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]

Wednesday, March 14, 2001

• 1529

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)): Good afternoon. I would like to call this meeting to order. We will be hearing witnesses this afternoon and our entire proceedings will be televised.

Before we begin, I would like to mention that Mr. Ghislain Picard, a member of the Executive of the Assembly of First Nations of Canada and Regional Chief of the Quebec and Labrador Assembly of First Nations would be interested in appearing as a witness before this Committee. His name did not appear on the initial list, but because no representative of the Assembly of First Nations is scheduled, we could invite him to appear next Tuesday at 11.00 a.m. I would ask for unanimous consent to hear from this witness.

[English]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I so move.

• 1530

[Translation]

(The motion is passed)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much.

I would like to officially welcome our witnesses. We have with us this afternoon, as part of our consideration of Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations, Mr. Reg Anstey, from the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union; Mr. John Radosavic and Mr. Bruce Loggan, from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union-West Coast; Mr. Gary White, of the United Steelworkers of America and two people who will be slightly late, Mr. Brian Payne and Mr. Wayne Budgell, of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada.

I would remind all my colleagues that a question period will follow the witnesses' presentations, and members will have a total of five minutes, including questions and answers. All the witnesses will have approximately five minutes to make their presentations before we open it up for questions.

I also want to remind my colleagues that the bells may ring at 5.30 p.m., with the vote scheduled for 5.45 p.m. As you know, we will be hearing from other witnesses following that, around 6.00 p.m. I would ask that you all try to be here at that time to hear those witnesses.

Thank you very much for agreeing to appear. If you don't mind, we will begin with Mr. Anstey, from the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union. Welcome, sir.

[English]

Mr. Reg Anstey (Secretary Treasurer, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union): Thank you.

You will have to excuse me, I was scrambling with the device. There was no earpiece. So I just got it. I didn't get much of what you had to say.

I'm assuming you want me to proceed. Do you want me to proceed?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Yes, you can start.

Mr. Reg Anstey: Thank you.

Unfortunately we didn't have the ability to do it in both languages, but there is a copy of the brief as well as my notes, which are also in the interpreter's hands.

What I'd like to do, first of all, is give you a brief overview of the fishing industry. There's a tendency sometimes to look down at Atlantic Canada as a poor place and the fishing industry as an even poorer part of a poor region of the province of Canada.

Our industry in Newfoundland now is $1 billion a year in export value, which is really almost a third of the Canadian industry. The industry now is about $3.2 billion. We've been over $1 billion in export value for three years in a row. In fact, each year has been a record year.

We have recovered from the bad times of the 1990s. Our industry now essentially is a shellfish industry. We have very high landings of crab and shrimp and so on, with a peak employment in excess of 10,000 people in the processing plants and 13,000 in the harvesting.

There isn't any question that the membership I represent in our industry has been dramatically impacted by the changes in the unemployment insurance system. Prior to 1992, which is when we had the moratorium, our fish processing workers were paid about $130 million a year in UI benefits. By 1999, that was down to $59 million and it hasn't recovered much since. The harvesting section is doing a lot better, again, because of the value of the landing.

So it's been really difficult if you're in the processing plants to try to survive the cutbacks, and I'll deal with that a little bit here now. Our fishing industry has a limited season. There's a fallacy that if you tighten the regulations and you force people to work longer to qualify, somehow or other people will work longer because they need to qualify for EI. That doesn't make our crab season last any longer. It doesn't make the shrimp season last any longer. It doesn't make the fish stay by the shores any longer.

We have a season defined by nature. We have to dance to nature's tune. We don't determine how long the seasons are going to last. For the most part now, they're very short.

Maybe I'll read through most of these comments here and maybe make a few besides.

Our presentation really outlines amendments that our organization would like to see in Bill C-2 as well as comment on the amendments being proposed. Also it details our position with respect to premiums and the UI surplus.

• 1535

Some of the amendments to the 1996 Employment Insurance Act as proposed in Bill C-2 are welcome, but the proposed amendments don't go far enough and by no means represent real reform.

The proposed amendments do little really to address the fundamental problems with Canada's unemployment insurance system. While our union is pleased to see some movement with respect to benefit levels for workers in seasonal industries with the elimination of the intensity rule and the super clawback, there's little in this bill really to address their horrendous coverage problem.

Fewer and fewer unemployed Canadians are collecting unemployment insurance. In addition, there are no amendments to deal with the controversial and penalizing divisor rule and the massive cuts to duration. These measures continue to have a deep financial impact on workers who are seasonal, and their families and communities.

Bill C-2 does not make it easier for workers in seasonal industries to qualify for benefits. It does little to fix eligibility rules, which currently prevent more than one million unemployed workers from regular insurance. These are a million unemployed workers who would have been covered and eligible for insurance under the rules that were in place during the last recession.

On the one hand, the government has said that it recognizes the punitive impact the 1996 changes to UI had on women and workers in seasonal industries. Yet on the other hand, by failing to make appropriate changes to the 1996 EI Act, the government continues to discriminate against women and workers in seasonal industries.

In September 2000, Minister Jane Stewart said in reference to proposed amendments to EI that:

We do... need to adjust some measures which have proven to be less effective than we had anticipated and in some cases punitive, particularly to seasonal workers and women.

The fact is few women in seasonal industries or in temporary and part-time work will be able to take advantage of the proposed changes for re-entry, for example.

As proposed in Bill C-2, in order to qualify with minimum eligibility, women would have had to collect maternity or paternal benefits in the last six years. In other words, they would have had to have 700 hours of work in a 52-week period.

The fact is many women employed in part-time, seasonal or temporary work have not been able to meet the 700-hour requirement. For example, in our industry women work probably 400 to 500 hours, somewhere in that range; so they're off but they don't have maternity benefits. Now they get penalized twice. First they get no maternity benefits because they haven't got the hours. Secondly, when they go back, they have to get 910 hours, because they didn't qualify in the first place. They're off for the same reason as any other employed Canadian woman, but they get hit twice. So that hasn't been corrected at all.

On the one hand, the government is admitting that the 700-hour requirement is too high, because there is a provision to reduce it to 600, but on the other hand has not adjusted the requirement to allow those who did not meet it in the past to take advantage of the new entrance requirements for parents.

So for those who are in seasonal industries like ours, there are still two standards. In fact, women who have been off to have families in the fishing industry for the most part will not qualify, will not meet, this new requirement and will need 910 hours.

In fact, thousands of women in the country's paid workforce still won't qualify for pregnancy and parental leave benefits, even after this becomes law. In addition, there are no amendments to deal with the divisor system. The changes in 1996 to duration levels, which were quite drastic, deeply impacted our membership. Both of these measures have had a negative impact on all workers in seasonal industries. We're going to deal with some of that.

The surplus and premiums. Canada's employment insurance system is funded by workers and their employers through premiums. It's our system. Currently there is a $36 billion surplus in the EI fund account. This surplus is an accumulation of unpaid benefits. It doesn't belong to the government. It was built up because of drastic cuts in benefit levels and coverage levels. We know the Department of Finance has liberally used the surplus of unpaid benefits to balance the books and, most recently, to hand out tax cuts to wealthy Canadians.

Today most EI money goes to the government's general revenues more so than to laid-off workers receiving regular benefits. For years, the federal government has been taking over $7 billion a year from the unemployed, their families and communities, to pay off its own deficit. This has been confirmed by the Auditor General in the 2000 report. Finance Minister Paul Martin admitted as much in an August 1999 letter to an official from the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, where he wrote: “EI surpluses of the last several years have helped us to eliminate the fiscal deficit. In fact—”

• 1540

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Maybe you didn't understand when I said you could have around five minutes to make a presentation. Now you're going over time, so please make a small conclusion.

Mr. Reg Anstey: Okay. Am I close to the five?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Sorry to interrupt you.

Mr. Reg Anstey: If I'm close to the five, I guess I've covered most of the issues. Clearly we have a problem with duration. We have a problem with the divisor. In seasonal industries, for example, a worker is limited to 12 weeks, because that's the length of the season, and they get lots of hours. If the divisor is 14, that has the effect of putting them below 50% on the unemployment, because 12 weeks earnings get divided by 14.

As I said, I don't think it's realistic to expect that because you increase the divisor, people somehow are going to find an extra two or three weeks' work. The fact of the matter is that the duration, even if you qualify, does not get you to 52 weeks. In our industry most people have a month with no income. Fourteen weeks gets you 32, and that's 46, so you're short of the year. It's usually in the worst time too. It affects families in March, so it's very difficult.

I'm sure there'll be questions on it. We have difficulties with the current act. I think it's a move in the right direction, but it's got an awfully long way to go. Seasonal workers have paid a terrible price for that surplus.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Anstey.

Now we have John Radosavic and Bruce Loggan from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union—West Coast. Welcome.

Mr. Bruce Loggan (Director of Benefit Funds, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union—West Coast): Thank you. It's good to be here. John and I have been here before a number of times with respect to changes to the EI regulations.

Our union represents a lot of the people who work in the fishing industry in British Columbia. We've been around since 1945. We represent fish harvesters. We represent those who process fish and those who pack fish back to the plants. These are individuals who are, for the most part, seasonal workers. The nature of the business is seasonal, and it's a highly cyclical industry in British Columbia. Many of our workers fish herring for up to a month March to April, and they fish salmon in the summer.

The salmon season has been shortened for a number of reasons over the years. As I said, it's a highly cyclical industry. Run sizes in the south have been problematic over the years. In the north, owing to certain mismanagement problems, as we believe, while there's a harvestable resource, our workers don't have access to it. Many millions of salmon over the years have spilled into the Skeena River, thus precluding any activity to harvest and process those fish.

So our workers have definitely fallen on hard times, and there's a whole host of other difficulties that put them in a situation where they're very much in need of an unemployment insurance system. We've had corporate restructuring that has created more unemployment in British Columbia, and recently the Mifflin and Anderson plans initiated by the government have drastically reduced the fishing fleet. So we have far fewer fishers.

Nevertheless, we have a core group of individuals and, as I said, they're seasonal people. They pay into the plan, and they demand that some of the wealth they generate as workers in British Columbia be returned to the coastal communities in which they live. They need that income for support. There's no question about it.

We like some of the things we've seen in the bill. It's good to see the intensity rule, for instance, being eliminated. We do agree with the government that the intensity rule was always a punitive thing, reducing benefits of people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed. So we support the elimination of the intensity rule. It's good to see some of the clawback penalties being taken away—we don't believe it goes far enough. And we support the exemption of parental and maternity benefit claimants from the re-entry rule.

But beyond that, we have a problem with the amendments to Bill C-2. We don't believe the bill goes anything like far enough to accommodate the needs of our workers. The key issue we address in British Columbia is access to benefits. We've seen the percentages drop from approximately 70% to 80%, when I started working for the union ten years ago, to about 35%. In the north, for instance, the rate of unemployment, the number of people who can qualify, is about 38%, but the actual number of seasonal workers could be much lower. Also, when workers do qualify for unemployment insurance, their benefit period has virtually been cut in half. So this is a very difficult thing for many of our workers there.

• 1545

As I said before, in the north we've had a horrendous loss of economic opportunities. Over in Ucluelet, for instance, this year we had a very anomalous distribution of the hake stocks that clearly defied every attempt to harvest that fish. So we have hundreds and hundreds of workers over in Ucluelet who desperately need EI benefits.

The current re-entry penalty affects our workers. The divisor and variable entrance requirements certainly prevent many of them from qualifying for unemployment insurance, and we would definitely like to see Bill C-2 take that into account. Our position is that the re-entry penalty, for instance, should be abolished. We see no good reason for the re-entry penalty to be retained, given the fact that there is a $36 billion surplus in the fund. We could see a lot of these punitive aspects of the plan removed and greater access to benefits for our workers.

As for the EI fund itself, we believe the $7 billion that goes to pay workers who are laid off clearly isn't enough. There is far more money in that fund, and we don't agree with the $8 billion or so—last year, for instance—going into general revenues. We'd like to see that fund administered as an insurance fund—that's what it was set up for—and we deplore the draining of that fund away from potential benefits for our workers.

I don't know if I've had five minutes—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Yes, you had five minutes.

Mr. Bruce Loggan: We'll leave it at that then, and wait for the questions.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much. Now we have Mr. Gary White

[Translation]

of the United Steelworkers of America.

Mr. Gary White (Union Representative, United Steelworkers of America): Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me to appear and make a presentation. Before I go through our actual brief, I would like to talk a little bit about the situation we are currently experiencing, which is the reason why we are appearing before the Committee today.

In the last two weeks, the media have been saying that people are opposed to the changes. I would like to know whether the people expressing that opposition have been through situations like this: children who have nothing to eat before going to school, or families that don't have enough money to make their house payments or buy heating oil in winter. I would like to know whether they have experienced that sort of thing. I'm sure that if they had, they might have a different opinion.

Some people find themselves facing the choice of paying for heating oil in the winter or buying food—one or the other. It's pretty hard not to heat your home in winter, because otherwise, you will freeze. So it's a little sad to see that people hold such views.

Also, they are again talking about lowering the quotas for the fishing industry this year. In our region, the snow crab fishery is the most important to us, and there is talk of lowering the quotas by 15% to 30%. That's probably what is going to happen. That means lower quotas, and therefore less work this year than last.

We have also been told that the Japanese market is saturated. If we don't have access to the Japanese market, we will have to sell our products to the US, which means fewer people working, because there isn't a requirement for as many varieties of processing for that market.

• 1550

Scientists are telling us we have to fish the crab as fast as we can this year, because of the white crab, which is not saleable. If we have to fish the crab even quicker this year, that means fewer weeks of work.

There are weeks when the storms last three or four days, and sometimes as much as five to seven days. The winds are really strong, and we just can't go out. That's another cause of some of the problems we're experiencing.

If we follow the advice of scientists but can't go out to fish, that means even fewer weeks. And if the crab is no good after five or six weeks, the time available will be reduced that much more.

We are going through pretty well what the peat industry is experiencing these days, because I also represent workers in that sector. When it rains, they are unable to work. If we have the misfortune to receive a lot of rain in the summer, that means fewer hours out in the field.

Peat producers recently provided me with information. They say that in the Acadian peninsula alone, their industry generates economic spinoffs of $60 million. According to this information, the value of sales of peat and peat-based products is estimated to be $60 million. Much of that money was spent in the region on wages, services, parts and transportation. For every person-year created in the peat industry, approximately 1,5 jobs is created. And how much money has been taken out of our region since 1991 as a result of the cuts? I think the amount is about $70 million. If that money were still available for employment insurance, other jobs would be created, because people would be spending that money in our communities, which would generate further job creation.

If you inject $70 million—which pretty well represents the value of the peat industry—you will see for yourself all the indirect employment that is generated. That is another issue I wish to raise with you.

We're also seeing the impact on families. When there is no money, it's very tough. If you can't feed your family or pay your debts, the result can often be violence, divorce, and what happens then is that the children go through the same thing themselves. Sometimes, the problem leads to suicide. That is what we are hearing at meetings. It's awful. People are saying they don't see any way out. People are asking me what I'm going to do for them. But I'm only a union rep. I can't give them jobs. People tell me they have no work and can't feed their children. The situation is very serious. What do we have to do to make the government understand the kind of problems we're facing on the peninsula or in the Acadie—Bathurst area? What should we be telling them? And what should we do? Tell me and I'll do it. I just don't know what to do anymore. Things are very bad, and I can assure you that our Member of Parliament, Mr. Godin, is doing whatever he can to help.

People cry when they come to the meetings. I can tell you one thing: when I see these people come to me crying, I really feel for them because I know what they're going through.

Two years ago, just before Christmas, I paid a visit to one of my reps. She had lost her house. She had two Christmas wreaths, a few lights—the ones that look like icicles. She was crying, and told me she would be leaving because she'd lost her house. It wasn't a $40,000 or $80,000 house; it was worth maybe $20,000 or $24,000. You would probably call it a cottage.

• 1555

As for us, we are probably still interested. All these people want are jobs that will let them work enough hours to qualify for EI. That's all we're asking. We want nothing more than that; just that.

Madam Chair, maybe you'll think I'm too soft, but I want to tell you something. When you see things like that, really... Our people are being driven to suicide. These poor families are asking us what we can do for them. But what can we do? Things have reached a point where we spend all our time, as unions reps, not preparing a convention, but trying to work something out with employers to create jobs. That's what we do 80% to 90% of the time in those plants. It's terrible.

I would like to make a suggestion. This is exactly what we did. I would like the Prime Minister, Mr. Martin, and Mrs. Jane Stewart to come with us to New Brunswick, to the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, and come with me from house to house. They would see that these people are not bad people; they'd see exactly the way they live. Then they'd go into the schools, before classes start, and they would see for themselves how many children don't eat any breakfast before going to school.

As we have said in our brief, what are they going to do this summer when there is no school and they're coping with the gap? The gap is not so far off—indeed, it may already be upon us. It's starting now. They have worked, but they still don't have enough weeks to qualify, and this summer, they will face another gap. That's the problem.

I think I've probably gone over the time I was scheduled to speak. You have our brief and we are available to answer any questions you have on the content of that brief, but we want changes to be made. Something has to be done. It's as simple as that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you for your testimony. I think all my colleagues are very much alive to the concerns you've expressed about your difficult circumstances, and we have certainly noted your comments.

We will now hear from Mr. Payne and Mr. Budgell of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Welcome.

[English]

Mr. Brian Payne (President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada): Madam Chair, our brief has been filed with you. We're certainly pleased to be here today to make a few comments and present our brief on behalf of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. With me is one of our local union officers from one of our large locals in Newfoundland, Mr. Budgell. He'll speak when I'm finished.

CEP is, of course, a large union in all sectors of our economy across Canada, predominantly in the pulp, paper, forest, oil, chemical, and telecommunications sectors, but we do represent members in almost every part and community in this country.

Many of our members face layoffs from time to time because of the cyclical nature of the industries that we exist in. Hardest hit for sure are our seasonal forest workers. Mr. Budgell is going to tell you about that in a few minutes. He will tell you how important those EI benefits are to his members and especially to the communities where those members live and try to exist. It's clearly a lifeline for those members and their communities.

In 1996 our union was here urging the withdrawal of Bill C-12, as I'm sure you've heard, and it's the position of our union. We believe it was very much misdirected amended legislation that attacked working people and their families.

Today, CEP sees Bill C-2 as only partly redressing some of the worst aspects of Bill C-12. Clearly there are some improvements, but it does not address the eligibility rules in any meaningful way as they apply to the re-entrants or new entrants. Bill C-2 perpetuates the attacks on workers in seasonal and non-traditional work. Because of the nature of their jobs, some may not find work for more than a year. So they will be considered as re-entrants and will need 910 hours to qualify for EI benefits. Others will contribute premiums without accumulating enough hours to be able to qualify for EI benefits.

Temporary workers in the forest industry and in other sectors are often called upon to regularly replace others due to sickness, accidents, and vacations. Bill C-2 is not adapted for these kinds of jobs, which are growing and expanding in the workplace.

The re-entrant rules are particularly unfair to women, who disproportionately occupy part-time jobs. They are unfair to older workers, who take longer to find a new job.

Our current EI regime is in serious need of modernization if it is to reflect today's changing labour markets. Again, Bill C-2 does not go nearly far enough. Working Canadians demand and deserve that the EI fund revenues be applied to restore fair and equitable benefits and end what is clearly discrimination.

• 1600

Our union, CEP, fully endorses the position of the Canadian Labour Congress and other union affiliates' demands to eliminate the clawbacks and discriminatory rules embodied in the legislation. We urge this government to lower the needed qualifying hours to 360 and lengthen the benefit period to 52 weeks and to put benefits back to two-thirds of pay.

I wanted to comment briefly on training. Today in Canada, almost daily one reads about—and our union is very much aware of it because of the industries we're in—an impending shortage of trained and skilled workers in this country. It is going to have a serious impact on not only our members and communities but the country in general. It's time Canadian workers had some training opportunities that were properly funded as a result of, if nothing short of, the EI surpluses.

Of the proposals that are advanced by the CLC, certainly our union endorses the five weeks per year in the labour force to a maximum of 52 weeks. Those types of changes, I think, are long overdue, along with the others I mentioned, to bring the EI legislation not only back to being fair to workers but to recognize what's happening in our economy and prepare the workplace and the community and the workers of today and tomorrow for the world we live in today and will face tomorrow.

With that, I would ask Mr. Budgell to just make a few comments directly about seasonal workers, particularly in Newfoundland.

Mr. Wayne Budgell (Rank and File Executive Board Member and President of Local 60-N from Newfoundland, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada): Thanks, Brian.

I was a seasonal worker prior to 1989, when I was elected to be a full-time officer with my local. I've experienced some of the problems with this.

A lot of times we ask ourselves why we are seasonal workers. I guess we are seasonal workers in Newfoundland because you can't cut wood in the winter because of the harsh climate, the late fall weather, the early spring thaw. You can't plant trees if there's any snow on the ground. So we have seasonal work by nature. But I want to tell you that we work 100% of the time that's available to us. The people I represent want to work more than they do work.

What I have seen in my experience in dealing with seasonal workers—I have a membership of about 1,060 and about 90% of these people are seasonal workers... I have viewed some of the changes, the effects that the 1996 changes have had. We're experiencing an out-migration in Newfoundland at an alarming rate. Complete families are leaving Newfoundland and partial families are leaving for long periods of time. We're experiencing family poverty. The school lunch programs are now used on a daily basis. The food banks have been increased. Family violence... The AFAP program that has been negotiated with both paper companies is being used at an alarming rate. There is stress because they are unable to balance the family budget.

It affects small businesses and large businesses because they don't have the money to spend. It affects communities. If you go into any of the communities in which we have members—and we have members in 40 communities—you'll see houses with the windows all boarded up, nice homes that are not of any value any more. They can't get anything for them because who's going to buy a home in an outport in Newfoundland where there are dying communities?

It affects the churches. It affects the provincial economy. There is $402.4 million a year that comes out of the Newfoundland economy because of the changes. All of the effects of the changes, I would say—one of the main contributing factors to all of these I just outlined—are due to the reduction in the benefits and the number of people who don't qualify for EI any more because of the changes in the regulations. I would say we need to change it to get back so that we can provide for our families.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

I want to thank all our witnesses for their testimony. We will now begin the question period. Our first questioner will be Val Meredith, followed by Raymonde Folco, Monique Guay, Joe McGuire, Yvon Godin and Jeannot Castonguay.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, CA): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank you all for appearing before the committee this afternoon and giving us your testimony.

One thing we've heard from some of you and from other witnesses is that this legislation really doesn't go far enough. It doesn't open up the EI bill and deal with some of the real issues that are in the legislation.

• 1605

My question to you is quite specific. Do we support this legislation, having no commitment from the government to look at EI in its entirety or to make the necessary changes that would impact in a more meaningful way on the people you represent? Do we support this legislation without that commitment from the government to go further on EI legislation?

Mr. Bruce Loggan: Maybe I could just quickly comment on that. It seems to me that in doing that we'd be holding people hostage, people who need the benefits. On the one hand, there are some good things in the bill, and we don't want to see the bill thrown out. We do support some of the amendments that are listed there, but on the other hand everybody here, it seems to me, is saying that it does not go far enough.

There's just one thing I forgot to mention with respect to the re-entry requirement. Even the Auditor General in his most recent report indicated that he's very concerned about the lack of a tracking system for underpayment.

Now, I worked as an EI advocate for our union for about 10 years. I had the privilege of being in a position to find countless errors for our members and to correct them. Many of those errors had to do with variable entrance requirements and the re-entry requirement.

I could tell you that many of our members were assessed as not having labour force attachment and were therefore subjected to the re-entry requirement when clearly they did have labour force attachment. That wasn't caught by the EI agent or by anybody in the system. It was caught by their union, which asked them the questions that should have been asked before. We believe that a lot of those errors have never been corrected. They've gone on, and people have been denied benefits based on mistakes that have been made—inadvertently, I'll agree—through the system. But they're still without benefits. Homes are being lost, and people are being forced out of their communities. So clearly there's a lot of work that could be done here. There are some very good changes that could and should be made, and we hate to see an opportunity come up with this bill and not take advantage of it.

Ms. Val Meredith: But part of this bill is also designed to take rate setting out of the commission's hands and give it to the cabinet through Orders in Council. This would remove the arm's-length employment insurance aspect, where employers and workers have some control, and give control to government. So I ask again—and maybe some of the others want to respond—do we allow this legislation to go ahead? Do we support it when it doesn't really address most of the issues you people have raised?

Mr. Reg Anstey: I wouldn't mind responding to that.

The fact of the matter is that the 20,000 people I represent are for the most part at 50%, and under the intensity rule they've lost dramatically. So there's a fair bit riding on this, and I don't believe we can hold up the legislation just because it doesn't have everything.

Unfortunately, we've never had any control over what happens with the rates and so on. The government has been using this any which way. The rest is smoke and mirrors. There's no true control of what happens to those premiums, and it's certainly our belief that more control should go back to the commissioners. This is a system paid for by employers and employees, and quite frankly, I don't believe government should be interfering and taking the surpluses.

We're hard hit. I don't know if people realize that up here. It's been a tough decade and a half on the east coast. We're fortunate we're coming back a little in Newfoundland. New Brunswick is heading into the kind of disaster we had back in the nineties, and I don't envy people in New Brunswick. These are tough, tough times.

It's still difficult down our way. We can't control the life of our industries. Someone up here should recognize that. In Newfoundland last year, we contributed $4 billion to the Canadian economy and we took just over $1 billion back. That's the difference in the trade balance between ourselves and the rest of the provinces. Somewhere in the piece, those of us that generate wealth... Because believe it or not, the rest of you push it around, but farmers and fishermen generate wealth. Somewhere in the piece, there has to be a recognition that they do that under tough conditions and for shortened periods of time. Under the principle of fairness and equity, more needs to be done.

I believe we have to do what's here because a lot of people are held up on this. At the end of the day, I think the system needs dramatic revision from what it is. It needs to be administered properly by those who are paying for it, and I think we'd do a far better job of looking at the various difficulties that develop from time to time and from region to region.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Is it possible to have a short answer?

• 1610

Mr. Brian Payne: Well, I would add my comments to those of the other speakers to the effect that I don't believe we can hold up the amendments. I think that would be unfair.

Without going specifically to your point, my point is that major revisions need to take place and the government must recognize... just to speak on behalf of the members we represent in Newfoundland... We represent the forest industry in Newfoundland, the paper-mill workers, the loggers, and the wood harvesters. There's a seasonal workforce in the woods, but they're a skilled workforce. They have to be available. Abitibi-Consolidated in Cornerbrook relies on those workers being there. They cannot afford to lose them, and both they and the communities will lose them if they don't, as seasonal workers, qualify for what's necessary for them to exist in those communities. The communities will be boarded up as described.

This is a critical industry, and it's not a dying industry in Newfoundland by any means. It needs a very well-trained but seasonal workforce. We can only do so much in the collective bargaining process, and there's a societal responsibility, which is partially met by EI.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you.

I saw Mr. Radosavic indicate he has an answer, but we won't have time. Maybe we'll be able to come back because Bob may have another question. I'm sorry about that.

[Translation]

I now recognize Raymonde Folco, who will be followed by Monique Guay, Joe McGuire, Yvon Godin and Jeannot Castonguay.

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

[English]

I'd like to say, Mr. White, that you have been heard. Although my riding just north of Montreal is, for all intents and purposes, an urban riding, I have some very, very rich people but also some very, very poor people. I wouldn't want you and your colleagues to think that just because we come from another part of the country, we don't know what is going on in your part of the country. I wanted to say this because I think many of us were very moved by your testimony just a moment ago.

[Translation]

I also want to say that we Liberals—and on that point, I agree with what a number of you said—made a promise to the people of Canada. There are thousands of people waiting to receive not only what is owed to them, but also the retroactivity that has been owing since October. And as a Liberal M.P. on the government side, I certainly hope that we will receive the support of other parties to move this legislation forward so that we can give Canadians what was promised them and what they are owed.

Having said that, I do have a few questions. My question is for the representative of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, and for Mr. Payne and Mr. Budgell. Others may also respond if they wish.

I want to refer to the brief presented by the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, which refers to a significant need for retraining opportunities for Canadian workers. My question is this. It's all very well to retrain people, but in the areas you represent, retraining is only part of the answer. Once people have been retrained, there has to be work for them. We know that because of your geography, climate and so forth, there just is no work in your regions. What suggestions and recommendations would you have for the government with respect to job creation?

For the Department, what is important is not just paying benefits to people who are unemployed, but creating jobs in those regions. What suggestions can you make in that area?

Mr. Gary White: I know the question was addressed to other witnesses, but I would like tackle it.

In our region, fishing is certainly a major industry, and there has to be secondary and tertiary processing. I can tell you the crabbers make lots of money in a very short span of time. But if there were secondary and tertiary processing, we would have work for much longer periods. Recently I was talking to some people who were saying that there is a demand in the United States—and there is obviously a demand elsewhere too—and that if we wanted to develop that market, we would have work.

• 1615

The problem as regards the plants in our region is that we need assistance. We need assistance in order to re-fit those plants so that we can produce the goods that are in demand. If the government were interested in helping us do that, we would very much appreciate getting that assistance. We have been asking for secondary and tertiary processing for quite some time now.

[English]

Mr. Reg Anstey: If I may, just to respond to your question, I think there are a lot of initiatives that need to be undertaken in terms of one in our industry that the government has made no progress on. It's a key one for us for all our products.

We are Canada's closest point to Europe. When we ship to Europe, into the EU, we face a 20% tariff. That has never been high on the government's agenda, quite frankly. We're hoping Tobin might do something about that. If he's going to produce at all, it has to be high on his list.

That 20% tariff puts us at a tremendous disadvantage in terms of what we can do with shrimp and with a lot of our products that we ship into the EU. As a result, a lot of the finishing is done in Europe.

Some of the non-EU countries in Europe have negotiated at least a percentage of what they sell duty free or at reduced tariffs. We don't think that has been high on the government's agenda, and it is costing us jobs.

The other thing is more general. Quite frankly, I think Newfoundland is not doing as well as it ought to in Confederation. We ship a lot of wealth into the rest of the country through a combination of oil and electrical power. For 500,000 people, we generate an enormous amount of wealth, yet people have been convinced we're somehow or other a poor part of Canada. That's not bad spin-doctoring by somebody. We think more of that wealth has to be returned to the region so that there's proactive development of businesses.

We think the federal government needs to decentralize some of what it does. We have all the ice in Newfoundland, but the icebreakers are all in Nova Scotia. Go figure. Somewhere in the piece, I believe there has to be more of a commitment to the outer reaches, the outer edges, of this country than I see at the moment. Newfoundland certainly has nothing now. The military bases have been closed. The only military we have is from the NATO countries. Canada left.

So I think we've not gotten a lot of attention here, quite frankly.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): We haven't got time for any other answers, unfortunately. We have already gone beyond the allotted time.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I would like to hear the reactions of our other witnesses later, if we have time, or perhaps after the meeting. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): I will now recognize Monique Guay, who will be followed by Joe McGuire, Yvon Godin and Jeannot Castonguay.

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): First of all, I want to thank you all for being with us today.

Mr. White, you have given us a very blunt depiction of the reality in your region. I guess you had to bring the Committee face to face with that and describe things as bluntly as possible. That is the reality you are experiencing on a daily basis. I only hope you will have the strength to carry on and help people. This is what you do every day and I commend you for the work you are doing.

I am realizing that in the hearings we have held in this Committee, all the witnesses who have come before us have said pretty much the same thing: this legislation doesn't go far enough; we are not protecting the unemployed; we are not helping the unemployed; we constantly refer to seasonal workers, yet that term should not even exist, because it is actually the industry that is seasonal.

I come from a riding where tourism is a seasonal industry. As you know, when there is no more snow on the ground, there is no more skiing, and when the golf clubs are closed because the ground is frozen, that's it for golfing. So there are periods where the people in my riding have to go on employment insurance for a month and a half or two. They have no choice.

You can imagine what it's like for a family where both parents are working in the same industry. It creates terrible problems: having only half your normal income to support two people for two months is pretty tough. Why do we take away their income for two weeks by hitting them with a penalty? There is no justification for a penalty. Employment insurance is not supposed to punish people, it's supposed to help them. In any case, EI is insurance that people pay for. We contribute to employment insurance all our life. But that doesn't necessary mean we're going to be on EI all our life.

• 1620

If I buy an insurance policy on my home, it's because I want to be insured in case something happens; that way I will be reimbursed ultimately because my insurance will pay those costs. But I am paying for that insurance.

So, there is that whole dilemma we've been discussing now for quite some time and I would like to get your views on two issues in particular. I have often talked about self-employed workers. Self-employed workers are not covered by this Bill. I'd like to have your views on whether they should be and also on the number of hours women should have to work to qualify for employment insurance when they leave their job because of pregnancy.

Young people also have to have worked 910 hours. I'm sure that's another problem you have come up against in your regions. I would like to hear your views on those points and I will have other questions during the second round.

Mr. Gary White: I certainly agree with you that this legislation doesn't go far enough. And there is another issue there as far as pregnant women are concerned. Once again, this is a major problem. When women return to work after quitting because they're pregnant—and I believe one of the brothers also mentioned this at the beginning—they are required to work more than 900 hours to qualify again, which is simply ridiculous.

I work with a lot of women. In the fishing industry, they often work on the plant floor. It's good for them when there is work at the plant, because it's true that women are a lot tougher than men. Having to stand at a table all day long is not an easy job, particularly since there are a lot of repetitive movements. They do that eight or 12 hours a day when there is work at the plant. I can tell you I would support changes for pregnant women any time. That's for sure.

At some point, you say to yourself: what people want most is money. How can they get the money they need? I think that's what prompted us to prepare this brief. It's not because we didn't think women were important—certainly not. I also look after the credit unions, and there again, there are lots of women. They have really earned their pay by the time the end of the week rolls around. People are paying a lot more attention to women now and I am happy to see that they are taking their rightful place in society.

Ms. Monique Guay: Gentlemen, do you have any comments on self-employed workers? Should they also be covered here? They represent 18% of the population now.

[English]

Mr. Reg Anstey: I guess a large base of our membership is, but they are included—the fish harvesters.

You have to acknowledge things that are done well. Some of the recent changes to that part of the act have been good in terms of how fishermen qualify. There has been a massive problem with clawback—clawback is a problem everywhere—as well as with duration.

Obviously we'd be in favour of the self-employed being included, because a large portion of our members is in fact self-employed and is not included under the EI Act. I don't know why you would exclude anybody who happens to be self-employed. We have fishing operations. I don't know what would be different about anyone else, whether they have a small farm or they're logging. Whatever it is you're doing in society, I don't know why you wouldn't be covered.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Radosavic, do you want to respond?

Mr. John Radosavic (President, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union—West Coast): Yes, I would. If you don't mind, I'd like to speak bluntly.

People talk about the poor workers. Yes, people are poor and they need to be helped, from a humanitarian point of view. But it's this country that would be poor without them.

If you look at what our industry generates, even after all the cuts and everything else in the Mifflin plan and the Anderson plan, and the failure to address the people issues in those plans, and so forth, our industry still generates a billion dollars or close to a billion dollars a year. That isn't too bad for a seasonal industry.

Look at the rest of the economy of British Columbia. Look at forestry, look at mining, look at fishing, and look at tourism. If you start taking the seasonal industries out of our economy, what are you going to have? There's not very much left after you start taking those major industries out of the economy. It wouldn't hurt if committees such as this, which most commonly look after people needs, could start to address what kind of a country we would have if we didn't have the tremendous wealth generated by seasonal industry workers.

• 1625

Out of the billions of dollars that are generated, out of the billion that's generated out of my industry, there are marketing jobs all year round, there are corporate profits all year round, there are spin-off jobs in communities all year round, there are jobs at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans all year round. The only people who are not looked after all year round are the people who generate the wealth in the first place.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Joe McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's proceedings.

I think this is the first time we have had people representing fishermen here, and maybe we could go into fishermen's EI compared with labour's EI. We really haven't had any input on how fishermen qualify compared with how everybody else qualifies. Is there anything in the way the present fishing claims are... Everybody else is based on hours, and every hour counts, the amount of money per hour, while for a fisherman it is basically how much he earns in that year divided by the divisor that gets your amount. Do you think having the two systems is fair?

I know a fisherman can, theoretically, qualify in one day. If he happens to get a tuna that's worth $30,000, he can qualify for EI, while a labourer has, by hook or by crook, to get as many weeks as he can in order to get any amount of money and to draw for any amount of time. It appears to me that it might be a little unbalanced there, and I'd like to have your opinion on that.

Mr. Reg Anstey: We represent some 10,000 fishermen, as well as about the same number of plant workers. Most of our presentation is centred around plant workers for a reason. We do, nonetheless, have problems with the fishing side of it. For example, in our pre-moratorium years our fishermen drew around $90 million in EI, and they're now back to that same level. Our plant workers in pre-moratorium years drew $130 million, and they're now only at $59 million.

The changes have been far more punitive to processing workers because there's not a recognition that their industry is seasonal. There is this driving theory that if you make it tougher to qualify, people will work longer. There is some recognition on the fishing side that you can in fact catch your quotas. The government says, here's your quota; the fish show up at a certain time and you catch your quota at that time—that's the nature of the beast.

We have problems with clawback and some of those issues, but there's no question the majority of the problems in the EI system, from our point of view, with our members, concern the seasonal workers. There has been no recognition that a lot of our industries—as people have said here—whether it's fishing or forestry or farming, are seasonal by nature. We can't fix that. We can't make it last longer. And I think there's been more recognition of that on the fishing side than with regard to processing.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Any one else for that?

Mr. Bruce Loggan: Maybe I could comment. It seems to our organization that if Bill C-2 is passed, then the fishing regulations should be passed along with it.

Part of the problem our fishermen have is following the legislation of 1996. It is true that many of them actually have greater access to the plan. It's easier to qualify, and as was said, you can theoretically go out in a day and qualify for EI. The problem is that they're not making anywhere near the kind of income they used to make, and there are reasons for it.

Right now, as we're speaking, there's a whole fleet in British Columbia getting ready to catch herring. About 130 vessels will set their nets, and they'll pull in millions and millions of dollars' worth of herring. A huge portion of that income is going to be sucked right out of the pockets of the fishermen who are catching it in the next day or two to go for the licence leases. Many of the licences are controlled by the corporations. Many of them are held and owned by the companies. All that money is bled right out of the pockets of the fishermen. So yes, they'll qualify, but what will they qualify for? They won't make a lot of money.

• 1630

One of the major companies in British Columbia, which controls most of the herring licences right now, has just cut the price to herring fishermen in half. Our organization is certainly going to do everything it can to get a better price for our fishermen, but if that price sticks, many of those fishing on one licence will not qualify for EI. But all of the money bled away out of their pockets would have at least allowed them to qualify.

So that's a serious problem. It's not just the herring fishery—

Mr. Joe McGuire: So they're not really fishermen. They're working for somebody else who owns the licence. Is that—

Mr. Bruce Loggan: I have the licence and you have the boat. You want to fish the licence, give me $100,000. Give me $65,000 and you can fish it for the day, but that $65,000 comes to me up front. With what's left, you pay the rest of the crew, your boat expenses, etc. There isn't enough in the pot to go round.

The Workers' Compensation Board finally got wind of that. They have recognized the fact that 60% of the money that would normally accrue to herring fishermen is going to licence leasing. They're proposing to base the new premiums on that, as a working component of the total price.

Mr. John Radosavic: There's an important point here. There is no fisherman day. The fact is, when you're out there fishing for the day, for that day there are many days with long hours that go into keeping the boats ready, and so on, for no pay whatsoever. Yes, you get paid in a lump sum when you bring your catch to the dock, and you may catch that fish in one day, but you put a lot more into it as well. So I think it's a bit of an illusion.

Bruce has made the point that these people are not fishermen—you're working for the fishermen. It's actually the other way around. What Canada does is to issue a licence to harvest fish, then allow people who get the licence to sublease instead to the real fishermen. So it's the real fishermen who aren't getting the dollars, and the leasers, or the armchair fishermen, or the companies who get the licences that are sucking all the value out of the industry.

So there's a lot there. I don't want to go into any detail. We don't have time here today. But I think my earlier point was missed. You have to ask yourselves, of the wealth that's generated, whether it's out of a shore plant and a shore worker or whether it's out of a fisherman, how much is wealth that's generated for people year-round after that fish is landed. The only people who don't have year-round security in our industry are the people who work in the fish plants and the people who work on the fish boats generating the wealth.

You have to consider this not just from a human resource point of view. It's a rare opportunity for a group like this that really troubles itself about human resource issues to ask what is the relationship between human resources and businesses we want to keep alive in our various provinces. I mentioned a few earlier on. The major businesses of tourism, fishing, logging, and so forth are all seasonal. If you get rid of the workers in those seasonal industries, what kind of industries have you got?

So I think there's a real opportunity for this committee to knit together the need for business—and I'm talking about good business—and the need for keeping skilled people in place in these various communities.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much, Mr. Radosavic.

We will now hear from Yvon Godin, followed by Jeannot Castonguay, Carol Skelton, Judi Longfield, and then we'll go back to Monique Guay and Alan Tonks. Thank you.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to begin by thanking our witnesses for being with us today.

[English]

I would like to thank the witnesses who are here today.

[Translation]

First of all, Mr. White, thank you for being here and representing the people of our region of Acadie—Bathurst. I think your message clearly reflects the situation back home. I hope that this has given the people around the table some insight into the kind of recommendations we should be making.

I also hope that we are not all sitting at this table—and I want to put this on the record—to allow Jean Chrétien to keep his promise. He said he would call an election and that Bill C-44 would be passed. But it's too late now. Now we're considering Bill C-2, and we have to get it through quickly. What are we supposed to do? Everyone is waiting for their retroactivity, and we're not doing what we should be doing.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has often said in the House that employment insurance had to be changed because it was creating a dependancy. That's why employment insurance had to be cut. They had to hit the workers because it had created a dependancy and people were relying on it.

• 1635

First of all, I want you to tell me whether you think it's possible to create a dependancy like that. Let's take the example of someone who receives $750 a month in welfare payments. If I divide that by 140 hours, I get $5.35. Now, let's take the case of someone working in a fish plant on the Acadian peninsula who earns an average wage of $7.00 an hour. If I divide that by 50% in terms of the EI benefit, that's $3.50 an hour. Tell me whether that can really create a dependancy, as the minister claims.

Secondly, I want to talk about promises. I heard a promise during the election, and even afterwards. Liberal M.P.s were saying that the legislation had to go further. Do you not agree with me that Bill C-2 doesn't go far enough? As they say, we have to put it in gear right away. We have to look at the employment insurance system so that we have a system that works the way it's supposed to. But based on the testimony we've heard here today, the system is totally skewed. There are human beings, women and men who are suffering. And there are children going to school on an empty stomach. There are food banks opening up every day: a food bank here, a food bank there. I want to hear what you have to say about this.

Thirdly, and I'm going quickly now,

[English]

if we look at the woodcutters... for example, you talk about Newfoundland. But I'd like to bring, too, the one about B.C., because it seems to me the problem is only in the Atlantic and we're a bunch of abusers and lazy and don't want to work. I was in Prince George, B.C., and personally witnessed the woodcutters up there having the same problem as the people of Newfoundland, having the same problem as the people of New Brunswick, or the Gaspé coast, or Timmins, Ontario, and Kapuskasing. I'd like to hear about it if we have this problem across the country.

Mr. Brian Payne: Surely we do have these problems across the country. We specifically focused on our membership in Newfoundland, but clearly these problems exist across the country. I think just to echo Brother Radosavic's comments here and to pick up on your point...

People talk about a dependency. People rely on EI. Industries depend on EI. Industries are depending on EI to have a stable workforce in Prince George and in Grand Falls and everywhere in between. It's not that people want to depend on EI. They're relying on EI and the industry—major industries, multibillion-dollar industries in this country—depends on it. They're the ones that are dependent on the EI system. The communities along the way and the workers are having a hard time, at best, keeping their heads above water, staying in their communities, trying to have any kind of a decent life in face of all of the changes that have been made. It's not a dependency problem for people. It's a dependency problem for industry. It's very clear and it's coast to coast.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Loggan.

Mr. Bruce Loggan: It's a fact of life in our industry that workers are dependent on bridging a gap between those several fisheries in which they work. We don't deny it. They depend on an insurance program to cover them through the difficult periods. They produce the wealth over a short period of time. That wealth is generated, as John said, all over the economy. They need a little bit of income to bridge the gap.

If we want to talk about dependency, let's talk about the dependency of the government itself on the $8 billion that it draws out of the EI fund in order to balance its books. They're dependent on it as well. So I don't see that the government can point the finger and say, “Poor workers are dependent on something; we don't want you to be dependent on it”, and then have the hypocrisy to go out and spend $8 billion to balance the budget.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you.

[Translation]

You have only a few seconds left, Yvon if you want to continue.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I prefer to hear what the others have to say. There may be others who wish to speak.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): We have almost run out of time. Unless you have a very brief comment...

[English]

Mr. Reg Anstey: A very brief comment. I know Gary wants to speak on it, too. But I've got to tell you that I think there is a dependence. But it's not workers on EI. It's the rest of Canada on the edges of Canada. I've got to tell you, as a resident of Newfoundland, I've watched what's happened in our province for the last decade and a half. We have 100,000 children left in our schools. Ten years ago, we had 162,000. The reason is because all our young people of child-bearing age have emigrated to the rest of the country. There's no one left but us old fellows who can't do a hell of a lot about producing children.

• 1640

So unless Canada, somewhere in this piece, adopts more of a fairness and equity measure for the edges of this country... I mean, right now the economic development in Canada is within 100 miles of the American border, give or take a little. That's where most of Canada's work is right now. It is surely the role of the federal government to do something about the edges of the country, which produce an enormous amount of wealth that people feed on up here.

I have to say that in Newfoundland and in our own province—and I know it's not good anywhere else either, on the edges of this country—we produce a lot of wealth. There's no recognition of that. I've watched our province slowly, slowly, slowly fall apart. Rural Newfoundland now has no young people left. You don't have to worry about keeping the schools open; there's no one to put into them. I think it's terrible, and at the end of the day the dependence is not from our people down there on the money that's generated up here; it's in central Canada, on the money we produce on the edges of Canada.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much.

[English]

I'm sorry, Mr. Budgell. Maybe we'll have time later for your answer.

[Translation]

I will now recognize Mr. Jeannot Castonguay, who will be followed by Ms. Carol Skelton, Ms. Judi Longfield, Ms. Monique Guay and Mr. Alan Tonks.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our witnesses for appearing.

I very much appreciate hearing your perspective on these issues. We have heard from a number of witnesses and what I take away from what all of you have told us today is that Bill C-2 is an improvement, that it's a step in the right direction, but that we need a complete overhaul of the system. That's what someone said.

I also listened carefully to Mr. White, as he was explaining that fishing quotas are getting smaller, which in turn means a shorter season and less time in which to work. In such cases, it is important to provide support to people through the Employment Insurance Program.

As I was thinking about that, I came to the conclusion that if the seasons are getting shorter and the quotas again have to be cut, the answer may not only involve employment insurance; as you mentioned, Mr. White, at the same time we should be seeking ways to generate employment, perhaps by adding value to the primary resource.

You referred to problems encountered when trying to compete for different markets, and I'm wondering what kind of concrete action the government should be taking, in addition to employment insurance measures, to try and improve things. I think the answer is more complex than just saying we need employment insurance to help the workers. That is what I understood you to say. But I would like you to tell me if I got it right and, if so, what the government should be doing to help Canadian workers?

Mr. Gary White: Yes, you got it right. Changes are very much needed. But in the meantime, we have to help the workers. As this lady was saying earlier, maybe I should have gone a little further. Maybe I should have talked about the money given to employers to make changes. Maybe they did it one year, but the year after, they didn't have any money left and stopped. Maybe that money should be better managed. It could be given to the employees. Or someone neutral could be chosen to closely monitor what the people receiving that money are doing to develop new types of production. These people should have to account for their use of that money. As far as I'm concerned, that's another problem. Employers receive money and produce goods for a year. After a year, the government isn't paying for it anymore. It ends up costing the employer money, so, too bad for the employees.

I think these kinds of subsidies should include some kind of a guarantee. The government should demand that a certain number of hours be guaranteed and say that the company will only receive the funds if it guarantees that employees will work a minimum number of hours. Another option might be to give part of the money to the company and part to the employees, to ensure that they each have their share.

• 1645

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Would someone else like to respond?

Mr. Payne.

[English]

Mr. Brian Payne: To your point, if I understood your question well, separate and apart from this issue—as Ms. Folco asked earlier—if we take the forest industry as an example, it is a renewable resource. It's the ultimate green industry if it's managed properly. I think the government has a responsibility to ensure that this resource is properly exploited, and that means secondary and tertiary manufacturing. It means inspiring some creativity from Grand Falls to Prince George, not just to harvest logs and make them into two-by-fours and bales of pulp, but to do some of the things they do in Sweden and other countries.

They need to encourage young people in Dryden and Prince Albert, and others, to take an interest in that industry, instead of trying to convince them that all the solutions are over here at Nortel—which today doesn't look too bright—and encourage people to take training for that industry. Those are multi-billion-dollar industries. There are hundreds of communities in this country that rely on that industry alone, never mind the others we could talk about. That's what needs to be done.

Separate and apart, through UI, certainly some transition-type training and other things can be done—and encouragement. Because of uncertainty, young people do not stay in those communities and take training to work in those plants. Certainly as a primary-product producer, there may very well be some uncertainty, but the resource is there when we talk about the forest industry, as an example.

Government should be playing a major role instead of just pretending—and I say that with all due respect—that somehow we're in the new economy, it's all sunset, and high-tech is the solution to everything. It's nonsense. Those new industries are important, just like tourism is, but there is a huge people, community, and dollar component out there that is not being properly considered.

I spoke at a Privy Council meeting here in Ottawa a month or so ago and stressed this issue, and especially the issue that we have literally tens of thousands of tradespeople in major industries, including the ones we represent, who will retire in the next five to ten years—over half the workforce. No apprenticeship training is taking place, by and large. I don't know where people think they're going to get the workers from. The industry itself is not waking up to the fact that they have a huge problem. The government should be hand in glove with others—labour, industry, and those communities—recognizing and doing something about it.

Mr. John Radosavic: May I add to that?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): A very quick comment.

Mr. John Radosavic: The answer to the question is really, on my part, a question. Will we really be given an opportunity to address the issues that were alluded to?

I think you've heard from everybody here that we need to take a more careful look, a more in-depth look, at the problem of seasonal industries overall, the need for and importance of those seasonal industries, and so on. My fear is that this will pass and we'll spend the remainder of the mandate of this government saying that we would like to have other changes, and to anybody who says that, the answer will be, well, we've already made changes. We'll be pointing to the good aspects of Bill C-2, which we need to see passed—and I have no dispute with those who have indicated that—but we don't cut it off there. I guess it's my cynical nature coming out that we see this now as the short-term answer, and that will be the long-term answer, too. So the answer to your question is really, will we be given an opportunity to go into this in depth at another time when we have time?

A voice: If I may—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): No, I'm sorry. Maybe later, because we won't have time.

[Translation]

We will now begin the second round. I would ask both members and witnesses to be as brief as possible, so that everyone has a chance to speak.

We will start this time with Ms. Carol Skelton, who will be followed by Ms. Judi Longfield, Ms. Monique Guay, Mr. Alan Tonks, Mr. Yvon Godin and Ms. Raymonde Folco.

[English]

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Being a drylander, I want to find out from Mr. Radosavic if all fishing licences are given out by the Government of Canada.

Mr. John Radosavic: Yes, they are.

Ms. Carol Skelton: They're all given out?

Mr. John Radosavic: Yes, the licences actually are a privilege; they're not owned. Technically, the Government of Canada, the people of Canada, own the resource, and they issue licences to harvest.

Ms. Carol Skelton: That's very interesting. Thank you.

That's right across Canada?

Mr. John Radosavic: Everywhere I know of they are, and then after that, in British Columbia anyway, they're terribly abused. We're here in Ottawa to talk to other people about that. We need to find a way to solve those problems.

• 1650

Ms. Carol Skelton: So the fishermen really don't have any protection, anyone other than yourselves to look after them?

Mr. John Radosavic: “Fishermen” is a broad term, as was raised here.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Yes.

Mr. John Radosavic: There are fishermen who work on deck who don't own licences. There are fishermen who own their own boats, basically one- or two-person jobs, and they do own licences. Then there are people who own larger boats and hire crews, and they also own licences. Then there are people who don't own anything except the licence, and they rent the licence to all the rest that I mentioned. So it's a complex issue, and I know we don't have time to answer it.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I'd like each of you to tell me very quickly which part of this bill you don't like or is the worst for you. You're saying you want us to pass this to help. If you opposed one section of this bill, which would that be?

Mr. Reg Anstey: If I may, the issue is broader than that. There are some key things here that are important to people—money to people who are struggling to get through—but it goes nowhere near addressing the issues that need to be addressed.

One of the things that is going to happen in our industry in Newfoundland, in the processing, is that in ten years from now, if there's no support for seasonal industries, we're going to have no one to process the fish. The average age of our processing workers now is 49 years of age. We have nobody in our plants under the age of 30, and hardly anyone under 40.

If the industry continues to produce 12 to 14 weeks of work, and that's not going to change, with no unemployment insurance, no one is going to do that. There's no young person in their right mind going to do that. We're going to be left with a situation where we won't be able to process the fish. So in my mind, the real question for EI and for the Government of Canada is, is there fundamental support for seasonal industries in this nation, or are we just going to write them off? That's the issue, and that's not nearly addressed here. There's a lot of other detail.

It all pertains to the same question, whether or not you're going to support our industry. Intensity rules, duration, and all those issues centre around whether or not there's fundamental support for seasonal industries, because there's no question, we will run out of workers.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): A quick answer.

Mr. Brian Payne: If I had to pick one, I guess it would be the 910-hour entry and re-entry rules. But I agree with the brother here that it's broader than that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you.

[Translation]

I will now recognize Judi Longfield, followed by Monique Guay, Alan Tonks, Yvon Godin, Raymonde Folco, Val Meredith and Joe McGuire.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

We've certainly heard from seasonal workers or people who work in seasonal industries from coast to coast to coast, whether it be loggers, fishermen, or construction workers. I think we're beginning to understand their plight. I also think we need to encourage them not to call themselves seasonal workers, because they're not. They'd be prepared to work 365 days a year, as we've pointed out, and so they're working in a seasonal industry.

My grandfather worked in a seasonal industry, both in Shediac and Tatamagouche. My father left New Brunswick as a young man, hoping to find an area where he could find stable employment. He moved to Timmins, actually. I grew up in northern Ontario, and I watched that stable industry just disintegrate. Mines closed, and young men whose only marketable skills were in the mining industry found themselves without a job, not just for a season but permanently. They uprooted their families, chasing mining community after mining community.

I understand the devastation. I've seen grown men at our kitchen table in tears wondering how they were going to feed their families, and it wasn't just for two or three weeks. Unemployment insurance wasn't the answer for them; they needed to find new permanent jobs.

We need to make changes in employment insurance. There's no doubt that we have to address some of the concerns. The long-range solution, particularly in areas where there are seasonal industries or where there are industries based on declining non-renewable resources or industries that just don't exist—you're not going to find many gold mines that are going to spring up here or there to employ these people.

I want to echo the words of Mr. Payne. As a government and as a people—labourers, employers, and governments at all levels—we need to be concentrating on finding new economic opportunities for people. I guess you felt that you didn't have enough opportunity to voice your concerns on that, Mr. Anstey. You had started to and were cut off, so here's an opportunity. What is it that we need to do? This is separate and apart from employment insurance.

• 1655

Mr. Reg Anstey: Yes. I appreciate that.

Our fishing industry can't be the employer of last resort. That's what created some of the problems, and it is getting closer to being right-sized in Newfoundland after a decade and a half of unbelievable suffering. I think there really has to be proactive programming, and I think the government up here has to take the bull by the horns and admit that this country is big, it has edges, and it's going to take special funding to make things happen on the edges of Canada.

Our fishing industry can't carry the Newfoundland economy alone and can't carry all of rural Newfoundland. It needs help from EI to survive the way it is, but in addition to that I think the government has to proactively work on sustainable industries for the edges of Canada, whether in Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, or wherever.

The old just society has long since disappeared. Favourable freight rates, subsidies, and those kinds of things that made it easier for industry to locate in areas like Newfoundland have disappeared. I think the government has to take a long look at the economic structure of this country and at a more equal distribution of the wealth. It will take the kinds of measures we used to have to generate the jobs we need, jobs other than the ones my industry can supply. We are limited in what we can do.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Please be brief, Mr. Budgell.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Budgell: My father was a seasonal worker, and I was a seasonal worker until I got a job with the union. My three kids are not seasonal workers and will not be seasonal workers because when I was a seasonal worker, I put one of my kids through school. What we're doing back in Newfoundland now is that our people are not going to be seasonal workers. They're not going to be living in Newfoundland. They've got to move outside. We won't know our grandchildren. That's a point that...

The average age in the logging industry in Newfoundland right now, with the recent retirement of 80 people through an early-retirement incentive program with the employers, is 53. The average age in the woods is 53. So, like my colleague, Reg, we probably won't have to worry about them any more.

But I want to touch on what I said in my report. I said that our seasonal workers work 100% of the time that's available. Don't lose that from your mind, because our union office is swamped with phone calls from people asking, when am I going to get back to work? If you get a good spring day in Newfoundland, we can't keep up with the phone calls we get because the people are itching to go back to work. They've been off on EI, and they've not been able to provide for their families properly, so they're itching to go back.

Again, I want to make the point that these people are seasonal workers with no alternative, but I agree that the government should also be proactive in creating work.

I just want to touch on... and I won't be long. I tried two or three times, Madam Chair, to get in and I used to be...

I live in a little town. There are 1,250 people there. Now, when you create work in a town where there are 1,250 people, well... Somebody was creative enough to start a boat-building business. Now we're building boats for St. Pierre and Miquelon, two little islands off the Newfoundland coast owned by France. We're building them 60-foot, state-of-the-art longliners that sell for $1.3 million.

I want to tell you that this is being creative, and the government should be proactive in encouraging things like that.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): I'm sorry to have to hurry you, but if I want to get through the list I have here, I have to keep the time short. It's always very interesting to hear the questions and answers, but I would appreciate it if you could all keep them brief, because otherwise, we won't have time to hear from everyone.

I now recognize Monique Guay...

[English]

Mr. John Radosavic: We're just trying to give you your money's worth.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): ...followed by Alan Tonks, Yvon Godin, Raymonde Folco, Val Meredith and Joe McGuire.

Monique Guay.

• 1700

Ms. Monique Guay: I think it's a bit much to hear that work in a seasonal industry is practically something to be ashamed of. I just can't accept that. These are jobs where people are often paid less. Take the hotel industry, or the restaurant business; I see this in my own region, where people work hours and hours, and when work is available, they may work 80 hours a week in order to accumulate the number of hours they need to qualify for employment insurance. It's a vicious cycle.

I think this is completely unacceptable and if I have understood your message today, gentlemen, you are saying that this legislation doesn't go far enough. It doesn't contain the improvements that people had hoped for, especially since this is very important legislation that is not amended every year.

I think we have to go back and do our homework. That seems to be the general sentiment—at least it is certainly our position as Members of the Opposition. It almost looks like the Minister of Finance wants to get his hands on the surplus in the Employment Insurance Fund to pay down the debt. We believe that is their plan. It is our sense that the Minister of Human Resources Development simply isn't powerful enough to counter that. So I would like to hear what you think, in particular about the idea of an independent Employment Insurance Fund, such as we have proposed. What are your views on that?

We believe the fund must be managed by the people who are paying into it—both employers and employees—and not by the government, which really doesn't put any money into it. Based on my understanding, it is employers and employees who are contributing to the fund, not the government. I would like to hear your views on this.

[English]

Mr. John Radosavic: Our organization doesn't have an established policy on that, but as the president of the organization, I will say that if there's anything that would bring the program under some control, it would be a measure such as that.

You're quite right. There are no tax dollars that go into that so far as I am aware. They're employer-employee dollars, and the fact that the Government of Canada would lift $8 billion out of that fund to do anything other than what it was intended for—which is the subject we're here today about—is reprehensible. I think that one effective way to deal with it would be to put control of the fund into the hands of the workers and employers who put the dollars there.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Payne, do you want to answer? Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. White.

Mr. Gary White: I just want to say that again, I agree with my brother that there should be a fund managed by someone other than the government. They can say whatever they like, but the fact is, they don't have any more money; what this really is is a tax. They taxed us by taking our money out of another account. If that money were managed by the people making the contributions, you can be sure we wouldn't be paying down the debt with it.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. White.

Perhaps we could hear one last quick comment.

Ms. Monique Guay: And the system would certainly be a lot more transparent, wouldn't it? I think that would be an innovative way of managing the fund. We were talking about innovative ideas earlier. What Wayne was talking about earlier is absolutely extraordinary—I mean, what they've done in his region. We could also do something along those lines.

I want to thank you for appearing. We will definitely take note of the points you've raised in your briefs. We have a big job ahead of us and I hope the government will listen to your demands and be innovative in dealing with employment insurance.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): We now move on to Alan Tonks, followed by Yvon Godin, Raymonde Folco, Val Meredith and Joe McGuire.

[English]

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

There is hope. Yesterday we had representations that got more into the strategy of dealing with some of the issues you've outlined. We had a case study—I think from Atlantic Canada—that was presented, where HRDC funded a strategic plan that was inclusive and that put forward some long-term strategies that fit into the context of the social union agreement we entered into but haven't evaluated. So we are making some progress.

• 1705

But within the context of the EI legislation we have before us, I'm interested in following up on Joe McGuire's questions with respect to understanding the difference you have told us exists in other areas. In particular I was taken... We have been told that the rules with respect to women re-entering the workforce who have been on pregnancy leave fall into the gapper category.

We have been told that in fact the hourly based payment plan, or number of hours worked, was in fact leading to a reduction in those who didn't qualify in the next season for full EI support. We've been told that in fact the EI monitoring review has told us that those are going down.

When you tell me we're looking at people, women, for example, who must have 900-some-odd hours to qualify, and they're down around 575... When you tell me the extent—and I don't have, Gary, the statistics you gave us—by which people don't even qualify, then you're telling us that something is very seriously skewed. Not just the divisor principle but the hours worked, the rating we're using, are seriously out of step with your immediate needs.

You also said, I think, Reg, that the rules during the last recession where we had a huge problem, that there were some—and I'm not suggesting we go back to rules that gave us a $700 billion deficit in the fund. In extreme conditions there were approaches that were made. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? Could you perhaps give us a little more insight in terms of what we specifically could do to this legislation that would come to grips with the issues I've outlined?

Mr. Reg Anstey: Thank you.

It's extremely complex. One of the issues here I guess is that because the current regulations failed to recognize the uniqueness of a seasonal industry like ours, the tighter rules by their very nature exclude a lot of people in our industry.

When I spoke to our running out of workers in 10 years, a lot of that is because in our industry now it's impossible to qualify. If you need 910 hours as a new worker, and you can only ever hope to get between 400 and 500, young people are going somewhere else and not coming into our industry.

What you have are the older workers who have been around long enough to be qualified, and 400 to 500 hours does it, so they're still in our plants. There has to be a recognition that our industry is unique.

Women—and by the way, the lady who was supposed to be making this presentation made sure I understood the difficulties with the pregnancy provisions; she's not here because she's due in a month—in our industry don't qualify for pregnancy leave, for the most part. They don't have 700 hours. They don't have 600, but they still have families, and they're still off. When they come back, they need 910 hours, so they get hit twice.

They never had enough hours, because no one recognized in our industry you can't get them. So they never got pregnancy leave. But they were still off having a family, and when they finish that and come back, these new regulations won't help them. They still won't qualify, because they never qualified for pregnancy leave in the last six years, which is one of the stipulations.

So our industry is really hard hit by these regulations. Unless somewhere in the next couple of years someone has a good, hard look at it, we'll be like... I was in Iceland recently; their fishing plants now are manned by Turks and Sri Lankans. Is that where we want to head?

You're not going to keep young Canadian workers in our industry—not just in our industry; my guess is that it's no different in logging, or farming, or anywhere else. If we don't recognize that these are fundamentally important industries to this nation and that they deserve support, they'll wither and die on the vine. I think that'll create an enormous problem for this country.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much.

• 1710

[Translation]

I will now recognize Yvon Godin, followed by Raymonde Folco, Ms. Meredith and Joe McGuire.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think this government is missing the boat. I agree with our witness, Mr. Anstey, when he says that Central Canada doesn't understand us.

[English]

Central Canada doesn't understand us. And I think that's where the problem is. If Toronto likes their lobster—and I've said it many times in some of the speeches I've made—they cannot get it on Yonge Street and they cannot get it on St. Catherine Street in Montreal... They catch that in Newfoundland and Baie de Chaleur and in Vancouver. That's where you get it. You cannot get the two-by-four on Yonge Street, on St. Catherine Street in Montreal, and that's the industry.

Now, the answer is secondary interprocessing. But in the meantime, what do you do? Put people on welfare? No. If you put people on welfare, the provincial government says, “I'll take your house and your car away”, and that's a major problem.

I want to go to this question after I have made this statement. Many times we have been asked—people or opposition parties and the government are saying, “Well, the government is not bringing down the premium enough”. But I never saw any workers on the street saying the premiums are too high. I saw workers on the street saying, “I'm not getting the benefits for the premiums I'm paying”.

I'd like to hear from all the union people we have here today from across the country representing a majority of workers in the industry who do the work. Those workers they represent benefit from unemployment insurance. Do they believe the priority should be bringing the premium down or really resolving the problem of EI?

Mr. John Radosavic: I'm not sure of the companies, never mind the workers. I don't think anybody, workers or companies, has complained about it. It's something else that has caused this.

Mr. Brian Payne: Certainly I don't hear workers complaining about EI premiums. Employers—I've heard some complain, and they're the ones who should be taking the other tack. They should be encouraging the expansion of the rules, when you consider what's been said here today.

It's not about the premiums; it's about the benefits and the support for everybody—what we've all been saying all day.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Budgell.

Mr. Wayne Budgell: Yes, and I haven't heard anybody say around this table that we're asking for above $415 maximum. We're not asking that the total amount, the maximum you can get, increase. We're—I don't say the word “contented”—pleased with what it is now, the level that it is now. We can live with that.

But, again, the statistics I have—only about 35% of the people who apply actually get on EI. Who applies and doesn't get on? It's the people in the industry—some of the industries, the Wal-Marts and the Canadian Tires—who only work so many hours a week, 14, 15, 16 hours a week. When are you going to get the 910 hours to qualify to get on EI if you happen to get laid off? You've only got 52 weeks to do it. You'll never see these people. These people can't get on. They apply and they don't qualify. They pay into it, but they don't qualify.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): We will move on now to Ms. Raymonde Folco, followed by Ms. Val Meredith and Mr. Joe McGuire.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be very brief.

Mr. Payne was saying that young people and others are no longer interested in working in forestry, the fishing industry, and so on. They're moving into the new economy. And that is certainly understandable. I have actually visited countries, such as Taiwan, where I was told the economy is undergoing a complete transformation, and that primary industries are disappearing to be replaced by industries of the new economy.

Our country has developed as a result of resource-based industries, whatever province we may be from. So I'm wondering whether we shouldn't be trying to support these important industries, because after all, we have to eat. We need wheat. We need fish. We need wood to build houses. Don't you think that we can keep young people working in the primary industries at the same time we try to develop the new economy in your regions?

• 1715

Wouldn't that be a possible solution?

[English]

Mr. Brian Payne: Of course, and that's my point. We can keep the primary industry but in many cases it will be necessary to evolve that primary industry into what's commonly called secondary or tertiary manufacturing.

But one of the most successful economies in the high-tech world these days is in Finland, where they manufacture Nokia phones. It's also the most successful forest economy.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Val Meredith and then Joe McGuire.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to follow up on some of the comments that have been made about the need for training new employers or employees to take over from this aging population. I just want to say that it's not unique to seasonal work. We see this aging population in our hospitals with doctors, technicians, and nurses, and we see it throughout our sector. It's because Canada has an aging population, and that's only going to get worse. It's not just your sector.

The other thing is that it's not unique to Newfoundland. I have four sons and two of them have left the province of British Columbia to find work somewhere else. So it's not just in Newfoundland; it's not just in the fishing industry where that sort of thing is happening.

Having four sons and four young people trying to find their way in the workforce, I know training is very important. You alluded to the role of government and the role of business. I want to ask you point-blank, what is the role of the unions to ensure that there are programs available to replace workers, to train young people so that they are well-trained employees in your industry? What is the role of the union to make sure this happens?

Mr. Brian Payne: I can speak for our union. We aggressively seek to participate in workplace-based training. It's not about the lack of will or the union somehow not having accepted their role. Quite frankly, it's employers, it's support for that business, i.e., maybe some government intervention, etc.

Certainly in the labour movement—and I've been around a long time—the problem is not that the unions don't support workplace-based training and all of the things we've been talking about. It's about getting some others to think beyond tomorrow.

Mr. Reg Anstey: I'm part of the National Seafood Sector Council, as is my colleague. We work hard under federal government moneys to develop courses for all of Canada with national standards for our industry. Then we go to HRDC regionally and try to get some money to pay for them. They say, “We're not putting any money in the fishing industry any more; sorry, we're downsizing.”

That's very frustrating. We put a lot of time and energy as a union into developing courses to try to make our industry better, and we have the right hand up in Ottawa saying, “Work hard and we'll help you do it”, and the left hand down in Newfoundland saying, “Boy, we're putting no money in that industry; we want people out of it.”

So there's not a coordinated approach to training. Secondly, in the EI fund where there's that huge surplus, initially, my understanding was—I don't know if it still is or not—but there was 15¢ on the dollar supposed to be set aside for training. If that was run by people independent of government, my guess is that of the great surplus of $38 billion, some would be used for benefits and quite a bit for training. Training, I believe, is a lifelong experience right now, but it's expensive and there's not a lot of support from government for it.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Budgell, and then Mr. White. Please be brief.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Budgell: I'll be brief. The lady asks, what do we do as unions? I'll tell you what I do as a local president of a union. I serve on committees for Cornwall Pulp and Paper and Abitibi-Consolidated. We have a negotiating committee, a training committee, and I sit on both of them as the president of a union. We do things jointly.

Only last week I went into the HRDC building with the industrial relations manager from Abitibi-Consolidated and made a presentation to the HRDC people, seeking funds to retrain our workforce. That's what we do collectively with the employers.

Mr. Gary White: May I say something? I come out of the mines, and we put some schools on, with teachers, to teach our employees who need education to upgrade to GED. We've been successful. I also sit on the National Seafood Sector Council and I take part in the mining industry, which is the MITEC. And we probably have it a little better there because the employers are richer.

• 1720

But in the fishing industry, again, when you talk to employers about participating in some training in our region, their response is, no, we don't have money for that. Lately I've heard that the provincial government has money, but then again it's not very easy to get it from them either, maybe because we're labour.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. White. We will have one last very brief comment from Mr. Loggan.

[English]

Mr. Bruce Loggan: I'll be brief.

We seek to participate in any training initiatives that come our way as well, but as we said in the brief, there is no amount of training or retraining that is going to change the life cycle of the salmon or herring. Those are seasonal industries. If we retrain people out of those industries, we have to be clear that we want to create a situation where those people can come back into those industries. Right now the EI regulations tend to discriminate against that. People who leave part-time work to take full-time work are denied benefits if they quit that full-time work and go back to the seasonal work. We would like to see some of the just cause elements of the act expanded to include that.

It's a reality that when people are retrained out of the fishery, you have to have enough people in the industry to harvest the resource, because they're cyclical resources and they're on the rebound in some cases.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much. Mr. Joe McGuire will now ask the last question.

[English]

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to ask our witnesses about an issue they alluded to, the hourly based system versus the old system. How is the hourly based system affecting the people you represent as compared to the old system? Has there been any improvement there at all as far as being able to qualify more easily or for more money? Just how is that working out versus the old system?

Mr. Gary White: Since the change, what we have seen in the statistics is that an awful pile of people haven't been able to qualify. That pretty well says it all. There are problems there somewhere because if people aren't able to qualify any more, or it's a lot harder to qualify, I should say, and I think somebody mentioned that it was something like 36% fewer people being able to qualify today...

Mr. Reg Anstey: If I might, you can make either system fair. It's not a question of a debate between hourly based and weekly. The issue is that the system has tightened up so much a lot of people can't qualify any more. The issue is not one system versus the other. The hourly based system was made so difficult—it's hard to qualify, you can't draw as long, there's a problem with the divisor—that it knocked a lot of people out of the system.

We could tell you how to make the hourly based system fair as well. The problem is not one system versus the other. The difficulty is that it was tightened up so much it eliminated a lot of people from drawing EI.

Mr. Joe McGuire: You just needed too many hours in order to qualify. Is that the problem?

Mr. Reg Anstey: You needed too many hours, the divisor reduced how much you would draw, duration was shortened—it just became more difficult, yes.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): I would like to thank all our witnesses and guests today. I hope I wasn't too hard on you. Unfortunately, we never have enough time. A lot of people want to ask questions and there are a lot of witnesses. I want to thank Mr. Reg Anstey, from the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, Mr. John Radosavic and Mr. Bruce Loggan, of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union-West Coast, Mr. Gary White, of the United Steelworkers of America, and Mr. Brian Payne and Mr. Wayne Budgell of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Thank you all very much for your valuable input.

I simply want to remind my colleagues to return immediately after the vote, because our witnesses have already arrived. We don't want to keep them waiting too long. Good afternoon.