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]

Thursday, October 25, 2001

• 1103

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): I'm going to call this meeting to order.

I want to welcome Minister Stewart and her officials to our 35th meeting of the human resources development committee. Minister, it's a pleasure to have you here.

After the minister's opening remarks, we will follow a normal rotation. The first round will be seven minutes, and I'm going to ask you to keep to that seven-minute round, questioners. After the second round, we'll move to a five-minute round.

Minister, you have been to committee many times before. You understand that we want you to leave as much time for questions as possible. But take—

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development): It will be short, even though it's hard for me to be short.

The Chair: I appreciate that. You and I share the same problem.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair.

If I might, I would first take the opportunity to introduce the officials who are with me. You all know my deputy, Claire Morris. She is unavailable at this moment, but she should be coming in. Already here, though, is Gordon McFee, the director of policy and legislative development in the Department of Human Resources Development; Wilma Vreeswijk, director general of labour market policy; and Réal Bouchard, the director of social policy for the Department of Finance.

If I might just take a few minutes for some opening comments, Madam Chair, I would like to thank the committee for this invitation. It has been a few months since I was with you. I last appeared before this table to discuss Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations. Since that time, we have all become aware of a change in the economy and the public mood. The tragic events of September 11 have resulted in a loss of momentum in the global economy, which has meant increased uncertainty in Canada's economic prospects.

• 1105

In the context of those events, you have asked me here to discuss current labour market issues of importance to all Canadians. Therefore, I'd like to take some time today to outline just how HRDC responds in times of uncertainty.

There is no doubt that with our changing economy, our challenge as a society is to continue looking forward, because now, more than ever, Canadians need to develop their skills and enhance their learning for the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century. We must remain focused on what makes our economy strong by ensuring all Canadians have the opportunity to develop their skills so that they can find and keep jobs. It is skilled workers who drive the economy, and their creativity that leads to a innovation. We compete globally on the quantity and the quality of our ideas.

[Translation]

However, for Canadians who have already lost their jobs, the Government of Canada must be equally focused on providing them with temporary income support to help them during their time of transition.

This function of providing temporary income belongs to Employment Insurance—one of the mainstays of Canada's social safety net. The EI program acts as an automatic stabilizer to local and national economies. It has supported Canadians for the past 60 years, helping them through difficult times.

[English]

The EI program has evolved over the years to respond to the changing needs of Canadians. The very structure of the program is designed to respond rapidly and automatically to changes in local labour markets. The entrance requirements and duration of benefits, for example, are adjusted every four weeks in every region of Canada, based on the latest regional unemployment statistics. Even a change of 1% or less in the unemployment rate can trigger lower entrance requirements for a worker and can provide more weeks of benefits. As an example, the unemployment rate in Quebec City rose from 7.4% during May-June 2001, to 8.2% in October. Workers can now qualify with 595 hours of work, as compared to 630 hours about four months ago. Workers would be entitled to receive 42 weeks of benefit, as compared to forty weeks previously.

In administering the EI program, we provide rapid-response strategies during situations involving mass layoffs in particular industries. This means my department staff work with the employer and employees to help employees to apply for employment insurance. Information is gathered on-site so that claims can be processed as quickly as possible. They can also work with unions to set up information sessions about active employment measures.

Work sharing also offers another flexible response to employees facing a temporary layoff. With a shorter work week, employers temporarily reduce costs, thus enabling them to retain their workers and avoid layoffs. Employees then receive EI benefits for those days when they are not working. HRDC has a total of 370 work-sharing agreements right now. These agreements cover about 15,000 employees across the country.

I'd like to refer the committee members to the ongoing workforce reduction at Air Canada at this point. HRDC officials have met with the airline and its unions to mitigate the number of people affected by layoffs. In fact, my officials are in daily contact with airline officials and employee representatives. We're hopeful our collective efforts will result in one or more work-sharing agreements being struck, involving several thousand workers. I can assure the members of the committee that we are working expeditiously to ensure that our response in this context is in the best interests of the employees.

However, Madam Chair, we must remember that work sharing is only one way to alleviate the hardship of unemployment for workers while helping companies to retain the skills of their workforce. While the EI program has helped to maintain income stability, other initiatives have also been taken to strengthen the local labour market by expanding work opportunities.

• 1110

[Translation]

Madam Chair, allow me to talk about a recent initiative announced in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. In working with the local community, we have contributed more than $1 million towards extending the tourism season, and helping seasonal workers stay employed longer. Seasonal workers can expect an eight-to-10-week longer work period. This project proves that, when we work together with the community, we can produce some positive results.

[English]

Madam Chair, the employment insurance program will continue to be relevant to the changing circumstances of Canadians. The committee has taken an active interest in the last four years in our annual monitoring and assessment reports on the employment insurance program. Data collected through the monitoring and assessment process shows that the core elements of EI are working. The committee members also recognized the fact illustrated in the report, that being that the core elements of employment insurance are sound.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the standing committee in its May 31 report entitled Beyond Bill C-2: A Review of Other Proposals to Reform Employment Insurance. This report has added to our ongoing monitoring and assessment process. I assure you that we have carefully studied the committee's report and have evaluated its recommendations. As you know, I tabled our response yesterday.

Recent events have underlined the importance of maintaining a balance in the employment insurance program in order to protect Canadian workers in need while helping them to prepare and build for their future.

[Translation]

As the committee indicates, fine-tuning the program can be necessary from time to time. In fact, the government has always responded when solid evidence showed that a change was required.

[English]

We have followed a clearly defined process in proposing and implementing change. Through our monitoring and assessment process and through conversations with Canadians, we have looked at the evidence of how a measure was working, and then we've acted based on that evidence—and let me give a few examples of our approach. Regarding the intensity rule, we heard the views expressed by workers in seasonal industries. We looked at the evidence and found the rule was not effective. We responded by eliminating the intensity rule for seasonal workers and for those who make frequent use of employment insurance. The clawback was also adjusted, backed up by evidence, to make it fairer and better targeted.

We have also taken this evidence-based approach on a broader level. We became aware that Canadian families were finding it to be a challenge to balance work and family responsibilities. We have come to realize how important it is to allow children to get a good start in their early years. As a result, we extended maternity and parental benefits to one year in order to allow parents to spend more time with their newborn or newly adopted children.

Since your report of last spring, Madam Chair, we have made two other important changes to employment insurance that were recommended by the committee and were based on solid evidence. We've changed the way undeclared earnings are calculated, making it easier for employers and fairer for claimants. In fact, this was requested by the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec. Secondly, we have also initiated a process making small weeks a permanent and national feature of the employment insurance program. Madam Chair, I intend to ensure that this commitment is fulfilled by November 18.

Looking ahead, we'll continue monitoring and assessing the impact of employment insurance on individuals, on communities, and on the economy.

[Translation]

As we look to the future, the issue of coverage for self-employed people will become more important. The self-employed make up a key segment of the labour market, representing 16% of employed Canadians. The committee recognized the complexity of this issue, and the fact that little consensus exists among the self-employed for such coverage.

[English]

A report about CIBC in today's newspaper talks about the fact that when there is a softening in the economy, there is often an increase in the numbers of Canadians who have become self-employed. I think we all saw that in the earlier part of the 1990s. The interest that the committee showed in its report about the impact of benefits that are potentially useful to self-employed Canadians is therefore a good one, and it's very timely. I would welcome further study by the committee on the diversity of views and the issues associated with self-employed workers in Canada. It might be also interesting to look at any international experience, Madam Chair, including public- and private-sector models.

• 1115

Now, as our response indicates, the government is also examining the committee's recommendation on the two-week waiting period for apprentices. This complements and reinforces the government's Speech from the Throne commitment to invest in the skills of Canadians.

In our response to the committee, we have also reaffirmed another Speech from the Throne commitment to improve support to parents caring for gravely ill children. Clearly, we want to alleviate sudden income or job loss for parents facing such difficult circumstances.

Employment insurance has evolved to meet the needs of Canadians and their families while responding to changing labour market realities. We will continue to monitor and assess the program to ensure that this remains the case.

It should be underlined that the key to employment insurance reform was shifting to a better balance between income support and helping Canadians to build skills for lasting jobs. As always, the goal is to ensure that Canadians are able to find and keep work.

Part II of the Employment Insurance Act authorizes the Government of Canada, in partnership with the provinces and territories, to support a range of active measures that help Canadians prepare for and obtain work. In 2000-01, about 458,000 Canadians received assistance under the employment benefits and support measures. They also benefited directly from a $1.9 billion investment in these services transferred to the provinces and territories. Therefore, the provinces and territories also play a very key role in helping Canadians to find and keep jobs.

[Translation]

Madam Chair, above all, we want to help Canadians get a job. Few issues matter more to Canadians than their ability to contribute to their family, their society and to keep pace with changes in the economy.

[English]

That's the reason why I'm talking to Canadians about skills and learning. That's why I'm looking forward to presenting a made-in-Canada response in the months ahead.

Madam Chair, honourable members, Canadians can count on employment insurance. It's an enduring and important program that is part of our social fabric. At the same time, we are committed to a balanced approach. While we are resolved to continue supporting Canadians who are unemployed, we must also remain focused on helping them to renew and build their skills for the 21st century.

The Chair: We're going to begin our round of questioning. Just so you'll have some sense of where you are on the list, we'll start with Mr. Peschisolido, and he'll be followed by Monsieur Bellemare, Monsieur Crête, Mr. Wilfert, Monsieur Godin, Madame Folco, and then we'll continue—and we'll add Mr. Tonks to the list.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome Minister Stewart to our committee.

I'd like to begin, Minister, by saying the so-called EI surplus is incorporated into the government's Consolidated Revenue Fund, as you know. As you mentioned, the aftermath of September 11 has brought a strain, and we have difficult economic times. If the EI surplus were needed right now, how much would be in the surplus? If you could give a specific figure, that would be good.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, I would like to welcome you to the table, too, Mr. Peschisolido. I know this is the first time we've met at the table, and I appreciate having you as a critic in the House.

You're right to say the employment insurance premiums are collected and become part of general revenues. Something that's very important to convey to Canadians at this point in time, when there is economic turbulence, is that there are sufficient funds there, that the employment insurance program is there and is available to the vast majority of Canadians in paid employment today. In these uncertain times, one of the strongest messages we should convey to Canadians is that we have a system that is strong, is stable, and is there to assist them.

• 1120

In terms of the actual amount that is in the surplus now, the order of magnitude is about $34 billion.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: The Chief Actuary has said that with that amount—and we're obviously in very good shape—premiums could be cut to 1.75% for employees and 2.45% for employers. As you said, we're in tough economic times and we need a stimulus to the economy. I'm sure you would agree with your colleague, Minister of Finance Paul Martin, when he said on May 3, 1994, that “payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation.” Minister Stewart, given that you have said the fund has a huge surplus, would you commit today to reducing premiums for both employees and employers to the amount suggested by the Chief Actuary?

Ms. Jane Stewart: I think we should be happy about the fact that we have the funds at a time when we're experiencing economic turbulence. It's interesting to note that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in a speech in Moncton earlier this week, indicated how important it was to have gotten our fiscal house in order so that some of our automatic stabilizers—and he included employment insurance—can be there to actually work when we need them.

In the context of premiums, I would note that over the course of the last seven or eight years, we have consistently reduced premiums, in recognition of the fact that we had a capacity to do so. I would also note that, as a part of Bill C-2 that was passed, there will be a full review of the rate-setting process. That was a very important piece of the legislation that was passed last spring.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Minister, with all due respect, the Chief Actuary has stated very clearly that an EI surplus of between $10-$15 billion is more than enough to deal with an economic cycle's turmoil. You have over three times that amount, so why wouldn't you commit today to following the advice of your finance minister, as well as that of the Chief Actuary? Do what is right and give hard-pressed workers and the unemployed some hope in the job market. Given the context of your own Chief Actuary's comments, why wouldn't you agree to reduce the premiums?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, I would point out that our track record has been to reduce premiums in every single year. On balance, with the changes that have been made, we have identified $6.4 billion to date in 2001 that will be saved by employers and employees as a result of those reductions.

At this point in time, Mr. Peschisolido, given that the economy is in this turbulence, the concern that Canadians have is that there will be a program there to support them should they need it. I would also remind you that it wasn't so long ago—certainly before our government—when a surplus was very quickly turned into a deficit when the economy went from a solid position into a softening position.

What we take heart from is the fact that we've been able to effectively manage our fiscal circumstances. At the same time when we've been reducing premiums, we've been able to ensure that we have a system that is strong and there for Canadians at times when they might need it. We have also been able to reassure them that this automatic stabilizer can be effectively used as the economy goes through this precarious point in time.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Madam Minister, as you just stated, the EI premiums are there for the workers. As you have admitted yourself, you have a surplus of over $36 billion. Why won't this government act to make sure that in a time of economic trouble or recession—whichever word you want to use—it would do the appropriate thing, given its role to create jobs?

Ms. Jane Stewart: I would point out to you that we have acted on a number of fronts. In my commentary, I talked about taking a balanced approach. In that context, we have continued to reduce premiums. We have continued to increase benefits. At this point in time, this point of economic turbulence—which is the reason the committee asked me to come in to talk about the stabilizers that we have—we can point to employment insurance and feel satisfied that the system will indeed be there and that Canadians will have access to it should they need it over the course of the ups and downs of the economy.

• 1125

But I would remind you, Mr. Peschisolido, that you just have to look at our track record here to see that we have indeed provided a balanced strategy of reducing premiums and increasing benefits in the past.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orleans, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Minister, I would like to welcome you and tell you this is the second committee meeting that I have attended; I am a newcomer to this committee. The topic interests me immensely. I know you personally, and I know that all Canadians are important to you.

As you know, Madam Minister, I was the principal of an adult school, and I had the pleasure of founding the first adult French-language school outside Quebec. The population of that school is now about 1,800.

I observed several things, for example, that women in general had great difficulty re-entering the workforce, for several reasons that everyone knows. I saw, for example, one woman who came to school every two days and who only had one dress. She came to school one day, she washed her dress the next day, and she could come back to school the day after. There were all kinds of financial difficulties like that.

[English]

You have spoken about skills development, and that is what I find. Job creation comes with skills development. You have a variety of adult programs in schools, boards of education, community colleges, and private schools. I notice that, in certain countries, the unions get involved in helping to upgrade their employees.

At the school level that I was at, I noticed there was often a language problem for new Canadians, that they needed ESL programs or FSL programs. Often, these were cut by the province for monetary reasons. Of course, if these people cannot communicate, they cannot get a job.

Often, new Canadians need an entry-level job no matter what their background was before. They need an immediate job to survive as individuals, sometimes as a family, sometimes as a broken family, or sometimes as half a family because the whole family did not come from the country from which they immigrated.

These skills could be basic life skills, like finding out how to read a telephone book, learning how to read that map at the corner that will direct you by bus to an employment place, or knowing how to fill something in. These are all very basic skills. Does your department have an interest in that field, and do they have activities in that field just for basic skills?

Does your department have programs or intend to get involved with not just the employers, but with the school system and the unions, so that skills...? For example, look at the service industry. Often, we hear that the service industry is in need of people for work, yet we read the newspaper articles and we know a lot of people are unemployed. Does this mean all these unemployed people are high-tech specialists? There must be people other than high-tech specialists who are looking for work. From what I know of high-tech specialists—being from the city of Ottawa, the high-tech capital of Canada—they don't need to go to the employment office to get a job. They create their own jobs by creating little groups of companies.

The Chair: Monsieur Bellemare, you may want the minister to answer, because you're going to run out of time.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madame Minister, maybe this is enough to provoke a response.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Yes, indeed, Monsieur Bellemare.

• 1130

Your preamble has articulated a number of specific areas that I have been hearing about from Canadians as I've been crossing the country holding round tables focused on the importance of skills and learning to Canadians in the 21st century. You talked about the skills shortage, and about the value and importance of integrating new Canadians quickly into our workforce and taking and using their skills more quickly in the Canadian economy. You made reference to issues of literacy. Indeed, we know 8 million Canadians do not have the basic literacy skills needed to participate fully in Canadian society and in the Canadian economy. You talked about women returning to the workplace and having access to supports and training so that they can improve their participation. You also made reference to the self-employed.

All these aspects—and there are many others—are topics that we've been discussing over the course of the last number of months. They are motivating the Government of Canada to say that governments, employers, unions, individual Canadians, and the voluntary sector have to come together to build a national skills agenda.

As I mentioned in my comments, we talk about the importance of innovation in the new Canadian economy, in the global economy. Innovation really is driven by people. So, indeed, the work we can do together, the partnerships that we can build, and the strengthening of the learning system—whether it's for children, for youth, for those in post-secondary education, or for adults, as you point out—are extraordinarily important for us. They have to be a priority in the early part of the 21st century.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Madam Minister, this document is the most contemptuous act of parliament that I have seen since 1993 when I was first elected.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister and candidates like Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Coderre, who are ministers today, said that sweeping changes would be made to the act. That was not the case with C-44 or C-2.

Here, members from all parties unanimously—so there was not a battle pitting one party against another—recommended that 17 changes be made to the act. In the report you are tabling, you have the audacity to claim that they were not requests for change. On page 3, you indicate that they were only points to be taken into consideration.

I find that attitude totally irresponsible and unacceptable, all the more so since we are currently experiencing an economic slowdown that will severely test the social safety net, including employment insurance which is an important part, in the coming months and years. We are facing a situation that is totally... You do not seem to live on the same planet as ordinary people.

You say in here, and it is necessary, that self-employed workers are an important topic that the committee will have to continue to study. However, that is exactly what we have been doing for five years.

For young people, you say in this report that the stricter requirements applying to young people were good in 1996 and are still good today, because they will encourage young people to stay in school. If you implemented them in 1996, and in 2001, we are still in the same situation, isn't it because nothing changed in the meantime? Young people are facing the same thing under the intensity rule. The intensity rule is a bad measure, it is unacceptable and it must be changed.

I think that you have killed the people's hope with this report. As for us, we will not give up. We are going to continue. A budget is scheduled to be brought down in a few weeks, and I hope we will succeed in gaining something. But today, all of these clients, all of these people who have been waiting since the election, since the unanimous report of the committee last June, are facing a response—

You did not decide that three or four recommendations were acceptable, that others were not and that others could be discussed. This is so garbled that it does not mean anything. It is a total lack of respect for elected officials and the Canadian people. It is totally unacceptable.

As for the Employment Insurance Fund, the Alliance has said that in the end, those who are paying premiums are currently being had. Employers are unhappy because they cannot use the money and employees cannot do so either because their premiums are being used to fill the government's pockets for everything except the employment insurance system.

Madam Minister, are you going to tell me again this year, with the current economic slowdown, that you have decided to set aside $6 billion for other expenditures, when the government has taken action in other areas of activity linked to the crisis, like international diplomacy, security measures or other areas? For the people who have been hit the hardest by the economic slowdown in Canada, by the secondary effects, you've decided that you have nothing to propose.

• 1135

What do you have to say about that? Are you going to finally consider our arguments, given the unanimous position taken by all members who are here, and are you going to give us concrete answers on points that might be acceptable or where quick follow-up is possible?

No one worked on this report thinking that it would only be implemented in five years. The election was won last year, we were elected last year and this issue was very important. A year later, the minister is telling us that the bureaucratic vision is going to win. I think you have to have a lot of nerve to have an attitude like that.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Well, Mr. Crête, it wouldn't surprise you that I would disagree with the preamble to your question. Indeed, I appreciate that it was a unanimous report, and I thank the committee for their work.

I looked at that report in detail, Mr. Crête, and I believe we have responded in detail. I would agree with what the committee said in its report, that being that the core elements of the employment insurance system are working, and they are working well.

I read seventeen recommendations from the committee, the vast majority of which asked the government to consider and study, Mr. Crête, and we considered and studied the seventeen recommendations. In fact, we provided data on the actual use of the program. Beyond that, we looked at some of the recommendations and have added them to the list of changes that have been undertaken over the course of the last four years.

I would remind you of the fact that the small-weeks pilots will be made permanent. We looked at undeclared earnings, in response to a request from the committee, and we've changed that regulation. We have responded to the committee by agreeing with you that the question of self-employed workers in Canada is an important one, and an issue on which there is not yet a consensus about coverage—and perhaps the committee would do some more work there. So I would hope the committee would feel there has been a comprehensive response to the questions you asked us to consider and to study.

Specifically with regard to the employment insurance system itself, it's important to convey to Canadians that at this point in time, the vast majority of Canadians who are in paid employment or are facing layoffs today would be eligible for employment insurance if they were to apply. Of Canadians in paid employment, 88% would be eligible for employment insurance should they need it. We are there with processes to be on premise with employers to process applications as quickly as possible, because when Canadians lose their jobs, income support is vitally important to them. We have a system to respond to that.

And, Mr. Crête, I would also remind you that the system itself is designed to be responsive to changes in the unemployment rate of Canada. Every four weeks, in 58 regions across this country, a review is made of the unemployment statistics. If there is an increase in unemployment by as little 0.1%, the hours and entrance requirements may be reduced, and the duration of benefits may be prolonged.

So I'd like to convey to the committee that, as I'm sure you understand, the program is extraordinarily important to Canadians. It is flexible, it is there now, and it can be responsive to their needs should they unfortunately be some of those Canadians who find themselves in layoffs positions today.

The Chair: You have ten seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Minister, are you aware that in the Lower-St. Laurence—North Shore, where the unemployment rate went up last month, people's benefits period is two weeks shorter than it was two months ago thanks to your calculations? You concocted a formula during the elections and, now that this period is over, you've decided to penalize people.

You say that there is no consensus among self-employed workers. In our report, there was a consensus. Our report contained a consensus on 17 recommendations to which you have not provided any adequate follow-up. I think you will be judged very harshly because of the position you have taken.

[English]

The Chair: Minister, you're going to have to wait until the next round to respond to Mr. Crête.

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Minister, it's nice to be back on this committee, even if it's for a short period.

• 1140

Madam Minister—through you, Madam Chair—in your comments, you talked about how your department would be providing rapid-response strategies to the current situation by working with employers and employees, given the current economic situation and layoffs. I had a chance to read the recommendations of this committee in Beyond Bill C-2. One of the things of personal concern to me, Madam Chair—and certainly to the committee, I notice—is the issue of training.

I know the training and learning agenda has been the centrepiece of your work. One of the concerns the committee raised—and I was a bit surprised at the response of your department to this—was the issue of the two-week waiting period with regard to approved training for people on EI. Obviously, the committee recommended the elimination of that.

Also, Madam Chair, there's the issue of expansion of access to the part II training program by looking back five years. That's something we had also talked about before, when I was on this committee for four years. Through you, then, Madam Chair, these are my questions to the minister.

Since the skills and learning agenda is a central part of your ministry and certainly of your philosophy, why is it that the department has recommended that you still examine this issue of the two-week period? How long is it going to take you to examine it? When can this committee expect a rapid response in light of the fact that you talk about rapid-response strategies? Particularly given some of the industries that have been affected, this would be something to which individuals should in fact have access.

With all due respect, I would ask the minister those questions, through the chair.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, in the context of the skills and learning agenda, determining and identifying effective ways to support apprenticeship in Canada has to be a priority for all of us. Mr. Bellemare talked about the issue of skill shortages. The different unions themselves talk about the difficulty in finding skilled tradesmen and -women. Indeed, some of the trades are experiencing structural shortages, not just cyclical ones.

From my point of view, in the context of the broader skills and learning agenda, we have to identify those measures that are going to most effectively increase the choice of apprenticeship in the skilled trades amongst Canadians. We have to work with the provinces and territories, which have responsibility for training in this particular regard. And as we mentioned in our report, an important aspect of supporting apprentices will be to take a very close look at the impact of the two-week waiting period. I would see that as being potentially one of the critical changes that could be made by the Government of Canada.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: If I might, Madam Chair, through you to the minister, I would hope it would be sooner rather than later, because I do believe it is an impediment. That change is one that I think would be of great asset to workers.

Through you, Madam Chair, I would ask two quick questions. First, what is the state of the labour market agreement with Ontario? My understanding is that it is off the table.

Secondly, with regard to getting the message out, I did a skills seminar in my riding in May, and I did in fact submit recommendations to you with regard to what we heard. One of the things that I was surprised at, Madam Chair, was that HRDC has a lot of very good programs and they have out a lot of good information. Part of the problem was disseminating that information. In conjunction with the discussions with the chambers of commerce and boards of trade, HRDC didn't realize the needs that the chambers and boards had, while the boards and the chambers didn't realize some of the excellent opportunities HRDC has developed. They've now had an opportunity to get together and to look at some of these areas, particularly around skills.

I guess I have more of a comment than a question, although you may want to respond in that regard through the chair. Getting the message out, letting particularly the small-business community know what you have available and how they can plug into it, particularly in the area of skills, was quite an eye-opener, both for the officials of HRDC who were there and for the representatives from the small business community.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 1145

Ms. Jane Stewart: In that particular regard, Mr. Wilfert, I couldn't agree more.

As I say, I've been holding round tables across the country, too, in the context of skills and learning. It has been clear that we have to strengthen our networks and our partnerships if we're going to have a learning and support system for Canadians that is going to be essential in the 21st century.

You talked about the programs that we have, as well as the labour market information that we collect on a regular basis. A challenge that we have—and an undertaking that I can make to you—is to find more effective ways of taking that data and providing it in ways that make sense to different parts of Canadian society, whether it's to youth, to those returning to the labour force, to those considering what their options are for careers, or to adults who are currently employed and thinking of further career development.

There is a much closer relationship that we need to build with the private sector. Indeed, here in Canada, the percentage of employers who engage in workplace training and development is significantly lower than it is in countries like Japan and Great Britain, for example. We need to work together to find the incentive, the mechanism that will increase workplace training and learning, because it's a logical place for that to happen. Let's face it, it has a direct impact on the bottom line and on the success of the Canadian economy and individual businesses.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: What about the labour market agreement?

Ms. Jane Stewart: On the labour market agreement with Ontario, you know we have agreements with all provinces and territories, save Ontario. We have not been at the table negotiating for a number of months. There have been differences in terms of how public servants from the Government of Canada would or could be integrated. There were issues of money, with Ontario wanting larger amounts.

I can say to you that regardless of the fact that there isn't an agreement there, the Department of Human Resources Development is working in Ontario, is providing the benefits, and is ensuring that the programs available under employment insurance are available to Ontarians.

The Chair: Good. Thank you.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I have to say I'm sorry that I'm no longer on this committee, but—

The Chair: You can come back and join us at any time.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I always enjoy it. Thank you.

The Chair: I'm going to take this opportunity to remind all members that your seven minutes include the minister's response as well.

We next have Monsieur Godin, followed by Madame Folco, Ms. Skelton, Madame St-Jacques, and Monique Guay.

[Translation]

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

I would have been pleased to welcome the minister here today, but I have trouble doing so because of the report that she has just given us. I will explain why this is difficult for me.

During the election campaign in 2000, the Liberals were travelling around back home telling people that they had to be on the side of the party in power if they wanted to see changes to employment insurance. Mr. Chrétien stood up in Belledune and told people that if they elected Liberals like Jeannot Castonguay, there would be changes made to employment insurance. There have been lots of Jeannot Castonguays here around this table.

I have to admit that as far as I can see, people like Georges Farrah put their neck on the line by telling the minister that they were asking for changes straight from the heart. I too am speaking straight from the heart when I say to the minister that we need changes to employment insurance in the Gaspé peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. However, the minister is telling us that Canadians are satisfied with the employment insurance system. So I ask the minister if people in the Gaspé peninsula, the Magdalen Islands, and in the ridings of Acadie—Bathurst, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac and Madawaska—Restigouche are Canadians. I assure you, Madam Minister, they are not happy.

I only have seven minutes and I want some answers. You see that we only recommended studying certain issues. I can tell you that we did not just make recommendations to study certain things and that we asked you to reduce eligibility requirements from 910 hours to 700 hours, to increase the number of weeks by 5 to eliminate the damn black hole, pardon my French, that causes so much trouble for people and forces them to go on welfare.

You talk about the September 11 disaster. I can tell you, for my part, that for seasonal workers this program has been a true disaster since the Liberals came into power. Since 1996, since the employment insurance reform, workers have been coping with this disaster. So Madam Minister, how can you sit there today and tell us the government is taking the right steps and that Canadians are happy, when I know that this is not the case? I have travelled across the entire country. I went to all the provinces. Everyone I met with—and I met more than 800 people—told me that the system was not working. It is causing them to suffer.

• 1150

Forty billion dollars belongs to the workers. Madam Chair, we heard from more than 80 witnesses. Ninety-five per cent of people who pay into the employment insurance system told us that changes needed to be made to employment insurance. All of the Liberals opposite agreed with us. We were asked to make recommendations to government. We were told that changes would be made.

Today, you come here with a report like this, that is insulting, unacceptable and that is a waste of Canadians' time and money. We worked hard on this file. We believed in our recommendations. I am disappointed, Madam Minister, utterly disappointed in your approach here, utterly disappointed. Do not try and tell me that Canadian men and women are happy, because they are not happy at all. Better yet, I invite you to come and sit at my desk, in the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, and to take the 50 to 75 phone calls I receive everyday because seasonal workers, people who work in the woods, in the forests, people who work in fish plants, people who sell Christmas trees and wreaths, are not happy. Come and see them. I imagine that you are going to tell them that a committee is working on it. The committee has made the same recommendations as us, and you chose not to take them into account, Madam Minister.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Madam Chair, Monsieur Godin, let me begin by saying I have visited the Christmas tree workers in the Gaspé, I have visited the fish plant workers in your riding in the Acadian peninsula, and I have been to the Saguenay and have talked to forestry workers and workers in the tourism industry. When I was in the Gaspé and when I was in the Acadian Peninsula, the seasonal workers said their number one priority for improvements to the employment insurance system was the repeal of the intensity rule. I would remind the table that we did exactly that in Bill C-2.

Beyond that, as I listen to your commentary, it would seem you believe that what seasonal workers want is to work ten weeks and to be off for 42 weeks. Mr. Godin, when I talked to your constituents, to those Canadians who are seasonal workers, they said they want work and they want to work.

Mr. Godin, from my point of view, making sure we have an employment insurance system that is there for seasonal workers is a priority. I would share with you some of the report data that talks about how important the change from a weeks-based system to an hours-based system has been for seasonal workers. In fact, more of them are included. Their average weekly benefits, Mr. Godin, are about 8% higher than other claimants for employment insurance.

I would also note that for Canadians who are receiving employment insurance, the vast majority only use about two-thirds of their benefits. Even in areas of high unemployment, they use about 70% of their benefits. They don't use all their entitlement.

Beyond that, coming back to the importance of the fact that the best solution is work, our approach has been to go into areas where seasonal work is high, where it's very much a significant part of the economy—be it in the Saguenay, in the Acadian peninsula, in the western part of New Brunswick, or in the Gaspé—and build community organizations to find specific ways to elongate, to strengthen, the opportunities for employment.

Mr. Godin, we have had successes with that in New Brunswick. We have committees and important members of the community—be they employers or employees—working with us. I just want to explain to you that in the tourism sector in the Saguenay, as recommended by this committee and the seasonal workers in the tourism area, they asked us to help them to increase the number of weeks so that they can work. We said we should do a pilot. We provided money so that between May 24 and Saint-Jean-Baptiste, and between Labour Day and Thanksgiving, we provide some salary support, some wage support, and the employer will provide the rest. That will increase the number of work weeks from eight to ten so that the people are doing what they want to do, which is work.

From my point of view, making sure the income support is there is a priority, but so is working cooperatively with workers themselves to find solutions, to expand their opportunity to work. That's the approach I want to take.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: May I respond, please, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Chair: You have thirty seconds.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thirty seconds? That's going to go fast.

[Translation]

I never said that people back home did not want to work. In my opinion, they are the most hard-working people in Canada. It was my predecessor, Doug Young, that called them lazy good-for-nothings. I never said that. When they are out of work, they go on welfare. I can tell you, Madam Minister, that welfare is not the answer.

• 1155

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: What I hope is that we can work together to do what you now are agreeing is the right thing, and that is to find ways to ensure that the hard-working men and women in the Acadian peninsula, in the Gaspé, or anywhere in Canada, in the forestry industry, in the tourism sector, have opportunities to work. Bringing those partners together is a tough part of our responsibility, Mr. Godin, but I'm convinced there are ways in which we can work together to provide Canadians with what they want. What they want is the dignity of work, and the ability to put food on the table because they're employed. We are finding success in the strategies that we have in place in four regions in Quebec and in your province of New Brunswick.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. St-Jacques.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Stewart, welcome to the committee.

My first question deals with a recommendation that we made in our report on older workers. We know that when people are laid off at age 55, a serious problem arises. It is very difficult for these people to relocate. However, I know that there are some pilot projects that are currently in place, including 23 in Quebec. Given the economic situation we are currently facing, I was wondering if these pilot projects could be evaluated more quickly, since we will probably face a more serious situation in light of the events of September 11. Is it possible to do something along those lines? Moreover, in light of the events of September 11, has the minister taken a look at what might occur? Will steps be taken if the situation worsens?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Thank you, Ms. St-Jacques.

[English]

As you mentioned, the strategy to work directly with the provinces in support of older workers has been one that has been extremely important. In Quebec, for example, we have a number of projects—probably more than in any other region of the country—and we are working very cooperatively with the employers there, particularly in trying to identify new strategies.

Taking a pilot approach is serving us well. As recently as July, in Lévis, in the Chaudière-Appalaches, we created a project that will provide eighty experienced workers from MIL Davie shipyard with a range of employment assistance activities to help them to find and keep work.

We're going almost section by section, community by community, to find appropriate solutions within the context of a particular region. This strategy is being well received, and your request to review the pilots more quickly may be a good one. We have to let them take shape and be able to assess them, though. Again, the approach that we've taken in all of our work in employment insurance is to study, to monitor, to assess. Where proof is provided, where it's justified, we make changes, and that will be the case here with older workers.

More specifically with regard to your question in terms of the changes since September 11, I would again emphasize the fact that, because we have worked very hard as a country to get our fiscal house in order, we fortunately have the opportunity—as the Governor of the Bank of Canada has said—to let our automatic stabilizers take flight, be used, and be fully integrated. As he pointed out, the employment insurance system is one of those priority stabilizers. Should the economy change such that employment rates go up in different regions, we have a system that is responsive to that. Every four weeks, an assessment is made and changes are undertaken to alleviate the entrance requirements and expand the benefits. That's a hugely important message that we have to convey to Canadians at this time of uncertainty.

The Chair: You have about thirty seconds.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: This question deals with another area entirely.

The throne speech mentioned the possibility of examining compassionate leave for parents who are caring for sick children. Is the minister still looking at this possibility? Are you going to prepare some kind of program or provide some type of assistance in this area?

• 1200

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, it was mentioned in our Speech from the Throne, and I've made reference to it both here and in the response to the committee's report, saying it is a priority for us to understand the implications of a family having a gravely ill child and having to leave the workplace in support of that child. It is something we have committed to reviewing in order to identify the best strategies to respond to that need in Canadian society.

The Chair: Ms. Skelton, you have four minutes.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Madam Minister, I would like you to clarify today what the EI surplus is predicted to be for this year. It was predicted at $6.8 billion. Could you tell me what it is to date, given the recession?

Ms. Jane Stewart: I'll ask Réal to respond to that, Carol.

Mr. Réal Bouchard (Director, Social Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance): I can't really answer that question precisely, but if the EI expenditures increase, that annual surplus will obviously come down.

Ms. Carol Skelton: You have no idea at all what it is today?

Mr. Réal Bouchard: No, I don't. Of course, when the Minister of Finance's budget is tabled, it will provide some information on that issue.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Madam Minister, do you have any idea?

Ms. Jane Stewart: As I mentioned in response to the question from your colleague, it was $34 billion as of the last review. The Department of Finance will.... Again it depends on the economy and the number of beneficiaries. That changes depending on the economy, obviously.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Your officials predicted that it would be $6.8 billion—

Ms. Jane Stewart: Each year. But, again, as the economy changes and more beneficiaries claim benefits, Madam Skelton, the account is reduced.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I thought you would have some rough idea of what it would be now. That was my concern.

Ms. Jane Stewart: The expectation was that, moving from $34 billion, there potentially could be upwards of $6 billion if the trend continued, but there have indeed been significant changes. We have had an increase in claimants, so that has an impact on the fund.

Ms. Carol Skelton: It really concerns me that, at this really serious time, no one seems to know exactly where we're sitting.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Where is the money? Has it been used for other programs?

Ms. Jane Stewart: The important thing to appreciate is that we are sitting in a place from where we can fully say the employment insurance system is there, it's sound, and it can respond to the needs of Canadians should they require its benefits.

Ms. Carol Skelton: But you're not being very reassuring to me and to Canadians across Canada, to the working people. If you have no idea what the numbers are, how can we be sure?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Let me dispel that for you, because what we know is that the account has been at $34 billion. Based on the trends, we would be looking at an additional $6 billion by the end of next year. However, the economy does change. The number of claimants increases, so that reduces the fund.

Yes, we follow it, but the most important aspect here is to be clear that there aren't issues. We do have the financial wherewithal to provide benefits for Canadians should they need them.

Ms. Carol Skelton: That was my concern.

Is that four minutes?

The Chair: That was four minutes.

Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Some unemployed people over 50 are facing difficulty or hardship in trying to find a job. What is the government doing for them?

• 1205

Ms. Jane Stewart: In terms of supporting Canadians when they find themselves without work, one of the important things the 1996 changes to employment insurance did was to recognize the need for a balance between income support and what we call active measures. About $2 billion is invested every year in helping those Canadians who are EI beneficiaries to actively find alternate employment, and to take training that can upgrade or change their skills. That approach has served us very well.

Beyond that, we have other specific strategies and programs focused on youth, Canadians with disabilities, and aboriginal people. Those strategies particularly target and focus the need for these individuals to obtain training and experience so that they can fully participate in the Canadian economy. A complex number of investments and supports are made.

Building on your commentary, Mr. Malhi, as a government, we believe we can do more. That's why we have identified the need to build a national skills agenda by engaging and partnering with the provinces and territories, with the private sector, the voluntary sector, and individual Canadians, to find and ensure that we have the tools available to any Canadian who wants to take additional training and education.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Does the government have any plan to give some incentives to the private sector so that they can hire the people who are over 50 but are unable to find a job?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Again, as Madam St-Jacques pointed out, with regard to older workers, we're investing $30 million in pilot projects across the country. With the recommendation of provincial governments, we make investments in areas that are testing new strategies to assist older workers with the transition. I would note as well that our targeted wage subsidies are also available as one of the active measures that an EI recipient can use when he or she goes to an employer and offers his or her experience and services, with the benefit of a wage subsidy.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Why are more and more people going to private employment agencies for jobs, instead of to HRDC?

Ms. Jane Stewart: There has been an increasing addition to the private-sector market by employment agencies. Again, that is a part of the economy as it develops and evolves. It's an offering that has been identified as being useful in the Canadian marketplace, but it's also one that needs to be studied. In the context of reviewing self-employment, if the committee chooses to follow up more fully on the work on self-employment, I would expect that they'll also look at contractual relationships, perhaps providing some advice to the government about what those kinds of scenarios of work opportunities are like for Canadians.

The Chair: Mr. Malhi, that's your four minutes. I'm sorry. Maybe we can come back to you in the final round.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the minister really has a lot of nerve tabling this kind of document with us today. She has a lot of nerve not following up on a unanimous committee report, and not listening to her own government colleagues.

This is not a minor issue, Madam Chair. We are talking about a report that people worked on for months and months. We heard from 80 witnesses who came and made recommendations and asked the minister to make sweeping changes. We succeeded in signing it all together, and she could not even follow up on any of our recommendations. That is scandalous, Madam Chair. This report gave her the authority to go to her government colleagues and to make major changes.

She could have had the courage to make changes, but she has proven once again that she is just a puppet in her own government. She can be easily manipulated. She can't even give us any figures on the surplus. I think if we were to ask the Minister of Finance, we would get an immediate answer. He perhaps knows more about this.

• 1210

Madam Chair, I am very, very disappointed with this response. I cannot explain how my constituents will react when I show this to them. People placed a lot of hope in a concrete response from the minister, and she is telling us today that she is going to study this, and that she is going to study that, but that she will do so a little bit later on, because she does not have time to do so now.

That is ridiculous. I want concrete action. I want to know what will be done for self-employed workers. We have been talking about the issue for years here. She is going to send us off to set up a sub-committee or a committee to study the matter.

Madam Chair, the minister has received all possible suggestions. Is this committee working for nothing? Shouldn't we just close shop and go home? The minister will make her decisions without us. This department has made the least progress since I have been here, and I have been here for eight years.

Minister, what really matters is how things are in the field. What really matters is what we experience every day. We have to be able to give our unemployed people the service that they are paying for anyway. Only four out of 10 unemployed people are entitled to employment insurance. That makes no sense at all. We have not improved anything.

We should not use the events of September 11 either. On the contrary, our employment centres and the department should be even more open than before, because things are indeed going to be difficult in the next few years. But this is not what we are hearing today, Minister. I am very, very disappointed.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Stewart.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Madam Chair, I would just want to remind the committee of the approach we have taken—and I think it's the right approach.

We made significant changes to the employment insurance program in 1996. At the time, we felt it was prudent and appropriate to add an annual monitoring and assessment piece to the legislation so that we could consider how the changes were impacting Canadians across this country.

I think our track record shows that where we have proof that measures need to be considered because they may not be giving us the results we anticipated, we make changes. I would point specifically to Bill C-2, a piece of legislation that repealed the intensity rule; changed the regulations for the clawback, making them fairer; and recognized that women, particularly those in their child-bearing and family-supporting years, were coming back to the workplace and needed to have some broader access to active measures as they transition back into the workplace. We have made those changes.

I would also remind the table that it was the Bloc that voted against those changes. I really don't understand how you can sit here and ask for changes, when indeed we responded to many of the interests of your own constituents and you chose to vote against them.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: But we also won, Minister.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: I would point out, Madam Chair, that in the context of the report that was provided, additional changes have indeed been made. I would also point out that we have provided the committee with the data that we have received broadly from across the country in response to some of the recommendations—questions about the divisor, questions about the hours of work, or questions about the issue of coverage.

Madam Chair, the data we have now do not suggest the core elements of the program are not working. On the contrary, as the the committee also recognized in its own report, those core elements are working very well. They're increasing attachment to the labour force. They're ensuring that young people don't get into the cycle of unemployment and employment insurance early in their lives and stop going to school.

Madam Chair, I know we have an effective system. I also believe we have an effective process of constantly monitoring this important program as it exists, and of making changes where changes are warranted.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Though it is getting a bit late, I would also like to welcome the Minister of Human Resources Development, and thank her for having tabled the report in the House before the scheduled deadline. She had said that she would present the report and defend it before this committee. Minister, you are here today, and I thank you.

My question is on an issue you have been defending during Question Period in the House, for some weeks now. In answer to questions from the opposition, you have said several times that the Employment Insurance Program was there in the best interests of Canadians and that it was working well, even in these difficult times, when the economy is somewhat weaker, and may become weaker yet.

• 1215

For the benefit of committee members here today, as well as for the benefit of all Canadians who are listening to us, I would like you to tell me—in detail if possible—how you believe the employment insurance system is working in these difficult economic times, and your specific views on the duration of employment insurance benefit periods. Given the current economic situation, do you think that benefit periods last long enough to give the unemployed enough time and money to rejoin the labour market and find jobs?

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Let me just remind the table of how the employment insurance system is structured. We have 58 regions across the country. Every four weeks, we review the specific unemployment numbers region by region. It's flexible and it's responsive regionally to the economy and the changes in the Canadian economy. Every four weeks, when those numbers are received, there is an automatic review of the eligibility requirements—that is, the number of hours that must be worked for eligibility for benefits should someone be unemployed, and the duration of benefits provided. Madame Folco, as you know, the numbers on hours and length of benefits vary according to the opportunities and the unemployment rate as it's calculated.

In terms of the length of duration, the data suggest the duration lengths are appropriate. As I mentioned earlier in my comments to Mr. Godin, the vast majority of Canadians—two-thirds of them—only use about two-thirds of their entitlement when they're on benefits.

In terms of the amounts, we find that when we look at an individual's ability to restore their earnings after being unemployed, there isn't a long-term impact, so the benefit size is effective. I would point out in that particular regard that for low-income Canadians, the amounts they receive are not 55% of their earnings, but up to 80% of their earnings. That's a very important strategic and targeted investment, mainly in families led by women and in support of female beneficiaries.

From my point of view, we have designed a system that is responsive, that is flexible, that responds to the different realities of Canada region by region, and is well financed and can be supported. In these times of economic difficulty, it will indeed be there to support Canadians should they need it.

The Chair: The order will be Mr. Schmidt, then Mr. Tonks, Mr. Peschisolido, Madame Neville, and Mr. Crête.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for the information you have given us so far. I'd like to follow up on a couple of the other questions that one of my colleagues asked. Before I do that, though, I want to clearly articulate and recognize the significance of your portfolio. EI is only one part of your portfolio. You have the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, and a whole host of other programs that you administer.

In response to the question about what the surplus is in EI for this year, you said you did not know. We know the Minister of Finance is going to be presenting a budget in December. Are you telling us and other Canadians that you really don't know what to advise the Minister of Finance, and that he's just supposed to make up some numbers? On what basis is he going to be presenting his budget, so that we can draw some reasonable conclusions as to what the expenditures are expected to be and what the demand will be on the general treasury for EI?

Ms. Jane Stewart: There are a number of things there, first of all.

As the Auditor General points out, the EI account is a notional account. At the end of March 2001, the cumulative surplus was $36 billion, with a projected annual surplus of $7.8 billion. But as I would point out again to you, Mr. Schmidt, that is a notional surplus and it changes as the economy changes. If there are more claimants, obviously the fund is reduced, because the benefits are being paid out. If there is a reduction in unemployment and there are increasing premiums, it increases.

• 1220

Every year at about this time, in the past, the actuary for the account has made his statement. An outlook document is now being used by members of the commission as they talk with their particular constituents, be they workers or employers, but, again, it's notional and it changes depending on the number of claimants and beneficiaries.

I have received the projected annual claim load for 2001-02. It had an original forecast of 2.6 million, but has been revised upward to 2.8 million, and expectations are that it may hit 3 million. For me to give you a specific number—you can understand the way it works—is not appropriate, though. It changes, it's notional, but those are the broad numbers that you can anticipate that we will be working with.

Fundamentally, our job is to look at and to try to anticipate what we should expect in these times. But the message that is really important to convey to Canadians is that we do have the moneys available. If Canadians do find themselves in need of employment insurance in these uncertain times, the program is there and it's sound.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Chair—

The Chair: You have time for a very short question, with a very short response.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: —I appreciate that it is a notional account. I also appreciate that when this fund is in deficit, it attacks the treasury. I also know that with the way this things operates, either money for other programs is shortchanged or the government has to go into deficit financing.

I'm very well aware of the changes in the economy. The question is whether or not you will be presenting to the Minister of Finance a position on what you believe the situation will be. I ask that because we will all be concerned about the implications for other programs and the implications for the overall position of the economy and the fiscal management of this country's business.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, Mr. Schmidt, that is exactly what happens. We understand what's in the account now—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So what's the number?

Ms. Jane Stewart: The account changes according to the unemployment figures and the projections—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'd like an answer, but the point—

Ms. Jane Stewart: You're asking a question for which you know the answer.

As the Minister of Finance makes determinations—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: But he will have numbers.

Ms. Jane Stewart: —about the levels of premiums, those are exactly the kinds of issues that are considered. There is a recommendation to the Governor in Council at a specific time, suggesting what the appropriate premium should be.

I would also remind you—as I reminded your colleague—that as part of Bill C-2, there is and will be a full review of how the premium rate is established and set. That's an important piece of the response.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, I acknowledge that 80% in the report qualify for EI. I think that's an important statistic. From time to time, we're given to believe far fewer people are qualifying because of some of the changes we have made.

During the EI hearings that we had, the issue of the black hole was raised. I'd like to follow up on a question posed by Madame Folco. You have given indications of how the monitoring and assessment is a trigger that will help to assuage those falling through the slats in terms of the number of hours. You have shown how that can be adjusted, and you've used Quebec City as an example. You have also indicated pilots such as that used with seasonal workers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and have said they are an additional approach that could help us to come to grips with the black-hole phenomenon.

What does the monitoring assessment tell you is the extent of that issue, and what do you see in the future in terms of how the department can be responding? That's one question.

Secondly, I think the most cryptic phrase in the report is on page 16:

The scale of the skills and learning challenges facing Canada today extends far beyond the reach of EI Part II alone.

I'd like you to expand on that.

• 1225

So the first question is on the black hole, what the future holds, and what your assessment indicates. the second is asking for an elaboration on that statement.

Ms. Jane Stewart: In terms of our monitoring assessment of those EI beneficiaries who find themselves with a gap between the end of their benefits, of their income support, and their return to work, the number of Canadians who find themselves in that position has gone down since the changes of 1996.

From my point of view, the most effective way to deal with that gap is to work with industries—particularly seasonal industries, because it's fundamentally these workers who find themselves in this circumstance and we need to elongate the season so that Canadians in seasonal work have longer seasons.

As you point out, Mr. Tonks, we have been finding some interesting success as we actually sit at the table with employers and say there's more that can be done, that we have to figure out who can play what role, and that we have to try some new things and expand the opportunities that exist for Canadians working in forestry, in the fisheries, in tourism, and in other aspects of seasonal employment. That indeed is the approach to take, as opposed to just falling back on the idea that the only solution is passive income support, because, as I'm sure you have found when you have talked to Canadians, they want to work. They don't want to be on benefits.

With reference to your second question about the expanded requirements of Canada in the 21st century to ensure that our citizens have the skills and tools required to participate fully in society and in the economy, employment insurance is one piece of the puzzle, as you point out. Beyond that, I think we have to look more broadly and appreciate that if we are more successful in ensuring that our youngest citizens come to school ready to learn, this will have a positive impact on the capacity of our economy to produce and to have the skilled workers it needs. If we work together to ensure more young people complete their high school education, and if we reduce the percentage of non-completes from 16%, we will have a very important impact on our capacity to continue to innovate and to increase our standard of living.

If we look at post-secondary education and build on some of the investments we have undertaken—not the least of which are the Canada Education Savings Grant or the changing dynamics of the Canada Student Loans Program and the interest write-offs or tax provisions that have been provided—and if we really do focus on increasing access and capacity, that will be a benefit.

Most particularly, we also need to look at our adult learning system. We have to pull a piecemeal system together and really create and enhance our culture of lifelong learning.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Peschisolido.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I must admit, Minister Stewart, that I'm shocked that at such a difficult time for this country, neither you nor your officials are able to provide specific numbers.

The other thing I'm shocked at is your inconsistency. On the one hand you say the system is sound and the moneys are there, yet on the other hand you say it's just a notional account. By saying it's simply a notional account, is the minister admitting the government has squandered the funds that should be dealing with EI, that it has in fact used those funds to deal with other purposes, and that this government, this minister, now has no more funds to deal with this economic crisis?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Not at all, Mr. Peschisolido—and I think your preamble may be baring your own lack of knowledge in terms of how the system works.

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Let me just remind you that it's the Auditor General who talks about this being a notional account. Indeed, on any single day, you get a snapshot of what is happening. The point is that in the context of the system that we have, we have been able to continuously reduce premiums on the one hand, and continuously increase benefits on the other hand. When we find ourselves in the circumstances of today, when the economy is less certain, we have an employment insurance system that is predictable, that is sound, and that can act as an automatic stabilizer in times of uncertainty.

• 1230

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Madam Minister, would you then agree that you have $36 billion to deal with the problems? Do you now have $36 billion, which would allow you to reduce premiums and deal with all the problems, yes or no?

Ms. Jane Stewart: In the context of the accounts, the Government of Canada—

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Yes or no, Madam Stewart?

Ms. Jane Stewart: —holds those moneys, that's right.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: So you do have it.

Ms. Jane Stewart: It's there to be used for employment insurance. It's there as part of the CRF, to be used for other decisions made by the government.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: So, Madam Minister, if I understand you, you can decrease the premiums, because you have simply said the moneys do exist there.

Ms. Jane Stewart: If your question is whether or not the government has choices on its plate in terms of how to respond to the needs of Canadians, then, indeed, that's what we do all the time. In the context of our government, I would remind you that some of the decisions we have made have included premium reductions, benefit increases, and investments in a whole host of programs important to Canadians.

The Chair: Ms. Neville, you're in the three-minute round.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): I'm in the three-minute? Well, I have lots of questions, but some have been answered.

Madam Minister, you spoke about the fact that the government indeed does have choices to make, about how your department has choices to make, and about how you're very much concerned with providing passive income support.

My interest, both in training and in labour market adjustment—upside, downside—is with the sectoral councils. I'm wondering if you could address what the department is doing, what initiatives are in place, what you might do by working with sectoral councils, which my experience tells me are a very effective way of working with the labour force.

An hon. member: Good question.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, Ms. Neville, the concept of sectoral councils is not uniquely, but almost uniquely Canadian. We encourage the coming together of employers, employees, and educational institutions associated with particular sectors of the Canadian economy, so that we can understand the human resource requirements and standards sector by sector, as opposed to just looking at the economy in its entirety and trying to follow it broadly. Breaking the economy down into its sectors, its component parts, has proven to be very useful to us as we try to do a better job of human resource planning and identifying the skills and knowledge requirements occupation by occupation.

We have sectoral councils that cover about 25% of the Canadian economy right now. I'm convinced that we have to broaden that. We also have to deepen the responsibilities that the sectoral councils have and the roles they can play.

Most recently, we have entered into some sectoral council agreements in the public sector, with doctors and with nurses. At a time when health and health care is a priority issue for Canadians, knowing we are working together to try to understand the new health care models and their implications on the human resource planning strategies for health care professionals is hugely important. This is therefore a positive new step that signals the importance that we feel sectoral councils can play in assisting us in understanding the changing dynamics of the human potential requirements for our economy, and one that I think you will see us continue to develop—and I hope you would encourage us to do so.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Crête—and I remind you that you have three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Today, I gained a better understanding of why we have problems. We have someone who is a minister, yet cannot tell us what the estimated surplus for the current year will be. I would remind the minister that the report is entitled: Beyond Bill C-2. Members wrote it and presented it, not to sing the praises of Bill C-2, but to put forward the measures that had to be put in place beyond Bill C-2. The report was not written solely by BQ and NDP members of this committee, but by all committee members, including the Liberals.

This is my question. Madam Chair, the minister has said that the approach was the right one, since it generated a $34-billion surplus. Yet at the same time, it has been the main source of increased poverty in Canada. The growing gap can be attributed to the $34-billion surplus accumulated to eliminate the deficit at the expense of unemployed and disadvantaged people.

I would like to ask a concrete question. Do you consider your "right approach" to be reasonable, when a region like the Lower St. Lawrence and North Shore now has 15% unemployment, and since early October you cut benefit periods for people in the regions by two weeks? Ninety percent of people receiving employment insurance benefits will receive two weeks less, even though unemployment has just increased. Given the $34-billion surplus, does that seem acceptable to you?

• 1235

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Again, Mr. Crête, I'll first comment on your context of Bill C-2 and beyond Bill C-2.

I hope I have conveyed to the committee that our ongoing approach when it comes to employment insurance is to continuously monitor and assess its impacts, and to make changes where there is proof that they are warranted or justified. That has been our track record, and I would commit to you that it will remain our approach in this particular context.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Minister, your responsibility is to take action.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Let me remind you, Mr. Crête, that we have taken action. We did with Bill C-2, and we have done it with a response to the committee report, with additional changes.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We have to go beyond Bill C-2.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: I would suggest that our approach has been one that, as I've said a number of times, balances the premiums paid with increasing the benefits provided.

With particular reference to the flexibility and the responsiveness of the program, again, we should be thankful that we have such a comprehensive system in a country like Canada, that it is there in times of need and difficulty, and that it is responsive to the changing requirements of the economy, region by region. That will continue to be the principle against which we measure the success of the employment insurance system.

With regard to the decisions we made, you can appreciate that the increasing amounts of money conveyed to Canadians through income support for employment insurance will be conveyed as a result of increasing unemployment, should the need be so in the context of these changing times. Additional funds will be drawn away from that notional account as the numbers of claims increase.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Minister, there is a $34-billion surplus.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: That is the fundamental responsibility—

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: There is $34-billion surplus. Given that surplus, do we really have a balanced approach?

[English]

The Chair: Your time has expired, Mr. Crête.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Mr. Crête, I'd remind you that benefits have increased, and the government must be responsive to and responsible for those who are eligible for benefits.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Please answer my question. Given that we have a $34-billion surplus, Minister, do we really have a balanced approach?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Crête, I would ask you to....

[Translation]

Mr. Marcil.

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the committee, Minister.

In Valleyfield, in my region, we have 13% unemployment. That unemployment is not due to any weaknesses in the Employment Insurance Program, but to the Quebec government's lack of vision in the area of regional development. That is the cause. Today, we should be focusing on the causes of unemployment in the regions. If the Quebec government had a more effective vision for the major regions of Quebec, people would not keep leaving them.

Minister, I have considered a series of changes made following the recommendations of this committee, of which I was not even a member at the time. There is an existing program, a program that is now applied and has good results—Work Sharing.

You said that there were over 370 work sharing agreements, and 15,000 workers using the Work Sharing Option. What is the budget for 2001-2002, and how many workers will be able to take part in the program? Given the current situation, will the program be applied more to companies with temporary problems? Do you plan to increase the program budget in the coming months, or for next year?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Marcil.

[English]

The work-sharing program is a standard part of the employment insurance structure. If we receive an application from employers and employees who have an agreement for work sharing—an agreement is necessary, as you can understand, because it means employees will be working part of a week and will be receiving benefits for another part—it is available to those who are EI-eligible when they are in paid employment. As part of the system, it has to be there and has to be available to those companies and workers who choose to use that opportunity.

• 1240

Certain requirements must be met by a work-sharing agreement. A business plan must indicate how the company expects the stability to return, and what numbers of employees will continue to be in full-time employment. The review of the proposals or applications is very thorough against the requirements of the act. But, indeed, we anticipate that it will be an extremely useful tool at this point in time, when there is some uncertainty in the economy—although the expectation is that things will solidify and improve in the next year's time.

So, yes, I could expect an increased use of the program. Where any enterprise and its workers come an agreement that this is an option they wish to have considered, we will work very aggressively and supportively with them to provide it. But it, too, becomes part of the draw against the notional account, and it is a piece of the puzzle that can be very useful and effective.

Since September 11, we've had a total increase of requests that would cover 3,660 Canadians.

The Chair: Monsieur Godin, for three minutes—and I'm going to hold you to it.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Why do you say that every time it comes to my turn?

The Chair: No, I've been watching everybody.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, it's the second time, and it's unfair—and I hope you're not taking that off—

The Chair: No, this is not coming off your time.

Mr. Yvon Godin: If we continue to study like this, we're going to have to give a doctoral degree to the Minister of Human Resources Development. It has been studied now for over five years, and—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Yvon Godin: —we continue. You're going to get that doctoral degree very soon.

[Translation]

I would like to come back to the black hole, Madam Chair. I would like to know what solution the minister proposes. In my region, it is not the private sector that has created the most jobs or workers in the crab industry. Workers in the crab industry went out onto the street, practically turned the whole place upside down, until the federal government finally said that it would establish programs to close the black hole in the employment insurance system. Crab fishers went to court, and won their case.

[English]

The fishermen went to court and they won their court case. They now don't have to put a penny into this. They're going to come back with what is called the gap, the black hole. What is the minister going to do about this? Now, in the fishery, you are saying to close the fish plants because it's not good for the Atlantic. People cannot earn enough. I'd like to tell my colleagues on your side, very fast, that the Atlantic provinces have been voting Liberal for the last hundred years, and we've been 20% of employment insurance for the last twenty years. You didn't do too good a job.

I'd like to get an answer from the minister.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Again, I would just point out that we all agree Canadians want work.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I agree.

Ms. Jane Stewart: There are a number of different approaches to dealing with this particular issue. One is through employment insurance, but others exist, whether it's the Atlantic strategy—an additional $400 million has been put into the Atlantic region specifically to help us focus on expanding and diversifying the economy there—or whether it's increasing opportunities for Canadians to obtain the skills and learning they require, or increasing the technology available to communities across the country so that they can link in and participate.

Mr. Godin—

Mr. Yvon Godin: What are they going to do next spring?

Ms. Jane Stewart: There are income support programs, but, indeed, opportunities also exist for us to work community by community to find and increase employment potential. I would ask you to work with us in that particular regard, because surely you're not suggesting that there are no chances for the people in your region to work. I don't think that's the message they would want to hear.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, that's the message I'm putting across. I put the proposal to you that if you're willing to work, I invite you to come down to the peninsula, and let's work. Any time.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, Mr. Godin, I have been there. We set up a committee. We have our staff continuing to work with the committee to identify those options, and if you would join us, that would be a welcome addition.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Don't tell me I'm invited to the table.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Of course.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, thank you.

Ms. Jane Stewart: Absolutely. You have always been invited, sir.

Mr. Yvon Godin: After four years, it's about time.

The Chair: It's on the record. You're invited to the table.

Ms. Jane Stewart: You were invited years ago.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We're into our final round, and it's a two-minute one.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

Madam Minister, I'm interested in access to skills courses. A great number of my constituents are interested in skills courses. I'm sure it's the same across Canada. There is a problem, though. skills courses are usually available or are only available to those who receive EI benefits.

• 1245

A large group of people across Canada are what I would call the working poor. They may have gotten out of welfare or they have just entered the workforce. They may have personal problems. They have to raise children. They may be

[Translation]

single-parent families.

[English]

For a variety of reasons, they are right there and they are stuck. They cannot afford to pay for a course, but they would like to upgrade from a non-skilled job in the service industry, and move up so that they can give a better life to their children and those to whom they're responsible. Could this access to skills courses be opened up to people in the low-scale working area?

Ms. Jane Stewart: Again, Mr. Bellemare, you're making reference to the importance of ensuring that we have the tools available for Canadians who want to increase, upgrade, change, and develop their skills and their learning. In the context of a broader agenda, it behooves us to really look at the tools that exist now to see if we indeed have a full arsenal, if you want to call it that. We may indeed need to identify and invest in some new strategies so that all Canadians have the tools that are going to make sense to them at their particular time in life or in their particular economic circumstances.

There's a saying that goes, “Earn while you learn, learn while you earn”. We have been looking at the fact that we issue about 350,000 full-time loans every year through the Canada Student Loans Program. We probably have to increase the number of part-time loans available to Canadians, or increase grants, particularly for lower-income Canadians, so that if they have the opportunity and the interest, they can be learning while they're working.

Again, I would also point to an earlier part of the conversation about working with the private sector to seek any new incentives or ways of encouraging additional training and learning occasions in the workplace.

The Chair: Ms. Skelton.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Madam Minister, we had one of the officials from your department at this committee on Tuesday of this week, and I was questioning him about the GIS problem that we have with seniors. He told me he had gone back to 1993, and he recognized that there had been problems from that time.

My first question is—and then I have a supplementary—why something wasn't done about this before if your department has known about it for that long.

As my second question, I questioned you in the House about the social insurance card as an identification card. My office found out that we can apply for a social insurance number by telephone in New Brunswick. How long has this been going on, and do you feel it's safe for Canadians or people from New Brunswick to have social insurance cards issued by telephone?

Ms. Jane Stewart: First, in response to the guaranteed income supplement, I would agree. As a member of Parliament, perhaps you find this circumstance as well, Ms. Skelton, but at the point of the new fiscal year, there are always Canadians who have been receiving the guaranteed income supplement but all of a sudden see cheques change. They wonder what's going on, what happened. As you know, the approach is that the GIS is dependent on income. If income increases, the availability of the guaranteed income supplement is reduced, and vice versa.

With that known, I couldn't agree more that there have to be more effective strategies of communicating with seniors on the reality of the program, and also on enabling them in a more effective way to access the program if they're eligible. In response to that, I've been talking with my colleague the Minister of Revenue to see if indeed there are ways of using the tax form in the same way that we do for the GST rebate or in identifying our willingness to have our names put on the voter's list. We might be able to use the tax form to allow an individual to give us the authority to look at their circumstances and whether or not to continue with the guaranteed income supplement.

• 1250

So in response to that, I agree with you. I know there are better ways of serving Canadians in this regard, and I'm committed to finding those.

With regard to your second question, which has to do with the Social Insurance Number, residents in New Brunswick can apply by telephone, in partnership with the New Brunswick vital statistics program. But fundamental in this is the commitment to ensure that no matter how an application is received, appropriate documentation and identification must be required. That has to be a fundamental principle of the application process.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Madam Minister, you indicate in your report that EI premium rates have fallen steadily since 1994, to their present $2.25. Your report also indicates how Canadians benefit from a reduction in premiums. A recommendation from this committee was that the whole issue of setting premiums and the process of public input be considered by Finance. From the report, I understand this is in fact going to happen. Could you just outline what you think the issues are with respect to the process of setting premiums, and in the interests of a stable EI fund?

Ms. Jane Stewart: As we find ourselves positioned this year, it will be the Governor in Council making the determination on the level of the premiums. The Governor in Council will receive a recommendation that is based on the notional account as it exists and on our anticipated understanding of the use of and payment of employment insurance benefits in all their fashions. Beyond that, as you point out, Mr. Tonks, led by Finance, we are going to be reviewing the overall process.

Réal, perhaps you'd like to make a comment with regard to the strategies that Finance has in place now.

Mr. Réal Bouchard: No decision has been made yet on the premium rate review mechanism. As people would understand, the minister has had little time in the last couple of months to focus on that review, its timing, the means to conduct it, and so on. Hopefully a decision will be made in due course. In the meantime, as the Minister of Finance announced yesterday, he is working on his budget and so on. In that context, the decision on the rate for 2002 will have to be made over the next few weeks.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: I have a very brief question. Can the minister assure me that people in the Lower St.Lawrence—North Shore region, who lost two weeks of benefits on October 8, in spite of a rise in unemployment, which now stands at 15.1%, will have those two weeks of benefits restored to them?

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Mr. Crête, I can assure you that the flexibility of the system will be applied in your region, as it is everywhere else. Based on the four-week assessment period, the unemployment rates will be considered and the appropriate formula will be applied.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: My question is this: Changes were made to the method of calculating benefits after the government's election promise. This year, the repercussions of those changes have been a two-week reduction in the benefit period. Is the minister prepared to consider the possibility of restoring those two weeks to all unemployed people affected by this backward measure that reduces the number of benefit weeks at the same time as unemployment is rising? I would like her to answer yes or no.

I don't want to hear that consultations will take place. I do not have five years. People want their benefits. Do you want me to repeat that? Unemployed people in my region, where unemployment stands at 15.1%, before October 8 were entitled to at least 32 weeks of benefits, while all others had a certain number of weeks. Since October 8, those who were entitled to 42 weeks now get only 30 weeks, while those who were entitled to 40 weeks now get only 38 weeks, in spite of the fact that unemployment is back up at 15,1%.

Are you prepared to remedy the problem, which is the result of cosmetic changes made to the calculation formula during last year's election?

• 1255

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Again, in the way the system works, economic regions are determined based on the community of interest and the jobs available to residents. They are regionally determined. Every four weeks, the unemployment data is reviewed and considered, and the benefit rates and the benefit duration are augmented or decreased, depending on the rate of unemployment.

In the context of particular parts of economic regions, specific issues may have to be dealt with, Mr. Crête. Again, I would point to the approach of, on a community-by-community basis—particularly when we're talking about seasonal workers—being as aggressive as we can be in your region, where we have a committee operating to find ways of expanding the opportunity for work.

From my point of view and from, I'm convinced, the point of view of Canadians, what they want is the opportunity to work. We have a committee working in your region. I can suggest to you that such committees have been very effective at finding ways of expanding the opportunities, and I would engage you or invite you to join us in that work, just as I have invited Mr. Godin.

The Chair: You're on the table as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcil.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Minister, a new factor has been growing over recent years, and has now become significant—self-employed workers. Today, some 16% of workers are classified as self-employed and that figure is increasing.

In the report, you asked that the committee put forward proposals. I would like to know whether the department is doing any research in this area. I would like to know if any studies have been performed, and if so, what type of studies they are. The problem is growing, because more and more people are becoming self- employed. At present, self-employed people appear to make up 16% of the work force. I am eager to find out what the latest census shows.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: Indeed, that data can be accumulated. The applied research branch of my department is now preparing a report focused on self-employment and its coverage, and on some of the aspects and issues faced by the self-employed in Canada.

As we have talked with self-employed workers in the country—we agree with you—we have found no consensus on whether they wish to pay premiums and have benefits or not. Some want them, some want only parts of them. That's why I suggested in my commentary today that it might be useful for the committee to look at international responses to this issue, and at public- and private-sector responses.

But the data, the work, and the analyses that we have to date can indeed be made available to the committee members, should they so desire.

The Chair: We have two members left, and they're going to keep it very short, because we have about three minutes left.

Mr. Schmidt, and then Mr. Godin.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I have a real quick question. I know you're not going to answer on the exact number, but you have a range of zero dollars to $6.8 billion to work from. Will the employment insurance account have a surplus or a deficit for the consideration of the finance minister when he proposes his budget?

Ms. Jane Stewart: I appreciate the fact that you understand it changes on a regular basis.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, I do, so all I want to know is whether there is going to be a deficit or surplus.

Ms. Jane Stewart: We have at least come to a consensus there.

Monsieur Bouchard would respond to the....

Mr. Réal Bouchard: Let me try to answer your question, although I don't have the specific numbers.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I don't want the specific numbers. I want to know if there is going to be a surplus or a deficit.

Mr. Réal Bouchard: As you've said, if the annual surplus was estimated at $6.8 billion, that would include some interest. The real excess of revenues over expenditures in the last couple of years, let's say, has been something in the order of $5 billion, with an increase in the unemployment rate.

Two things are happening. First, as the minister has said, expenditures go up and, of course, revenues come down. What is the order of magnitude of that increase in expenditures? A 1% increase in the unemployment rate means roughly $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion in expenditures, with maybe a few hundred million dollars less in revenue.

• 1300

You could be talking about this as if the about an unemployment rate was 1% higher. That's exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing at this moment. After consulting the private-sector economists, he is deciding what the assumptions are, what we can expect over the next year or two in terms of the unemployment rate, and so on. That work is currently being done, and it will of course be part of the budget.

But for illustration purposes, if the unemployment rate was 1%, in terms of the combination of expenditures and revenues, it would mean perhaps a decrease of $2 billion in that annual surplus.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.

Monsieur Godin, briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Since I believe that people in my region like to work, and since I have seen the minister sign an agreement with British Columbia so that people aged 50 and over could have employment programs, I would ask whether she is prepared to institute a program for our region aimed at people 50 and over who are out of a job and wish to work.

[English]

Ms. Jane Stewart: We have indeed made the offer to the Province of New Brunswick. I'll be meeting with your premier today, as a matter of fact. If you would like, I'll ask him to move on that, Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Give him my best wishes.

The Chair: On that very positive note, Minister, I want to thank you and your officials on behalf of the committee.

On a personal note, I also want to thank you for your cooperation, members of the committee. It makes things go a lot more smoothly, and I certainly appreciate it.

The meeting is adjourned.