HUMA Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 22, 2001

• 1132

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, let us begin and continue consideration of Bill C-2.

Before I introduce our guests, I thank you all now for the lists of witnesses. We will attempt to sort those out. You will observe from the agenda that we have two witnesses today. The Confédération des syndicats nationaux, who were very keen to come, simply could not come today, so they will be appearing in the future. I'm grateful to the witnesses who have appeared at such short notice. So we have the lists, and that's fine.

I'm told that we do not have the names from the individual parties for the steering committee. We have the Liberal ones.

[Translation]

It's you?

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

[English]

The Chair: So it's Paul Crête. We'll contact the NDP and the Conservatives about that, and with the Alliance we're fine.

As to the steering committee meeting, because Val Meredith is absolutely unable to be here today and tomorrow, the only day.... We must have a steering committee meeting on Monday if we're to have a schedule that allows us to have meetings next week. I've talked to various members, and the later in the day we have it the better. I would suggest, at the request of at least one member, that we have the meeting of the steering committee at five o'clock, and my purpose would be to have it from five until six. I see no objection to that.

The steering committee meeting will be at five o'clock. You will get the notices in your offices as to which room on Monday, and the objective will be to have a meeting for an hour. Its purpose will not be the future work of the committee for the year, but will be the schedule for dealing with Bill C-2.

To our witnesses I repeat my thanks for coming under these circumstances. I think you know the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was in the House of Commons. The members are still coming back from that event.

I apologize also that at some point our members may start having their lunch. The reason is that our meeting would normally have finished earlier. We all have commitments, particularly beginning with question period. So I would encourage you, if you wish, to have lunch as well.

• 1135

Our witnesses today represent the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Building and Construction Trades Department, and they will introduce themselves. I'm going to suggest that Nancy Hughes Anthony of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce speak first, if that's okay with you, gentlemen. Then we would proceed to the Building and Construction Trades Department.

Nancy, please introduce yourself and your colleague. The normal procedure is to have a presentation from you. We will then have the other presentation, and then we'll proceed to questions and answers from both sides of the committee. We're in your hands.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As mentioned, my name is Nancy Hughes Anthony. I'm the president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. With me today is Paul Lalonde. Paul is the analyst with the Canadian Chamber.

[Translation]

It gives me great pleasure to come before you to present the views of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of our members throughout the country.

[English]

First of all, let me thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee and to present the views of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on this bill. As I'm sure many of you know, because you have chambers in your ridings, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is Canada's largest and most representative business association. We represent more than 170,000 members from every industry and from every region of Canada.

Most importantly, the vast majority of our members are employers who have a direct interest in the employment insurance program. As a result, the Canadian Chamber has been an active participant in the employment insurance process, particularly with regard to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission and its role in monitoring, evaluating, and providing advice on the program.

Mr. Chair, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of its members, appears today in strong opposition to Bill C-2. I must state we were very disappointed that Bill C-2 was introduced without public consultation, and that significant amendments were introduced without any input from the commission or from the people who are directly affected.

Most importantly, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce strongly objects to the reversal of policy direction that is contained within Bill C-2. By repealing the intensity rule and adjusting the benefit repayment provisions, this bill reverses the progressive reforms of 1996, which I might say the chamber was very much in favour of at the time.

Moreover, the bill is inconsistent with the innovation and skills agenda presented in the 2001 Speech from the Throne, which we applauded. Bill C-2 simply does not support the development of advanced skills or entrepreneurial spirit, and does not advance Canada's competitiveness in a global economy. In our view, it is a step backwards for Canada.

[Translation]

The recent Throne Speech highlighted the need to innovate and to promote the knowledge-based economy, which is founded on highly skilled, enterprising men and women. This bill runs counter to this innovative spirit and does not in any way address the serious economic problems facing many communities in Canada. In fact, it helps perpetuate this vicious circle.

[English]

In particular, Mr. Chair, we have serious concerns about the following: the reduced role for the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, the removal of the intensity rule, and the status of the EI fund. I will touch on them very briefly.

In regard to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, the bill prescribes that the Governor in Council will set the EI premium rate for 2002 and 2003, as you know. The members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce want the premium rate to be set in consultation with the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. Why? Because the commission gives legitimacy to the process, because it involves the stakeholders who contribute to and benefit from the EI program. The proposed change in the bill is a move away from the current democratic process without any apparent justification for such a change.

• 1140

As far as the intensity rule is concerned, we were very disappointed to note that Bill C-2 proposed to remove it. If this amendment is passed into law, it will restore the original problems of the employment insurance system, encouraging intended unemployment and repeated recourse to employment insurance.

[Translation]

In our opinion, it will serve as a disincentive to work. Furthermore, it will discourage the acquisition of new skills and the establishment of new businesses in regions where this would be suitable.

[English]

These proposed changes will not go, and have not gone, unnoticed by the global community. They will have a negative impact on the perception of Canadian productivity and Canada's labour market throughout the world, and in fact the IMF, in its recent report, was quite critical about the removal of the intensity rule.

Finally, regarding the employment insurance fund itself, the Canadian Chamber places a very high priority on moving employment insurance premiums down to a long-term sustainable level. As you know, it's estimated that the cumulative surplus will reach almost $35 billion by March 31, 2001. We understand there is an annual surplus, or an annual overpayment, of some $6 billion to $7 billion. This means that Canadian businesses are overpaying on their EI premiums by billions of dollars every year, and this has not gone unnoticed. Maintaining EI premiums at their current level or decreasing them only slightly has really transformed employment insurance from a safety net into a payroll tax that supports government spending.

So my remarks today and our submission convey the concerns our members have with respect to Bill C-2. I'd just like to quote one of our members, the St. John's Board of Trade in Newfoundland, which has been very public in its opposition to the changes. They stated that these changes “will only serve to return the EI program to a place where it can be used as a source of income rather than as an insurance program, as was originally intended. These changes will damage the economy and provide a disincentive to work.”

So thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thank you for your attention and look forward to the questions from the committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Nancy.

If it's okay with you, we'll proceed with the Building and Construction Trades Department. And, gentlemen, whichever of you is speaking, would you introduce your colleague. I'd be grateful.

Mr. Robert Blakely (Canadian Director, Building and Construction Trades Department): My name is Bob Blakely. I'm the director of Canadian affairs for the Building and Construction Trades Department. Appearing with me is Mr. Benson from our office.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being to the right of the Chamber of Commerce for the first time in my life. Ideologically, I have probably not moved there, but I guess I am geographically challenged, for today at least.

We represent the construction industry. We represent 455,000 men and women who make their living in the construction business. It is Canada's largest employer, and it's a cyclic business. There was a time when our industry was seasonal, but it's become cyclic now. By its nature, people work for a number of employers. They work long, extended hours far from home, and then, unfortunately, sometimes bridge the gaps in their employment through employment insurance.

Generally, we're supportive of the reforms that are suggested in Bill C-2. What has happened recently— making every hour count, encouraging people to work every hour—has done a number of good and significant things for our industries. We do have a number of concerns, however, the first of which deals with the funding for the first two weeks of apprenticeship training.

Construction is an industry that, according to the studies done by HRDC and virtually every other organization that's plumbed it, is greying out. The bulk of the people who undertake work in construction are between 40 and 60 years of age. The baby-boom generation has populated the construction industry, and pretty much all of us are going to leave on the same day.

The recessions of the mid-eighties and into the nineties did not encourage people to go into a trade. Apprentices by and large in Canada are people who average around 30 years of age. They are learners, not students in the traditional sense. They're usually married people. They are on their own. They are not getting student loans. They have responsibilities and families, and they make a low wage as apprentices. They have no control over when they are going to go for their technical training.

• 1145

In the past they were eligible for EI throughout the course of their training. Because construction is a cyclic business and because these people have no control over when they're going to go for their technical training, frequently they get called to go to school at a time when they actually have a job, and that job may not be there on the day they finish their technical training, six, eight, or twelve weeks later.

As recently as yesterday the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a group well-known for its support of the building trades and the labour movement in general, went out and said 67% of all the respondents they surveyed had said skill shortages were hampering economic growth in that organization, in small business.

Construction is a business that has shortages of skilled people. Restoring the funding for the first two weeks of apprenticeship training will help bail it out. A construction worker who is an apprentice aged 38—and there are lots of them in the range 28 to 38—with a family and responsibilities and a job is put in the invidious position of deciding whether he's going to continue with his family responsibilities or go and take his technical training and be more useful to his industry later on down the road. We're asking that the committee consider restoring the first two weeks of apprenticeship funding.

Our second concern is with the way the rules work. Two construction workers going to work on a job site for 10 weeks, making the same money, doing the same work, coming from the same town, may end up getting a different EI premium if one of them is asked to work half a day extra in the next week. That is a result of the divisor rule. Clearly, when the reform was put together, no one intended this outcome. But it flies in the face of reason that the fellow who is asked to come back on Monday to help clean up the job site is going to get substantially less EI as a result of the mathematical gyrations of the act.

I'm sorry, you're holding my elbow here. Am I doing something bad?

A voice: I couldn't hear you.

Mr. Robert Blakely: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): He likes you.

Mr. Robert Blakely: We believe that every hour worked is a benefit to the people who are working and a benefit to our industry. We don't want to discourage people from showing up for that extra half day the next week because it's going to make a substantial difference to their EI benefit.

We also have a concern with the re-entrant rule. We support what is done, but we say it doesn't go far enough. The re-entrant rule, the reform, works for those people who are starting a family, but those people over 40 who for some reason, usually not their own doing, but maybe by personal choice, have been out of the workforce for some time don't get the same five-year look back at their work history. We say, do that for everyone.

The final comment we have—and it is an area my colleague from the chamber touched upon—is on the issue of the governance of EI. Insurance, a lawyer will tell you, is a contract of indemnity based upon the occurrence of a forseeable event. EI is insurance in a significant number of cases, but it also has a number of social policy aspects to it. Wrestling that issue to the ground, having the stakeholders participate and help to build the system, would make for a better system. We would like the EI system to be better. We would like the EI system to be more responsive to the stakeholders.

• 1150

Those are the submissions on behalf of the construction worker. Whatever questions you have, we'll try hard to answer them.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Paul and Phil, do you have anything to add? That's fine for now.

[English]

I have a list. It's Dale Johnston, Joe McGuire, Paul Crête, Raymonde Folco.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

The Chair: We're going for five minutes again.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Five minutes?

The Chair: That's right. Go ahead.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation.

I notice that both of you talked about EI as a true insurance program. But I'm not quite clear on.... I think you have taken slightly different positions on that. Would each of you tell me what would be your vision—first from the chamber of commerce, and then from the construction industry? What, in your minds, would be the benefits, the merits, or the pitfalls of having a truly insurance-based component to EI and not all the social components?

The Chair: If you have a choice, I would suggest Nancy reply first, because Nancy is here under considerable time constraints. So Nancy, as long as Bob and Phil agree, you should speak first. Then you'll be able to leave.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: Thank you.

The members of the chamber recognize that many social issues have been referred to that governments and business communities and communities individually need to work on and solve. I guess they would say, though, that the employment insurance system should be that. It should be a system, as we believe was its original intent, for unintended periods of unemployment, and all the employers and employees who participate in it, millions of them across this country, should be guaranteed that.

I think the problem is when you see it straying into a variety of other social forms. Then the basic integrity and the basic confidence that Canadians have in the system starts to erode.

We would maintain also that as the government is looking forward at the EI program, it should be kept a separate fund as an insurance program. As you know, now all the revenues come into general revenue and, as I mentioned in my presentation, there is an overpayment of premiums by both employers and employees, and that overpayment, which is up to $5 billion or $6 billion a year, is going into all kinds of other things.

Our members feel that what we should have to ensure proper confidence in this system is an insurance program everybody participates in, very clearly based on the possibility of temporary and unintentional unemployment.

Bob.

The Chair: Let me just say that the members' time includes the replies.

Mr. Robert Blakely: Okay, I'll talk fast.

I believe that the insurance nature of EI is important. In the run-of-the-mill case where, by working, I am paying a premium that essentially entitles me to a benefit in that foreseeable event, yes, I believe the insurance nature is important. I don't care where you keep the money, as long as the benefit is there when the foreseeable event takes place.

As for the social policy side of the house, I suppose the debate I alluded to in my initial presentation is one that needs to happen. Where do we keep social policy things? If EI is the best vehicle, use it. I don't want to see people dumped through the cracks.

All of us who travel to the United States on a regular basis and see the people tenting over the grates.... I'm not interested in a society that's going to do that here. The social policy aspect needs to be covered off. The question is, where?

• 1155

The Chair: Dale, briefly.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, if I have any extra time, I'd like to defer to my colleague, Mr. Peschisolido.

The Chair: Very, very briefly.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Very, very briefly.

Mr. Blakely, your presentation called to mind my father when he came over from Italy. He worked for the first 20 years of his life as a painter. I believe he's still a member of Local 1080 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, I believe it is. I would agree with you on the importance of an apprenticeship program. I'm not really sure how my dad did it. I assume they just worked hard.

Would there be other vehicles? I agree with you, Mr. Blakely, that if this is the best vehicle for it, then we should employ it for the apprenticeship program. Do you believe there could be other vehicles to meet the concern about (a) shortage of skilled workers, particularly in the construction field, and (b) some type of apprenticeship program to give the lead-in time, or the transition time, for someone who's starting a family, to pick up the skills needed?

Mr. Robert Blakely: The answer to both parts of the question is yes.

Construction and apprenticeship—how do I put this correctly? A lot of parents in Canada would be slightly more thrilled if their son, who's getting good marks in math and science and English in grade 12, comes homes and says “I'm going to a millwright or a boilermaker”. That is about as appealing to a lot of people as his saying “I'm going to become a migrant farm worker or a drug dealer”—

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Or a politician.

Mr. Robert Blakely: Or a politician. Yes. We're all maligned species, right?

The Chair: It has to be very brief, Bob.

I'm sorry. I should explain to Joe, because he's new. We have 18 members on the committee. That's one of the reasons we keep the pace moving. It's larger than normal committees. Very, very briefly.

Mr. Robert Blakely: The answer is yes, we need to do a lead-in to apprenticeship, and yes, we need to find better ways to deliver. That's part of the federal-provincial split. When you guys gave up apprenticeship training to the provinces, you made it more difficult.

The Chair: Joe McGuire, Paul Crête, Raymonde Folco, Yvon Godin, Diane St-Jacques, Greg Thompson, Georges Farrah, for the moment.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): I'm just wondering if the national chamber is reflecting the views of the regional chambers. The seasonal workers really don't bank their money. They usually spend it in the businesses belonging to the local chambers of commerce, which in turn keeps them in business. The money revolves through the society, through the economy. If there were a little more money going through, you'd think it would be a benefit to your members.

Seeing that you're very outspoken on the dropping of the intensity rule, what effect has it had in the last four years? Has it really done what we thought it was going to do? Did it reduce the number of seasonal workers? Did those seasonal workers go anywhere? What has been the effect of the intensity rule to this point?

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: I think that's a very good point, and one that is in my brief.

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission itself indicated that it would take another couple of years before we understood the impact of the 1996 changes. That's why we were quite surprised that all of a sudden there's a burning need to put in place these changes, when the commission itself says it'll take at least another year or two before the impact can be properly assessed.

I lived on the Island for four years—

Mr. Joe McGuire: We're aware of that.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: —Mr. McGuire, as you know. I know that community very well, and I know from all of our chambers the difficulties people are having in certain areas, economic areas of the country, seasonal workers, etc. But I would question whether using the employment insurance program is the way to meet that particular need.

• 1200

As I mentioned, the Speech from the Throne talked a lot about trying to encourage Canadians to build skills, trying to get them to be winners in the knowledge economy. Is handing out more EI the long-term solution to that? I don't think so.

I take your point that chambers want to see money flowing in the economy. I think they want to see growth in the economy. This is a stop-gap measure at best.

Mr. Joe McGuire: If you're a seasonal worker in a fish plant, or a seasonal worker on a fishing boat, or a seasonal worker in a potato warehouse on Prince Edward Island, how is reducing a fairly meagre annual income any further going to improve matters? You would think it would just transfer the problem to another social—

The Chair: If you could address your remarks through the chair, I would be grateful.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Of course, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: The question is whether we are putting in place the right incentives to work, the incentives to make people retrain, and all those other kinds of good initiatives announced in the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Chair, I think we are putting in these measures, but we don't abandon everybody while these measures take effect. There still has to be a system there for seasonal workers to survive. Not everyone is working full-time in Atlantic Canada or northern Ontario or northern Quebec. There has to be something there to put bread on their tables between their seasonal jobs.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: I certainly agree with your point, but I question whether the employment insurance program is the right vehicle to do that.

Mr. Joe McGuire: What vehicle would you suggest?

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: I would suggest that for one thing we have more of a dialogue with the business community, with several levels of government, and we talk about these issues, as opposed to slapping in these changes without even so much as having consultation.

Mr. Joe McGuire: But after we finish talking, what do we have, Mr. Chair?

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: Mr. Chair—

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Why doesn't the chair take a break?

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: I don't want to say in any way that I'm not aware of these problems and these difficulties, because all of our communities belong to chambers that well understand this, and they're working on it. But they want long-term solutions, as opposed to more short-term handouts.

The Chair: Paul Crête, Raymonde Folco, Yvon Godin, Diane St-Jacques.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have one observation and two questions, Mr. Chairman. I would urge the representatives of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to read the third Employment Insurance: Monitoring and Assessment Report, which says that the intensity rule was entirely ineffective and punitive.

I have two questions to ask; the first is for both groups. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a news release, maintains that:

Bill C-2 would eliminate the consultations leading to the setting of the EI premium rate, removing the transparency and predictability of the current process.

This was in the French version of the news release issued by the Chamber of Commerce.

I have a question for both groups. Would you like to see a return to the status quo, that is, to delete the clause currently contained in Bill C-2, which aims to eliminate this transparency, or do you have a proposal that might go even further, in setting up a stand-alone EI fund that could be entirely managed by employers and employees? That's my first question.

My second question is directed to the union group. Can you assure us that the two amendments that you are asking for must be made quickly, immediately, given that Bill C-2 does not deal with these problems—and you are aware of this—and that, if we apply the usual parliamentary rule, we will not be able to make this type of amendment? In your opinion, are these important amendments that must be made in the short term?

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: The answer to the first question, Mr. Chairman, is yes. We would like to return to consultations, as in the past, because throughout the year we receive fairly significant input regarding the situation and assessment of the market, and so on, from both employers and employees. In my view, it is logical to continue this process.

• 1205

To the second part of your question, I would answer that, in fact, our proposal to have a stand-alone account is not, I think, something that is contemplated in the bill. That is perhaps something that should be examined when the actuarial report on the fund is done, when it becomes balanced again.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, we have proposed that the bill be studied in two parts. The improvements and the question of the surplus would be included in a second bill that would be tabled later on, after those studies were conducted. Does that seem like an interesting idea to you?

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: Such a discussion would be very interesting, yes.

[English]

Mr. Robert Blakely: Joint labour management groups administer billions of dollars worth of pension funds, so we could administer the EI as well.

With respect to the amendments we're suggesting, should they immediately be in the bill? The short answer is yes. This country has a skill shortage. Every day there are jobs in Alberta and in Newfoundland. In some cases there is considerable unemployment, where we can't find skilled people to go to work. Skilled people in a skilled society is what we need.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: What would your reaction be if, in response to your proposal for two amendments, the government told you that there is nothing in Bill C-2, but that some provision would be made next year, in two years or in five years?

[English]

Mr. Robert Blakely: The short answer is we would like it in Bill C-2. If it comes next year, as my old dad would have said, it's better than nothing.

The problem we've got is one of immediacy. When someone takes a construction trade, the first two years, when they're a first-year and second-year apprentice, all they can really do is fetch and tote, and stand around and watch, and try to figure out what's going on. We need productive people today, because we're basically hitting the wall.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We will be presenting an amendment to support your proposals and we hope that the government will agree to take action this year.

[English]

Mr. Robert Blakely: Thank you. I'm obliged.

The Chair: Yvon Godin, Diane St-Jacques, Greg Thompson, Georges Farrah.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, my question is directed at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I was trying to find exactly where in your text you said—and I believe I heard you say this, that you were against the changes relating to special benefits. In Bill C-2, people belonging to the category of special benefits and people who are applying for benefits for the first time will be subject to major changes, to which you are opposed. Did I understand correctly?

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: Mr. Chairman, we did not deal with that in our presentation.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I misunderstood. I thought that I heard you say that. May I ask you this question, then: are you, yes or no, in favour of the changes made by the bill that affect people who will receive special benefits and who apply for benefits for the first time? I am repeating my question.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: I am sorry, I will have to take another look at the proposals contained in the bill, in order to answer your question.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: OK.

Mr. Blakely, could you please answer the same question?

[English]

Mr. Robert Blakely: Yes. On special benefits, the answer is yes. If you look at the purpose of the special benefits, it makes sense.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: And as concerns people who ask for benefits for the first time?

Mr. Robert Blakely: The re-entrants?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No. For the first time.

Mr. Robert Blakely: Oh, for the first time.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes.

Mr. Robert Blakely: Yes, as well.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Okay, well that's fine.

[Translation]

I would like to come back to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I had thought I heard you say that you were against these changes that would perhaps be made in the bill. I urge you, the Chamber of Commerce, to carefully examine the impact of the changes in the bill because, as far as special benefits are concerned, and, in particular, maternity and parental leave, this leads us to take another look at family responsibilities toward very young children. I believe that it is an extremely important issue in today's Canadian society, where many young children have parents who are both working outside the home.

• 1210

This is an issue that induces us, the government, to play the role that the government should play, in my opinion, which is to correct certain social situations, for instance, that of very young children who are at home without their parents.

I therefore urge the Chamber of Commerce to look at this issue carefully and perhaps support us in our efforts with regard to this category of people. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I must apologize to some members and to the Chamber of Commerce. I understand some members do not have copies of the Chamber of Commerce brief. I've given away mine. I had one in English and French.

[Translation]

Yvon, do you have a copy?

[English]

I do apologize for that. We heard your brief, Nancy, so we've understood it, but that's the technical problem I'm facing. We'll carry on and we'll sort that out as we're going, okay?

So it's Yvon Godin, Diane St-Jacques, Greg Thompson.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: Mr. Chair, we have copies. Does that help you?

The Chair: That would help us a great deal.

A voice: In French?

[Translation]

A voice: Yes, absolutely.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, because I have now given mine away.

Mr. Paul Lalonde (Policy Analyst, Canadian Chamber of Commerce): Mr. Chairman, I brought two in French and five in English.

The Chair: Okay. That would probably be adequate, Paul.

[Translation]

We have two in French and five in English.

Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Godin: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the witnesses who are here today for their presentation.

I have only one brief comment to make to the construction people. We have already had meetings, and I understand the problem with the two weeks during which they do not receive EI when they attend a community college, for example. I think that does not make good sense. If we want to have tradespeople, we have to encourage them. We cannot all make a living from computers. We need tradespeople to build buildings and to work in the trades.

As my colleague here said, there are amendments on the table; I personally was planning to propose amendments. They are currently being prepared. You have our support. Even my colleague opposite, Mr. Mahoney, said in the House that he supported the two-week rule for construction workers. Since yesterday, we have seen that there are sensible people on the committee. I think that we will make progress.

I'd now like to focus on the Chamber of Commerce's position. I'd like two answers from them.

In your brief, you state on page 8:

Eliminating the intensity rule and extending EI benefits would also encourage workers to remain in a region of the country where the unemployment rate has historically been high. These barriers to labour mobility have immediate costs, but they also have long term consequences. By preventing workers from moving to better quality jobs, these barriers diminish the incentive to accumulate skills and training. Again, an undertrained workforce will make it hard for Canada to compete in international markets.

Is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce not forgetting regions such as ours, that aren't really full-fledged members of the Chamber of Commerce? Are you saying that you no longer want any fish? I suppose you do not eat fish on Yonge Street in Toronto or on rue Sainte-Catherine in Montreal. We need fishers. We need people to work in fish plants.

This statement is contrary to our country's common sense, to the unity of this country. Not everyone can live in Toronto or in Montreal. I want to stay back home, in the Acadian Peninsula. I want my children to live there. There are industries there and we need to concentrate on second and third-stage processing, the forestry sector, etc. However, what you are saying here, it's completely.... With all due respect, Mr. Chair, it makes no sense that these business organizations are just turning their heads. I'm calling them organizations, but it's practically the federation of businesses, big business that comes forward with ideas such as this one.

The Chamber of Commerce in my region does not believe what you are saying. It wants to support economic growth and create jobs, not send everyone to Toronto. What the intensity rule is about, is making people go from 50% to 55% in order to allow them to live.

I'd like to know the position of the Chamber of Commerce with respect to other chambers of commerce back home.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: I'm sorry if you were insulted, because that was not at all the intention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Our intention is to come up with a solution to the problem of unemployment that exists in certain regions, throughout Canada.

• 1215

You mentioned processing. In these regions, such as your region, for example, is there a chamber of commerce or an economic committee? As for the various levels of government, they work together, I hope, in order to stimulate these regions' economies.

It may be necessary to have programs to help some people in the short term. But is that the long term solution? Many employers, as Mr. Blakely mentioned, are looking for employees to work in their plants or in their shops and are having a hard time convincing the workers to acquire new knowledge, to renew their skills. So I would ask you the following question: should we use the EI program to meet this objective, or would there not be better, more creative means of doing so?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Is the Chamber of Commerce proposing food banks, then, as a solution for the people in our region? There are more food banks in Canada currently than real banks. In fact this is your solution. You just do not admit it. You claim that we need another system. Honestly, I could care less about the system. What's important to me is that we provide for people when there's no work in the fish plants or in the forests or in tourism. You are telling the people from the Atlantic region, from northern Ontario, from northern Alberta and from northern British Columbia: we need you elsewhere, move.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: There are several examples of shining successes. For example, EDS Canada Inc. established a technical centre in Sydney that employs workers who had lost hope, because the situation in the depleted mines was desperate. I think you are exaggerating a bit. I believe there needs to be some incentive to work and to train employees. Is the long-term solution to use the employment insurance program? I seriously doubt it.

[English]

The Chair: Diane St-Jacques, Greg Thompson, Georges Farrah, Dale Johnston, Steve Mahoney, Monique Guay.

An hon. member: We're not going to let Steve speak, are we?

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): To begin with, I would simply like to make a comment to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I read your text this morning and I was surprised by what I read. It gave me the impression that you wanted to maintain the status quo. You do not appear to want to see any changes to the current system with, perhaps, the exception of the premium rates. Perhaps I misunderstood or skipped lines, but we know that things need to be rectified in the employment insurance system. People are penalized. I do not know if you really tried to find other solutions, but when I read your document, I get the impression that you want things to stay the same. However, perhaps I misunderstood. You could clarify the issue for me.

My other question pertains to the shortage of labour. People are calling for the system to be less rigid. People from the construction industry are asking that the system be less rigid. A lot of people are asking for this. Have other options been given consideration? It is easy to say: we do not want to do this, we should not do that, that will not work. Perhaps we need a bit of imagination. Have any options been given consideration? Have any forums been held, have there been any efforts made to discuss the issue? I would like to know what process you followed, what prompted you to write what is contained in your text. I would also like to ask the representatives from the construction sector this question.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: First of all, I will answer your first question: do we want the status quo? No, we do not want the status quo. Our country has brought down its unemployment rate, this is a good thing. The greater the number of employed Canadians, the better off we are. Certain specific economic problems in certain regions or in certain sectors no doubt require particular solutions. In our opinion, the employment insurance program is not the solution required. This is in answer to your first question.

• 1220

I will now answer your second question. Yes, we are working on all kinds of proposals and solutions. As you know, and it was said in the Speech from the Throne, Canada's connectedness obviously gives us an absolutely wonderful advantage in this very competitive world where we must ensure that other countries are aware of our skills. This is also why we are a little bit concerned. The message that the proposed amendments to the bill is sending to the rest of the world is that we are not working on improving our productivity, which is not at all the case.

I do not know whether or not my colleague wishes to add something.

[English]

Mr. Robert Blakely: I suppose there are two ways to look at the issue of how we're going to get there in terms of training people. One is that if everybody's going to get on the information highway something is going to happen, but there's going to be a long pause between rest stops.

We need to train people in a variety of ways and train based on need. Industries need to take and share a cost in training. You know, in our group, the construction unions, we spend a huge amount of money training people, which comes from employer and employee contributions. Those sorts of initiatives are necessary if we're going to get to the goal line, in my respectful view.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: But how?

Mr. Robert Blakely: How? Well, if the employees of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe Electric each put 20 cents an hour for each hour they work into a pot, the employer and the union can deliver training to a number of people, be they new entrants or be they people who need skills upgrading. That can happen in a variety of different ways.

A payroll tax—the dreaded word—for training would not be something that would make our country collapse. In fact, it would make things better for people who need to upgrade skills.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: We have Greg Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To continue along the same line as Mr. McGuire, I have some problems with the position the Chamber of Commerce has taken regarding the changes to the EI Act. The first question of course is what statistical data do they use to arrive at their conclusion?

I want to quote from their document, Mr. Chairman. On page 4 they glean from the IMF their statement of January 31, and this is basically sort of the veiled tone of the Chamber of Commerce. This is untimely, and “has adverse effects on the behaviour of both workers and employers”, implying of course that the work ethic is going to be killed if we eliminate the intensity rule. I agree with Mr. McGuire and Mr. Godin.

I want you to substantiate those remarks. You've said here this morning yourself, from your own lips, that we don't want to go back to handing out EI as a solution. Well, I want to cite a couple of statistics and see whether or not this is going to kill, if you wish, the work ethic or go back to the bad old days, where I guess none of us want to go.

For example, there are a lot of workers in my area who make $8 an hour. There are a lot of seasonal workers in my area who make $6 an hour. How in the name of good God can you claim that's going to kill the work ethic if you're looking at a 5% difference? If a worker in my area, for example, were claiming under the old system where the intensity rule applied, they'd get a huge sum of $120 a week in benefits. Under the new system, when it changes, Madam Chairman of the Board, they'd get a total of $132. So that's $12 a week. There are a lot of workers who are affected who work at $6 an hour, believe it or not.

Not one Chamber of Commerce in my area would agree with your statement. In fact, some of the biggest corporate citizens in my area, good corporate citizens, know that is wrong and they want it changed.

• 1225

This may sound like I'm getting personal, but the pen you're writing with today, which I notice is a Gold Cross pen, would represent a half-week's benefit for an unemployed worker. It's just an example. So I'm not sure what part of the universe you're coming from, but you're not coming from mine.

In relation to the surplus in the EI fund, does the body have an understanding of what impact that surplus has on the fund? I'd like you to comment on that, if you could. But specifically, Mr. Chairman, I want them to cite the statistical data that imply we're going to, as they suggest, kill the initiative of people to get out of bed, to go to work, if we eliminate the intensity clause. That really disturbs me.

Thank you.

The Chair: The witnesses, in about two minutes, if you could, please.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: Mr. Chair, I think the question is a good one, because that is precisely our point: there is no evidence to support a change in the rules put in place in 1996.

Mr. Greg Thompson: But, Mr. Chairman, she's moving off the target of the question. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, the question is: Why would we eliminate the intensity clause? What statistical data is she using with an implication that if we move off that, it's going to kill the work initiative?

The Chair: I hear you. Give the witness a chance to reply.

Mr. Greg Thompson: We can understand why the difficulties have arisen in the past. We're wondering why we're going to go—

The Chair: Okay.

Nancy, your turn.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: As I mentioned, there does not seem to be, in our view, any justification for changing the law—and I'm referring, actually, to the 2000 Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report by HRDC, which specifically says that results for frequent claimants suggest that providing passive income support through EI may not necessarily be a sufficient response to issues faced by seasonal workers. I would agree with that. That was my question to the minister when this bill was introduced in its earlier incarnation: What is her statistical justification for changing the intent of the rule like this?

Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, maybe it's something to do with buying groceries and feeding the kids. Do you suppose it could get as personal as that, buying groceries and feeding the kids? Would that have an impact on why they want to change that rule? Isn't there a human factor here that you have to consider?

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: Mr. Chair, I certainly think I've made it clear that I understand that.

Mr. Greg Thompson: With due respect, you don't show it in your evidence here to the committee.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: And this is not a gold pen. I would also point that out.

The Chair: And it's not a gold pen. Thank you.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: It's not a gold pen.

The Chair: Georges Farrah.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): I find it very difficult to understand your position on the intensity rule. Many of my colleagues have discussed the issue. You appear to be saying that eliminating the intensity rule may curtail employment, whereas in fact the intensity rule, which has been in place since 1996, has done nothing to improve employment. The intensity rule is currently in force and the employment situation has not improved, in fact, in my region, employment has declined. Consequently, in my opinion, this statement is quite inappropriate. I have a great deal of difficulty following you on that matter.

We all agree that we must motivate people to enter the job market. This is our fondest wish, but there is a reality. I do not want to repeat what my colleagues have already said, but in our regions, the reality is that people depend on seasonal jobs in fishing, forestry and tourism. The situation is very alarming. I was expecting you to provide us with some solutions to create employment in the regions. Until solutions are implemented—and we must work very hard to do this—we cannot let people live in poverty. Given what I'm hearing, I think that, as a company, you have a social responsibility. We must ensure that the government considers those people who are living in poverty in certain regions of the country.

In addition, because economics is your field, I was expecting you to look into solutions we might be able to use to create jobs in our ridings. A problem we see increasingly is that what you are saying encourages people to leave the regions, like Mr. Godin was saying. When no one is left in the regions, there is no more economic development. Here is what happens to young people in our regions. They are expected to work 910 hours, or about six months. It is impossible for them to qualify for EI. So what happens? They go to Montreal, Toronto, the big cities. We are emptying out our regions, and when there are no young people left in the regions, there is no future there.

• 1230

I would like us to work together to find economic solutions, but until solutions are found, help must be available to people. You are supposed to be economics experts. I would like you to tell us about solutions we might be able to use so that people can live in our regions. These people are proud to stay in our regions. That is where their roots are. Myself, my home is in the Magdalen Islands; I am an Islander and proud of it. I do not want to be uprooted. We Islanders are proud.

What economic solutions can be found so that people stay where they are? Until we come up with solutions, we need programs to keep those people in our regions.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: I will repeat something I already said because I want to be crystal clear. I fully agree that in some regions, there are economic problems that require consultation with employers, employees, the community and various levels of government in order to be resolved. However, in our view, the national EI system should not be used for that. Perhaps another program should be set up, one that would deal with this problem better. That would probably be better than just giving people EI. That is the point we want to make. Millions of workers and employers across Canada pay into this program. Is it fair for them to have to pay for certain social programs in some regions of the country?

Mr. Georges Farrah: Allow me to digress, Mr. Chair. One of our economic problems is that we are far from the big cities, where there is a critical mass for investment. It is more advantageous to invest in a big city because it is closer to the markets. Would you be in favour of tax incentives to attract businesses to the regions by offsetting the disadvantages of being far from the big cities? I may be straying off topic a bit, but I want to hear what you have to say about that.

Would the Chamber of Commerce be in favour of tax incentives to encourage businesses to invest in our regions rather than the big cities in order to achieve some kind of economic balance?

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: Mr. Chair, we need to find a long-term, sustainable solution. A program such as the one you mentioned would encourage a business to move for 12 months, but that would be it. That would not help your region. As I was saying, in the Moncton area, economic growth is quite strong and there is cause for optimism. The same is true for the Halifax area and Newfoundland. In other regions, the transformation is just getting under way. That is not the case for all regions, but we should be a bit more optimistic about some regions than what I am seeing around this table.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, we've now had one cycle. We only have two witnesses. I would suggest, for all our sakes, that we pick up the pace. Each party has had a turn, so I'll try to go with four minutes. If you can share those four minutes.... And I would say the same thing to the witnesses, that we shorten the time for each response—but you could share them, two minutes each, or be creative. We need some discussion. We're going to move down the line. I know we need discussion, but the question is how much.

Yes, Nancy.

Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but I've mentioned previously to the clerk that I must leave you in the hands of my colleague Mr. Lalonde.

The Chair: I think Paul Lalonde will be staying with us. Colleagues, you heard that. This has to do with a flight or something of that sort.

Dale Johnston, four minutes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a quick question, and then I'm going to ask Joe if he wants another question.

In the construction trade, you are suggesting they should waive the two-week rule for the sake of apprentices. Do you think that would be opening the door to waiving the two-week rule for everybody, or do you suggest that this should be exclusively for apprentices?

• 1235

Mr. Robert Blakely: Exclusively for apprentices. In fact, that was the law for nearly 50 years, until the reform in 1996.

Mr. Dale Johnston: So you would strongly support having that replaced?

Mr. Robert Blakely: Yes, sir. Other students have a chance to go and get a student loan, but the guy who's going to technical training for six weeks doesn't get a student loan.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Joe.

[Translation]

Mr. Joe Peschisolido: My question is to Mr. Lalonde. If we don't eliminate the intensity rule, are there any other means to encourage workers to remain in New Brunswick or in certain regions of Quebec or elsewhere in Canada?

[English]

The Chair: Paul Lalonde.

Mr. Paul Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, our brief makes it clear that we have relied on the third report of the Employment Insurance Commission, in which it states that while EI may be a short-term solution to problems of unemployment, particularly in certain regions, there are—and you are correct in this—regional economic development initiatives that will be required.

As to specific initiatives our organization or the local chambers are working on—and I'm not saying this to avoid your question—I am not in a position to comment on that.

The Chair: Steve Mahoney, then Monique Guay, Alan Tonks, Yvon Godin.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three questions to put out, and perhaps both witnesses could take a shot at them.

I think you'd agree that from 1990 to 1995 we went through a fairly deep recession—some said it was a depression, whatever. I don't have the actual figures, but in those years there was a substantial deficit in the employment insurance fund. So if you accept the fact that during recessionary periods the employment insurance fund will have to be topped up, if you will, or supported by the taxpayer in general, why would you not accept the fact that when it is in surplus you could do the following two things?

The first is to reduce the premiums from over $3 down to $2.25, the second to use the money for other good works within the government, given that the cyclical nature of the economy is such that we're going to go into a recession again some day—some would say sooner rather than later, let's hope not—and it will be up to the government to be responsible for any shortfall in EI. That's number one.

Number two: I'd like both people to tell me if they support—I haven't heard the issue brought up—the clawback's going from $39,000 back up to $48,750. Much of the talk does focus on Atlantic Canada, but the reality is that we're seeing serious problems in Ontario with Chrysler, with Nortel, the construction industry. It can be seasonal, there can be layoffs. EI is not simply the purview of the Atlantic provinces, although it's a very serious problem in that part of the country as well. So do you, both parties, support the change in the clawback?

Finally, the two-week apprenticeship issue is such that we get 35- and 40-year-olds coming and saying they're changing over from a high-tech career to become a plumber, a carpenter, whatever. We're not talking about 18-year-old kids, who perhaps don't experience the financial necessity a family person might have in terms of supporting a mortgage or a family. Given that, and that the average age of apprentices has gone up dramatically in recent years, why is it fair that we make them go without any income whatsoever for a two-week period while they get retooled, if you will, into a new apprenticeship program?

The Chair: I think you heard me say it has to be very quick, this round.

Paul Lalonde.

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

• 1240

As to the question of the EI fund, that is an issue on which we have had a lot of discussion, and indeed one of the questions we discussed was, as there was a deficit in the early 1990s, is it not proper to allow a certain degree of surplus now that the economy is better? We are assured by the government that the surplus is such that a cutback in premium rates would be more than acceptable, and it is more than enough to run the program. Our position is that perhaps the insurance principles have been lost, considering the degree of the surplus.

The Chair: Want to try the other two very quickly, Paul? Because I don't think we'll get back to you. Can you do it very, very quickly, so Bob has a chance?

Mr. Paul Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer might be no.

Mr. Robert Blakely: On the rainy day fund, we've said it before: we don't care where you keep the money—just have it there when we are laid off. On the clawback, that's a big issue for construction. What tended to happen as the clawback reduced was that people watched their paycheques, and when the year-to-date column got up around a certain level, they said, “Hey, I'll take a layoff”.

This is a much better system. We're highly supportive of that. As for the two weeks for apprenticeship, if I had to choose the only thing I wanted, I'd take that.

The Chair: Monique Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I felt my blood pressure rise earlier. Which is probably a good thing, since it's getting very cold here in the room.

There are two quotes in the brief from the Chamber of Commerce which... I won't say what they did to me.

You say here:

Second, the unemployment insurance program was being increasingly used for purposes that were not originally intended.

How can you say something like that?

The UI program was meant to function as an assistance plan for workers facing temporary unemployment, not as a subsidy for seasonal workers in specific regions or industries.

There is another quote here. And I want to mention these, Mr. Chairman, because I have questions to follow up:

Namely, employment insurance will serve as a disincentive to work, the program will encourage workers to seek seasonal employment where possible and use EI to bridge the gap until the next year's season.

I find that totally unacceptable, because when you look at the percentage that one receives when making an application for employment insurance, it just doesn't make any sense. You can't live on that amount of money. It's really a matter of temporary assistance. Furthermore, studies demonstrate that people who apply for unemployment insurance don't do so with fraudulent thoughts in mind, it's because they need the money.

Today, in 2001, we no longer have careers the way we did before, when people worked some 40 or 50 years for the same employer. They could work there all their lives. Today, people have two, three and sometimes four different careers. Well, there are gaps between those careers! There are often training programs to help people return to the labour market, etc.

Therefore, I cannot understand a position such as this one. I don't know whether the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is willing to show some open-mindedness, but I would really like to hear your comments on this issue.

I will ask my questions of Mr. Blakely, and then he can answer. Mr. Blakely, you who worked in the construction industry for several years, you are very aware, as I am, that in this industry—by the way, my husband worked in this industry for 30 years; he did have his own company—there are also down times. The construction industry also has its seasons. We can't necessarily continue building during the wintertime throughout the country.

Do you think that there have been abuses to such a point that we can entertain such extreme positions? Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Paul Lalonde, then Mr. Blakely.

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

I would just make a quick comment. Our submission makes it very clear that we consider the EI program to be a valuable element of Canada's labour policy, and furthermore that we consider this program to be part of a necessary system for a healthy and stable work force. However, you are correct to indicate that there have been problems in the administration of the program. More importantly, we are concerned about the direction of the policy.

Mr. Robert Blakely: Seasonal or cyclic—depends on what your industry is. If there are gaps, EI is there to bridge the gaps.

• 1245

If you look at the most recent report from HRDC, you see that construction workers put in $1.6 billion more than they took out. They pay their way. If people pay their way and buy insurance, then insurance should be there for them. The idea of taking people who are in a situation where they're going to be frequently unemployed and punishing them because they're frequently unemployed doesn't strike me as what we're really all about as a country.

The Chair: Alan Tonks, Yvon Godin, Anita Neville, Greg Thompson.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, mine is more an observation, as I'm sitting on this committee for the first time, than a cross-examination of the points raised in the two briefs.

It appears there is, notwithstanding the chamber's position, a certain degree of consensus concerning the amendments related to clawbacks and the intensity rule. And issues have been raised with respect to something other than experience-rated programs as a basis for income support or income supplementing.

My observation is based on meetings I've had with the construction trades unions in my area relating to training, apprenticeship situations, and other areas that come within the jurisdiction of this committee. In both submissions there is a sort of peripheral relating to other programs that we could effect.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that we do have under examination the EI amendments and the bill. I'm wondering if, when deputations are addressing the examination and the shortcomings of the bill, they shouldn't take the opportunity to instruct the committee on those areas that would reach the ultimate goal, which is to search out programs that are less punitive, more progressive, and would deal with the issues that have been raised by my colleague Mr. Godin and others.

As an example, I certainly don't know anything about guaranteed wage programs, annual income supplements based on progressive criteria, and so on. There are probably those who know much more. But when we are looking for instruction and guidance, I would suggest that the chamber and others in specific trades and associations might give us some indication of where we could be more supportive in supplementary programs.

The Chair: Comments?

Mr. Robert Blakely: That gets right to the question that Madame St-Jacques put to me. We really need to look at what we're doing and think out of the box. There's time for a national debate on the issue of training and where it's going.

The Chair: Mr. Lalonde?

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

The only comment I would make is that, as a very large national organization, we do indeed have the means and the connections to undertake that type of review. If Mr. Tonks is interested, then that's something we can work on, bringing forward ideas—as I mentioned we have 170,000 members, many of whom are businesses—on what other programs or other means we could be pursuing.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I hope that staff are taking note of that.

The Chair: As chair, by the way, in discussion in these hearings I hope all sorts of ideas will come forward. We do have a specific task or set of tasks in front of us, but we only reach that when we get to the clause-by-clause stage.

Yvon Godin, then Anita Neville, Greg Thompson, and Judi Longfield.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: First of all, for people in the construction industry, I can understand, since as a former miner having worked underground and on the surface of the Brunswick mine, that the previous system existed well before 1996. I worked in the mines and with tradespeople in the Brunswick mine, among others, with some construction workers. What I found in my area, not with the construction workers, but with the tradesmen—and it's the same thing except that some work in the construction industry and others, the tradesmen, the mechanics, the electricians work underground—is that when they have a two-week cutback on their pay, it's as if they were in some way constrained. They say: why would I go to community college to get ahead in my job if I'm going to lose my pay?

I would like to know whether you in the construction industry see the same thing. It flies in the face of common sense. We didn't really abuse the system. The system is there to help workers. It's a system geared for workers. I would like to hear your opinion on this issue and then I would like to hear Mr. Lalonde.

• 1250

You say that the system, in the past, was not there to serve the same purposes as it does today. That's funny, because I remember the time when I would talk with my father. I was very young and I don't remember having seen him go into the forest, but back then, people who worked in the forestry industry worked summer and winter. They were in winter camps and they worked, but today, that's not how things are done. It is not only the system which has changed; jobs have also changed.

I remember that my brothers worked in Northern Ontario, in White River, in Manitouwadge and in the Wawa area. They worked all year. Today, during the wintertime, they are laid off. The nature of the jobs has changed; the system has to change and evolve as well.

So what do we have to replace this, if not employment insurance? Employment insurance has lagged behind, but today, they are being told that they're eliminated, and after that we end up with people who have no income at all. That's where the problem lies.

[English]

The Chair: Bob Blakely.

Mr. Robert Blakely: The single greatest disincentive for people not going to get their technical training in an apprenticeship is the fact that there ain't no dough in the first two weeks. A potential trainee will say, “I've got a job, so to heck with it, I am not going to have the kids go hungry while I go to school and wait to get paid.” By the time the commission gets around to sending the guy a cheque, eight weeks have gone by.

The Chair: Paul Lalonde, please.

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

Just to reiterate a similar answer I gave earlier, we make it clear in our brief that we are very supportive of the EI program and have been so traditionally. We do recognize the importance of this program as part of Canada's labour policy. Our concerns, as the brief indicates, are the direction in which Bill C-2 is going and the message it's sending about certain elements of the EI program.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I'm sorry, but there's a technical problem. Although I do believe there are problems with the system in this room—and I hope they will be fixed—I've just been told by the translators that when we move these mikes, we should hold the base like this and turn it like this. What is happening is that we have apparently been turning them improperly, and one or two have become disconnected. I'm sorry to interrupt the flow there.

[Translation]

Yvon, I thank you.

[English]

We'll go to Anita Neville, Greg Thompson, and Judi Longfield on the end.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to both presenters.

I am new to the process here and I am interested in both your presentations and, in part, the processes. I heard in the Chamber of Commerce that you were disappointed in the manner in which the bill was introduced, without public consultation prior to its introduction. I'm interested in two things: first of all, your own processes of consultation before you come here and make the presentation; and secondly, whether there will be a consultation process on the premium-setting process following the introduction of this bill. I'm interested in your advice to the committee, to the minister, to government, and to whomever else on what form that might take.

The Chair: Paul Lalonde.

Mr. Paul Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To address the first question, we have a very significant grassroots-type policy development process, in which community chambers of commerce and boards of trade from communities across Canada bring forward policy issues to our staff office here in Ottawa. Those issues are debated, and through an annual policy process involving voting delegates, the chamber adopts its positions. These then serve as the platform for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. So indeed we do have significant consultative mechanisms in place and a unique system of bringing coast-to-coast grassroots issues to a national level.

• 1255

I'll just add a second point to that. We also traditionally participate each year in consultations with the Canada Employment Insurance Commission for which we have our own policy development process. We bring forth recommendations each year on the setting of the EI premium rate. This past year our process was cut short by the introduction of Bill C-44 and the consequent setting of the rate soon thereafter.

Our recommendation for the setting of the rate would be to maintain the Canada Employment Insurance Commission system, involving both employers and employees and maintaining the excellent relationship and liaison we have had with the commission.

Ms. Anita Neville: May I follow up? What I'm interested in is not the outcome but the process of getting there. What process would you recommend to the committee in terms of determining the process of establishing the rate?

I'm not making myself clear.

Mr. Paul Lalonde: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Anita Neville: I don't want to know your outcome. I want to know what process you believe should be followed to look at the establishment of the rate. We know that for the next two years it will be done by the Governor in Council—

Mr. Paul Lalonde: Oh, I see.

Ms. Anita Neville: —during which time there will be a process of consultation.

Mr. Paul Lalonde: Yes.

Ms. Anita Neville: How widely should that consultation process take place? What should be the process? You say you're speaking for many members of chambers of commerce. I'm from Manitoba and I assume you're speaking for Manitoba. Should individual chambers be part of the process? Will you be part of it? How widely should this consultation process take place?

The Chair: Please be brief.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'm sorry. I'm talking too much.

Mr. Paul Lalonde: The brief answer, Mr. Chairman, is that the consultation should be very wide. As we've seen in the committee, the concerns of the various chambers are different from coast to coast. We have many members who have various concerns about similar issues. So my advice would be that it should take place as widely as possible.

The Chair: We'll have Greg Thompson and then Judi Longfield.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think, Mr. Chairman, all of us would agree that we don't want to see an EI system that's too generous and we don't want to see one that's too punitive. What we want to see is balance in the program.

I am concerned with the tone the chamber has outlined in its brief, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to that because I'm a bit disturbed by that. On page 9, in their conclusions—we're going down to the third or fourth line of their conclusion—they state, Mr. Chairman:

While this bill may be presented as a “less punitive” approach to the problem of habitual unemployment, it still fails to address the fundamental problem of unemployment in Canada. Namely, it contains no provision to discourage workers from pursuing strategies of intended unemployment....

And it continues.

Mr. Chairman, I'm disturbed by that, and I'm hoping that our witness from the chamber can put us at ease in terms of their veiled reference again to the disincentive to work and in terms of the lack of appreciation of those people who are working on the margins, the working poor of this country. That's a term we seldom like to use, Mr. Chairman. It's as if we're ashamed of the word “poor”. But I think that we have to address those people, and I think we have to have a program that, again, is a balanced program. Possibly the witness could respond to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Robert Blakely: I just have one comment. You know, if you look around there seems to be a culture in Canada that says if you're on workers' compensation, you're cheating; if you're on long-term disability, you're cheating; if you're on welfare, you're cheating; and if you're on EI, you're cheating. The truth is that we have a whole bunch of poor people in this country who need a hand up, not a kick in the butt.

Mr. Paul Lalonde: Thank you.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce's conclusions in question reiterate the concerns about the intensity rule we submitted in the brief. We found there was little evidence to support the notion that it was not working. We had recommended that it be maintained until there was more significant evidence. Without that rule—

Mr. Greg Thompson: If I just might interject here, Mr. Chairman, the evidence they're submitting is all anecdotal, not statistical. They have not been able to provide real, statistical evidence to support that claim. It's all anecdotal.

• 1300

Mr. Paul Lalonde: The evidence we're providing comes from a variety of legitimate sources, and in many cases it's the absence of statistical data that leads us to these conclusions. The studies we have been provided regarding the impact of the intensity rule suggest there is not enough longitudinal study, and there's no conclusive evidence. In fact, if there was any conclusion, it is that more study and more data are needed to evaluate the impact.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Next is Judi Longfield. This is going to be the last intervention.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): If I have time, I'd like to give the rest of the time to Madam Folco.

I think it's fair to say that our common goal here is to get people off EI. Nobody wants to be on EI. They'd much rather have a job, from the government perspective and from the industry perspective.

I'm a little perplexed. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of jobs. In just this morning's papers, for example, there was a headline saying “250 skilled jobs go unfilled”. This is a report from the Calgary Herald. Also, there was “Skilled workers in heavy demand” from the National Post and “Ottawa struggles with skilled labour shortage”. I can go on and on from every paper across the country.

I can appreciate from the construction perspective that this whole business of the apprenticeship and the two-week period is very serious, and I think we need to look at that very seriously.

I know this is not directly related to the EI bill, but how do we fill these skilled jobs? What programs need to be put in place in conjunction with EI, which is short term, to provide the skilled labour that business and industry want and need?

Mr. Robert Blakely: Construction is a commodity business. When you install, the materials are a commodity, and unfortunately the labour is a commodity as well.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Sure it is.

Mr. Robert Blakely: It is a commodity business in which we do not know what the source of supply is going to be. We don't know where it's going to come from, how many we're going to need next year, and what the existing market is.

For construction and a number of other pass-through industries in terms of people, we need a national strategy and a national needs analysis on where we're going to go and what we're going to create. I said it before, if everybody gets on the information highway, there will be no rest stops for the rest of us. So we need to look at that.

When the intensity rule went in a number of years ago, no research at all was done to see if it was going to actually promote people to go to work. It was simply a punitive measure that would have the net effect of saying that if you are continually on EI, you're going to get paid less. That's not the thoughtful sort of approach we're going to need if we're going to in fact fill all those skill shortages.

There are skill shortages in Alberta, where I'm from, in all of the skilled trades. There are skill shortages in all of the technical trades and in the high-tech sector. Yet we have a problem with youth unemployment. We're obviously doing something wrong.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I agree with you.

The Chair: Judi, you said you wanted to split your time. Raymonde has just over a minute. I apologize for that. Raymonde Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, and thank you very much, Judi.

[Translation]

My question is to Mr. Lalonde from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

I'd like to come back to what I was saying earlier. You write on page 8 of your text:

Eliminating the intensity rule [...] would also encourage workers to remain in a region of the country where the unemployment rate has historically been high.

I'd like to get back to the comment made by my colleague Yvon Godin. There are members of the Chamber of Commerce who work in these remote regions.

Earlier, in answer to Ms. Neville you said that you have an elaborate consultation process which takes into account what is happening in all the chambers of commerce throughout the country. I would ask you the following: is it not somewhat self-defeating for a Chamber of Commerce which represents small and medium businesses in a remote rural region to support your position? That would mean that they would no longer have any clients in their region.

Can you answer me?

[English]

The Chair: It has to be very brief, Paul.

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

• 1305

Thank you for your question. You have identified one of the key problems of running a.... We like to think that we are a confederation as well. I can most certainly appreciate your concerns, but I'm not sure I'm in a position to answer that on behalf of the chamber.

The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and from the Building and Construction Trades Department. We're most grateful to you, particularly given the circumstances under which we find ourselves today.

Colleagues, there are a couple of things before we leave. First of all, there is a steering committee meeting at 5 p.m. on Monday, and the clerk will advise your offices as to the room. My proposal is for one hour.

Yvon, we need the names of.... Are you going to be on the steering committee?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, sir.

[Translation]

The Chair: Very well.

Mr. Yvon Godin: If not me, it will be Libby.

The Chair: Very well, excellent.

[English]

And if we don't have the names, I need them.

Now, thirdly, Paul Crête has asked me to discuss the scheduling of witnesses for next week. We have this long list. We will be looking at that with great care and sorting it out, and that will be the main topic of discussion at the steering committee meeting. But my thought was to, if not agree to specific witnesses, agree that the staff could allocate some witnesses for next week, particularly for Tuesday. These would be ones who are available, who likely represent large national organizations and so can easily come, and who, if necessary, we could veto on Monday.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I agree, because if we want to invite groups to appear next Tuesday, it's already a bit late.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chair: Just a moment, there is a point of order.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think we're getting into a steering committee discussion now.

The Chair: Judi, I did, but I was given notice of this earlier on, I'm afraid.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We have to start right away, otherwise, if we make a decision at the agenda subcommittee Monday afternoon, it will be too late. Perhaps the first group in the first half hour could be comprised of bureaucrats who are familiar with the legislation. We heard the minister at the beginning of the week, but we may have some technical questions on the bill. The deputy minister and other bureaucrats could be the first group of witnesses. We could then hear from, as you suggested, national groups or individuals who are available on Tuesday.

[English]

The Chair: I would like to take that under advisement, and also this other suggestion that there are large groups who would be willing to come. So if I could judge those....

The last thing I was going to say was that at the steering committee meeting there will be a procedural clerk—if that's the right expression—who will brief us, as a steering committee, on our roles and responsibilities with respect to a piece of legislation like this.

The expression, I'm told, is a legislative clerk.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have another question. Could we check as soon as possible whether we could hold our meeting in one of the rooms where broadcasting is available? After all, this is the first bill tabled by the government and it is an important one. It could be interesting for the deliberations to be televised. For example, I would have liked for a brief such as that presented from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to be televised.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, and I see no objection to that. I would be glad to. As you know, what will happen is that I will make the request and we will see what is allocated to us.

Colleagues, is there anything else for the moment? I appreciate your patience. I will see the steering committee at 5 o'clock on Monday and the rest of the committee at 11 o'clock on Tuesday.

The meeting is adjourned.