questions and there's rotation through the parties. The members also have five minutes each, including your replies. So I hope I'll be keeping them fairly short as well.

I begin with Val Meredith, and then Diane St-Jacques, Paul Crête, Jeannot Castonguay, Yvon Godin, and Georges Farrah.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you all for appearing before the committee.

I'd like to respond to the last thing that was said, where 15-, 16-, 17-, and 18-year-olds don't qualify. We have heard other witnesses say that the reason for the 910 hours for young people was to encourage 15- and 16-year-old children, young people, to stay in school, to encourage them to continue with education rather than get into seasonal work, which really didn't have the future for them that maybe an education would offer.

I don't know if that's right. I don't know if that expression represents reality, but I'd like to know what you think. Do you think we should be putting more resources into job training and education so 15- to 18-year-olds have other options?

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Yes, we need to work on training, training for all workers, not just young people. We refer to this in our brief. You may read it.

Back home, people who are older than 45 years of age, through all sorts of tactics, are deprived of this right. When someone who is 45 years old—and this has happened back home—is told that there is no room in a course and then you realize later, once the course has begun, that ten people registered one month later because there was room, then you have a problem. The reason given, but we cannot prove this, is simple. The officers have told us that if they send a 45-year-old man on training for two or three years, this man will be 48 years old and will have only 12 years before he reaches 60. A young person who is 17, 32, or 19 years old... At the age of 60, he will have worked for 41 years. He is economically more cost-effective.

For young people, this is not a bad idea. If, in fact, the 910 hours is there to encourage people to further their studies, that is not a bad idea, except that those who do not want to pursue their studies and especially those who do not have the abilities to do post-secondary studies are penalized. If such were the case, there might be a reason to say that it should be 910 hours until the age of 18 and that, after the age of 18, the number of hours drops. Perhaps this standard could be established.

The Chair: Yvan Lebrun has the floor.

Mr. Yvan Lebrun: I agree. A 15 year old is supposed to go to school, however the parents have to be able to work in order to earn a decent income from employment insurance if they want to be able to send their child to school. If they rely on employment insurance benefits or social assistance, they will not be able to pay for university and, once again, it's all of the population that will pay.

• 1600

In that case, we're no further ahead. The unemployment insurance program will have to be reorganized to allow parents to pay for their children's studies, which will allow them, later on, to pay pensions for seniors.

[English]

The Chair: Val. We have Rodrigue and Gaétan both who want to answer.

Ms. Val Meredith: I'll let you expand on that, because what we're hearing from some witnesses is that we need to somehow look at the whole EI program. We heard from you two that there are things you're concerned about that are outside of this legislation.

Do you feel that what this committee should be doing is looking at the whole EI? Is it applicable to today's workforce the way the act is written now?

The Chair: Rodrigue or Gaétan, do you want to follow up on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Rodrigue Vaillancourt: Returning to the issue of kids, mine joined the army. I was lucky. However not everyone wants to join the army. In the army, he was paid. But someone else's child may well not want to join the army. Not everyone wants to join the army.

[English]

The Chair: You have about one minute, Val.

Ms. Val Meredith: I have four boys, and two of them have left the province of British Columbia because they couldn't find work. For our children, I think that's the reality of today's workforce.

I'm not convinced that EI addresses some of the realities of job training for young people, of apprenticeship programs, of those sorts of things. Now there are two trains of thought. One is that those things should be outside of EI because it's outside of the initial concept of insurance program. The government should still assist, but outside of EI. The other is that EI should be picking up more training aspects.

Is your feeling that the EI bill fulfils that mandate? Or should we move on to reorganize and restructure the EI bill to do the job for the job market in the 21st century?

The Chair: This has to be a very short reply. Gaétan.

[Translation]

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: The training program was already transferred to Emploi-Québec under an agreement.

I also wanted to point out that, given the deterioration of the program since 1990, many parents no longer have sufficient income to support the children that are still at home. Therefore, young persons aged 16, 17 or 18 are forced to go and work in order to contribute to the family budget.

We need to remember, since 1990, that the income of seasonal workers has dropped at least 35%, that's without considering inflation which has also put a squeeze on them. Quite clearly there is a problem and the employment insurance program needs to be reorganized.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Diane St-Jacques, Paul Crête, then Jeannot Castonguay.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of the witnesses who are here and who took the trouble to come and meet with us.

I have a question for you, Mr. Gilbert. You spoke of discrimination against workers who are 45 years old and older. I wonder if there is not a problem with respect to the training programs. In my riding, as is the case in many others, there is a shortage in the workforce. There are jobs available, but people are not trained specifically for those positions.

I wonder if, in your part of the country, the same type of problem exists. You spoke of 45 year old workers, but have there not been workers from another age group that were also affected?

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Yes, we are dealing with this type of problem. Often workers are trained, through the employment insurance training programs, for jobs that exist elsewhere.

Often, the way the officers present training, because of the words they use, give the impression that it will lead to guaranteed employment. Three weeks after the course ends, the benefits stop. The person in question, who looked hard for a job, and did not manage to find one, returns to see his or her officer, who had virtually promised a job. The officer replies that there are jobs in Vancouver, Toronto and in Montreal. This is not an answer for someone who wants to live in the region. We need to provide training that is suited to the types of jobs that exist in that region.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: So, you are telling me that when the officers recommend training, they don't necessarily recommend training based on the needs of that region.

• 1605

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Absolutely not. Training courses are chosen based on trades where there are national workforce shortages. Back home, for years now, we have been training welders every year. Then, these people have no other choice, if they want to work, they have to move to a large center.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Cousineau?

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: I would simply like to confirm this fact. According to a statement that I remember seeing back home, in the Gaspé, there were 12 hairdressers in one parish. Year after year, a lot of hairdressers were trained. There are also a lot of bakers because there's a school in Fort-Prével that trained them.

Often times the training given is not what people want. The program should provide money for people to learn a trade that they will be able to depend on for the rest of their life, and not a trade that the system wants them to learn. It's really that simple.

It's not adjusted to the regions; it's adjusted to what government officials and program bureaucrats think is appropriate.

The Chair: Judith Fugère.

Ms. Judith Fugère: In response to what you said, Ms. St-Jacques, I just wanted to mention that of course there is a shortage in some very specialized jobs. However I don't think the problem is really that widespread.

Also, I'd like to provide an example from the Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean region, in construction, in Alma, at the Alcan aluminum smelter construction site. For two years, it was the largest construction site in North America. Given its size, this business would normally have employed 2,000 people. However, because of progress made in new technology, 600 people will be employed rather than 2,000.

Obviously there are limits. Many people want to work because they know it's a way to escape poverty. However, one of the ways, is to leave, not to work anywhere at whatever job, but to have access to specialized jobs. As they say, many are called but few are chosen. We need to be aware of this.

In addition, with these new technologies, it's all well and fine to be superspecialized, but if you have reached a certain age, there are all sorts of prejudices that smile on younger people. People who are over 40 are often forced to wait their turn. We also need to consider this. This is one of the realities of the new job market.

The Chair: Ms. St-Jacques, you have one minute left.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Some witnesses have told us that we should reinstate the POWA program. I have not read all of your briefs; is this something that you would promote?

The Chair: One second. Vital Gilbert.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: POWA was a program for older workers.

Mr. Vital Gilbert: We would be very much in favour of this. Back home, it exists in some mines. We know that, if the trend continues, a number of jobs will disappear in the sector and that older workers, between 45 and 50 or just over 50 years old, will end up with nothing.

We have seen too many people in their fifties lose their job in other sectors. They lose their cottage, their house, everything that they built during their life and that was to ensure a good retirement. They're forced to sell everything in order to eat until they can collect their pension. The POWA was a good program that, in some cases, kept this type of thing from happening.

The Chair: Paul Crête, Jeannot Castonguay, Yvon Godin.

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions for you. You have been defending unemployed people for several years. You have been given a bill that makes some improvements to the situation. We are often told that those who oppose this bill, claiming that it does not do enough, will be told by workers that they should be satisfied with it. Even unemployed people themselves will say that they need money and the intensity rule.

I would like to know what you think about this. I will then ask my second question.

The Chair: Gaétan Cousineau and then Aline Smith.

• 1610

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Mr. Chairman, it is different when an elected official has to answer this question to his constituents. When dealing with unemployed people, when someone ask us these questions, we sit down with them and explain it.

Between this slight improvement from 52 to 55% and all of the negative aspects of Bill C-2 such as, for example, the indefinite freeze on maximum insurable earnings, the power that the government wants to give itself in determining the premium rates and all of the other factors that have been mentioned abundantly over the past two weeks, people understand that it may be better to wait for four or five months in order to allow for an in-depth reform of the employment insurance program and the possibility of having a program that's better adjusted to the realities of the year 2000. It's quite easy to convince people of this. When you compare $11 per week and the possibility of returning to 60% benefits, as everyone has demanded, that makes a huge difference in an annual budget.

The Chair: Aline Smith.

Mrs. Aline Smith (President, Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec, Coalition Gaspésie—Les ÎLes, Matapédia, Matane): In the third millennium, I don't think that it is a pipe dream to think that we can change things. In any case, I believe we can. I think that this millennium should be the millennium where programs will meet the needs of people, of the users, and not the other way around.

What we have seen over the course of the past few years, have been changes that, instead of fighting against unemployment, have fought against the unemployed. All through my region, Eastern Quebec, people have suffered this.

As a result people have been excluded. We spoke earlier about youth, but everyone has been excluded. It affects everyone. Six out of ten is far too many. We cannot accept this.

People spoke earlier of an exodus and the dramatic effects. We have experienced this exodus. In the Eastern Quebec, there has been a dramatic exodus. Actuaries and economists from HRDC have linked this to the changes. This cannot be ignored. For example, we need to find solutions that will bring about change, to change things so that people, when they have no job, are able to survive and are able to retain their dignity. This is very important.

I would like to establish a link. I would like to be taken seriously, because I don't want you to think that I am doing this to be petty. Earlier, during the debates in the House of Commons, someone said, referring to the Summit, that multinationals with cash would be able to do things. If we could put some energy into convincing these multinationals to come and invest in the region to create jobs, we would not be here right now trying to convince you that there are people living in poverty and misery. I can guarantee you that.

There are solutions, and these solutions need to work for people, they need to be able to solve problems so that we can put an end to changes to programs and making programs. People have a right to demand this. This is a minimum.

The Chair: Paul, you have one minute.

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you. I have one more question. I simply wanted to ensure that I understood the issue of the Exclus de l'été 2000.

Before July 9, 2000, in our region you needed 420 hours to qualify. Because of a change in the borders of the employment insurance regions, as of July 9th, 455 hours were required, until September 17th, when the Minister, after pressure, dropped it to 420 hours.

Which means that we have people, as in the example you gave, who worked exactly the same length of time for the same employer. Someone who filed an application before September 17 qualified for less favourable benefits. Someone who filed his application after September 17 would be entitled to the restored level of benefits, which would include up to 10 to 12 weeks of additional benefits. Is that the reality you are experiencing?

The Chair: Gaétan, your answer must be brief, please.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: It is exactly the same situation as the retroactivity to October 1 as regards the intensity rule. There are people who filed their application on September 30 who will not be entitled to the same thing as those who filed their application on October 1. It's absolutely discriminatory. It makes no sense.

The Chair: I am sorry, Yvon, but I am giving the floor to Jeannot Castonguay now.

• 1615

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our guests.

Mrs. Smith, I had a question, but I believe you have already given the answer. If I understand correctly, in today's world, as we talk about a new economy and a new society that, in all likelihood, will be different from the old one, we will perhaps need to have a broader perspective, and not only as regards employment insurance. We must also ask ourselves serious questions concerning the best way to make sure that everyone has a fair share in this society. If I understood correctly, we are talking about an all encompassing vision.

The other part of my question concerns Mr. Gilbert perhaps. I was looking at your document. You mention several times, if I understand correctly, that the biggest problem at the moment is access to the employment insurance system. Obviously, we need to do an in-depth review of the system, but today, if we were to add one significant amendment to the bill before us, would it concern eligibility? I would also like you to go into some detail, if possible, on something you mention several times. It would seem that we really have a problem with the behaviour of the officials who manage the program, and I would like you to go into that somewhat.

The Chair: Mr. Gilbert.

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Yes, if we had to choose—and we should not have to choose—, for our region, we would ask for less stringent eligibility criteria. In other words, we would ask for a reduction in the number of hours in order for people to be entitled to employment insurance. If you are asking...

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I know that you have more.

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Next, as regards the officials, I can give you some examples. I don't know if this happens elsewhere, in other regions, but I would say that for the past two years, when claimants file applications for appeal with the Board of referees, it happens regularly, although not in every case, that an official calls the day before, for example, to tell them that they should not bother coming, because there is no way they are going to win the appeal before the Board. This is absurd when we know, having looked at the file, that the person will surely win, because the file was botched, that the official did not take all the information brought to him into account, etc.

In our brief, we also spoke of inquiry officers investigating family businesses. In our area, as soon as a person who works for a relative asks for employment insurance, there is a big, never-ending inquiry. I understand the need for inquiries, but if I have been working in my brother-in-law's garage as a mechanic for five years, and he closes his garage and I am laid off, it seems to me that it would not be too swift on my part to try to defraud the system in that way. It seems obvious to me that this person is entitled to benefits. This person did not work a mere 910 hours and then become unemployed.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Mr. Gilbert, could we even say that at times, this constitutes harassment of workers? Does it reach that point?

Mr. Vital Gilbert: There are cases of harassment. In any case, as regards family businesses, such harassment is automatic. When a person has nothing to hide, when he is honest and finds himself accused of fraud, or if someone implies that he is an abuser of the system, he takes it very badly. What is so annoying, is that because these officials represent the government, in the eyes of these people, it is the government that is calling them abusers, that is telling them they are dishonest. Given that they know they are honest and that they have nothing to reproach themselves for, this triggers a whole process which eventually brings them to have less respect for the law.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Jeannot, but I think someone has an answer.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: In Gaspé and in the Islands, I have been appearing before the courts for 12 years now, right up to the Tax Court of Canada where I have long had occasion to go. It is obvious that there is harassment against people who work for someone with whom they have a dependent or family relationship. And this is absolutely automatic; these people are automatically the subject of an inquiry. Unfortunately, when you have to go to the Tax Court of Canada, very often you have to wait a year or a year and a half before the file will be dealt with because the judges travel to the regions only once a year, particularly during lobster season. The poor people who worked and who applied for employment insurance during the month of September are obliged to wait until the following September before finding out if they are insurable or not. We see this all the time. Do not fool yourselves. I have tons and tons of examples I could give you.

The Chair: Is that all, Jeannot?

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Yvon Godin, Georges Farrah, Val Meredith, Guy St-Julien, Jean-Yves Roy and Alan Tonks.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to thank you for coming to testify here today. Hopefully this parliamentary committee will take your comments, make a report and try to solve certain problems with employment insurance.

• 1620

I'm very happy that you raised the issue of investigators. I hear incredible things, both in my riding office and during my visits to the region. Officials will bring a person into an office, sit him down at a table, walk around him as they used to do in the 30s, running around and saying that if the person does not tell the truth or is caught telling a lie, he could go to prison and things like that. Today, someone can go and kill a person across the street, and the police will arrest the murderer and tell him that he is not obliged to say anything before consulting a lawyer. The indiscretion of human resources investigators in the past has been unbelievable. I am sure you could tell us similar stories all day long. Hopefully the committee will be able to look into this.

As you have pointed out in some of your remarks, in certain cases this even brings people to commit suicide. I agree with you that the suicide rate in our region has gone up. There is an explanation for this. When a person is happy, when he goes to work in the morning and gets paid on Friday, and he's able to go out and buy groceries for his family, he does not think of killing himself. Many people are hoping that this committee will be sympathetic to this issue, and will be able to report this to the Minister.

I would like to speak to Mr. Yvan Lebrun and Mr. Rodrigue Vaillancourt about the maple sugar sector. They said they were maple sugar producers. Normally, maple sugar production happens at the same time as wood-cutting. I remember a time when there were few maple sugar producers in Canada. They were lumberjacks who had lost their jobs, perhaps because of mechanization, who had decided in the end to turn to the maple sugar business.

Could you please explain to this committee—and I hope that this will finds its way to the Minister—that whether it be in Gaspé, in the Abitibi region, in my area, in Prince George, British Columbia, or in Hearst, Ontario, saplings cannot be planted underground. I would like you to explain the importance of your work for Canadian forests and for the future. Perhaps you could explain that. The question of employment is so important here in Canada.

Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment in case I do not have an opportunity during the next round. It is most unfortunate that people were obliged to leave this meeting without having spoken. I think we can expect that, and understand these people Mr. Chairman. These are people who see others in distress daily, people who are destitute because of the changes made to employment insurance. Today, we can see that these people are frustrated because of this, and we can accept the reasons why they did what they did. I certainly can accept it.

The Chair: Of course.

Mr. Yvan Lebrun: As far as maple sugar production is concerned, although we are here today, we were supposed to be working in the sugar bush because we are getting ready now. We started a month ago. Work started at the beginning of February, and by the end of April, it will be pretty much done. At the end of April, beginning of May, it will be finished. After that, we have to apply for employment insurance. I have two weeks of employment insurance left to redeem from last year. Once I have finished working, I will file my application, including the last two weeks I have left over.

After that, I'll have to file a new application for employment insurance for the weeks that I want to claim. If I have 15 weeks, how will they make the calculation? On 17 weeks? Last year, my divisor was 17, which gave me more than $300 per week.

Last year, my friend also had 15 weeks. In his case, it was divided by 14, which meant he had more money with 32 weeks. We worked at the same place, and it is the same situation this year. I had 23 weeks, representing a $5000 shortfall. I can't see myself tapping maple trees during July. It would be rather odd to talk about this during July. And at this time of year, planting is not a success. It would look very nice on the snow, all straight and nice looking, but planting is not done at this time of year. At this time of year, it's maple sugar production that works.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to know what you think of the investigators.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say something about the divisor. This is a means of diminishing the benefits of 60% or 70% of the people who apply for employment insurance benefits. Let us take the case of a fisherman who claims 60 or 70 hours per week, and who must fish for lobster for a 10-week period. He sees a significant decrease in his income, because in our area the divisor is 14. It is something that should not even exist. We should calculate the benefit rate using the number of weeks worked over 52 weeks. The 26-week rate calculation period also heavily penalizes people who work in the maple sugar business in the spring and who could, in the fall, have another small job in order to top up the number of weeks. When they start to work again in the springtime, the weeks worked in the fall no longer even count in their divisor if they were not able to qualify for employment insurance with their fall work. Therefore, the divisor was clearly created to reduce. We were told that eligibility must be expanded. I quite agree, but when eligibility is opened up, a divisor is imposed for the last 26 weeks, which means that they have access to the plan but they receive only a pathetic amount.

• 1625

The Chair: Mr. Georges Farrah, Val Meredith, Guy St-Julien, Jean-Yves Roy, Alan Tonks and Yvon Godin.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our committee. We're very pleased to welcome you here, and your remarks are faithful to the reality we see on the ground. We have heard it over and over again.

Mr. Cousineau, I don't know if you can respond to my question for my region in particular. If you compare what is happening today with what happened after the 1996 reform, or even before that, can you tell us what percentage of workers were cut off from employment insurance who were not cut off before? The goal at the outset was to make the conversion to hours in order to extend accessibility. We were told that more people would be able to qualify more easily, that there would be more people who would have access to employment insurance, but in truth, we can see that that is not necessarily what happened. I do not know if you have any figures on this, or if you have any thoughts concerning this for my region in particular.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Mr. Chairman, I have often spoken about this matter, and I have often published figures on this. In 1993, in Gaspé and the Islands, there were 18,000 employment insurance claimants, that is to say people who received employment insurance cheques. For the year 2000, which has just come to an end, I believe the figure is 13,100. Where did these 6,000 people go? Some went on welfare, of course, because of the exclusion, some have surely moved away and others have perhaps passed away or committed suicide. We do not know. But there is certainly a big group that has fallen between the cracks of welfare and employment insurance, because when someone has been a seasonal worker for 20 years, when someone has a partially paid off house and a car and finds himself with no employment insurance income, he is not even entitled to that other pathetic solution, namely, income security.

A voice: Because of the assets.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: You have to be an absolute beggar to have access to this last resort. This is precisely the situation in our area, and we should not be surprised by the data. Statistics Canada tells us that by the year 2015, the Gaspé will have a population of only 85,000 whereas we are now 101,000 strong. That tells us that the restrictions presently in place for the claimants of any kind of social assistance mean that people have to out-and-out leave the regions. Of course this is to the benefit of the cities.

Mr. Georges Farrah: So that is the situation. This phenomenon means that there is less accessibility to employment insurance, and the economy is not strong enough to uphold the job market and allow people to work. It is a double problem.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: In my brief, you will find a chart where I show decreases of $390 million in the level of employment insurance benefits paid out between 1993 and 2000. In terms of payroll, that is the equivalent of approximately 10 Gaspesia companies who left the Gaspé because of the exclusions in the employment insurance plan. What we have experienced over the last 10 years is absolutely phenomenal.

The Chair: Georges, we are going to move on, if you will.

Mr. Yvan Lebrun: I have a question for one of our members. He and I worked for the same employer, at the same place, as I was saying a while ago. We had exactly the same number of weeks, the same number of hours; it was identical. However, I was entitled to 23 weeks whereas he was entitled to 32 weeks. I was at 50%, he was probably at 55%, but I am not sure. I'd like to know where the mistake is. Are we supposed to use a game of snakes and ladders in order to see who will go up and who will come down? I ask this question of our members. Who can answer me?

• 1630

[English]

The Chair: Georges, you have the time, so I'll give you some time on this.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: I cannot answer that question, but I would like to ask another one. That is why we are paying close attention to this. I do not know if someone will be able to answer my question.

One of the unfortunate things we are seeing is the gap. This is the period when people are left without any income because the benefits run out.

Do you have statistics on the average duration of the gap in my region? I know that it varies from one claimant to another, but this average could show what a harmful impact the gap has on people.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: The situation in the Gaspésie—Les Îles administrative region, which we discussed with the Minister last year, has improved, and the gap is shorter now but still lasts two to three weeks. It will be affecting people in these upcoming weeks, just before the opening of the fishing season on April 21. There are people whose benefits have already run out. But we know that in some other regions the gap is a much more serious problem. That is why the MASSE is calling for a minimum of 35 weeks of benefits and a supplement for regions that have more seasonal work.

It should be kept in mind that, in addition to the gap, there is also the two-week waiting period for benefits. So that means two weeks plus two or three gap weeks, which means five weeks without any income. It is like unpaid vacation from the employer. It is as if an employee was ordered by his employer to take five weeks of unpaid leave. It comes down to the same thing.

Mr. Georges Farrah: May I ask one last question?

[English]

The Chair: No problem, Georges.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: As your work indicates, you advocate a great deal on behalf of the unemployed. You help them when they are taken to court or their cases are investigated. This brings me to the attitude of the investigating officers or the main people involved on behalf of the government.

Have you found that behaviour or decisions varied from one bureaucrat to another in similar cases? I do now know if they can be compared, but it shows that some bureaucrats may be more strict and others may be more open and understanding if they know the situation in the region. Is that something that you see?

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Georges.

Gaétan, very briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: I can give the example of two Revenue Canada employees who decided on one case. The claimant had a dependency relationship with his employer. In 1998, a decision was made that he was insurable. An officer investigated for six months and finally said that the person was insurable. In 2000, another investigator looked into the case, said that he was not bound by the decisions of his predecessors and determined that the person was not insurable. He said very clearly that he was not bound by the decisions of his predecessors.

[English]

The Chair: Val Meredith, then Guy St-Julien.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm finding this to be quite an interesting conversation, because we also face that in our office, where we have people who get conflicting questions.

I want to go back to something you just said, and that's the idea that companies have left because of exclusion. Are you telling me there are companies that have left their locations because the people they employ are excluded from collecting EI benefits?

[Translation]

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: I did not talk about companies, madam. I said that people have to leave because there is no more work. I do not know if you are referring to what I said about $390 million being 10 times the payroll of Gaspesia, which is a large company in our region, located in Chandler, and which closed its doors and put 500 people out of work. What was paid into the fund from the Gaspé region over the past 10 years is equivalent to the payroll of 10 companies like that. It shows how serious this problem of exclusion from employment insurance really is. I did not say that companies had closed for that reason.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay, I misunderstood you, because I got the impression that businesses located on perhaps a seasonal basis based on the fact they could only provide x number of hours of work, and that because that wasn't long enough, they no longer were viable. But that's not what you said.

• 1635

[Translation]

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Therefore, I would like to urge you to read the brief I gave. In it you will see that over the last two years, the small regional municipality of Roche Percée, with a population of 20,000, has seen 151 companies close, resulting in the laying off of 1,490 people. These companies closed down because there was not enough business to support them because money was tight and the region's economy was depressed. In other words, this situation arose because of the $400 million that were sent to the federal government to pay down the national net. These small companies were unable to survive this major recession. Consequently, over the last two years, 151 companies have shut down, including Gaspesia, which was a very major company. The closure of this company was headline news for a long time.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

The Chair: Guy St-Julien and then Jean-Yves Roy.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you. It's unfortunate Laurier Gilbert was required to leave the table because of a rule of procedure, because if anyone defends the unemployed in our area, it's Laurier.

My question is for Mr. Vital Gilbert. I'd like you to talk a little about parental leave, and about training in particular, since our region sends workers and the unemployed to Montreal or to other regions because we are told that this training is not available in our own area. With that, I'd like to defer to you because I'd like to leave you as much time as possible to answer. Could you talk to us a bit about parental leave, training and in particular, the rules concerning the number of hours required for eligibility? I'm aware that this figure is 910, but you mentioned 350 hours. I'd like you to explain in more detail what you said.

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Right. First off, people have reacted very favourably to parental leave. We have had many calls, and we explained to the callers what parental leave really was all about. When these people first saw reports of one-year parental leave in the newspapers and on TV, they were quite happy.

Marie-Louise, who's a friend of mine, was very keen on the idea. She is due to have a baby this summer and is currently working in a minimum-wage job. As a result, she will undoubtedly have accumulated sufficient hours to be eligible for parental leave. She will receive $134 a week. Minimum-wage employees receive parental leave benefits of roughly $134 per week. It goes without saying that as soon as she's able to, she will go back to work. The vast majority of women are not eligible for parental leave, and given the fact that those who are eligible often have low-wage jobs, it is not in their best interests to stay on parental leave. Many women will not be in a position to take advantage of parental leave, even if they do indeed meet the eligibility criteria.

Women have told us that if we are thinking about setting up a genuine parental leave system, the Employment Insurance Act will have to be amended to ensure that parental leave benefits are sufficiently high to avoid a situation where benefit recipients are forced to return to work as quickly as possible. They told us to establish a benefit scale. This might be $250 a week, which is equivalent to the minimum wage. We will leave that to your discretion.

I am not so knowledgeable on the issue of training. Increasingly, people are being sent to Montreal for training. Perhaps we are being a little pessimistic here, but we wonder whether this is not being used to encourage people to move to the Montreal area instead of coming back to our region. We don't know why things are the way they are. There are trainers in the regions. We have a lot of questions on this issue.

And the third question was—

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I wanted to know about the number of hours for eligibility. What was your premise for 350 hours rather than 910?

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: We based our calculations on the 1990 universal system, which gave a figure of 10 weeks. Nowadays, we have a 35-hour working week under the employment insurance system. As a result, we consider that 10 35-hour weeks should be the minimum required for eligibility. This figure should be applied to all levels and not just to repeat claimants or to those people who use the system on a regular basis. The same calculation should be used for parental benefits, family benefits and sickness benefits. It should also be used for new users, both young and old, who have had the misfortune to require income security and who have to get back to work.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you. Mr. Gilbert, do you think that the Human Resources Development Canada or Quebec Labour Ministry figures for Abitibi-Témiscamingue that everyone is talking about give a true picture of the situation?

• 1640

Mr. Vital Gilbert: No, they do not give an accurate picture. Statistics depend a great deal on the tools that are used to calculate them, and Statistics Canada has its own criteria. Statistics Canada's criteria for calculating the unemployment rate are based on the implementation of legislation. The New bulletin gives a misleading unemployment rate, because the rate according to Statistics Canada, is always lower than the actual unemployment rate. Each city has its own unemployment rate.

We consider that the unemployment rate in our region is largely underestimated because it is calculated by breaking the employment situation down into three categories. I think that you are all aware of the three criteria, which are: working people, the unemployed and job seekers. However, job seekers in a region where there are no jobs or where work is seasonal distort these statistics.

Similarly, when there are no jobs to be had or during a recession, people do not look for work because there is quite simply none to be had. That too has an impact on statistics. In any event, there should be a way of adjusting statistics to take that into account.

The Chair: Mr. Jean-Yves Roy, followed by Alan Tonks and Yvon Godin.

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To clarify what has just been said, I would like to add that statistics provided to us by Statistics Canada are based simply on polls. They simply do not reflect the actual jobless or unemployment rates in a particular region.

Mr. Cousineau, you spoke earlier about the brief you gave. I would just like to point out that in your brief you state that $392 million have been taken out of the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé—particularly Gaspé—between 1993 and 2000. That means that $392 million has been squeezed out of one particular region's economy. As you were saying, that's equivalent to several companies such as Gaspesia, which employs 500 people. That means that hundreds of companies and corner and grocery stores have been forced to shut up shop. Once again, this has thrown people out of work. This means that the region has become significantly poorer.

However, I would like your and more particularly Ms. Smith's opinion on the 910-hour eligibility requirement for young people. In light of the fact that I worked for a number of years in a member of Parliament's office and I am today a member of Parliament myself, I have come to realize that this requirement leads to discrimination and harassment. It can also lead to employers abusing the system. When an employer knows that a judge has no other choice, and that a young person is required to have worked 910 hours to be eligible for benefits, it is easy to abuse the system. The same problem arises for women returning to work or for those who are looking for their first job. They too are required to work 910 hours or start all over again.

In my experience, employers take unfair advantage of young people and of women returning to work because they are fully aware that these people have no other option. Do you agree with what I have said and is that what you are seeing in the field?

Ms. Aline Smith: I will tell you one thing. My parents, my uncles and my aunts are all quite old and I often ask them to describe the society in the 1930s and 1940s and the changes that took place between then and the third millennium. My parents have always told me that 50 years ago having a seasonal job was not frowned upon by society. It was accepted and highly regarded. Nowadays things have changed. It's considered awful to have a seasonal job. It's almost as if you were begging. That is not how things should be.

Just think about those young people who are caught up, if you'll pardon the expression, in a sausage mill because they are stuck in a vicious circle. There are perhaps some young people who have the skills they need to get back to work but there are also regional realities. I didn't speak on the issue, but earlier we were saying that there are regional realities.

When a young person has the required aptitude for studies, but the course is given 500 kilometres away from where he lives... However wide-scale the policies to assist people in finding work or returning to school they are, nevertheless, insufficient. They are the same for someone who lives 50 kilometres away and for someone who lives 500 kilometres away. Consequently, young people might not have the access to education that they would like.

These are issues that we have not managed to address. Those changes that have been made over the past few years—and I would like to point out that they are bad ones—have created a punitive system. That wasn't the case 50 years ago because seasonal work was highly regarded at that time. However, in the third millennium and in the communications and satellite age, seasonal work is belittled.

• 1645

We have talked about poverty. We're not talking about education here. I wanted to make one thing clear to you. I didn't come here today for your sympathy, but rather to report what is happening in the region. The truth is that in the third millennium, some people can't even afford a telephone. That has become a luxury. For some people simply putting food on the table and educating their children is the priority. That has to change. I really want to press my point here, because things have to change. It is a matter of respect and dignity for workers who have done their job and who have the right to expect some recognition. This recognition comes in the form of programs and policies.

The Chair: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Vital Gilbert?

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Yes. We have indeed found that where a worker attempts to broach some minor issues with his employer, such as unpaid overtime or specific working conditions, in the majority of cases he is told that if he is not happy he can leave but that he will not be eligible for unemployment benefits. People need money to live and people are being forced to accept totally unacceptable situations. This is especially true in the case of women. Something has to be done on this issue.

In the debates leading up to the reform, which has changed the act to include provisions on voluntary termination of employment taking away all eligibility, it was clearly stated that benefit recipients would have the benefit of the doubt. In the most frequent cases where an employee claims to have been laid off, whereas the employer claims that the employee voluntary terminated his or her employment, do you not think that we could quite simply give the employee the benefit of the doubt?

Women don't always relish having to talk about specific matters in public. Even before an arbitration committee or in camera, because in a small place, everything gets out eventually. And the employee using legislative provisions, for example, labour standards, against his or her employer, can kiss this type of job goodbye. In our region, no other employer in the same sector will take that person on.

[English]

The Chair: I'm afraid your time has expired, but Gaétan has something very short. Is that okay? It must be very short, I'm afraid.

[Translation]

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Mr. Chairman, we are not the only ones to have spoken out against the 910-hour rule and the disparity between the government and non-government organization lines.

I have in front of me a letter from Mr. Wohlfarth, who is the commissioner representing workers. He quite clearly states that the 910-hour rule causes a particular problem for workers. In his report, he also makes a specific reference to the issue of seasonal workers. He is close to the government and he concludes by saying that there is a major disparity between the results of departmental researchers and those of non-government organization researchers. A case in point is the interpretation of statistics.

[English]

The Chair: That one has gone well over. We've been doing this for many hours. There will be a chance again.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I just have a point of order. Could the witness table the letter referring to the 910 hours with the committee clerk?

[English]

The Chair: Is that okay?

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Yes, I have a couple.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Alan Tonks, then Yvon Godin briefly, then Diane St-Jacques briefly.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I want to understand better, first of all, the points you made, Mr. Gilbert, with respect to your brief. On the bottom of page three, I think, you said that we may not know, but the monthly social assistance payment in Quebec is $510.42. Is that the average, or how did you calculate that? It's on your....

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: A Quebec social assistance cheque?

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: It is $510.42.

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay, is that the average?

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Average.

[Translation]

A minimum-wage earner entitled to employment insurance benefits gets $539 per month. In other words, out-of-work minimum-wage earners get barely more than social assistance.

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks: Is that calculated on the basis of the economic regional adjustment according to Statistics Canada that establishes the unemployment rate for that area?

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: If you are talking about social assistance, that is determined by the government. As for the calculation of benefits, they are calculated at 55% for a first-time claimant.

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks: Is that at the 55%?

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: Yes.

• 1650

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay. This morning in a brief that was presented by the regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations—and I realize that with indigenous peoples we may be talking differences—he made the point that as regards the calculations made with respect to the economic region, there is a need to review the criteria, the basis upon which the 55% factor is worked out, or that other factors should be used. Have you done any work or would you make any recommendations that would look at the disparities across the country, or that would look at a different set of criteria with respect to that 55% factor perhaps being adjusted? We talk about seasonal adjustment and unemployment rates. We talk about adjusting inflation rates. Can we not look at adjustments to...?

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: We think the 55% rate should be raised because, just with inflation, people on benefits are getting poorer every year. There are cases, people from Aboriginal communities living on reserves... There are reserves in our region that for the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act, use the regional rate. However, on the reserves, the unemployment rate is drastically higher than the 16.3% in our region. The unemployment rate on reserves in our region is over 50%. So I think something definitely should be done for those people.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could just clarify how the plan could be greatly improved based on economic regions. Currently, the columns that show increases in the unemployment rate stop at 16%. In order to take into account regions of higher unemployment, if incremental columns were added to enhance the plan, then some regions—like those where Aboriginal people live—could be enhanced, given that their unemployment rate may be 18, 20 or 25%.

The table could accordingly be extended incrementally from 16 to 18 or 19% depending on the region, in order to enhance the plan in regions of higher unemployment. A very high unemployment rate is definitely a clear sign of seasonal work.

[English]

The Chair: Alan, very briefly.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I have just a final question.

In 1990 you used—perhaps Mr. Gilbert or someone used—the note that we were talking ten weeks. Then we went to an hourly rated system and you said—and I thought this was quite revealing—that at 35 hours you have to work much more than ten weeks to get 910 hours to get the 55% of employment benefits. That is a huge change from 1990 to the present criteria. Were there any stages in between? I'm new at this, so I'm looking for the historical context.

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: It used to be 10 weeks, and the various reforms have consistently raised eligibility requirements. Nine hundred and ten hours means twenty-six 35-hour weeks, which is really a lot for our region. In order to qualify, you need to find a minimum-wage job or a job in one of the remaining operational mines.

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks: At that amount in ten weeks, what percentage would have qualified on that basis?

[Translation]

Mr. Vital Gilbert: More people qualified; off the top of my head, I would say maybe 2,000 more than today. In those days, there were from 10,000 to 12,000 unemployed, and today, there are between 8,000 and 10,000 in our region. That does not include those who have left.

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Yvon Godin, Diane St-Jacques, Carol Skelton, and Anita Neville.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It concerns me when a program like this one—and I would like your opinion on this—provides that people are guilty or considered guilty before even making a claim. This is something that workers and employers have paid into, and when they go to Human Resources Development Canada, they are considered guilty and in need of investigation.

• 1655

For example, especially in small businesses, it is normal for people to hire relatives. And there are lots of them. I believe 74% of jobs today in Canada are created by small and medium-sized businesses. It is normal to hire a family member before hiring strangers. Later on, if business is good, you hire other people, and the company starts to grow.

I do not know what your experience has been, but I am told that in my riding, each business is checked every time, every year. Given that you represent your region and defend against this type of situation, it is ironic that the federal government is unable to pay officers to rid corn fields of marijuana, and yet it is able to pay inspectors day-in day-out to go after someone who is working and has trouble getting 10 weeks of work per year. These people have families and are responsible members of society. It seems to me we do not know what our values are or how to truly protect human beings. Something seems to be out of whack.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Mr. Chairman, harassment is a frequent occurrence in our region. It is not uncommon for an investigator to work for a few months in the Chandler region, and then suddenly, we wonder where he went and we start getting files from the Sainte-Anne-des-Monts region, for example. To make us forget the harassment they have visited on our region, they get transferred to another region. It happens all the time. People play musical chairs all around the Gaspé peninsula, which is 1,000 kilometres in circumference.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let's get back to Bill C-2. If the committee were to go a bit further than Bill C-2, what, in your opinion, would be the real priorities for the region, in order to alleviate, to some extent, the problem of people who lose their jobs and to recognize seasonal workers? What could be done immediately? It does not take three months to write two lines to get rid of the divisor, for example. It does not take three months to do that. It does not take three months to say we are lowering the number of hours. We just have to strike one line from the bill. What do you think should be done?

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Mr. Chairman, the minister wants to keep studying the impact on Canadian communities of the 1996 amendments to the act, and so on. A full 10 years ago, we gave you tons and tons of statistics, tons of copies, briefs and analysis about what was needed. Bill C-2 is not what we need. We need an overhaul of the employment insurance plan based on today's realities. The predecessor to Bill C-2, Bill C-44, was mere window dressing just before the election, and it has not changed since. I highly doubt the committee has the power to give us the bill we are asking for. Seventy groups have come here this week to tell you Bill C-2 is unacceptable. Why can't you understand that once and for all?

The Chair: Diane St-Jacques, followed by Paul Crête. Diane, be brief.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Godin took my question, but I have another one.

I would like an opinion, perhaps, because in the course of our hearings, some witnesses have told us parental leave should be part of a social program, not employment insurance. I would like to know your opinion on that. I would like to know whether you have ever considered or heard of that option.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: A worker wishing to take parental leave is a worker who has paid premiums the same way an employer pays into workers' compensation in case of occupational injury. When workers are injured on the job, are they told they cannot get workers' compensation, and to go on social assistance or some other program? If a person has paid premiums, that person should be entitled to maternity benefits, but as was said earlier, sufficient benefits to survive during that period. You also have to be able to qualify for employment insurance. It all boils down to accessibility. The statistics for the Gaspé peninsula and the islands for 2000 show that parental benefits made up 1.14% of the total value of benefits.

• 1700

For all of Quebec, family benefits make up 5.8% of total benefits. That is a clear indication that in regions of high unemployment, where the work is seasonal, people do not even qualify. It is not because we do not want to procreate, it is just because we cannot qualify for the family benefits program. It goes back to what we were saying earlier: Bill C-2 does not increase access to the plan in any way and continues to exclude and to shrink the social safety net.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Colleagues, we have a few people on the list now, and I would ask that it be short, okay?

Paul Crête, Georges Farrah, Charles Hubbard.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to answer the question Mr. Lebrun and Mr. Vaillancourt asked a few minutes ago, by saying that the committee, given the discrimination you experienced in the summer of 2000, may find a way to change the act to make it retroactive and quite simply get rid of that period, so there is no more discrimination. We could propose amendments, or if those amendments are considered unacceptable in Bill C-2, we could convert them into a bundle of recommendations the committee could make to the government so that those corrections are made. That is what we hope to accomplish in the coming days.

The Chair: Yvan Lebrun.

Mr. Yvan Lebrun: I would like to add that if the government does not relax the unemployment rules, it will encourage people to work under the table. The government does not like that very much. Then, it will need employment insurance investigators. I saw one about three weeks ago. He called me in the morning to say he would come by in the afternoon to check. Fortunately, I was not at work because he would have had to wait until the next day. I have been off unemployment since January. I had cut wood last summer. I had declared everything. I had called the unemployment office to ask what I was to declare, but when he came to my house, he felt I was guilty of something. As for myself, I had declared everything and did not feel guilty in the least. But when he came into my home, he acted like it was a hearing room. I had to scramble, and he gave the orders. I was guilty of something, but he did not know what. I had to tell him what dates and times I had gone out to cut wood. How am I supposed to know? Did he know where he was two years ago, on September 24? I do not know, and he did not know either. We do not know either, but we are found guilty from the outset. From the moment he set foot in my home, I was guilty. I was an abuser, a thief or whatever. I was not an unemployed person but a thief. There lies the difference. That is what employment insurance investigators are all about. Where do they get their orders from? I do not know. They are trained for that. We call them pit bulls. They sure are pit bulls.

[English]

The Chair: I thank you for that, Yvan. That's very useful. It is very useful for us to hear this kind of thing.

It's Georges Farrah and then Charles Hubbard.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah: I have a little question. We were talking about adapting the act to the new reality, the new economy. During the hearings, many groups have come here to talk about self-employed workers. I know your movement deals more with defending those who are currently unemployed, but I do not know whether you have thought about how the self-employed could be included, because I think they should be, given that the new labour market includes many self-employed workers. Have you given some thought to that? What is your point of view? What options could be explored in order to include them in a new plan?

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: Mr. Chairman, the plan has been somewhat changed for fishers. Before, it was a system based on hours and now, since the new legislation, it's based on the amount of fish sold to the plant.

• 1705

Therefore, the government has a certain amount of control on the fisher's activity. I am sure that with all of the staff working for HRDC, there must be a way to figure out how self-employed workers could be integrated into the program, while still controlling the hours. Controlling the hours of self-employed workers is a bit complex. Self-employed workers generally control their own hours.

For fishers, it's a bit different. They sell their product to one single plant, and everything is recorded. This is the reason why we came up with the system whereby their insurable earnings would be determined by their sales to the plant.

With respect to self-employed workers, I am convinced that with all of the intelligent staff at HRDC, it should be possible to integrate them into the program, but there remains the issue of control. There are a lot of controllers at HRDC. So there is probably some way to control self-employed workers.

The Chair: Georges.

Mr. Georges Farrah: Another issue can arise. That's the whole phenomenon of termination. When you have a self-employed worker, can they decide to lay themselves off? There are also contract workers. This is legitimate. We have to include them, but it is not easy. I think that in the current work force context, we have to study these questions. We cannot avoid them.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: We could look at the income tax statements and adjust the income based on these statements. But we know that self-employed workers can deduct a lot of expenses from their net income. This could also be the source of another type of problem, because many people play with tax loopholes and such.

Clearly we will need to continue to consider this issue of self-employed workers.

The Chair: Thank you, Gaétan.

[English]

Charlie Hubbard. I think this will be the last question, colleagues.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think everyone around the table today has heard a very difficult message, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that some of our HRDP people will answer some of the accusations that have been made.

We as Canadians should remember that in terms of the International Labour Organisation and the IPU, all human beings should have the availability of work. They should have the dignity of providing for their families and for their children by being offered a job or a type of work where they can have an income, and if not, of course we have programs that do fit those needs.

With the changes that came about in the mid-1990s we also transferred money to the provinces to create opportunities for people to obtain employment. In Quebec, of course, like New Brunswick and other provinces, this money is being administered and the programs are being developed by the province in name. With this the old section 25, Peter, that we had under the original legislation disappeared.

I'm wondering if the witnesses might comment in terms of this program whether or not it's working in their areas. Are there programs being developed by government, programs in rural areas to improve the environment, to improve community activities, to offer people that opportunity, that dignity of receiving a paycheque for their work, to be able to contribute to their community and to provide for their families? Could they comment on that to give our committee some idea of what's happening back there in that area of eastern Quebec?

[Translation]

The Chair: Gaétan.

Mr. Gaétan Cousineau: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, $390 million have been cut from the Gaspé region over 10 years. Would it not have been possible to boost the economy and allow more people to work for longer if the program were not as exclusive as it has been since 1990? This may be one of the answers.

The Chair: Vital.

Mr. Vital Gilbert: You could easily compare the situation in our region to that of the Gaspé. Back home, as a result of the reform there is less money going around. Small businesses are starting to close, and people are starting to look for jobs elsewhere. The phenomenon that is taking place in Gaspé is also taking place in Abitibi.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, on your behalf, I'd like to thank the witnesses.

I do want to say to all of you that it has been very useful testimony. It's very important, as I think you know, that we hear the sort of testimony you've given us. I appreciate your presentations, the written material and your responses to all our questions. I do thank you very much.

• 1710

Colleagues, we adjourn until after question period tomorrow, and then we have the Auditor General and two witnesses, then at 5:30 we begin the clause-by-clause, which is scheduled for from 5:30 to nine o'clock. I would suggest that we begin with a meeting in camera so we can discuss the clause-by-clause and whatever before we actually proceed into the legislation itself.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give notice of a motion that I gave to the clerk today and which reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of Commons all amendments to the Employment Insurance Act proposed in the course of hearings held during consideration of Bill C-2; and that this report be tabled to the House no later than June 1, 2001.

I simply wanted to provide notice of this motion pursuant to the Standing Orders in order that it may be discussed in 48 hours, when it will be deemed relevant.

[English]

The Chair: That's fine. I understand that.

Colleagues, we're adjourned now until after question period tomorrow. Witnesses, thank you very much once again.