HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 4, 2004

¿

0905

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.))

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC)

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

¿

0910

¿

0915

The Chair

Mr. Blair Redlin (Director, Research Branch, Canadian Union of Public Employees)

¿

0920

The Chair

Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau (President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux)

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. François Vaudreuil (President, Centrale des syndicats démocratiques)

¿

0930

The Chair

Dr. René Roy (General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ))

¿

0935

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

¿

0940

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

The Chair

Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau

¿

0945

The Chair

Dr. René Roy

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.)

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. François Vaudreuil

The Chair

Hon. Eleni Bakopanos

¿

0955

The Chair

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Hayes (Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress)

À

1000

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Mr. René Roy

The Chair

Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau

À

1005

Mr. Paul Crête

Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

The Chair

Mr. Blair Redlin

À

1010

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Marc Bellemare (As an individual)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

À

1015

Dr. René Roy

The Chair

Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

À

1020

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

The Chair

Mr. Marc Bellemare

The Chair

Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau

À

1025

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

À

1030

The Chair

Mr. François Vaudreuil

À

1035

The Chair

Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau

The Chair

Dr. René Roy

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

The Chair

Mr. Blair Redlin

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC)

À

1040

Mr. Kevin Hayes

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Kevin Hayes

Mrs. Carol Skelton

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Ms. Barb Byers

Mrs. Carol Skelton

The Chair

Hon. Eleni Bakopanos

À

1045

The Chair

Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau

À

1050

Mr. François Vaudreuil

The Chair

Dr. René Roy

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. François Vaudreuil

À

1055

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. François Vaudreuil

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. François Vaudreuil

The Chair

Dr. René Roy

The Chair

Mr. François Vaudreuil

The Chair

Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Blair Redlin

The Chair

Ms. Barb Byers

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 009

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 4, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0905)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    Welcome to the ninth meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

    This morning we have with us a number of witnesses here to talk to us pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), an update and review of issues addressed in the committee's report entitled, “Beyond Bill C-2: A Review of Other Proposals to Reform Employment Insurance”.

    Members of the committee, before I move to the witnesses, we do have an operational budget that has been handed out. This is a very standard budget, calling for authority to pay for witnesses. We expect approximately 15 witnesses, and I'm looking for a motion.

    Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC): I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    And to the witnesses, thank you for your indulgence while we cleared up some housekeeping.

    We have before us members from the Canada Labour Congress; the Canadian Union of Public Employees; the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union; the Confédération des syndicats nationaux; Centrale des syndicats démocratiques; and Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

    I'm going to call on the Canadian Labour Congress, represented here today by Barb Byers and Kevin Hayes.

    Ms. Barb Byers (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you.

    The Chair: You may begin. You have approximately 10 minutes, to leave time for questions.

    Ms. Barb Byers: Thank you.

    Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. I believe you all have a copy of our document. I'll just be referring to some sections of that document.

    It's been a full three years since this committee made its report on reforming employment insurance, “Beyond Bill C-2”. This bill was a very modest attempt at reform. It repealed only two of the more than half dozen measures in the 1996 EI Act specifically targeting workers in seasonal industries and sectors of the economy. The harsh measures, ostensibly aimed at seasonal workers, swept into their net all part-time workers, workers who could only get temporary work, and the growing numbers of workers with on-call schedules.

    Because of the very limited changes made in Bill C-2, we were disappointed that the government did not implement your recommendations to scrap the divisor and to work towards lower qualifying hours and a longer benefit period. There's a black hole for laid-off workers. That black hole is for people who cannot get enough hours to qualify, or who run out of EI long before the start of seasonal hiring. It describes not just the plight of the unemployed in the highest unemployment regions. It in fact describes the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Canada's unemployed who do not get their insurance benefits when they lose their job because of the doubling and tripling of hours needed to qualify and the cutting of the length of the benefit period by as much as half of what it was in 1990.

    The percentage of the unemployed receiving unemployment benefits by age and gender for all of Canada, for each province, and in each of the 24 of Canada's largest cities from 1990 to 2001 shows insurance protection fell from 75% of the unemployed in 1990 to fewer than 40% today. Under EI, coverage continued to fall. In some provinces, fewer than 30% of the unemployed received EI; in several cities, less than one-quarter of the unemployed received EI; and in most of Canada's largest cities, coverage for women is well below 30%.

    The impact of the 1996 EI eligibility rules has had a particularly profound negative impact on women in virtually every province, every city, and every region of the country. No matter how it is measured, women are bearing all of the loss in insurance protection with the introduction of the EI.

    In the first five years of EI, the gap in insurance protection between men and women more than doubled. In some age groups, the portion of unemployed women in 2001 receiving EI unemployment benefit is 15% to 20% below that of men. The cost to workers, their families, and their communities is huge.

    Last September every MP was provided with the estimated dollar loss in falling protection to the unemployed in their riding. The cumulative cost of the cuts in protection is reflected in the nearly $45 billion surplus and the billions of dollars in EI premium cuts since 1993.

    The committee in its 2001 report correctly identified the areas that need reform: lowering the qualifying hours, lengthening the benefit period, and calculating a claimant's benefit on the best weeks of earnings over 52 weeks. Clearly the EI program needs to be re-engineered so it can keep up with the times and be there for people who work in today's economy.

    There is an urgent need to change the eligibility rules. First, a basic 360 hours should be enough to qualify for EI, no matter where we live in Canada and no matter what type of benefits we need. This would replace the patchwork system of 420 to 910 hours that changes from place to place, month to month, and by type of benefit.

    Second, qualifying for EI should be flexible and look at more than the hours worked in the months before layoff. It should count the years for those who have been in the labour force for a longer time.

    Third, workers over 45 years of age, the ones who have the hardest time getting a new job, should be guaranteed benefits for up to a year and a half.

¿  (0910)  

    Finally, we think the time has come to extend the regular benefits for training currently available to apprentices to everyone in the workplace, both employed and unemployed. Remaining employed and employable is becoming increasingly linked to a worker's ability to sharpen and expand their skills and knowledge. Regular EI benefits should be available to cover hours of work lost while training and learning.

    It's clear from our analysis of the EI beneficiary and unemployment data that yesterday's assumptions about hours of work and schedules don't fit any more. We have to balance work and family responsibilities for children and elders, and there's a growing demand for education, training, and lifelong learning. Times are changing; work is changing; Canada's unemployment insurance needs to change too. It needs to keep pace with the times so that people who work in today's economy can count on getting the benefits they need when they need them.

    We want to thank the committee for inviting us to this hearing, and we welcome any questions you will have in the future.

    Thank you.

¿  (0915)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Byers.

    I should have pointed out at the beginning that you are the executive vice-president and Mr. Hayes is the senior economist.

    We now have, representing CUPE, Blair Redlin, who is the director of research.

    Mr. Blair Redlin (Director, Research Branch, Canadian Union of Public Employees): Good morning. Thank you very much. Yes, my name is Blair Redlin. I am the director of research for the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which is Canada's largest trade union, representing over 535,000 members in just about every community in Canada.

    We represent primarily workers at the local level of government—workers for municipalities, school districts, universities and colleges, and a wide array of other employers at the local level of government—as well as other national bargaining units, such as Air Canada and others. Of course, we're an affiliate of the Canadian Labour Congress and very supportive of the recommendations Barb Byers has made here on behalf of the CLC today.

    The perspective I wanted to bring was from a union that represents a very diverse group of Canadians, as I say, in every part of the country, a country that is increasingly urbanizing. I think over 80% of Canadians live in cities today, and one of the observations I wanted to put to you is that the employment insurance system we have in place now is not sufficiently adapting to the changing nature of the economy and the demographics in Canada.

    Another phenomenon we're seeing is a sharp increase in part-time, casual, and contingent employment in the country. This is certainly reflected in CUPE's membership, where we're noticing a sharply growing proportion of our members are part-time or casual workers. This is a significant change in the public sector in Canada, where traditionally there was much more permanent, regularized, and secure employment.

    As Ms. Byers mentioned, with the unemployment insurance changes we've seen over the last decade, we have a sharply reduced number of the unemployed who are eligible for benefits, dropping from 75% previously down to 40% of the unemployed today, and for women, below 30%.

    I think there's a direct correlation to a phenomenon I'm sure all of us notice, particularly in urban communities, but right across the country, which is a sharp rise in homelessness and poverty.

    I was reflecting on that this morning walking down Bank Street. This is a fairly prosperous city, the nation's capital, and there was a large number of people standing along the street seeking change because they've been cut off welfare. That's a consequence of not being eligible as well, in many cases, for employment insurance.

    I think we need to realize that the policy decisions that are being made in these areas have a direct impact on the lives of many Canadians: ineligible for employment insurance because they're told the number of hours of part-time and casual work they've been doing is not sufficient to qualify them for employment insurance; not eligible for welfare, or cut off welfare; not having housing programs; ending up on the street begging for money; getting involved in addiction; and there are other social problems. It's a very real issue, and I think the public policy changes we make with regard to EI need to take that into account.

    Another issue for CUPE, of course, is that a large proportion of our membership are women. These policies that are disproportionately impacting women are fundamentally discriminatory, I think.

    We too support the recommendation of a basic standard of 360 hours of work for everyone in the country, no matter where they live and no matter what kind of occupation they've been involved in.

    We need to simplify. We need to make clear that this is primarily an income replacement program. We need to take into account the fact of the demographic changes in the country, where an increasing proportion of us are older. Of course, workers over 45 are those who are least able to find replacement employment. We need to take into account the patchwork of casual and part-time work that younger people are having to cope with.

    So for both younger people and older workers, for women, for people in the cities as well as in the rural areas, I don't think the system is meeting the needs at all.

¿  (0920)  

    The EI account should be considered an employment insurance trust fund. The government should not be using the money from premiums for non-insurance purposes. The premiums that employers and workers are paying should be used for income replacement and training. The EI fund should be used for employment insurance and nothing else.

    Those are our broad recommendations.

    Thank you very much for this opportunity. We would welcome any questions.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Our next witnesses come from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Claudette Carbonneau, the president, and France Bibeau, the research consultant. Welcome.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau (President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

    The CSN is a union organization recognized by the Canadian government. We represent 2,800 unions, 280,000 members in all areas of economic activity which is mainly concentrated in Quebec. If we are here this morning, it's because the employment insurance program is something close to our hearts. For years now, we have been crying out against the drastic cuts to this major social program. Even today, we can see the traumatic effects those cuts are having on workers as well as on the future of our communities.

    I'd like to make two preliminary comments. First, I'd like to say there's something slightly ironic about the fact that we've been called here this morning only a few days before the probable issuing of the election writ even though this committee produced a unanimous report three years ago. Of course, during the last election, we did see one tactic used and that was the adoption of Bill C-2 with timid improvements nowhere nears the level of the recommendations made by your committee, and, of course, a temporary suspension in the rules of employment insurance rate determination which, although temporary, are still in force some four years later.

    I remember that, at the time, we had not supported that kind of maneuvering and I'm indicating right now that our expectations are for substantial improvements. We wouldn't want to wind up with cosmetic changes again because of the election period.

    On the other hand, your committee's 2001 report, overall, seemed to be going in the right direction. The recommendations concerning accessibility, duration, the divisor and the calculation of benefits were of interest. Nevertheless, we're convinced that more is needed.

    At the outset, I'll point out our two main guiding principles: first, to make sure that the employment insurance program goes back to being insurance on which all unemployed can count in unemployment situations; then, the need to modernize it and adapt it to the labour market's new working reality, especially the diversification of employment status and the increase in job insecurity.

    Our priority: accessibility. We believe that no further distinction should be made between new arrivals and those entering the employment insurance program. I think there's something discriminatory there especially for our youth, and there's something fundamentally unfair for vulnerable people absent from the job market for too long a period.

    On the other hand, as far as accessibility goes, it is imperative that the number of hours required be brought down to a far lower level; we're thinking of something like 360 hours. In short, we were thinking about a dozen weeks with an average of 30 hours per week. As it is, 39 per cent of the workforce is still not working 35 hours a week. So those standards should really be lowered and all workers dealt with in the same way whether the're working full-time or hired on as casuals.

    A few words about seasonal workers. We're not requesting any particular status for seasonal workers. In that respect I can say that we, of course, recognize that they are vulnerable workers. However, we know there is mother committee working on that question and we think that the solutions being contemplated, for instance extending benefits two or three weeks, will not serve to settle a problem that is quite specific to seasonal workers. On the contrary, I would remind you that one third of the unemployed getting benefits run out of benefits before they've even managed to find another job. So let's not look for particular solutions dealing with that theme. The problems are too pressing. We have to improve the program for all working men and women.

¿  (0925)  

    The length of the benefits period is also important to us. In that respect, we think the schedule should be reviewed and the benefit period should be increased at least five weeks for everyone. This would give a 50-week maximum benefit period and would allow a number of workers, amongst other things, to fill the black hole or get closer to that objective.

    We're also in favour of an improvement, an increase in length of benefits for workers 55 and over who have very specific problems in terms of getting back into the job market.

    The calculation of the benefits is another matter of interest. We believe changes must be made. The replacement rate must be reviewed and brought to 60 per cent of previous salary. We think it's important to get rid of the ceiling for maximum insurable earnings and to do it with indexation.

    We support the Quebec government's demands on parental leave. Finally, I'll let my other colleagues from Quebec address a matter we hold dear: the legal status of the employment insurance fund. We believe it must be distinct, independent and managed with equal representation.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: The next witness is from the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, François Vaudreuil, president, and Normand Pépin, responsible for the research branch.

    Thank you and welcome.

[Translation]

    Mr. François Vaudreuil (President, Centrale des syndicats démocratiques): Good morning. Thank you for inviting us to appear before your committee.

    First, let me say that we think the results of your 2001 brief are very interesting. We are presently very concerned with the employment insurance fund and the negative, not to say catastrophic, effects it has had on Canada's women and men who go through hard times when they lose their jobs.

    I would simply like to start by reminding you that the different reforms undergone by the Canadian employment insurance plan have had catastrophic effects in some areas. Thousands of people are reduced to poverty because of the famous black hole, amongst other things. In many regions the situation was totally untenable especially in some resource regions. In short, these changes have made poverty worse in several areas.

    There are more and more people doing non-traditional jobs. They are in a vulnerable situation and are thus far more fragile. In that respect, the fact that the proportion of people eligible for employment insurance benefits has gone from 75 per cent to 40 per cent emphasizes that very major changes must be brought to our employment insurance plan.

    First, as to the changes we'd like to see, we think that in terms of eligibility, the 360-hour formula is paramount to ensure access to employment insurance benefits. We also believe it is urgently necessary to increase to 60 per cent the replacement rate of the benefits and, finally, the duration should be increased in order to avoid the black hole problem which prevails in many situations at this time. In that respect, a five-week minimum increase allowing a 50-week maximum is an interesting proposal. In most if not in all cases it would lead to the disappearance of the infamous black holes.

    Finally, a very important principle for us is that all the premiums paid by the workers and the employers should be used only to pay for employment insurance benefits and not be used to accumulate the kind of surplus we've seen for so many years. In our opinion, they are disproportionate and unacceptable.

    In conclusion, I would like to say something about older workers. It goes without saying that we view favourably the possibility for workers 45 and over enjoying a longer benefit period than is actually the case.

    However, even if it's not in the committee's terms of reference, I would like to make an aside and tell you that within the context of Canada's present social programs, there is certainly a gap to be filled. That could be done by setting up an income support program for workers 55 and older who, because their qualifications don't meet the higher standards of the labour market, are unable to re-enter it. An additional income support program for older workers would be required.

    That concludes our presentation.

¿  (0930)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Our final witness this morning comes from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, René Roy. Merci.

[Translation]

    Dr. René Roy (General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ)): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning everyone.

    The FTQ is well known. It represents 520,000 members in Quebec, a majority of whom work in the private sector. You can see, Madam Chair, that all across Canada there is a common front in favour of a major reform to employment insurance. It is a sad thing to have to ask for this major reform because employment insurance as we would like to see it did used to exist. It served the needs of all workers in Canada and more specifically those in its regions.

    The reform the government brought to employment insurance caused a huge problem: its impact was to empty Quebec's regions. The workers could hold down seasonal jobs, on a part-time or temporary basis, because thanks to employment insurance they were able to make ends meet and make a living in their region. By taking away employment insurance, you forced those workers to migrate towards the major centres like Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto or others in Canada. To all intents and purposes, a lot of people living in the regions were reduced to misery. There are no longer enough workers there to ensure economic viability.

    We have a great example in Quebec. We tried to get the huge Gaspésia paper mill going again in Chandler, in the Gaspé. Because all those workers had to be moved there to produce and build that plant, it became almost impossible. It increased costs tremendously and caused huge problems. The people living in Quebec know what they are. So that means it's hard to get projects like that up and running.

    Our main demands, Madam Chair, are in our brief. We submitted it to your committee three years ago and they are still the same. We thank this committee for its recommendations. As the two preceding intervenors and the CTC have said, we think that the whole matter of eligibility and benefits must be reviewed if we want an employment insurance situation that meets the needs of the population.

    I would like to add that we are also asking that the fund be independent. If there is one scandal in Ottawa right now, it has to be the employment insurance fund scandal with its over 50-billion-dollar surplus. It used to be that the government's contribution to the employment insurance fund was 51 per cent, Madam Chair. Since 1990, the federal government has not been contributing anything to the employment insurance fund as the workers and employers are the only ones paying in. However, we know full well that when employers calculate their payrolls, they include employment insurance costs which means, to all intents and purposes, that the workers are the ones contributing to the employment insurance fund. Moreover, the government has been using it for the last ten years to decrease its deficit and also for other purposes.

    So we want the fund to be autonomous, independent and managed by the men and women making the contributions, the representatives of the employees and the employers. We would be in a position to do that.

    Let's talk about seasonal workers. We believe that if you suggest a minimum number of 360 hours—I'm speaking to the opposition—you won't need the expression “seasonal workers” anymore because it is very difficult to define what a seasonal worker is. In some areas, the work season is clear. Fishing is an area where it's clear. The workers don't choose when they're laid off or when they're called back. If a reasonable number of hours is chosen, that will be enough.

    Moreover, I support my comrade Vaudreuil: we absolutely have to find something to help the men and women over 55 years of age. In Trois-Rivières, 600 workers aged 50 and over at Fruit of the Loom were laid off because the employer decided to move to China somewhere. You have Philips, Bauer and so on. We've lost 30,000 jobs in the industrial sector because companies have decided to move to China, India or elsewhere. The only training those ladies have often received is what they needed to work in the plant they were in. They're unable to find other jobs. We need money for those people.

    I'll conclude with active measures.

    Active measures are important. The present Prime Minister, Mr. Martin, said so, we need a qualified labour force in Canada to face international competition. We must absolutely maintain the funding. The agreement with Quebec stands at 0.8 per cent and you're only transferring 0.6 per cent to us. We recommend that it be increased to 0.8 per cent in the agreements with the provinces in order to be in a position to support training and active measures.

    As for the premium rate, we suggest it be maintained at $2.20 to meet the fund's obligations. With $2.20 and the fund's accumulated surplus we can meet our obligations.

    Thank you very much.

¿  (0935)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We'll now go to questions from committee members, with 10-minute rounds. I'm going to remind members of the committee and the witnesses that the 10 minutes encompass both the answer and the question, so you'll have to govern yourselves accordingly.

    May I remind everyone not to touch the mikes. It causes a great deal of difficulty. If you could just raise your hand if you want to answer the question, I'll try to recognize you.

    Mr. Lunn, followed by Ms. Bakopanos, then Mr. Crête.

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you to all the witnesses for coming. Obviously this is a very important issue, and some very interesting comments have been made. There is a common theme I'm hearing from all the witnesses.

    Number one, I hear loud and clear that there is inequity between the women and the men in the workforce, which clearly has to be addressed. That's not acceptable in today's world. It needs to be addressed.

    There's obviously an issue of some disparity around the number of hours and what situation you're in, and we need to spend more time looking at all those issues. So is 360 the magic number? I don't know that, but obviously it has to be brought down to something that's a lot fairer.

    Mr. Roy also raised the issue that we're sitting on these huge surpluses--$50 billion. I think that's another issue that absolutely has to be addressed. Of course, it's going into general revenue, going into the big black hole, and we've seen how this money is spent on a number of programs, all different kinds. We're not going to have a debate about all the different ways money has gone down the big black hole here, but it's simply not acceptable.

    The one question I have with respect to the surplus--and clearly we can do something with this surplus--is whether we should also be looking at lowering the rates for employees and employers at that time. It's an enormous surplus. I throw that out as a question.

    My second question...and it was Ms. Carbonneau who raised this. Of course, we see this all too often where we spend months and months producing these reports that just sit on shelves and collect dust. You have to ask yourself why we do this. I mean, right now we're studying the committee's report “Beyond Bill C-2”. Are we going to come back in September--because we all know there's an election within a few weeks--and do the follow-up to beyond the follow-up to Bill C-2? I mean, where does it end? When do we see an action plan?

    I think that's one message, loud and clear. You know, we have to turn these reports into action.

    So anybody who feels interested can comment on that.

¿  (0940)  

    The Chair: Ms. Byers.

    Ms. Barb Byers: Yes, thank you.

    I don't know, maybe we're Bill C-2 in 3-D.

    In terms of the surplus, we've long held that the surplus needs to be turned back into benefits that people have had cut off. I've raised this in other forums as well: how would you feel if you had paid fire insurance for your house, and then your house burned down and the insurance company said, well, they've changed the rules, so you won't get as much as you thought you were supposed to, or they've changed the rules and they're spending it on something else?

    Quite clearly, people have raised in the past that we need an independent agency that deals with UI, so the money can't be used in the way it's being used.

    We don't at all support a drop in the premiums. In fact, as has already been pointed out, the premiums need to be at $2.20. We believe that if the premiums were at that rate, then the benefits that the unemployed need in this country could be restored. We could return to some of the benefits that people used to receive. We could make sure we get rid of the inequities between men and women, and the inequities with younger workers as well, because that is another group of people who have been very hard hit.

    So it would not be helpful to the unemployed to decrease the premiums in order to deal with the surplus. We say take the surplus, which was created by people who contributed to the system, people who haven't been able to collect from that same system, and make sure the benefits go back to the unemployed.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Carbonneau.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau: Along the same lines, I think if we look at the premiums first, we're not looking at the problem properly.

    The employment insurance program is an absolutely major social protection system. It seems to me that society should first establish a consensus on the amount of benefits. On that side, there is no absolute amount that could serve as an absolute reference. I think we have to look at the benefits side first.

    On the other hand, yes, with the surplus, there's a lot of catching up. The program has been considerably debased since 1993. So I think we have a beautiful opportunity there to make a major leap in quality and adapt to the new reality of the labour market.

    So that is our approach, first and foremost. I think the program loses its meaning if we take the upside-down approach and make it a matter of premiums. The priority for me is that it serve the purpose for which it was created, in other words to be a real help for men and women who have to deal with unemployment.

¿  (0945)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

    Dr. René Roy: Before thinking of lowering or raising premiums, I think the partners should be given the right to set the rates. What's been taken from us, the minister took on his own initiative, and I think that's not right. If we had an independent fund, managed by contributors, the premium rate would be set according to the needs of the public.

    A good example—I don't know whether you are familiar with this organization—is the CSST, la Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec, or the Quebec version of the workers' compensation board, which is run by the partners, who set the rates. At times, they run deficits, at other times, surpluses. Around the table, there are the bosses, the workers and the government. So I think that's the way to do it.

    There you have it, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    You have two minutes left, if you....

    Mr. Gary Lunn: I'll pass that to my colleague, Madam Chair, or to someone else.

    The Chair: Okay. Then we'll move on to Ms. Bakopanos.

    Thank you.

[Translation]

    Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you very much. It's clear that we all agree on the main points; the labour market is changing and we have to adapt.

    Unless I'm mistaken, you didn't mention the self-employed. Increasingly, the trend is for people to want to work for themselves, and run their own business. You didn't mention that at all.

    Second, we all agree that employment insurance is temporary. There shouldn't be a permanent system, obviously. Employment insurance is a temporary system to help workers who've lost their jobs. You are aware, I suppose, that there are currently 400,000 more claimants than there were in 1996. Those are the figures that I have.

    You are of course also aware that Ms. Fraser said that the monitoring and assessment report was one of the government's best and most complete reports. The government is constantly reassessing our employment system. The Auditor General said—I could give you the reference—that it's a comprehensive and detailed program review system.

    In 2004,

[English]

the premiums are less than they were when we started out in 1993, and they're constantly going down. I'd like to know this, and perhaps it's the question to ask you. At what level do you think we should be—zero premiums? Employers feel that $1.98 is about the rate at which we have an equal basis, in terms of payouts with premiums. In the 2004 report of the assessment, it was stated that we're at the break-even point approximately between premiums and payouts.

    I read with much interest what you put out here. I have a couple of questions based on the perception you leave people with when you make statements such as 38% of people who are unemployed are getting.... Isn't it 38% of those who qualify for benefits, not 38% of those who pay into the system but those who qualify? I'd like to know where you get your 38% from.

    In terms of moms with 600 hours to qualify for pregnancy and parental leave, I know the main problem is women having consecutive pregnancies. There is obviously a hole we have to fill in terms of women who immediately...and I've been one of the MPs who has been pushing that we change the rules for women who happen to become pregnant while they're on maternity leave, and I agree with you on that point. But when you say that too many new moms don't have the 600 hours to qualify for pregnancy leave...we agree that a lot of them also work in part-time jobs by choice, because they want to raise their family also. We can debate whether that is a total picture of the facts.

    The EI account...as I said, on the surplus, we did have $10 billion less in terms of premiums, and at the moment the payout is about equal, according to the latest report I received, the 2004 report, in January. But if you have other figures, I'm willing to listen.

¿  (0950)  

[Translation]

    I really appreciated your comments on seasonal workers. I agree that the problem is not employment insurance. There's been a lot of debate on this in the House of Commons. In my opinion, it's a long-term issue. What these workers are looking for is employment, not employment insurance. We agree on that.

    What needs to be done is to invest in regional economic development. In order for your people to stay in the regions, we have to see to it that they have jobs. Trying to solve the problem of seasonal workers through benefits doesn't solve the problem of regional economic development. The government has invested $500 million a year in measures geared toward seasonal workers, but that didn't solve the problem and still hasn't solved it. That's my opinion and the government's opinion.

    Maybe I'll get some answers to these questions.

[English]

    Maybe, Ms. Byers, you'd like to comment on your leaflet and how it presents a portrait that isn't the total picture, in my view.

    The Chair: Before I go to Ms. Byers, there were two who had raised their hands when you talked about self-employed, so I'm going to go to them directly, followed by Ms. Byers.

    Mr. Vaudreuil and then Madam Carbonneau.

[Translation]

    Mr. François Vaudreuil: I'd like to make a couple of general comments about what you said. One could say a lot more, given that you raised a number of subjects.

    First, we all agree that increasingly, in various sectors, we're seeing what could be called a disguised employment relationship. Thus, the work relationship is becoming a business relationship. People's status is changing by virtue of the fact that they are being converted, for example, into independent or self-employed workers. Consequently, a large number of people are deprived of any social protection.

    Last year in Quebec, a study was done by professor Bernier from Laval University. It showed that today, one in three people in the labour market is in a non-traditional employment situation and in the overwhelming majority of cases has no social protection. This is, of course, of great concern to us, and something will have to be done about it. Our society cannot continually marginalize or exclude people. These plans should be universal, and the eligibility criteria should be adapted to new statutes.

    With respect to seasonal workers, you mentioned that they didn't necessarily want employment insurance benefits, they want employment, and that funds should accordingly be invested in sustainable regional economic development. It goes without saying that we can only agree with the idea of massively investing in economic development.

    However, there are unemployed women and men in the regions who are living from hand to mouth and going through extended periods of unemployment. When it comes time for them to pay their hydro bill or do the groceries, for example, the fact that there's a $50 billion surplus in the EI fund doesn't mean that the grocery store will give them what they need to eat for the week or that they will have enough money to pay their mortgage or their hydro bill. Under these circumstances, we feel that benefits need to be improved.

[English]

    The Chair: May I remind you that there are further people who want to speak.

[Translation]

    Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: I'd like to respond to that immediately by pointing out that benefits have been increased by a total of 9%. Changes have been made in terms of the hours, and various measures have also been taken. Granted, it's not enough.

¿  (0955)  

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Carbonneau and then CLC.

[Translation]

    Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I'd like to come back to and say more about self-employment. Everyone strongly recommends a decrease in the number of hours needed to be eligible for employment insurance. That way, in my view, we could provide a form of protection to a number of workers whose situation is unstable, including those who work part-time.

    Self-employment is a significant reality. In Quebec, about 16% of the labour force is in that situation. It is not a marginal phenomenon. The recommendation to form a task force that would quickly and thoroughly study this issue would in my opinion be a worthwhile effort in the interests of modernizing and adapting to new realities.

    I'd like to point out that in Quebec, one of the innovations brought about by that universally well-received legislation regarding maternity and parental leave, which gave rise to special benefits, was precisely that of covering the self-employed. In order to do so, it was agreed that there would be a relatively low annual income threshold of $2,000, regardless of employment status. That initiative was supported by the Quebec labour union and the social movement.

    Of course, the full EI program is more complex. Nevertheless, the issue should at least be studied. We can't go on providing social protection as if the workforce looked the same as it did at the end of the last world war; it makes no sense.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Hayes.

    Ms. Barb Byers: Mr. Hayes and then myself.

    The Chair: Okay. You have about two and half minutes.

    Mr. Kevin Hayes (Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress): Very quickly, the 38% of the unemployed is what we use. The reason we use the unemployed is that it offers the possibility of comparing, going back, literally, to 1940, if we wanted to.

    Some of the numbers that the HRDC has been bandying about in recent years have been done by special simulations, which means you put it into a cooker and hope the public likes the product that comes out of it.

    In other words, our numbers are absolutely transparent. You go to the Statistics Canada number of people unemployed and you get from HRDC, who gives it to Statistics Canada, the number of people who receive benefits, and you take the numerator over the denominator and you come up with the percent receiving benefits. It's as simple as that. It's absolutely transparent.

    In regard to the question you're raising about those who are eligible, about 85% of the unemployed pay premiums. That's one heck of a big universe. In our case, we're not saying that because 38% receive benefits, 100% should. Our norm is that roughly 70% of the unemployed under our rules would receive benefits. In other words, there has to be a labour force attachment, and the labour force attachment we are recommending is not the 420 to 910 hours, which is tossing out, literally, a million workers, a million unemployed who would have received benefits under the old rules in 1990. If those old rules were in place, there would be a million more unemployed receiving benefits. That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about, as I say, 100% receiving benefits. The notion of 88% or 80% receiving benefits is absolutely nonsense because that's not the way a system has to work.

    The other thing is that with respect to the 38%, what we've done is look at age and gender for every province, and every one of the 58 regions, going back to 1989. What HRDC or the government has not done, and you should be asking for, is to produce those same numbers. They produce internally in a document a sort of workload report, which I have right here in front of me. I have the March edition. They produce it for each province. They give what's called the BU ratio: the number of beneficiaries to unemployed. That should be public information. That should not be secret. That is what the premium payers expect. It's the accountability you people should be demanding.

    I find it incredible that you would spend I don't know how much time the other day going through these bogus numbers of 88% or whatever, when in fact they produce internally for themselves numbers that make sense. It's called a beneficiary-to-unemployed ratio. They do it for the provinces, but what you should be asking for...they do it for the 58 regions, because that's where the rubber hits the road. That's exactly where the rules intersect with the local labour market.

    You cannot talk about national numbers in terms of the 38% as a national number. What really is meaningful is how these numbers play out in the 58 regions. That's what's absolutely meaningful because it's how the rules work.

    Thank you.

À  (1000)  

    The Chair: You'll probably get a chance in the next round to do it. I have to be tight with the time.

    Ms. Barb Byers: All right.

    The Chair: Monsieur Crête, your 10 minutes begins now.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I have the impression that we're going back in time. Three years ago, we made the same recommendations and since then, the federal government collected another $11.3 billion. This is not just spare change! None of the committee's recommendations were followed and I congratulate you, given this situation, for the patience and tenacity which has brought you back before the committee three years later.

    One of the recommendations, in fact, the eight one, dealt specifically with the issue raised by Ms. Bakopanos with regard to independent workers. Three years ago, recommendation number 8 called for finding new ways to integrate independent workers. Today we find that nothing more has not been done about this issue.

    In short, can we summarize the problem today by saying that the government has not invested a penny into the system and simply decided to keep on pocketing any new surplus? The amount of $11 billion, which came out of the pockets of workers, was used to pay down Canada's debt. This money did not come from the pockets of those earning $200,000 a year, but rather from people earning between 20,000 and $25,000 a year.

    Isn't it time for you to tell the government that this practice must stop and that the money accumulated in the fund should go back to those workers paying premiums? I would like to know what you think about this.

    Mr. René Roy: We also believe that the amount of $11 billion, as well as the $33 billion collected previously, was used by the government to pay for expenditures. It's a real scandal, because the money was used to pay sponsorships and ended up in the government's slush fund. In the meantime, millions of workers were not eligible for employment insurance benefits. It's scandalous.

    We work on regional economic development. Provinces are deeply involved, the FTQ is involved, as are the unions and people working in the area of regional economic development. However, as I said a little earlier, the employment insurance fund would help keep workers in the regions, which in turn would help us develop regional economies. But if there are no workers left in the regions, we cannot develop regions economically. There's no point trying to develop the economy of the regions by growing pine trees! Someone has to harvest the trees. But if there are no workers left in the regions, that cannot be done. I gave the example of the Gaspé region a little earlier.

    Let's come back to the idea of an independent fund. It's an important point. We all know how it works. We can look after it. The premiums belong to the workers. It's an insurance system. At some time the federal government used to pay up to 50 per cent of the money in the fund. But now, not only does the government not pay into it anymore, but it pockets any surplus. In fact, the courts have recognized that any surplus belongs in the employment insurance fund. The court rejected a legal case brought forth by the CSN and the FTQ, ruling that this practice was not illegal since the federal government recognized that it owed money to the employment insurance fund in the amount of $45 billion. It is a debt owed by the government.

    If the fund was independently run—as it was in the past—it could be based on the example I gave earlier, namely the Quebec Workmen's Compensation Commission. There are other such bodies which involve our partners. We are perfectly capable of managing such a fund, and employers, at least those in Quebec, have told your committee that this fund is what we need.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Carbonneau and then Ms. Byers.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau: I agree with what has just been said. The appropriation of the amount of $11 billion over three years is tantamount to theft. It's also something which is deeply regressive because the debt is being paid back on the backs of lower-income workers, rather than higher-income workers, and the money is also being used to pay for a certain number of programs and services. The program is not being used for its original purpose and it is increasingly becoming an empty shell, incapable of meeting the needs of those for whom it was created.

    As René pointed out, we have been defending this position for a long time. We fiercely defended it before the courts and the Superior Court. Our case is presently before the Court of appeal and we are not going to give up.

    As regards the independence of the fund, I believe that this formula should be based on joint management. We can use the CSST, the Quebec Workmen's Compensation Commission, as a model. Only employers and workers contribute to the fund. It would therefore seem extremely important for us that they manage the fund, along with the government, and perhaps some independent representatives, and that the fund be run a completely independent manner, with an eye on the future, so that this important social program's objectives be respected. I would also add that the books should be independently audited.

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Paul Crête: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... in fact.

    Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau: Absolutely. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are organizations, such as the CPP, which could contribute by managing the fund on a daily basis. There also has to be independent accounting, be it under a board of directors, on which representatives of the federal government and taxpayers would sit, the government being represented because it is, after all, a federal social program.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Byers.

    Ms. Barb Byers: Thank you.

    I want to support the statements of the people around this table that UI is a trust fund. It's not a slush fund, quite clearly. When we look at who is paying for the debt and who is paying the price in this country, I agree with the previous speaker: this is about theft, and it's about theft from poor people, from people who aren't making very much.

    I just want to quote you a little bit from our unemployment insurance bulletin of February 2002:

Sixty per cent of the drop in claimants [from 1993] were workers earning less than $15,000. In fact, 36% of those losing protection earn less than $10,000 a year.

Forty-one per cent of the $7.4 billion in reduced benefits paid to the unemployed came from workers earning less than $15,000 a year. Nearly two-thirds of the dollars cut from employment insurance benefits came from EI claimants who made under $20,000 a year.

    Who's paying the price here? It's people who aren't making very much to start with. This will get me back again to the question of the groupings we're looking at, women and young workers. Almost all of the growth in jobs in the 1990s was from part-time workers, and 80% of those people are women. In 1999, 28% of all employed women worked less than 30 hours a week, when it was 10% for employed men.

    Taking a look at this, we're saying all of these people are paying the price and paying for this surplus that is used for other things. That's why we really believe quite strongly not only in the 360 hours for eligibility but in the question of labour force attachment, which gets back to your question about how you deal with families who have children and want to be able to do their own family planning, rather than letting the government do it for them.

    I've run into more than one woman who has had children under the old calculation of weeks calculated and then under hours calculated. This has had a huge impact on their families. They have had long attachments to the workforce, sometimes in part-time work, and they can't become eligible to have UI. We want to see this done in order to make sure this group of people will get the benefits they in fact are paying for.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Redlin.

    Mr. Blair Redlin: I wanted to say it is a very good point that was made, that your report recommended extending benefits to self-employed workers but that benefits have not been extended to self-employed workers. Your report recommended eliminating the divisor that penalizes people who don't work continuously during the previous 26 weeks, but the divisor is still there.

    This kind of thing promotes a certain amount of cynicism about the government in the country. With regard to the employment insurance system, I think the fact that it's not recognizing self-employed workers yet, despite your recommendation, is an indication of how it's not recognizing the changing nature and reality of the workforce in the country. With increasing contracting out in the high-tech sector, and in a variety of other ways, we have an increasing number of self-employed workers—who are workers and should be able to benefit from the employment insurance system, like any other workers.

    But as has been said, instead we're piling up these immense surpluses in the EI fund, which are being used to assist the government in its objective of reducing the national debt. The objective was set in the recent budget of a goal of 25% of GDP for the debt, and clearly the lowest income earners in Canada—the unemployed, people in poverty—are the ones who are contributing to this government's goal of reaching 25% of GDP. It's just simply wrong.

À  (1010)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Just a moment. We have one more witness.

    Mr. Paul Crête: Okay.

    The Chair: I'm going to call on Monsieur Bellemare. Just for the record, Monsieur Bellemare, I would indicate to people here that you're also with the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

    You have about a minute.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marc Bellemare (As an individual): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Whether you're talking about the surplus of $11 billion accumulated over the last two years, or of the current $45 billion surplus, you are basically talking about the same thing. You cannot talk about the contribution rate without talking about the surplus, and you cannot talk about the surplus, nor of the rate, if you do not talk about improvements to the program.

    A little earlier, it was said that revenues and expenditures should be the same, but everyone around the table seems to agree that the program must be improved. Your report said so. Given the projected surplus for 2003-2004 of at most one billion dollars, we will not be able to improve the program if we maintain the contribution rate at $1.98. Therefore, we will actually have to start spending the surplus.

    That's why we had recommended increasing the contribution rate to $2.20 without spending the surplus. Someone also mentioned that we did not address the issue of independent workers. What the union put forth were its main demands, and not all of its demands, because we could also have talked about extending sick leave. It is now clear that workers need several weeks to recover from work-related illnesses, such as burn-out.

    We could also have talked about abolishing the reference period, as well as the extension of the reference period in the case of a work conflict, a strike or a lock-out. This is a legal act recognized by various governments, at the provincial and federal levels. However, the reference periods have not been extended, but if you happen to be a felon, and you are in jail and have committed an illegal act, you are given an extension.

    We also could have address the issue of administrative regions. These administrative regions were created by various governments and are a purely and simply political game. I'd like someone to explain to me why the administrative region of the former Prime Minister of Canada, Shawinigan, was twinned with Drummondville, with an unemployment rate of 4 per cent whereas in Shawinigan it is 14 per cent, instead of twinning Shawinigan with Trois-Rivières, which would have made more sense from a regional point of view.

    So we could have raised many issues here today, but we did not, because we are simply going after the most important ones.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.

    Mr. Crête, you'll get in on the second round.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: All right.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Castonguay is next and then Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to thank our guests. There are some familiar faces which we saw three years ago, as Mr. Crête mentioned.

    I have to admit that I am also disappointed with the fact that our recommendations received so little follow-up. I believe that we had produced an excellent report and that we have to closely go over the recommendations again because, in my opinion, they struck the right balance given the reality of the time.

    It has also be said that, despite that situation, we are in a period of economic change, that jobs and the job market have changed tremendously. This, of course, causes me concern and I feel we bear the responsibility for adapting to this new reality. More and more often, we see people who have careers lasting just a few years and who then have to change jobs. Our education and training systems have to reflect this reality.

    You proposed several measures. First, I am trying to understand the 360-hour standard. Several people have addressed the matter. Others have suggested other numbers, such as 420 hours. If any of you would like to address this subject, I would be interested in your opinion.

    Second, given the evolution in the labour market and its attendant changes, especially as regards independent workers, do you think that we are simply doing patch work, in other words, applying band-aid solutions? Shouldn't we simply apply certain measures during this transition period, measures which you could recommend to improve the situation, but ultimately reopen the Employment Insurance Act and create a new program adapted to the reality of 2004. Isn't that better than doing patch work, as we seem to do on a regular basis? That's the impression I sometimes get. I would like to know what you think about this.

À  (1015)  

    Dr. René Roy: As regards what you've just said, that's exactly what my main point was. We have to stop applying band-aid solutions to the employment insurance system and review the entire program so as to adapt it to the reality of 2004. You are perfectly right on that point, we are in complete agreement with you there. As Mr. Bellemare said, we have talked about our major recommendations today, but we tabled briefs three years ago. Those briefs contain recommendations which are similar to yours, you know. Your recommendations don't go much further than what is contained in our briefs. So we are still focusing on the major recommendations. However, if you look at the recommendations in their entirety, they point to creating an employment insurance system accessible to everyone losing their job and include taking active measures to train workers so they can find work and to meet the needs of employers who need employees with specific skills.

    So we are willing to immediately sit down for a month and design an employment insurance system which addresses our recommendations and which lives up to its obligations.

    As for the number of hours worked, the 360 hours standard is more or less based on the former system of weeks of work. The system was converted into hours from weeks because, given today's reality, many workers have temporary employment or part-time employment, and if you calculate work based strictly on the number of weeks worked, they would not qualify. The standard is based on the number of weeks used previously multiplied by the average number of hours a Canadian worker works in a week. That's how we came up with 360 hours: 12 weeks x 30 hours.

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Carbonneau.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau: As far as the explanation with regard to the 360 hours is concerned, I believe that the main thing to remember is that we need to substantially decrease the number of hours to ensure that people become eligible.

    Further, I believe the labour market is much more complex than it was in the past and it seems perfectly reasonable for us to have a single eligibility criterium, irrespective of a person's employment status. Whether you have temporary employment, part-time employment, seasonal employment, or regular full-time employment, whether you are young and just entering the labour market, we feel that the program must be inclusive and that it must truly be accessible to everyone.

    Of course, there will be variations depending on the unemployment rate in different regions. There will also be variations depending on the employment status of a person, because, obviously, if you work full-time, you will accumulate hours more quickly and be eligible for benefits over an extended period of time, or for higher benefits, because you will have worked longer. But it became clear to us that we could not restrict the program indefinitely and that a new, more global and much more inclusive approach was needed.

    There's a lot of emphasis on working 30 hours a week; but that does not reflect real life. Forty per cent of workers already work fewer than 35 hours, so the 35-hour work week is a standard which has become disconnected from reality and is only used for calculations. That does not make sense and, given the drop in the number of regular jobs, we feel that 30 hours is a much more appropriate standard given the reality of today's job market.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you.

À  (1020)  

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Byers.

    Ms. Barb Byers: Thank you. I'm not going to repeat the arguments on the 30 hours times 12 weeks. I think they've been well explained.

    I agree we have to stop the patchwork, because every time somebody comes in to try to fix one piece of a problem, they in fact hurt a whole bunch of other people when they make the changes. If we're going to do comprehensive changes to UI, we'd better make sure the intent of the review is to serve the unemployed instead of to serve government finances or whatever, because it's the unemployed who are losing it. It's their families and their communities. It doesn't matter where you live in this country, people have been affected in huge numbers.

    If we're going to make changes—and as has been pointed out, some of the changes have been raised this morning, but not all of them, certainly, that we would see—they have to serve the unemployed. And they have to quit punishing the people who've been hit by the economy already, because they've already lost their jobs.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you.

    Madam Chair, I had the opportunity to meet people who work in different areas in Eastern Canada over the last few weeks, and I would like to know whether our panellists believe that the government should do something to change the perception too many Canadians hold of people who end up on employment insurance.

    I realize that, in the end, most of those people, when they were told about the culture... Some people told us that they thought people in Eastern Canada worked a couple of weeks in order to receive employment insurance benefits, but those people are the minority, Madam Chair. The majority of those people want to work, but they told us that the perception Canadians have of them is so negative that everyone thinks they are jokers. I think the government bears the responsibility to make Canadians aware of the fact that, for different reasons, people out East must have access to programs and that it is not because they don't want to work or do not act in good faith, but rather simply because the economic situation is such that...

    If the government did that, could it affect the way we perceive those people so that we could garner support for any changes to the program? You know as well as I do that the committee can make as many recommendations as it likes, but at the end of the day, decisions will have to be made. You also know that neither my colleagues opposite nor myself will make these decisions, but rather it will be the executive branch of government. At one point, we have to get that message across.

    I'd like to know what you think about everything I just said.

[English]

    The Chair: We're going to have to do that in less than a minute.

    I have Ms. Byers and then Monsieur Bellemare.

    Ms. Barb Byers: I absolutely agree. We have to change attitudes towards the unemployed. People don't choose to be unemployed. Quite frankly, there are way too many myths about people being unemployed.

    I'm a social worker by trade. I know what the myths are about people who choose to be on welfare as well. For any of us in this room.... I've had the privilege in my life of not being unemployed since I was 14, but there's a whole bunch of people in this country who don't have that choice. They lose their jobs because of all sorts of things that have nothing to with them and everything to do with things that government can make changes in.

    The Chair: Monsieur Bellemare.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marc Bellemare:

    In 2003-2004, there were 965,000 employment insurance claims filed in Quebec. There were 880,000 applications made in Ontario and between 300,000 and 400,000 in British Columbia, and the list goes on. If people wanted to apply for employment insurance benefits just for the fun of it, I think that they would proceed differently. The point of employment insurance is to help people find work again. There is no shame in receiving benefits, but there is shame in not having employment. If the current government, if past and future governments cannot understand this, then they will not be able to distinguish between work and an EI recipient. I think we have to fight unemployment rather than the unemployed. There's nothing shameful about receiving benefits, but a person's dignity depends on having a job.

    The Chair: Ms. Carbonneau.

    Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau: I agree. Yes, the government should fight prejudice, wherever it may lie. But it is also the responsibility of the unions, and God knows that we also have work to do within our organization. When someone is unemployed, that person is not in the workforce on a daily basis and thus becomes a little more isolated.

    However, I would add that this type of campaign cannot only be carried out on an ideological level or within the framework of a public debate. It must also be carried out in practice. When we insist on making this program universally accessible, it is a way to garner more political support in a very real and concrete way. The less the program helps a greater number of people, the more it will be discredited. It's the case of programs for the poor which end up being poor programs. In that sense, there is a very real connection between making more people eligible for benefits and fighting against prejudice.

À  (1025)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to welcome everyone to this committee, despite the fact that you should actually not be here. Let me explain.

    Let's go back in history to see when the changes to the employment insurance system occurred. In 1986, the Auditor General recommended that the Employment Insurance Fund be included in general revenues; we've been stuck with this "gift" ever since. It became the government's cash cow. I remember, in 1988, when Brian Mulroney came to New Brunswick, the first demonstrations against the changes to the employment insurance system were held.

    In 1989, a member of the Liberal opposition at the time called upon New Brunswickers, in the July 31^st edition of L'Acadie nouvelle, to fight hard against any changes to employment insurance, because any such changes would be disastrous for New Brunswick. That person was Doug Young, back when he was a member of the opposition.

    In February 1993, the former Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, who at the time was Leader of the Opposition, said in a letter addressed to a group of women in Rivière-du-Loup who were fighting changes to the employment insurance system that the Conservative government of the day was battling the wrong people. The fight was not against the unemployed; the fight was against the economic situation; it was to help people find jobs. That's what had to be done; he said it was wrong to target the unemployed. However, once they were elected in 1993, the Liberals did what they did in 1996: they introduced massive changes and cut deeply into the employment insurance system. That should not be forgotten.

    I would have liked to address specific issues, such as why the CLC's figures are 38 per cent and 33 per cent, whereas the government's figure stands at 88 per cent. However, I think the CLC has already answered the question. So let's get to the facts.

    In May 2000, I presented a motion in the House of Commons calling for changes to the employment insurance system. Parliament unanimously supported my motion.

    In 1998, I travelled through Canada and came up with 14 recommendations to change the employment insurance system. They were presented to Parliament and to the current government.

    In 2000, just before the election, there was Bill C-44, which wasn't passed. Immediately after the election, in March or thereabouts, Bill C-2 was tabled. At the time, the opposition called for amendments to the proposed legislation. I'm certain that my Liberal friend Jeannot Castonguay, who sat on the committee, will agree with me that, at the time, the committee had decided, in light of the recommendations of certain people, including Denis Coderre, not to touch Bill C-2. We were told that the bill would be passed right away and that a study would follow.

    Well, we have the study: 17 recommendations made by the federal government. However, since they were made, nothing has changed. I think the Liberals may claim that there have been a few changes, that they studied the issue of parental benefits and so on. They will try to take credit for those initiatives. However, in the meantime, there is a surplus of $43.8 billion in the Employment Insurance Fund, money which was stolen from people who lost their job.

    But now, on the eve of another election, this just in. I was listening to Ms. Bakopanos a little earlier when she said that the Liberals have done this and that, that they've looked after the economy and helped people get back to work, that it was the right thing to do, that the government did its job well, that it spent $500 million on this and that... But I don't understand why, as recently as January and February, the Prime Minister said that the government had transferred money to the provinces, that it had invested in health and accomplished many other things. That's what he was saying in the House of Commons: the government did the right thing with regard to the Employment Insurance Fund. However, a few weeks ago, 2,500 people demonstrated in Forestville out of the blue, among them, business people and the priest. Everyone was there. I was in Forestville a few weeks ago. In November, the Prime Minister on the other hand decided to go on a national tour with a group of Liberals to plug changes to the Employment Insurance Fund and to receive recommendations, as if he wasn't even aware of the existence of the report! Then, out of the blue again, we learn that changes will be made to the employment insurance system this week. There are 17 recommendations in total; if two are implemented per election, it will take at least eight election campaigns before every single recommendation is implemented.

    As for me, I think the employment insurance system operates on the backs of workers and their families and women. Federal government cutbacks have even led some to commit suicide.

À  (1030)  

    This is serious business indeed, but it's the kind of story I'm hearing at my Acadie—Bathurst office. It's what I'm hearing from some Canadians. I get letters from desperate people: some of the most disadvantaged people on the face of the earth are being cut off. When you lose your job, you become a have-not. You don't have anything left to make ends meet.

    I'm saying all of this, because today, we have ten minutes, but in my opinion it's a waste of time: the federal government is already aware of the recommendations. In 2001, we met and you told us about the very same problem. Now it's time for action.

    Do you agree with me that the federal government now has a responsibility to act? The recommendations have been put on a shelf and they're waiting for an election before bringing up the matter again. Do you agree with me that when all is said and done, elections always dictate government actions?

    In one part of my region where there's a Liberal federal MP, the south-east of the province, 1,500 people were caught “banking” their hours. In my riding, 11 people were caught doing the same thing. I twice asked in the House of Commons if the government was going to treat all Canadians the same way. The minister said yes. I can now confirm that yesterday, I received a fax from someone in my riding who owed $4,823. So they're collecting money from a region where only 11 people were caught.

    Human Resources Canada informed me that the only reason my riding was singled out was the fact that there were only 11 people involved and that the community would not be affected by this action. On the other hand, in the southern part of the province, in Dominic LeBlanc's Liberal riding where there are 1,500 people, it would be detrimental to the community. So it's all for 1,500 to break the law, but it's not all right for 11 people to do so. That's what's known as falling into the infamous black hole, where people can't make ends meet. It hurts the economy. People who were receiving employment insurance benefits, that is fishery, forestry or peat bog workers, help to drive the economy too. That money goes to the employers as well as to small and medium-sized businesses.

    I know that I've said a lot, without really providing any answers, but I think I already know the answers. People want change. They want the system to belong to them rather than to Paul Martin, the Prime Minister of Canada, who wants to pay down the debt and hold the deficit to zero on the backs of the workers, knowing full well that they don't have the money to launch court challenges. Those are the problems caused by the employment insurance system. I'd like to hear your opinion, since you represent Canadian workers. Do you agree with me that in order to bring about change to employment insurance, it's time we acted, not held an election?

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Godin, you've given an eight-minute-and-ten-second preamble and you've given all of them two minutes to respond. We're going to start, and I'm going to give the sign.

    Monsieur Vaudreuil.

[Translation]

    Mr. François Vaudreuil: Mr. Godin, your words are simply music to my ears.

    Unfortunately, we're dealing with a very major democratic deficit. We get the impression that the government doesn't want to hear anything and sees nothing. It is insensitive to the desperate pleas of many people living in dire circumstances. Of course, we find that situation is totally unacceptable and that's why, once again, we are suggesting changes. We're saying changes are urgently needed.

    We can see that the government's attitude is so far removed from all these problems that it is akin to arrogance or contempt for the public.

À  (1035)  

[English]

    The Chair: Madame Carbonneau.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau: I share your indignation. The time has come to act, indeed, but not just to do any old thing. In my opinion, all the recommendations that were submitted are realistic. Nevertheless, priorities should be set. If I have a wish, it's to see this committee establish some priorities so that no cosmetic change or diversionary measure is adopted simply for election purposes.

    My priorities would be eligibility, duration, fine-tuning the way in which benefits are calculated, the status of the fund, its independence, keeping it at arm's length and having it managed by the stakeholders.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

    Dr. René Roy: You are correct, and I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Godin on the sequence of events. I might even remind you that, in your account, in 1993, there was a huge demonstration in Montreal. The temperature was at least 30 degrees, and we had a member named Paul Martin marching with us. He marched along with us to demand changes to employment insurance. So, yes, we need to act. It's time, but we also want an election.

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Byers is next and then Mr. Redlin.

    Ms. Barb Byers: Yvon, you've said it all very well, I believe, for us. Yes, we agree the federal government needs to take action, and as has been pointed out, it can't be cosmetic changes.

    I'd be very interested to see, with the upcoming federal election, whenever it is called, whether there'll be a plan to deal with the UI surplus and determine how it's going to be put back into the hands of unemployed workers. Or are we just in a situation where we're making some small changes and those large numbers of dollars don't get back to the unemployed?

    I guess when you ask whether the federal government should take action, the only thing I would disagree with is that they should have taken action a long time ago, because there's a whole bunch of people whose lives have been absolutely mangled by what's happened with UI—absolutely destroyed.

    The Chair: Mr. Redlin.

    Mr. Blair Redlin: I also would totally agree that the cynicism of this government is just breathtaking, really, and I think the relation to the electoral cycles is an important point to make. The government has totally lost sight of the vision of what employment insurance is supposed to be for. It's supposed to be an insurance program to protect people, to provide income replacement, to provide a bridge so that people can get back on their feet and get back to work.

    Instead, the government is charging premiums to people, stealing the benefits for its electoral and political purposes, and meanwhile we have rising poverty, rising homelessness, and people out of work. It's not that we've met all needs in the country, that we have full employment in the country.

    The cynicism just has to stop. You have an all-party committee report from 2001, and the government refuses to implement even minor recommendations of an all-party committee report. You have a government saying it's campaigning on a democratic deficit and giving more powers to members of Parliament. It's just incredibly cynical, and as Ms. Byers says, there are all kinds of ordinary people who are paying the price for this with devastated lives.

    The Chair: Thank you. We're well over the time. We're going into short, five-minute rounds.

    I have Ms. Skelton, Ms. Bakopanos, and Mr. Crête.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Five minutes? I have so many notes here.

    From the information I have from the Canadian Labour Congress, the economic loss to my riding of Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar is over $21.6 million. I want to say that women in my riding have to work part-time jobs. It's not because of having babies that they are having problems.

    My carpenter father taught me that the EI fund was a trust fund for Canadian workers. I learned that on his knee when he was talking about his union and his background.

    As a mother of a journeyman, I want to know more about how much the federal government training funding has dropped over the last couple of years. There used to be a large amount of money going into training programs. Could any of you give me numbers on that? Do you have it, Mr. Hayes?

À  (1040)  

    Mr. Kevin Hayes: The cuts for training, since 1993 mainly, amount to about a billion dollars a year.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Is it a billion a year?

    Mr. Kevin Hayes: It's a billion dollars a year, and most of it has come in the form of income support cuts.

    Let me put it in perspective. Two decades ago, in 1984, the federal government spent nearly $2.4 billion a year on training and job programs—job programs broadly defined, meaning job creation and all kinds of other things. If you use $2.4 billion as your benchmark, the federal government, if they were making a similar kind of contribution, should right now be spending over $6 billion a year for training and job programs.

    We should not dismiss the job programs lightly. Our colleagues from Quebec outline the importance of how you have to deal with the issues around older workers. These are complex issues. You need the combination of training and adjustment programs.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Most definitely.

    I would like to ask Ms. Byers, when you spoke about the independent agency, how would you see that being set up?

    The Chair: Ms. Byers.

    Ms. Barb Byers: Thank you.

    The question of an independent agency basically controlled by the people who contribute to it—obviously workers' organizations and employers' organizations—has been a demand or request, whatever way you want to look at it, of the labour movement for a long time.

    Again, it is because we believe that the money needs to be set aside so that the people who actually know best about what's happening in the workplace have control over where those dollars are going and how that's being done, so that we're not getting into political decisions, quite frankly, and what happens to people as we get to either before or right after an election. We believe that the workplace partners would in fact make the best decisions for not only individual workers and their families, but also for the communities where people live, and then obviously for the country as a whole.

    We don't see it as privatized. I want to be very, very clear to our colleagues who are members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and ensure that they clearly understand that we don't believe that it be a privatized system. But there are many similar kinds of systems that we could look at across the country, workers' compensation boards that are in fact government agencies, but are also stand-alone agencies.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    You have a minute left, Mrs. Skelton.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: My office in the city of Saskatoon and my two rural offices are very busy with EI, given the economic problems that are going on in the province of Saskatchewan right now with the agricultural industry. I have a lot of workers.

    When you talked about the shame they felt, I think that's something we really have to get away from, because they should not be made to feel that way. I think that in all of our government offices—and I'm assuming that the other provinces find this too—workers come out totally deflated. There are just not enough people to help them in the offices. Are you finding that right across the country?

    Ms. Barb Byers: Absolutely. There aren't enough people to do the work, and, quite frankly, in the case of EI, sometimes the rules are so confusing that you can have people who are treated differently not only in two different EI offices but also in the same office by two different people. It's not because the people administering the program are trying to be contradictory, but because the rules oftentimes are.

    But I absolutely agree with you on the question of people having some dignity. Unless you've gone through the system, having been unemployed, or maybe having been on workers' compensation or on welfare or on some other social program, you don't know what it's like. We don't know what it's like to sit on the other side of the desk and have to go through that and not know whether there's going to be some real relief for you and your family and your community.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Bakopanos.

    Hon. Eleni Bakopanos: I take objection to the fact that we're called arrogant, but I obviously never expected a friendly crowd when I came here.

    I wasn't going to politicize this, but you obviously opened the door, Mr. Godin, and my other colleagues opened the door.

    But there is a fundamental issue that we all have to debate here. If we're going to continue to be in debt as a country—and perhaps that's where you'd like to be, but that's not where I want to be—then we have to look at what we're going to do in terms of the other programs that we have in this country also.

    I'm not saying, “Do it on the backs of the workers”. Absolutely not. I, and a lot of my colleagues, have supported the report on women workers in this country, a very good report, in my opinion, that the committee came up with, which we hope to be able to implement as a government in terms of independent work and workers independently.

    But we really have to discuss the issue: would we have had to pay the debt off? Yes, we would have had to pay the debt off, I think, in order to be able to arrive at a position where we do create more jobs. So let's agree to disagree on that point.

    I want to go back to the point of workers 55 years old and over. I was one of the MPs, along with other colleagues, who pushed to have pilot projects, because I believe in them. I'll tell you why I believe in them; it's because the textile sector is a very important sector in my riding. That sector, unfortunately, is suffering grave problems at the moment in terms of its workers and older workers, because of high-tech and the change in technology in factories.

    I do want to make a point.

À  (1045)  

[Translation]

    I would like to point out that as a government, we have nevertheless decided to provide programs

[English]

—I don't know why I forgot—training programs

[Translation]

to the Quebec government, and I can tell you that my office receives complaints from workers who, unfortunately, are not as well served as they were before the government transferred these programs to the provinces. This happens daily.

    Now, we are told that it is the responsibility of the Canadian government, but some provinces and unions demanded that these programs be transferred to Quebec, or, in any case, to other provinces, and it is not working, according to what I have heard. The Quebec government is doing nothing to provide jobs for young workers.

    Take the textile industry, for example. In textiles, everything has gone high-tech. Older workers will not be able to operate the new equipment. But there is no program for young people in Quebec. I told the Quebec department that there was a shortcoming in that area and asked what was being done to encourage young people. I hope that the unions are also working on this, because it is a serious problem for the labour force and for plant owners who can't find enough qualified workers.

    This all goes back to the first comment that I made. The labour market is no longer the same. The federal government can't tackle this problem on its own. I thought that today we would be discussing a very specific issue, but since everyone seems to have opened the door, then I would like to say that we must cooperate. The government has a problem with qualified workers. I will use my riding as an example, because I'm most familiar with it. One of these days we're going to have to sit down and discuss whether or not we're really interested in reducing our country's debt, because, in the long run, our social programs will also be jeopardized.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: I have less than a minute, and I just want to report that we have to vacate this room by 11, as another committee will be using it. So I'm going to be very tough with the time, but I'm also going to give each of the panellists or each group a minute wrap-up at the end, so that if you don't have time in this round, keep those notes for your one-minute wrap-up.

    Ms. Carbonneau, Mr. Vaudreuil, and Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau: No, I don't agree that the debt should be our main priority. No Western country has a 25 per cent benchmark. There is no greater ideological outlook. Independent of that point of view, on which we might agree to disagree, even if our priority was to reduce the debt, the worst way to go about it would be through the Employment Insurance Fund. That's an absolutely unbelievable suggestion.

    With respect to Emploi-Québec, you stated that the unions and the government had insisted on doing this at the time. I remember a broad consensus, which included the employers, and we have proven, through surveys, that the organization had a high approval rating. That being said, there is always room for improvement. But, all comparative studies being equal, I don't really understand what you are getting at.

À  (1050)  

    Mr. François Vaudreuil: I agree with what Claudette said. I would also add that, as far as Emploi-Québec is concerned, there was also a consensus, people were happy on the way our network was developed. It's a model which works very well. I myself have sat on the board of Emploi-Québec since 1997 and, in various sectors, there are also sectoral activities. The sectoral communities also operate quite successfully. So it's a model which is still changing, but I think that we have made much progress in that regard in Quebec. The unions and employers are quite satisfied.

    In conclusion, when I began by talking about the government's arrogance, I said this because citizens who are living through tough times have the correct impression that the government is not listening to them, is not hearing them and does not want to provide them with support. They consider that attitude to be arrogant and they have the impression that the government is very far removed from them, that it does not understand their daily reality. These people are suffering.

[English]

    The Chair: Very briefly.

[Translation]

    Dr. René Roy: I sit on the board of Emploi-Québec, at the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. The satisfaction rate for this organization is very high in Quebec. The federal government has not increased its allocation of $598 million in the last five years. We are currently renegotiating that amount; the federal government only gives us .06 per cent although it should give us .08 per cent. This goes back to what Ms. Skelton said. The federal government has not increased the amount it allocates for labour force training.

    Yes, we work with garment factories and train workers for factory work. We are deeply involved in this sector and on a daily basis, too.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    You've run out of time. You're going to have to do it in your one-minute round.

    Mr. Crête, five minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I simply want to add that it now seems that some members of Parliament have become arrogant. The public is fed up, but the fact remains that the members of the committee, and not Martians are the ones who unanimously formulated recommendations three years ago. However, recommendation 4 dealt specifically with older workers, Ms. Bakopanos. We should therefore tell the government to implement this recommendation which it has known about for three years now.

    That being said, I would like you to tell committee members more about the inter-union proposal on older workers which was presented yesterday. As it now stands, in Quebec and Canada, the phenomenon of job relocation is growing. In Montmagny, 600 jobs will disappear in a few days from now.

    Can you again explain the proposal so that people have a clear understanding of the situation and so that we can conduct a follow-up as soon as possible? We have to deal with this new reality and be aware of the fact that global reform is necessary. However, at the very least, the issue has to be clarified.

    Mr. François Vaudreuil: All right. How much time do we have?

À  (1055)  

    Mr. Paul Crête: Take your time.

    Mr. François Vaudreuil: I'd like to talk about a future income support program for older workers. We have noticed that today, the so-called active labour market reintegration measures don't apply to everyone. Unfortunately, some men and women have fallen into the cracks and have become marginalized. These are people who are not able to acquire the skills they need to obtain a well-paying job. By this I mean a job which pays the average salary for a given region.

    These people, who cannot find a job because they lack adequate skills, are often tired, if not exhausted, because they have worked in difficult conditions. We are therefore asking the government to create an income support program for older workers which would replace the program for older worker adjustment, otherwise known as POWA, which was created in 1997. We're asking the government to address the blatant injustice it created by abolishing POWA. Indeed, since 1997, thousands of people across the country have ended up on the street.

    As for the program content, I'll give you a blow-by-blow description. As I already mentioned, it would target people aged 55 and over and would be open to people until the age of 65, when they become eligible for pension benefits, whether under the Canada Pension Plan or the Régie des rentes du Québec. The program would help people retain their dignity until retirement. The benefits would have the same status as employment insurance benefits.

    Last week, we gave the document to Mr. Volpe's assistants and we held a press conference yesterday calling on all political parties to develop a position on this proposal in the hope that it becomes an issue during the upcoming election campaign. Each political party should therefore receive its copy of the inter-union proposal which was drafted by the four main unions in Quebec, namely the CSD, the CSN, the CSQ and the FTQ.

    Mr. Paul Crête: Let's hope it doesn't take three years to get an answer.

    Mr. François Vaudreuil: Let's hope so indeed, because there are many people suffering today.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I'm now just going to allow a very brief wrap-up, and we'll go in reverse order.

    Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

    Dr. René Roy: My conclusion is also that we should not have to wait another three years. I think that the committee recommendations are valid. The members around this table have said so, and we have said so as well, the time for action has come. Let's hope that the election will not prevent us from moving forward quickly.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Vaudreuil.

[Translation]

    Mr. François Vaudreuil: I think that there is unanimity around this table. We have to act now and push for the demands we presented this morning. We can afford them.

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Carbonneau.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Claudette Carbonneau: I also believe that we must act as quickly as possible. In my opinion, we have done all the necessary studies. Nevertheless, I believe that it's important and useful for the committee to keep in mind the priorities which were presented, rather then focus on solutions which are less interesting or which do not help all unemployed workers.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Redlin.

    Mr. Blair Redlin: We got into a discussion about the federal financial situation and the debt. That's inevitable, because the government has taken this approach of using the EI fund to help deal with its financial situation. We shouldn't, in a committee like this, actually be talking about that, because it should be wholly separate from the regular accounts of the government. It should not be used for paying down the debt; it should be used to provide income support and training to workers, the original vision of employment insurance. I would urge the committee and the government to start reducing the eligibility requirements and make employment insurance more accessible to the people who really need it.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Byers.

    Ms. Barb Byers: I'd also support the urgency of the situation. We need to be doing things that actually help the unemployed, not just finding a new group of unemployed to punish.

    Canadians are obviously concerned about debt as well, but the question we would raise to the federal government is when it is going to start to pay back into the EI fund the surplus that is owed to the fund, with interest. We're not greedy; we aren't asking for it to come in one lump-sum payment. We would say that if this were the federal government's VISA or MasterCard, it would be maxed out and payment overdue. It's time to get the money back to the unemployed.

    Finally, I hope people will also take a look at our proposal on training insurance. This is based on the apprenticeship model, on being able to keep people in their own workplace or get them prepared for other workplaces they need to go to, without their having to go through a system that right now can't support them in their training.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    On behalf of the members of the committee, I want to thank all of you for your very candid views. I also want to assure you that this committee takes the concerns of employees and employers very seriously in considering changes to the Employment Insurance Act.

    While Mr. Castonguay said we're not executive and don't make decisions, we certainly have a responsibility to make strong recommendations to those in a position to make those decisions. This committee has never shied away from exercising that responsibility. We believe we had a good report in “Beyond Bill C-2”. As committee members, we were disappointed that so few of our recommendations were accepted. This is why, as a committee, we decided to pursue this again. So it's the old adage, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. I think you will find that members of this committee are trying to get it right and trying to make those recommendations. We thank you for assisting us in our quest.

    The meeting is adjourned.