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, March 1, 2001

• 1115

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): I'd like to begin our meeting and continue our consideration of Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill.

I want to apologize to our witnesses for two things. One is that we're already late. I want to blame my predecessor, the chair of the previous committee, because it was his fault. But I apologize again because we have a small item of business to take care of. If it proves to be a longer item of business, we'll delay it till the end. But we're going to try to do this item of business before we begin to hear your representations.

For the benefit of the people watching, we're waiting to hear testimony from the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. I'll introduce you all properly in a moment.

Colleagues, we agreed we would attempt to re-establish our permanent subcommittees at the beginning of this meeting in order that they can begin their work. We don't want to interrupt the flow of the witnesses and the consideration of the EI bill, but I think it's true to say that all parties are interested in these subcommittees. One subcommittee is on children and youth at risk. We'll get its proper title in a moment. The other subcommittee is on persons with disabilities. They have been very effective in the past. We have invited here the past chairs. Possibly they'll be the future chairs. We don't know that yet.

I think you all have the motions before you. I'd like to deal with those motions very briefly. But we will need the mover, whoever he or she is, to read them into the record.

I'll turn to Paul Crête in a moment, but first we'll hear from Raymonde Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): We don't have the motions before us.

The Chair: The motions are being distributed.

I see that Paul Crête would like to move one of the motions, and I'd be glad for him to do that.

Could I ask that we deal first with the one aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons. I'd like to ask Carolyn Bennett to say something very briefly. My understanding is that Paul Crête is going to move the motion.

Carolyn Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities was struck for the first time in the fall of 1998. At that time it was recognized that even though the parent committee's name includes “the Status of Persons with Disabilities”, the issue of persons with disabilities hadn't been discussed for over two years. So we felt there was a need for a subcommittee, and I think we've been very effective. We were thrilled by our tiny citation in chapter 20 of the Auditor General's report in terms of the importance of our committee in supporting the ability to manage horizontal issues. Also, we were very happy with the response we had to our round table on tax with regard to last year's budget.

We have a lot of work to do in the future, not only on our own in terms of determining outcomes in this very difficult area but also in terms of working with the other subcommittee to make sure that children are on a disability agenda and disabilities are on a children's agenda. I think we've also been effective in that, so we hope to be able to continue.

The Chair: When the steering committee discussed this matter, we hoped that when the main committee got time, you and your colleagues would come and we'd have a joint meeting to consider these matters.

Carolyn, I've made inquiries, and I think it would be better if you moved the motion we have before us, please.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Okay.

The Chair: Colleagues, do you all have it now?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I move that pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a)(b), a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be established and that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the subcommittee study issues regarding the status of persons with disabilities.

• 1120

I don't have the regular motion in front of me.

The Chair: Could I read it for you?

That the Sub-Committee be chaired by Dr. Carolyn Bennett—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Oh, what a good idea.

The Chair:

—and be composed of nine members or associate members of the Committee—

—which is the HRDC committee—

—namely: five government members and four members representing the opposition parties to be named after the usual consultations with the whips and filed with the Clerk;

That the Sub-Committee report thereon its findings or recommendations to the Committee;

—meaning the main committee—

That the Sub-Committee be empowered, except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to receive evidence, to sit only during a time when the Standing Committee is not sitting, unless otherwise authorized by the Standing Committee, to print from day to day such papers as may be ordered by it and to authorize the Chair to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least 3 members are present including the opposition;

That when the Chair of the Sub-Committee is unable to act in that capacity at or during a meeting of the Sub-Committee, she shall designate a member of the Sub-Committee to act as Chair at or during the said meeting;

That substitution of members on the Sub-Committee be accordance with Standing Order 114(2)(b) and (c);

That the Committee authorize the allocation of sufficient funds from its budget to the Sub-Committee for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses to witnesses appearing before the Sub-Committee;

That the Sub-Committee be empowered to retain the services of research officers from the Library of Parliament and;

That it also be empowered to retain the professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.

Carolyn Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Chair, I am proposing a friendly amendment here in paragraph 4, where it says:

...to sit only during a time when the Standing Committee is not sitting, unless otherwise authorized by the Standing Committee....

I think we found workable “unless agreed upon by the Chair of the Standing Committee”. If we needed to meet, I think it would be more practical if we checked it with you.

The Chair: I understand.

Are there any comments on that friendly amendment? I certainly have no objection to it. I understand its purpose.

If I could explain again, as we're on television, the reason for this mumbo-jumbo is for the committee to be fully official, for its funds to flow, and for it to function as a proper full subcommittee of this committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The motion is carried and the subcommittee is established.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thank you.

The Chair: Can we proceed to John Godfrey.

John, would you speak briefly to the other committee? I would suggest that the wording is the same. You could read it or we can take it as read.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I beg the indulgence of the witnesses, but I'm sure they're sympathetic, as we all are, to the fate of Canada's children.

Again, this subcommittee is a horizontal issues committee. That is to say, government policies that affect children can be found in Health, HRD, Finance, Justice, and so on. What the subcommittee has really done is gather people from all parties who are specifically interested in children and family issues. We've worked very effectively together.

You have a summary of the committee's work in your briefing books; I don't propose to read it out to you. I will simply say that as a result of our subcommittee's work, I think we've managed to move the issue of children higher on the government agenda—as was the case with disability. In part as a result of our lobbying, we have more income for Canadian families. We're now working with the provinces on the service component.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne there was considerable reference—and that reference also extended to aboriginal children.

There's a pile of useful work to be done with people from all parties who are particularly interested in children and family issues. I hope we will be able to continue our work. We have an indication of interest from all the parties. We've talked to all the whips.

I would ask that perhaps someone other than myself move the creation of this subcommittee, since I'm named as chair.

The Chair: Colleagues, the motion would be the same as the previous one—including,I would assume, the friendly amendment—except that it would say, “That the Sub-Committee study issues regarding the future of children and youth in Canada”.

• 1125

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The subcommittee is established. On behalf of the committee and my colleagues, we wish you well. As I mentioned, John, the committee would like to have a joint meeting with the two subcommittees as witnesses, so we can discuss what you have done and what we might do to help. Thank you very much for coming to the meeting. We appreciate it.

Colleagues, I will introduce our witnesses. Once again, my apologies for the delay. For the Conseil du patronat du Québec we have Gilles Taillon; for the Canadian Labour Congress we have Nancy Riche and Kevin Hayes; for the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters we have Jayson Myers; and for the Confédération des syndicats nationaux we have Roger Valois and Réjeanne Choinière.

[Translation]

Welcome, Réjeanne and Roger.

[English]

I see the order we have is the one I read out. Do you want to keep to our order here, so that the Conseil would begin? Please continue then. Gilles Taillon, the Conseil du patronat du Québec.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Taillon (President, Conseil du patronat du Québec): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce my colleague: Mr. Jacques Garon, our research director. Jacques will be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

I would like to thank you for allowing me to appear. Since we don't have much time, I will give you a quick overview of the three main recommendations in our brief and attempt to convince you of the importance of taking most of these recommendations into account when you draft your final report.

We understand that the aim of Bill C-2 is to improve certain aspects of the employment insurance plan, but, as always, the main concern of both the council and businesses is to ensure that the government understand that we would like to see the employment insurance plan return to being a type of insurance and not something into which employers and employees pay premiums to fund numerous other programs that have nothing to do with protecting employees against possible job loss.

The surplus generated by the premiums is used to fund a number of things, including paying down the debt—as you know, we have nothing against that—as well as tax cuts and other government expenditures; this represents a tax on workers and employers. We believe that the first thing to do would be to review the scope of this plan so as to ensure that it is truly an employment insurance plan.

Our second main concern, ladies and gentlemen, is that once the true purpose of the plan has been reinstated, it must be managed by a joint committee made up of both employers and employees, since they are the ones who are funding the plan. This plan should then, once again, be managed jointly within the Employment Insurance Commission, so that the reason for which it was created will become its main priority. We believe that the funds that are contributed by employees and employers alike should be managed by those who are funding the plan.

If that were indeed the case, we feel that the premium rate could be 1.75% rather than the present rate of 2.25%.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we find it hard to understand why, in a true employment insurance plan, employers contribute 1.4 times more than the employees contribute. We believe that, over a given period of time, we should strive for equality in both Commission membership and contributions made to the Employment Insurance Fund.

• 1130

In summary, we would like this to stop being a tax. We want it to return to being a contribution to an insurance plan and an insurance scheme so that benefits can be given to those who have lost their jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Gilles, thank you very much for that summary. We do appreciate the written brief you've provided.

If we can, then, we'll go to the Canadian Labour Congress and Nancy.

Ms. Nancy Riche (Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you.

As you said, Kevin Hayes, the senior economist at the Canadian Labour Congress, is here. I would also like to note that the workers' commissioner, Tony Wohlfarth, is here today. He's not presenting with us, but certainly as a workers' commissioner, he's supportive of us.

I think I get more time because you didn't use your whole five minutes, right?

We too have distributed a brief in both languages. I would like to go through the summary and recommendations because I think this committee would understand that for the Canadian Labour Congress, this is and has been one of our priorities. We were—although not me personally—around in the forties when we actually established unemployment insurance, and it's been a major piece of our work ever since. Most of the committee would know that we do represent 2.3 million Canadian workers, and we're pleased to be here. We wish it were for a different reason, as you'll see when I present our summary.

We feel that even though some changes have been made, Bill C-2 is a very disappointing piece of legislation. While it does contain some provisions we support, it contains provisions we oppose. We'd also like to get some time to speak to provisions we would like to see amended in the current legislation on employment insurance.

Bill C-2 does not go far enough, unfortunately, to satisfy the obvious need to modernize employment insurance. I think we have to start, as the previous presenter said, to go back to thinking of this as an insurance program. We've lost it, and as a result this allows all kinds of rhetoric and wrong statements to be made about the plan. We do believe that Canadians want a modern EI program that deals with the realities they face in today's working world. They want a program that deals with the evolution in working time and the distribution of work. They need a program that provides a better balance between work and family and that encourages workplace training and education. They want a program that deals honestly with the money they pay in—and I could have a debate with the Conseil on that—and that returns money to workers and the communities when they need it: a true insurance program, we would agree.

This legislation, unfortunately, represents a very small step towards that goal, too small a step to make a real difference to today's working families and to those who look to this program for help. That is why we are disappointed.

We do support the elimination of the intensity rule. In fact, Bill C-2 removes four of the most unjust penalties in the program. Two of these penalties were brought in with the 1996 Employment Insurance Act, namely, the intensity rule and a penalty on claimants who previously received more than 20 weeks of benefits and who earn income over $39,000 a year. These odious measures were adopted to punish “repeat offenders”. We do have some great doublespeak in this country. To suggest that someone is a repeat offender is to suggest that they actually have some control over what this government calls “offending”. Listen to this language, folks. If I get laid off five times, I've become a repeat-repeat offender, as if I could decide when I got laid off. And then we have “offend” and “offence”. Language is very important.

• 1135

So this concerns workers in seasonal industries, who are repeatedly laid off and who claim their insurance protection when their source of work goes into hibernation. They are the people in this country who you represent and who work in the industries of tourism, construction, automobiles, education, transportation, government services, forestry, and the fishery. The intensity rule hit half a million claimants a year. Tens of thousands of workers have had their rate cut to 50% of weekly earnings. For workers who have had their benefits set back under the seasonal clawback penalty, the losses have been in the thousands of dollars.

Bill C-2 also changes other clawback penalties that were introduced in the mid-1970s and made even more punitive in 1996 through the lowering of the income threshold for benefits to be taxed back. Even though this was not the spin put on it, most of the dollars clawed back came from claimants in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec.

We believe all clawbacks should be eliminated. We know they've been eliminated on pregnancy, parental, and sickness benefits, and the government said when they eliminated them that it made no sense to have them there. We don't think it makes any sense to have the clawbacks anywhere.

Two-thirds of unemployed workers remain without insurance. I quite frankly don't know.... I don't have the vocabulary or the ability to say how horrific this is when the government is sitting on a surplus of $32 billion while two-thirds of people who are unemployed cannot receive insurance benefits. This morning I tried to figure out a way to make it simple because somehow or other, quite frankly, the government's eyes glaze over as if this had never happened, as if we lived in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four. In fact, if we divided the surplus up by the number of MPs, we would be taking back from each of you about $120 million. I think the Canadian Alliance at one time calculated those horrible MP pensions to be, over a long period of time, about $100 million or whatever. It is an incredible amount of money that has been taken from the unemployed and made into a loan to the government.

It doesn't make it easier for workers in seasonal industries to qualify for benefits. It does very little to reverse eligibility rules—this is Bill C-2—that currently disqualify almost a million unemployed workers a year from regular insurance. These are a million unemployed workers who would have been covered and eligible for insurance under the rules that were in place during the last recession.

It does nothing to address the disproportionate numbers of women, young people, and older workers who find themselves cut off from insurance coverage. In spite of the government's claims, Bill C-2 does precious little for most people starting families. Up to 100,000 women will still not qualify for pregnancy and parental leave benefits after this bill becomes law. This is such a shame. I commend the government for moving maternity and parental benefits up to 52 weeks; I do so and have done so. It's a major step, a progressive step, but isn't it a shame that people will not be able to qualify? Eighty percent of women—

The Chair: If I could—

Ms. Nancy Riche: I know, you're going to cut me off.

The Chair: No, I'm not going to cut you off. Even with the Conseil's time, your time is up.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I know that.

The Chair: So if you could wind up—

Ms. Nancy Riche: But I have so much to say—

The Chair: I know, I do appreciate it.

Ms. Nancy Riche: —that you need to hear.

The Chair: No, no, listen. I'm not cutting you off.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'll try to run through quickly.

The Chair: Let me say to you all that we have 18 members, not the usual number on this committee, so one of the problems is that you all need a chance to interact with the MPs.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I understand that. There used to be a time when one person instead of four would appear.

The Chair: Nancy, if you could wind up, I'd be grateful.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Oh, my God.

The Chair: No, it's not God, it's just me.

Ms. Nancy Riche: No, I surely don't think of any Liberals as God. I was not making a mistake there.

Let me quickly.... I want to comment quickly on the commission and the suggestion that we would like to see an arm's-length commission of equal employer.... In fact, what the government is suggesting now is really what's been going on. The commission has been stripped of its powers for a number of years, certainly since the Minister of Finance took over the employment insurance fund. We want that back, as we want the decisions to be made by those.... And we desperately want the integrity of the plan put back in place, so that it will be dealt with as insurance. The money paid in should be the money that's paid out, with the exception of maintaining some money for the hard times—and you all know the figures that allow for that.

• 1140

We'd really like to get into discussions with this committee, or whoever, on modernizing this UI, on making an unemployment insurance system that works for the current economy and beyond that which we all know now. We all have some good knowledge of what it is and what it's going to be.

We'll certainly be prepared to answer any questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you again, Nancy. I do appreciate your doing that. We thank you for the written brief. As I mentioned, I think you'll have plenty of opportunity in dialogue to raise all the points you wish.

If I could, I'll now ask for the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and Jayson Myers, please.

Mr. Jayson Myers (Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We're very pleased to be here.

I really want to echo both what Gilles Taillon has said and many of the points that Nancy Riche has raised, most importantly the importance of maintaining the integrity of the employment insurance system as an insurance-based system, as a system that is not a tax, but one that is based on insurance principles.

Of our 3,500 members, 80% are small companies. They've been responsible for most of the job creation in this country over the past five years, and certainly their concern is that the employment insurance system is moving away from what it was first intended to do, that being to provide some assurance or some insurance for people who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. Our brief outlines our concerns in some detail, but there are three components in moving the system back to a system that better reflects insurance principles.

The first is to recognize the intent of the system and, as both Gilles and Nancy have pointed out, the importance of making sure that the premiums that are raised are adequate to cover the benefits paid, with some surplus to provide a cushion for weakening economic conditions. As the economist for our organization, I can tell you that I think we're facing several months ahead of us—if not the period of this entire year—when we will see the economy weakening. We will see unemployment rising across this country, particularly in manufacturing and exporting sectors.

I think it is important to reduce premiums. We concur that the premiums should be brought down. We feel the employee premiums could be brought down to $1.65 and that employer premiums could be brought down to $2.31, and we could still maintain a healthy surplus in the account.

We also think it's important to establish parity between employer and employee premiums. We certainly agree with the Conseil du patronat on that particular issue.

Again, we recognize that with the way employment insurance premiums are being treated now, this has become a tax. From an economist's point of view, this is a very regressive tax. It's a hidden tax, and, for principles of sound fiscal management, it should not be managed the way it is. For that reason, we also propose that there be some structural changes made, number one being that the employment insurance account be taken out of the general budget, be taken out of general revenues, and be accounted for separately in a way that does basically look at the requirements and at what is being paid into the system on its own, apart from general revenues.

Secondly, we would propose that much greater consideration be given to the issue of employer experience rating. Move on to other forms of administration of this employment insurance system that do reflect the real requirements and the new requirements in a very rapidly changing economic situation. I think we concur with what Nancy Riche has said: the economy, employment, and labour market conditions are changing rapidly, and we have to make sure that our employment insurance system reflects those changes.

• 1145

Finally, we agree with both the CLC and the Conseil. We think that responsibility for premium setting should rest with an arm's-length commission and that it should not be given to the Governor in Council generally. I think that is good for fiscal management, and it's also good for management of the employment insurance account.

Again, our strongest recommendation is let's get back to the basic insurance principles for which this account was first set up. Thank you.

The Chair: Jayson, thank you very much. Thanks to you also for the written brief.

Next is the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. This brief is being translated. It will be circulated to members when we have it available in both languages.

Roger.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Valois (Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the CSN I would like to say that the bill that we have before us seems rather timid and relatively low-key compared to the election promises that were made by the government during the last campaign.

We spoke out against unemployment insurance reform. I insist on using that term. When the name was changed, we even began a lawsuit against the government of Canada. If I had parliamentary immunity, I might say that they are thieves, but since I don't have that privilege, I will abstain from saying it.

The government of Canada stole money from the unemployed and from employers, money that was in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, by illegally helping itself to the fund. We will prove this in court, because initially, the fund... In fact, March 1, 2001 will perhaps be a day to remember since the Conseil du patronat du Québec and the CSN are both in agreement.

The Employment Insurance Fund must serve unemployed men and women and must be administered by them. The employers and employees are paying for it. The government has not been involved, in terms of payment, since 1990. Since 1990, the government of Canada has not contributed one cent to the employment insurance fund, but it does not hesitate to make liberal use of it.

With respect to the intensity rule, what changes does bill C-2 make in terms of accessibility to employment insurance for young people living in Eastern Canada? Nothing. Young people living in the Gaspé region must still work 910 hours in order to be eligible. For youth living in the Maritimes, access will be just as difficult as it was previously for their parents. It will still be difficult.

It isn't our fault if, in this country, we have cold weather and fish plants workers and loggers cannot work during the winter. Once again, it is almost impossible for women going back to work to have access to employment insurance, because, as Yvon Deschamps said: “Mom doesn't work. She's much to busy”. Even when she decides to return to work, she can't qualify. With 910 hours, it's almost impossible. Therefore, the eligibility rules are to stringent.

We must return to the former type of compensation which applied before the act was amended, that is, 60% of income. And it's very good for the economy. It helps to promote a healthy economy, because when unemployed people have money, they spend it. No one can deny it. With a fund that has a surplus of 34.6 billion dollars, I can't understand why this bill is as weak as it is. It is unacceptable for the CSN and we will make that case very strongly and clearly whenever we can.

On that point, we tabled a four-page brief, a brief that is as unassuming as is the bill. What was needed was a real bill to change the rules, to make employment insurance what it truly should be in a country where billions of dollars are available, where the government coffers are overflowing. We don't feel that the unemployed are getting their due, and we intend to campaign extensively, at least in Quebec, to tell the government of Canada that it is wrong, that the unemployed need the money that was paid into this fund and that the money must be used for that sole purpose. That is what we are going to argue before the Federal Court.

As I said, it is very weak, and neglects women and young people who are working for the first time. I look at the colour of the hair on the people around this table, those of you who have some, and I say that for young people, things are not like they used to be: when you had a job, you had it for life and you only changed jobs because you wanted to. For today's youth, that is no longer the case. That is no longer a reality in our working lives here in this country, here in Canada. Young people go from job to job without it being their fault, and the employment insurance fund should take that into account, in order to maintain a stable economy, and also, so that people can maintain their dignity.

• 1150

We must not forget that. In Quebec, if you are not eligible for employment insurance, you must turn to social assistance, and then you are labelled. You are singled out more often when you are, as we say, “on the dole” than when you are being paid employment insurance because in that case you are just waiting for another job. If the government of Canada cannot put people back to work, it should at least, with the billions it has in surplus, ensure that these people can maintain their dignity.

That is all we have to say for now. During the discussion, we will express some of our other ideas. We have fairly analyzed bill C-2. It did not take very long. It is not necessary to spend much time on this text to properly analyze it. We need not overexert ourselves, nor undertake a lengthy study. Even the minister recognized that fact in a statement she made in the House:

The bill that was intended to correct certain measures is less effective than we have expected.

Ms. Stewart herself said that, and we agree with her: it is very weak.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Valois.

[English]

For the benefit of our witnesses, we'll now proceed alternately between the parties. On this committee, we have roughly five minutes each. The five minutes include the question and the answers.

From time to time, I may be interrupting either the questioner or the answerer. That's just simply in order that we have some fairness on such a large committee.

The list I have so far is Val Meredith, Georges Farrah, Paul Crête, and Joe McGuire.

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

And thank you for appearing before the committee.

I heard almost all of you say that what you would like to see is for the employment insurance fund to go back to the original intention of being an insurance fund. In order for it to have the integrity—I think that was the word used—it needed to be arm's-length from government, to control the rate-setting powers, and to be run by an equal number of employers and employees.

I fully support that concept. I think that's where we need to go. But we heard yesterday from witnesses that they felt there needed to be an understanding that employment insurance for job loss is precisely that. If the government wants to do more for unemployed individuals, that should be done separately from the employment insurance fund.

Would you like to respond to that, please? Do you agree with the comments yesterday that there needs to be a separation between job loss insurance run by employers/employees and other programs run by the government?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Taillon: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the honourable member, that is exactly what we mean. It is important for the employment insurance plan to be a true insurance scheme. If we want to offer other benefits to workers or more benefits to society as a whole, this must be done by some other means than the employment insurance plan. That is the essence of what we have said and we share the opinion expressed by those who have advocated that concept.

The Chairman: Mr. Valois.

Mr. Roger Valois: Mr. Chairman, I am not against what the CSN advocate has said; the fund must be used by those who have lost their job. It has been used for many other reasons that were quite laudable, but government could have found some way other than the use of employment insurance funds to pay for those programs. We believe that the fund must return to its essential role, that is to serve those who have lost their job, and it must be administered by representatives of the employees and employers.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Myers.

Mr. Jayson Myers: I certainly agree as well that there should be a system for people who have lost their jobs. My concern from an economic perspective is that if we are looking at it to do other things, and premiums remain high and we treat this as a payroll tax, what we'll actually end up with in the end is a system that becomes a disincentive for job creation, particularly at times of economic weakness, and can actually lead to further job losses and economic—

The Chair: Val, I think Nancy wants to reply as well.

Ms. Nancy Riche: The question suggests a lot more than is being asked. I think we should be answering it. What I believe is in the way it has been asked—and I've read enough on the positions of the Fraser Institute—UI was set up to accommodate an interruption in earnings. If you go narrowly to job loss, then you will eliminate the maternity-parental leave—and I'm sure that's the idea—the sickness benefits, and the interpretation we would put on job search, which would include training in order to get a new job. If you make it job loss only, then you will lose a number of other people and, quite frankly, you will lose a lot of money from other places that are not premium paid. The workers have agreed that their premiums will help them while on maternity leave and to receive sickness benefits. If you narrowly define it as job loss, then you are in fact destroying the program we now support.

• 1155

The Chair: Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: Maybe that's exactly what I wanted to hear.

But I see a problem here. If you have an arm's-length commission that has an equal number of employers and employees, how are you ever going to get a consensus if you have two different approaches to what EI is supposed to be doing?

I understand there is an element that says if the government wants to provide for maternity leave and sickness and accident benefits, that should be done separate from an employment insurance fund. Am I clear on what one side is asking as opposed to what another side's expectations are?

The Chair: We can only have one comment on this because of the time, but Val will get another turn, you can be sure. Nancy.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I just want to say that every collective agreement signed is an agreement between an employer and employees. So the suggestion that we never agree is out of touch with reality.

The Chair: Next is Georges Farrah, followed by Paul Crête, Joe McGuire, Yvon Godin, and Diane St-Jacques.

[Translation]

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine— Pabok, Lib.): Thank your, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the committee. I believe that what you have presented will serve us well in our work.

I don't think we need to elaborate further on the employment insurance problems experienced in the regions, particularly in my own region, which has a high unemployment rate and which was adversely affected by the 1996 reforms. This has been stated on numerous occasions and it is simply a fact.

I have a question for you, Mr. Taillon. In your presentation and in your brief, you said that you wanted a return to a true insurance program. I would like you to explain that further, and tell us how you see a true insurance program and the impact it could have on seasonal work.

Of course, as was mentioned earlier, the problem in our regions is not so much the fact that we have seasonal workers, but that the work is seasonal. Unfortunately, in winter, there is less work and, very clearly, there must be income support for those people.

Therefore, what kind of insurance program do you have in mind, and how would seasonal work fit in to the model that you are suggesting?

Mr. Gilles Taillon: In our minds, and Mr. Garon can add to what I have to say, what we want is an insurance plan that will truly allow for a temporary replacement of income lost through a loss of employment, but a plan that would not be so permanent as to encourage people to remain unemployed rather than to find a job.

Therefore, there must be some type of incentives to return to work. There is a great deal of reluctance with respect to the amendment you are making to the intensity rule. We don't believe that will encourage people to find a job. That is our position with respect to the general principle.

We feel that seasonal workers should not be covered by employment insurance. There should be other measures that would apply to the tricky situation of a non-seasonal worker in a seasonal job.

That, in a nutshell, is our position. Mr. Garon might have something to add.

Mr. Jacques Garon (Research Director, Conseil du patronat du Québec): As you have yourself said, employment insurance was never intended to be an income support program. It helps to tide the worker over, when he is between jobs.

• 1200

If there is a surplus, as has been the case so far—a surplus which is, incidentally, purely fictional, because there is not one cent in the Employment Insurance Fund—it means that the federal government should, for women who take maternity leave, for example, as well as for parental leave that will be improved as of January 1... These are programs that have nothing to do with unemployment insurance plan. Yes, they should be improved, of course, if that's what society wants, then it is wonderful. But what does that have to do with employment insurance? Absolutely nothing.

Therefore, if we want to improve these programs, which are all social in nature, yes, this is something that society should do, but we must definitely not fund them through a program that should be used strictly for employment insurance.

The Chair: Georges Farrah.

Mr. Georges Farrah: You will understand, Mr. Chairman, that I don't agree with this way of seeing things. I do respect it, of course, but I don't agree, because a worker, even if he is doing seasonal work, contributes to the fund while he is employed. He pays employment insurance premiums, that is obvious. When he is not working, he is still available to work. Therefore, it is wrong to say that these people must not be eligible for these benefits.

Also, you mentioned the intensity rule. You said that it should not have been abolished because, unfortunately, there are people who are chronically unemployed, which, incidentally, is a term that I don't like. However, the opposite effect has been demonstrated over the past few years; there was an intensity clause in effect in my region, and the unemployment rate increased. The objective of creating an incentive to work through abolishing the intensity clause was not met.

The problem that we have in our region, is that we have to work at creating jobs. Everyone agrees on that. We have to devote a lot of energy to it. But at the same time, while we wait for this to happen, we need an employment insurance program that will meet the needs of the unemployed.

The Chair: Mr. Taillon, you only have 20 seconds.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: I don't want to engage in a debate, but I would say that if we want to put people back to work, the insurance program is perhaps not what is most important. I think we should have training programs so that people will be employable, because we have a serious problem...

The Chair: Thank you. Paul Crête now has the floor. Then it will be Joe McGuire, followed by Yvon Godin, Diane St-Jacques and Carol Skelton.

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

This is truly a historic day because we have both the employers and employee representatives, the unions, sitting at the same table, and in agreement on many points, at least on basic issues.

I would like you to tell me if you are unanimous in thinking that Bill C-2 should be amended by withdrawing the clause which takes away the Commission's power to determine the premium rate. Should there not be a separate debate on this later, with people such as yourselves, to deal with the whole matter of managing the fund in order to ensure that everything will be properly covered?

Do we all agree that the present clause, which allows for the misappropriation of the surplus... In the federal government's Debt Management Strategy, 2001-02, it says:

...the government committed to paying down a minimum of $10 billion of net public debt in 2000-01, bringing the total debt paydown over the last four years to at least $28.7 billion.

Is it not strange that the debt paydown, for the last four years is exactly the same amount as the accumulated surplus in the Employment Insurance Fund?

I would like to know if the employer and employee representatives feel the same way about withdrawing this clause of the bill which allows for the misappropriation of the surplus.

The Chair: Messrs. Jacques Garon and Roger Valois.

Mr. Jacques Garon: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the member's proposal, but I might simply remind you that the Minister of Finance stated clearly that the employment insurance premium would drop by 10% over the next two years. In other words, it is somewhat bewildering to have a bill debated at this time, while the Governor in Council had already decided to set the premium rates.

Mr. Paul Crête: Perhaps it was assumed that this misappropriation of funds would be legalized in the months following the election.

• 1205

Mr. Roger Valois: You are referring to clause 66, and we agree that the government cannot decide how the money is to be used, while at the same time, setting the conditions for contributions. Therefore, on this point, we think that if we have a fund, then in order for it to be efficient, we must also be able to set the premium rate. If the government determines the rates, and if the fund is not part of the process, they will kill it. It is not that complicated. We agree that clause 66 has to go.

[English]

Ms. Nancy Riche: We also agree, and maybe the cleanest way to do this is to just get it out of this bill. What the government has in fact been doing in recent times has actually taken away the authority of the commission anyway. It does require a further debate, so maybe your suggestion of just getting it out of this one and getting back to it might be the best way to do it.

The Chair: Jayson.

Mr. Jayson Myers: We certainly agree.

Ms. Nancy Riche: It's unanimous.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you for your clear and specific answers and for being unanimous on this point.

Moreover, we now have a bill which, in fact, changes very little. Could you tell the committee members what message we should send to the government, that is to say, that it isn't Bill C-2 that the House should be debating but rather a completely overhauled bill, a bill that would bring about a complete reform of the plan, that would settle the matter of what is in the fund, the premium rate, and the way in which the plan will operate, as well as any short-term improvements that should apply?

When we have a 6-billion-dollar surplus in an insurance fund... Normally, when insurance plans have large surpluses, either they reduce the premiums, or they give better benefits. Usually, there is not a third party absconding with the loot.

[English]

The Chair: Nancy Riche, and then Gilles.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Yes, absolutely, and you will see attached our ideas for modernizing UI. We haven't even had an open, honest debate about the size of premiums since the Progressive Conservative government, and then through the Liberal government. We keep screaming that we need the benefits brought back to where they were, so we haven't even been able to have a rational debate around the premiums.

We haven't looked one bit at the new kind of workplace. Back in 1993 or 1996, or whenever he did it, Lloyd Axworthy announced that everybody was going to be covered under unemployment insurance. That was his big announcement on the first hour of coverage. In fact, less than 50% of those people working part-time—and we all know there are growing numbers constantly in part-time; it's the new workforce and we had better realize—have been unable to be covered.

We have gone to the government time after time. They've told us that there won't be a review for five years from 1996. Well, that's about now, folks, and I support that. We could actually do some very good stuff under the unemployment insurance system.

The Chair: Gilles, very briefly, and that's the end of this exchange.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Taillon: In our first recommendation we state that the plan should be completely reviewed. I believe that is an essential part of our brief.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Crête.

[English]

Joe McGuire, Yvon Godin, Diane St-Jacques, Carol Skelton, Anita Neville, and Monique Guay.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to follow-up on the questions regarding the unemployment insurance program acting as true insurance. I would assume that if this were the case, fishermen would be eliminated from the program and there would be no regional benefits for areas of high unemployment and with seasonal industries, like Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Repeat users would be penalized on a true.... The more often your house burns down, the higher your premiums go. So the more often you draw EI, the higher the premiums you pay, one way or the other, either via loss of benefit, loss of duration, or some such thing like that.

How would you see that as benefiting areas of high unemployment right across Canada, ones with heavy reliance on seasonal industries, Mr. Taillon?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Garon: Mr. Chairman, what we are saying when we suggest that the social programs should be withdrawn from the employment insurance plan, does not mean that they are not important, but rather, that they must not be funded through an employment insurance plan, if it is truly an employment insurance scheme. It does not mean that these problems are not important. If you want to give some type of income support to people who, for any number of reasons, are not working, whether it is because they are on parental leave or because they are fishers or seasonal workers, then there is no problem with that, but the money needed to implement these measures must come from the government's Consolidated Revenue Fund and not from the employment insurance program.

• 1210

[English]

Mr. Joe McGuire: How would the government raise those funds? They'd have to come from the people who pay taxes anyway. That would be the people who work, or employers who pay taxes, or workers who earn salaries and pay taxes. You still have to raise the money from some place in the system to pay those benefits.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Garon: Should a social program not benefit all Canadians equally? There are tax measures that could be successfully implemented for this type of program. They already exist throughout Canada, in all provinces. Using the tax system is much more efficient and does not create a payroll tax which is detrimental to job creation.

[English]

The Chair: Roger Valois and then Jayson Myers—same point.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Valois: We must remember that the Employment Insurance Fund was created for the unemployed. We must also remind the government that pregnancy is not an illness. Pregnant women are compensated through employment insurance sickness benefits. I don't know how it feels to be pregnant, but apparently, it is not an illness. The government should know that.

As to those who are ill, I would say that in Canada, the workplace is so well sanitized that no one ever gets sick at work. Never. When a mechanic working in a garage has the flu, he must have caught it on the way to work or on the way home. The flu is not recognized as an industrial disease. When he applies for workers' compensation, he is told to seek employment insurance. We need a full scale reform to see what is truly involved here. Pregnancy is not an illness. When you are sick on the job, you must be compensated and even our own programs have foreign investments.

The other day, somebody gave the example of Firestone, which manufactures tires in Joliette. Do you know that it costs that company $1,000 less per employee in Joliette than it does in the United States because we have health insurance? It's an important factor in attracting foreign investment. We are proud of our social programs when we talk to investors.

We should also look at what makes up our country. We don't say that pregnant women and the sick should go to the back of the line, but the Employment Insurance Fund is for the unemployed. As for the others, we will see. In 1990, the government bowed out, but it continued to put the money into the same fund. There is a problem.

[English]

The Chair: Jayson, briefly, and then back to Joe.

Mr. Jayson Myers: I just want to say that I think there has to be a debate about structural changes in the account—the way the fund is run. There has to be a broader, economic, and fiscal debate as well, because of the point you raise about where does the revenue come from. This is a major source of revenue for the government. I think we really do have to look seriously at the other programs—economic programs—that we have in place, and how those are to be funded. But now there is no assurance of how the money, being raised through the EI fund, is being spent whether for regional issues or for economic development purposes or for paying down the debt or for whatever reason. I think we must have much greater accountability, both in this system and in the way tax revenues are generated, and how they are spent for economic development purposes.

The Chair: Joe, it's your time and Nancy wants to speak. It's up to you, Joe.

Mr. Joe McGuire: When the government was elected in 1993, there was a $7 billion deficit in this fund. We're addressing it now as a surplus, but it's not always going to be a surplus.

I'd like to ask Nancy—she's addressed a lot of things in her presentation except youth. How do you see—

The Chair: Hang on Joe, that is your time now. Sorry, Nancy, again. I'm not penalizing you. Joe was going overtime, and I was trying to accommodate the discussion.

Ms. Nancy Riche: You let the four men speak—

The Chair: Nancy Riche, four minutes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Nancy Riche: I actually want to respond on the women's issue.

The Chair: One minute.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Very quickly, I want to say that we get into this discussion all the time about maternity and not being.... The idea and the misconception of a true insurance fund is really wrong, and we shouldn't be talking.... We call it a trust here. It has never been anything but a social insurance fund. Following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, the wonderful Liberal government of the time, with Minister Bryce Mackasey, brought in maternity benefits under the unemployment insurance fund. The employers have consistently tried to get it out.

• 1215

When you talk about where the money comes from, I should say that a vast number of our employers are actually paying top-up. In maternity, the woman gets 55%; the employer is paying.... As for you as an employer, the Government of Canada has just signed an agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada to top that up to 95%. So who's paying? It's the fund that the worker put into and the employer assisting in it.

The Chair: Thank you, Nancy.

It's Yvon Godin, Pierre St-Jacques, Carol Skelton, Anita Neville, Monique Guay, and Jeannot Castonguay.

[Translation]

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

I might begin by saying that it is true that a pregnant woman is not sick. Last night, my daughter Stéphanie gave birth to a beautiful baby boy and I can assure you that she is not sick today.

[Editor's Note: Applause]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I can also tell you that she was employed. Her employer made money with her when she worked. She generated revenue for him.

Society has changed. Once upon a time, there were fewer women working than there are today. If we want people to be equal, we must put our money where our mouth is. We must accept the concept wholeheartedly. In today's world, men and women work, and the system must adapt. Must all of society pay for that? Can workers and employers not agree to adjust the program so that everyone might benefit, so that the future of our society, our children, and our grandchildren can benefit? I would love to have an answer to that question.

Now let's turn to Bill C-2. Do you think that an increase of $1.59 per week will truly change anything and encourage people to work harder? That's more or less what it comes down to: 5% of $7 is about $1. Yesterday, witnesses told us that these changes were terrible and that we were moving backwards. It represents about $11 per week or, in any case, a negligible amount. I would like to hear what you have to say about that.

We are also discussing changes in the area of employment. Nowadays there are many people who are self-employed. Many employers have told their employees that they no longer require their services, but now, they're phoning them saying: “You have a computer at home. Can you write this for me, can you do this or that”. This person has been completely excluded from employment insurance and today has no insurance at all from week to week.

I would like to hear what you have to say about that, please.

The Chair: Réjeanne.

Ms. Réjeanne Choinière (Lawyer, Confédération des syndicats nationaux): I'd like to make a few remarks mainly concerning women, maternity leave and parental leave.

First of all, given the labour market, where job insecurity affects mainly women, I suggest to the committee today that many women are unable to work enough hours to be eligible for employment insurance benefits when they are on maternity leave or on parental leave. It's rather wishful thinking to say that the Employment Insurance Fund is there to help those people as well.

Personally, I think that all women in Canada, and in Quebec particularly, should have the right to maternity leave and to parental leave. But this is presently impossible because of the employment insurance rules. A great many women cannot take advantage of employment insurance or parental leave.

I'm going to restate what Roger Valois, Vice-President of the CSN, said: that the fund should serve the unemployed who need it. In the case of maternity leave, 55% is insufficient.

This is what I wanted to share with you.

The Chair: Thank you, Réjeanne.

Gilles Taillon.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: The member probably answered his own question in his second remark. What we hope for, in fact, is that the employment insurance fund be used strictly for the unemployed and that the other programs be financed in some other way. For example, we could also offer parental leave to self-employed people, but in another context, through taxation. We would have to decide how to proceed, for example through a payroll tax perhaps. Once we have reduced the costs of the system, we could perhaps offer or ask for other things.

• 1220

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't want to mislead Canadians. I did not say that we should have another system. If that is what you think I said, that's not correct. I did not say that. I said that employment insurance is an insurance for people who work; therefore, the employer and the employee who work together are able to... I think Canadians accept this. Why wouldn't the employer accept this? I have never had any employees knock on my door or telephone me to say that they do not want to pay this. I hear employers complaining bitterly and saying that this far too expensive. Basically, employers who are turning a profit are the ones who pay their employees at the end of the day. The money comes from somewhere, from the employer's profits; somewhere someone has to pay. The government is not a machine that we can shake and have money fall out. Someone has to pay, and it is workers and employers who will pay at some point in time.

The Chair: Thank you, Yvon.

[English]

Diane St-Jacques, Carol Skelton, Anita Neville, Monique Guay, Jeannot Castonguay.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a comment only on what Ms. Choinière was saying.

I believe that there is some improvement in the bill. In any case, certain measures have been put in place for parental leave. It's clear that we could always go further, but at some point, we have to ensure a certain balance.

I would like to address my remarks to the Conseil du patronat. I think there's a certain ambiguity in what you say. I'll come back again to parental leave. You say that employment insurance exists to temporarily replace income. On the one hand, I believe that maternity leave is temporary. It's not a life-long leave. On the other hand, women pay into employment insurance while they are working. I believe that we must try and find ways to encourage women to have children because we know that the birth rate is very low. I think the economy can function. If we stop having children, at some point in time the economy will crash because there will be no more consumers. As far as I can see, this is another ambiguity you have set out. Are we to go back to the 1950s, when all women stayed at home to take care of their children and only the husband worked? In any case, I wonder about this subject.

I know that women face several problems in the job market. Furthermore, there was a forum on women and employment in my riding a few weeks ago. I could read you a few statements that are realistic, I think. On top of experiencing all kinds of problems when they have children, women often have difficulty finding new directions and returning to the job market after having spent a year or six months at home. There is a lack of resources to ease the transition between home and the job market. What you have said does not quite describe reality for me. I believe we must continue to encourage women. If they work and they decide to have a child, and to stop working for a year to raise this child, we must give them the means to do so, and help them. Perhaps we should go further. I would like to hear your comments, because I don't quite agree with what you have said.

The Chair: Gilles Taillon.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. We share your goal. What we are saying, is that this is not the right vehicle. We hope there will be a meaningful discussion on parental leave because of the need to strike a balance between work and family, but that it will happen in a context other than that of the employment insurance system.

[English]

The Chair: Nancy Riche.

Ms. Nancy Riche: I would like to see some consideration in this debate of whether or not maternity-parental is in EI on a different basis. This is not to help women, and it never was. It was about the economy and about wanting women in the economy. Every time we start to hit a downturn and every time unemployment rises, we start to have this debate about whether or not maternity benefits should be in EI.

If our unemployment rate was at 2% and it would help the employer, they'd be recommending EI to get the women into the workforce, so let's talk about it on an even playing field. They are workers. I really believe that if men were having the babies, we wouldn't be having this discussion about where the maternity benefits come from. EI is an interruption in earnings. Women are workers; if their earnings are interrupted when they have babies, they get EI.

The Chair: Diane, Roger has a reply as well, if that's okay. Go ahead.

• 1225

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: My comment was somewhat similar. Since women pay employment insurance, why would they not have a right to it at the point in time? It is a temporary interruption. This is consistent with what you were saying concerning the nature of employment insurance.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. It's Roger and then Jacques, and you've got to keep an eye on the time.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Valois: I would like to intervene concerning what was said about the improvement of Bill C-2 for women. It's very timid, because we're discussing a period of six years that will serve as qualifying period. We must remember that in order to qualify for maternity leave, the person must have worked 700 hours during the qualifying period, and above all, must not have conceived the baby when not working. When we look at the qualifying periods, 700 hours is a lot, because at the time of returning to the job market it is possible to not have completed the 700 hours before the happy moment arrives and the person is pregnant. If that is the case the person is not eligible for benefits. Therefore, in this regard, the improvement in quite timorous.

The Chair: Mr. Jacques Garon.

Mr. Jacques Garon: If I may, I would like to quote Human Resources Development Canada, which states how this policy is related to the actual system and which, according to us, is not quite right:

The federal government recognizes the importance of the first years of development for children, and as a result, parental leave gives working parents an opportunity to share time with their children, which would otherwise not be possible for many families. This is the main reason for the improvement in parental benefits which, moreover, is one of the main components of the Canadian government strategy in terms of investment in family and children.

What does this have to do with the employment insurance system? This is social policy and we all agree on that.

A voice: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Jacques Garon: But when a women is unemployed, she receives benefits.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to thank you for taking my place yesterday. I feel very insecure today. I understand you were very good as chair.

It's Carol Skelton, Anita Neville, Monique Guay, Jeannot Castonguay, Yvon Godin, and Raymonde Folco.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Yesterday our guests suggested that seasonal workers were being kept dependent on EI because of the present system. Last week construction people suggested that some aspects of the EI program were holding labourers back from getting their tickets and their training. How would each of you in your positions...? What suggestions would you have to correct the problems as expressed in those two statements? How would you react to those two statements?

Mr. Kevin Hayes (Senior Economist, Technical Services Department, Canadian Labour Congress): The first of two things that came in with EI was that EI benefits for apprentices are now taxed, which had not been done before.

The other thing, of course, is that the two-week waiting period, which used to be paid for out of consolidated revenues, is not paid for. That is a significant deterrent for a lot of people to enrolment in the apprenticeship system. As you probably know, enrolment in the apprenticeship program in Canada has dropped by about 25% since 1991, so that has not improved despite the change in name.

The Chair: Okay, Carol.

Sorry, I didn't see you. Is there someone else?

Ms. Nancy Riche: Can Kevin just respond to the divisor because that's—

The Chair: It's up to Carol. Is that okay?

Ms. Carol Skelton: Sure.

Mr. Kevin Hayes: As you also know, construction workers and apprentices were penalized by the provisions this bill is in fact repealing. Their repeated layoffs for the purposes of the classroom portion of their training was counted when they were in a subsequent job, but they were over $39,000, and they were also penalized as repeat users. The other aspect of course is in the calculation of the benefit, that is, the divisor formula that's not dealt with in this bill. It doesn't repeal that. It does reduce the benefit significantly below the nominal benefit rate of 55%, even well below 50% because of the—

The Chair: Carol Skelton.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Yes. I'd like to hear Jayson.

The Chair: Jayson Myers.

Mr. Jayson Myers: I think it shows the importance of taking a look at EI as one part of a much broader number of measures, including both provincial and federal measures.

• 1230

One of the problems we're seeing in the use of EI benefits to offset some of the expenses of training is that in moving this to provincial jurisdictions, often the provinces are seeing this simply as a welfare program and are cutting back on other forms of social assistance. That is a major problem because it's not really solving the transitional challenges the workers face.

I think we need a much broader debate, given the changes in the workforce, given the number of people who are self-employed and given the new technologies that allow people to become self-employed much more. We need a broader debate about how EI fits into the entire system, as well as one about restructuring EI to make sure it's more responsive to the new needs of workers.

The Chair: Carol, a comment, perhaps? It would just be a comment.

Ms. Carol Skelton: No, that's fine.

Ms. Val Meredith: I would just comment that, Roger, you mention that social programs are a subsidy to the business community in Canada, allowing them to pay their workers less than, say, a competing company in the States. I think you used the tire manufacturers. Do you honestly believe that's an unfair advantage over our competitors in the U.S.?

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Valois: I want this to be very clear. What I said is that industry benefits greatly from our social safety net or benefits that we are giving ourselves. For example, at Firestone in Joliette, group insurance costs $1,000 less per month per employee than in the United States for the same group insurance benefits. Why? Because we in Canada have a health care system that they do not have in the United States and companies there must spend a lot of money to ensure their employees.

[English]

The Chair: Does that answer your question?

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Valois: That is the difference. But the American government sees these benefits as being subsidies. We saw this during the free trade discussions: they said that paying unemployment insurance to lumberjacks and fishermen was a disguised subsidy. The American government, which is very protectionist in this respect, criticized us for having a social safety net. We can't fall into that trap.

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps it's something we can return to.

Colleagues, you'll notice we're going through the parties again. Perhaps we can pick up the pace. I think it would be useful to do so.

Anita Neville, then Monique Guay.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): You're always picking up the pace when it's my turn.

Mr. Myers just addressed part of what I wanted to talk about, so my question is really for Ms. Riche.

It is sort of the restructuring of the workforce that we're talking about—and Monsieur Godin has mentioned it. In your brief, you acknowledge that work is changing, with part-time work, contract work, on-call, and self-employment. I have much concern with the issues you raise here. Your response to it in the brief is to address it by abolishing the 910-hour re-entrant and by reducing the variable entrance formula to 420 hours. What I would like to know is whether or not you have, internally, in your own discussions, taken this discussion further as to how you see some of these issues of the contract worker, the part-time worker, being addressed. To pick up on my colleague's earlier question, in many instances these are in fact women who are in this situation.

Ms. Nancy Riche: In our attachment, we actually do have suggestions for modernizing. One of them would be to make the number of hours needed to be eligible 360 hours across the board. But, no, we haven't delved into them. These are pretty complicated issues.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'm aware of that.

Ms. Nancy Riche: For years, we had asked for first hour of coverage, when it was 15 hours a week, remembering part-time. What we had then was employers keeping people on for 13 hours a week, and then the employee went somewhere else and got another 10 hours.

We've never been able to get portability of unemployment insurance, which is another thing we would like to see in part-time, if we understand it. We'd like to eliminate this kind of thing where people are on call 24 hours a day because they're maintaining three jobs. It is the reality, though, so how do you accommodate that? We see that some sort of portability would be one thing.

I think the whole issue of self-employed people needs to be studied. We've managed to accommodate it for CPP. In fact, if we look at women again, self-employed women on maternity are probably returning to work in a week, and these are the small business women. I'd love some time for small business folks to talk about that instead of eliminating stuff, because I think those women and their partners—if it's a man—could use parental benefits as well, but they don't qualify at all. We've not dealt with it, even though we've known almost for the last decade about the rise in self-employed workers.

• 1235

That's what we're asking. Let's get at this. Let's get inside of it to see a good, modern plan. We may be looking at pro-rated benefits for part-time. We may be looking at the self-employed paying both sides, and maybe that would be a different amount than the employer plus employee. All those kinds of things would actually bring people into it. I think you would also make the unemployment insurance system much more acceptable. It would be seen as a true social insurance trust fund, as opposed to welfare, which is how some people like to present it.

The Chair: Anita Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville: That's fine, thank you.

The Chair: Okay.

Monique Guay, Jeannot Castonguay, Yvon Godin, Raymonde Folco, Val Meredith, and Alan Tonks.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is good to see that there is a certain consensus around the table concerning Bill C-2. This is a situation that is somewhat different from yesterday's, when certain people were telling us that employment insurance had become a habit for some users, whereas we never believed this, quite the contrary. We all have unemployed people in our regions. I come from the Montreal region and there's a lot of seasonal work in my riding as it is part of the tourist network. I do not believe that people who receive employment insurance benefits do so intentionally. On the contrary, when there's no more snow, there's no more snow: the season is over and we have to move on to something else. These people are often low-wage earners, and they do not abuse the system. They are often women, women who have to keep their space in the daycare, because they will have to return to the labour market at some point. Therefore I believe that they try to relocate as quickly as possible. In any case this is not what I see in my riding. Perhaps things are different elsewhere, but I don't think so. I believe that all my colleagues here around the table... Take Georges Farrah from the Gaspé for example, he also is experiencing similarly serious problems in his riding.

We in Quebec have an exceptional model for parental leave. Of course we are still waiting for the federal government to take some action on this file.

I would like to hear your remarks on this subject briefly, Mr. Valois and Ms. Choinière. I would also like to hear you speak about independent workers because I haven't heard anyone around the table talk about them here. This is a very important issue. The first independent workers' association is in my riding. They came to meet with me. They created a small association, but it is becoming quite significant. These people want to be protected. They often work at home or for on contract, and they are being called upon more and more often because they are very competitive on the labour market, they have great abilities, they often don't take up very much space, they will go and work elsewhere, etc. They've been making demands for a long time, and here we have C-2 zipping along, and they are not included in this version. I'm afraid that it will soon all be written in stone. You know as well as I do that a bill does not come back to a committee for study every year, particularly one as important as this one.

I would like to hear some quick comments from you, please.

[English]

The Chair: Jayson Myers, and then Réjeanne.

Mr. Jayson Myers: On the question of self-employment, I'd just like to say that I think it's an important question not only in terms of structuring the way the fund works, but also in terms of understanding that in the early part of the 1990s, we saw so many people become self-employed. Much of the reason for that self-employment was that employers themselves were looking at reducing labour costs. By bringing in people on self-employment, they did not have to pay benefits for those people. That became a structural part of the economy itself, given the fact that today many people are self-employed, many of whom are women.

We're going to see more and more people who are self-employed, such as the knowledge employee who's looking for a partnership instead of a job. That's going to be the type of work in the future, so I think we really do have to look at building a system that offers some protection, perhaps on an opting-in basis, for people who are self-employed and who see this as a real insurance system.

The Chair: Réjeanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Réjeanne Choinière: I would like to come back to the issue of maternity leave. The existing Employment Insurance Act eliminates many women who could claim maternity leave. That is the reason why the obligation to accumulate hours of work, etc., is a hindrance that stops families from benefiting from the social safety net.

• 1240

I believe that these costs should be absorbed by society and not by legislation such as that on employment insurance. I'm not saying that women should not have maternity leave and that parents should not have parental leave. I am saying that this leave should be financed through other funds. This is something that should be discussed. One thing is certain, however, in order for everyone to have a right to this, it must be withdrawn from the Employment Insurance Act.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Valois has something to add.

Mr. Roger Valois: As far as independent workers are concerned, we have a problem with this in Quebec. It is that contrary to the Canada Labour Code, the Code du travail du Québec does not allow dependent self-employed workers to unionize. This is true for employment insurance, and it is also true for the CSST. These people have to foresee these measures themselves. They are not covered by the social policies Ms. Guay is referring to.

This is a catastrophe because there are more and more independent workers in Quebec. We believe that there are some 500,000 presently, who are not covered by the systems that we want to see created. We must study this, because this is the new way of working. This also allows employers to withdraw. If you hire an independent worker, you pay him a salary and that is all. The employer does not have to pay any social benefits. Independent workers are heavily penalized.

The Chair: Monique, we're coming to the end.

Ms. Monique Guay: This will be very brief.

The Chair: A comment only.

Ms. Monique Guay: A comment. I remember that last year—Nancy, you were there—we tried to make some amendments to the second part of the Canada Labour Code concerning precautionary cessation of work for pregnant or nursing women. The government said no. We proposed over 180 amendments. I was in charge of this file at the time. In Quebec, we have protective reassignment for pregnant and nursing women. We tried to secure the same thing from the federal level.

Therefore, a lot of work remains to be done. You are the decision makers and you have the influence. You must file your briefs, and I hope that the minister will hear your claims.

The Chair: Jeannot Castonguay, then Yvon Godin and Raymonde Folco.

Jeannot.

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

Thank you to our guests. We have heard several witnesses presenting their different visions of the employment insurance program for several days already. We appreciate this very much.

At the beginning, while listening to the presentations, it seemed to me that at one point in time there was a kind of consensus that we should get back to a real insurance plan. A little later, someone was talking about seasonal workers. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that in my mind, seasonal workers don't exist. They are workers who do seasonal work. I think we should banish this term from our vocabulary. People said that these workers should not be covered by employment insurance. That really bothers me, because they pay premiums. If we eliminate them, will they continue to pay these premiums?

I'm going back to the question about the insurance formula. Some people tell me that they have never received employment insurance benefits and they ask me if they should stop paying premiums. These are the questions I ask myself as I listen to the discussions.

There is another consensus that seems to be developing here. It seems to me that we need an in-depth review of this entire structure within a social program. Is that not indeed our problem? But it is a long process. Should we not say to ourselves that in the meantime, what we have on the table is a step in the right direction, but that we must ensure that an in-depth review be done?

I would like to hear our guests' comments on this issue, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Gilles Taillon or Roger Valois.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: Mr. Chairman, this could be an interesting approach. We are taking a step, but we must also look at the overall situation, the entire system, and review the entire issue in depth. I think that the member's suggestion is interesting and we accept it.

The Chair: Roger Valois, and then Nancy.

Mr. Roger Valois: I like the member's approach very much. It is an insurance plan. When the government set it up, they knew what they were getting into. When regular insurance companies offer fire insurance, for example, they know whom they are insuring and they also know that fires happen. They're perfectly aware of the situation.

When the government of Canada set up unemployment insurance, it knew that it would be cold out and that we could not play golf in the winter, unfortunately, and that fishermen could not go fishing in the winter, that lumberjacks worked in winter in the past, whereas it was more complicated in the summer; they knew all that.

• 1245

Therefore, the insurance plan takes the nature of the country and the nature of the work into account. This is part of the risk that an insurance company bears. If the government becomes more and more like our insurance companies, who find all kinds of reasons why they should not pay, well, then we have a problem.

I like the member's comment regarding seasonal work. If you work for a golf club, it is possible that there will be no more work in November. Even if you tell your employer that you like your work and that you want to continue, he will tell you: no, no, it's over; you're running a fever, go and rest a bit; your season was too long; you know very well that we don't play golf in winter. As concerns the insurance, yes, we have to act as an insurer would and take certain risks in insuring wooden houses, brick houses and castles that never burn down.

[English]

The Chair: Jeannot, Nancy wants to reply as well.

Nancy.

Ms. Nancy Riche: Yes, we support everything in the bill except the commission's authority, as we said. We'd be prepared for and would really look forward to an in-depth study. It's still pretty bad, but this is a step in the right direction.

The Chair: Jeannot, do you want to say something?

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: No, I think there's another comment and I just want to hear the comments. I proofread the answers.

The Chair: Very good.

Gilles Taillon.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Taillon: I would like to say more concerning the need to review the whole system. We spoke earlier of the Quebec government's bill regarding parental leave.

The Quebec government was building a system that suffered from the same flaws as the one we presently have. They were basing it on the federal program. Tell me why a parental leave program should require that employers pay 1.4 times what employees pay. If the employer had some responsibility as concerns unemployment, they could perhaps admit it, in extremis, but I have a bigger problem accepting the employer's responsibility as regards maternity.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I would like to make a final comment, Mr. Chairman. I see this as being somewhat like an old house that we're trying to patch up. Often, it is better to tear down the house and build a new one on a better foundation.

[English]

The Chair: It's Yvon Godin, then Raymonde Folco. By the way colleagues, I have two or three other members who would like to continue. I'm going to accommodate them. You've received the first cut. It's about two-thirds of our list of witnesses. Following the discussion, we need to discuss that.

Yvon, and then Raymonde.

[Translation]

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

You often say that you pay 1.4 percent, while the employee pays 1 percent, and it seems that that bothers you. In the end, where's the money coming from? It comes from the employer, who negotiates salaries. The money comes from somewhere.

Le Journal de Montréal said on December 7, 1999:

Hitting the unemployed in order to save them

The government has done the unemployed and the Canadian economy a favour in making life difficult for those who have lost their jobs, said Minister Jane Stewart.

Do you really think that in striking out at lumberjacks and plant employees, we have changed something in their lives? The plants are still open today, lumberjacks are still in the woods and we still need our two-by-fours. The manufacturers need wood. You need mines, etc. All of this has to come from somewhere. Are we saying that we don't want to know anything about it? We have a big problem, and basically it's not true. We need these things.

I would like to know if you support seasonal workers. During the winter, in five or six feet of snow, a lumberjack cannot cut wood. At home when the Baie des Chaleurs is frozen, a fisherman cannot fish the lobster that you love so much. I would like to hear your comments on this. People say that there is abuse because there are seasonal workers and the system was not conceived for them. But who are these seasonal workers? They are workers, and we are talking about our Canadian economy, in our Canadian regions.

[English]

The Chair: Nancy Riche, and then Jacques.

Ms. Nancy Riche: The employers have said a number of times that they're paying more than the employees. There was a rationale for that. It wasn't pulled out of the air. The employer does have total flexibility in how long they pay it or they lay off. The employee doesn't. When we do this in-depth study, it might be good to have some awareness raised and an education on the history of UI on how the fund was set up, why the fund was set up, and why it's under the only thing that's probably left under federal jurisdiction.

• 1250

By the way, it says “unemployment insurance” in the Constitution. It's the total responsibility of the federal government.

I wish we had more time. We really need to talk about experience rating too because the employers have been putting out stuff that nobody is responding to here.

Yvon is correct, even though the translation was incorrect. The reason you pay more is that it is in fact all coming from the employee. We are not so naive as to think that when a package is negotiated it's not the total package. So the employer has already deducted from that employee's salary package the amount of money they're going to pay on UI, which is what Yvon was saying.

The Chair: Jacques Garon.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Garon: I would like to correct that, Mr. Chairman, because there is no logic that justifies it. It is completely wrong to state that this 1.4 is rational in any way. It was adopted after the legislation was reformed in 1970, when the government instituted a program that was supposed to establish unemployment insurance on the basis of experience. In the meantime, the 1.4 multiple was instituted. The experimentation program was completely abandoned. The federal government never provided a rational explanation as to why employers had to continue paying 1.4 times the employee's rate. Never. Ever since then, we have always paid 1.4.

The Chair: Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have often heard people from the CPQ saying that they pay too much in employment insurance premiums. Do you honestly believe that, if today we were to lower the rate of 1.4, tomorrow you would hire other employees who would need employment insurance?

[English]

The Chair: Okay, one very short statement and that's it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Taillon: This is a payroll tax, and we are saying that if the payroll taxes were reduced, jobs would be created.

Mr. Roger Valois: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...for decades, and it doesn't work.

The Chair: Raymonde Folco and Alan Tonks.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Since we are almost at the end of this morning's meeting, I would like to go back over a few of the things which were said.

I think that women have been hit hardest by deficiencies in the Employment Insurance Act. I myself was self-employed for many years, and I know that self-employed people do not have access to the act, because they do not pay premiums, and for other reasons.

When the federal government talked about parental leave, and when we received the Quebec government's response last year, we conducted an investigation which showed that self-employed workers generally do not want to contribute to a plan, and are thus not eligible for benefits at the end of the day. For example, women would receive no benefits if they became pregnant. This is something I wanted to point out.

My second point is on parental leave, or maternity leave. One of the things this bill was designed to accomplish was to make it possible for people who have already been on maternity or special leave and have fallen ill to go back five years. In other words, we are going back much further than with people on unemployment, to ensure that they can accumulate enough hours or weeks to become eligible for employment insurance.

Those are the two comments I wanted to make. I also have a question, however. Early on in the meeting, I believe Mr. Myers said that this bill had to be viewed in a wider context, a context where training had to be provided, and where the people had to improve their skills in order to create jobs. Training people, or at least some people, is just great, but if there are no jobs, like in some parts of Canada—the training won't help.

I would like Mr. Myers to add to his comments. It seems very important to me that we should position this bill within a much more comprehensive program, and depict the situation in a much more realistic fashion.

[English]

The Chair: Although that was addressed to Jayson, I have Gilles Taillon, Roger Valois, and then Jayson Myers.

• 1255

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Taillon: Just a short comment, Mr. Chairman. Self- employed people will doubtless be very reluctant to join an employment insurance program or plan, because they understand they would have to pay both the employer's share and the employee's share. Those are the comments we have heard. That is why we believe that a program tailored especially for them should be established.

[English]

The Chair: Roger, and then Jayson.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Valois: A comment on self-employed workers. These people work for someone. First of all, they work for themselves, but very often they also work for someone else, or for several people at the same time. The eligibility criteria were so limiting that they refused. If you charge someone $4,000 a year to insure an ordinary car, he would consider the risk too low for the premium requested, and would not buy the insurance plan. That is what happened with self-employed workers.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Jayson Myers.

Mr. Jayson Myers: I'd like to put it in a couple of contexts.

One, this is a cost of employment, and is seen as such by employers. This cost does have an effect on who they hire and whether or not they will hire in the form of employment. So the premiums paid may not be that high on an individual basis, but overall the cost is a considerable one and is taken into effect. I think a payroll tax is a very important part of the context for us to study this.

In a broader context, though, we do have to look at training, and at skills and continuing education. We have to look at the issues of economic development and employment creation in regions of this country where we simply can't look at the system of employment insurance, on its own, as the solution to these long-term problems of economic development. I think we have to do that in the context of new technology and where that takes both the economy and the capabilities and expectations of employed people.

The Chair: Raymonde, you have 30 seconds. And Nancy wants to reply. How would you like to use it?

Ms. Nancy Riche: I just want to say very briefly that I can't remember Nortel, when they were having the big hiring, coming out and saying unemployment is a cost of employment.

We've heard this over and over again. Every time there's a cost to the employer they don't want to pay, they threaten us that they're not going to have jobs.

So a number of years ago, the Liberal government responded and gave a premium holiday to small businesses. It never bothered to evaluate. But if you looked at the unemployment rate that year, the businesses didn't do a lot of hiring, folks. They lay out this argument every time. Minimum wage: we won't hire. UI premiums: we're not going to hire. That's bullshit, and we all know it.

When Nortel saw big profits, they hired. When Nortel blew it, they laid off—and thank God for unemployment insurance when they did.

The Chair: It's Alan Tonks, Paul Crête, and then Diane St-Jacques, and we're going to finish.

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

I think we all agree that the bill before us needs fine tuning. With respect to the philosophy of the bill, we've tried to eliminate the intensity rules and the punitive clawback features.

I think we also all realize that the evolution of issues is related to the changing nature of our economy and the global economy—in particular, how that relates to self-employed workers.

I'm drawn to the arguments whose essence is that we should be more of an insurance-funded type of entity, with liabilities looked upon as actuarial responsibilities—invest in the fund, pay out, and keep it separate. However, I see some problems with that, and I'd like a comment on it. In a philosophical context, I believe that in our civil society we have been extremely enlightened: employers and employees do in fact contribute to the fund in the hope that they never have to take from it.

Now if that's true, is it not opening a Pandora's box to argue that we should be more of an insurance entity? We should talk about experience rating, and we should talk—Jay, you've mentioned this—about the issue of cross-subsidization. We get so complicated through our sectors that we argue for a rational economic policy in a macro sense—but then when we backfill on it, we open something so contradictory that we risk regressing in terms of policy development.

• 1300

I think it's very important that we have some parameters for our philosophy of what we're trying to do.

The Chair: Jayson Myers.

Mr. Jayson Myers: On that issue, if we're looking at restructuring this, that's certainly an area we should be looking at, as you say, Alan—taking a look at the implications and the cost of the system and its integrity. I don't think we want to build an overly complicated system that's going to backfire. That's not the result we want.

You said earlier that people pay into the system because they hope they never have to use it. I think that may be changing. I don't think I've ever paid into it because I hoped I'd never have to use it, but because I had to pay in. But right now, as a self-employed person, I see it much more as an insurance scheme. If the benefits were open to me, I would seriously consider paying into a system like that.

I think we need to study those issues and how the labour force and the overall attitudes to EI are changing.

The Chair: Nancy Riche.

Ms. Nancy Riche: In my second job I didn't pay in. At one time, teachers didn't have to pay in because it was assumed they'd never be laid off.

I think you're right. We keep talking about insurance, and then have to qualify that it's social insurance. So maybe that's a misnomer. If we treat it strictly as insurance, then you'd only get out what you paid in.

Let me just say that experience rating is used in the United States. The employer pays the whole shot. Everybody agrees with this when things are fine, but the first time we have a big downsizing and you see a big downturn in the auto industry—immediately, experience rating doesn't work any more.

In fact, it doesn't work for Canada. We built unemployment insurance, like many other programs, on the idea of the collective—that the haves help the have-nots. Experience rating takes that away. What you would end up with—all this stuff about seasonal jobs—they would get nothing because they would have to pay it all out. Jayson knows this. We did it to equalize the system so everybody gets a fair shot. I absolutely agree. It's wonderful to pay UI and live in hope that you never have to receive it.

We used to have a minister responsible for UI: Barbara McDougall. Because she never had to use it, she wondered why we even had it.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Nancy Riche: Hello, Barb...! I've used it once, but I think you're right, let's not make it so complicated. If you go into this pure insurance thing, you're leaving out a lot of people. If you get to the point where maternity leave is not included, do women pay less than men? I think you're right.

The Chair: Alan, one comment or are you okay?

Mr. Alan Tonks: No, that's fine.

The Chair: It's Paul Crête and then Diane St-Jacques.

[Translation]

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

I listened with great interest to the earlier debate on the 1.4 or 1 multiplier. I thought there was something missing there, the factor that would bring it to 0; the federal government, that takes 5 billion dollars a year out of the surplus, because it has embassies to finance, a debt to pay, umpteen other things to do. The cheque stub doesn't show a tax for the government to cover its overdue general expenses. What appears on the cheque stub is employment insurance. Generally, when you contribute to an employment insurance plan, you should get something equivalent in return.

Perhaps this is the basic question we should be asking: there is a 6 billion dollars surplus each year, and an accumulated surplus from previous years. Yet we decide to put only $500 million into renewing the plan—that's about what this bill does. What would happen if the plans were fully managed by employers and employees? In other words, by the people who pay the premiums? They certainly would not spend too long debating what to do with the 5-billion-dollar surplus; one part of it might go to reducing the premiums, and a significant part would go towards improving plan conditions. There would not be a third party skewing the rules of the game.

• 1305

Don't you feel that this is the fundamental question before us, a question that goes far beyond the few improvements contained in Bill C-2?

The Chair: Roger Valois.

Mr. Roger Valois: I don't want to add to those comments because Paul has already been very clear. As far as we are concerned, however, we have said and we repeat that what we are looking at here is theft, when the government took money from the fund, money that belonged to employers and the unemployed, to cover its deficit and pay down the debt; it stole that money. We repeat: we are taking the government to court. We are going to shout this from every rooftop. It is completely unacceptable and inconceivable that as soon as there was a surplus in the fund, the government restricted access to employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers, people with precarious jobs. This is a non-acceptable act, which we will denounce as roundly as we can. The case is before the courts, and we will stand up before the public to make our position clear. In our view, Bill C-2 does far too little in view of the means the government actually has.

[English]

The Chair: Jayson Myers.

Mr. Jayson Myers: The premiums that are coming into the EI account are a very important part of the government's revenue stream. If we are looking at restructuring the way the premiums are set and the rates and everything else, we have to do it in a broader fiscal context. I think we all recognize that. I think we should be looking at structuring a fiscal context that, at least in the field of employment insurance, is more accountable and more effective in meeting whatever the objectives of the system are and in providing a surplus that can act as a cushion when the economy weakens. That was the original intent of running a surplus. But I think there are problems when you use this payroll tax as a major cash cow for other fiscal purposes.

The Chair: Are you finished, Paul?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, that's fine.

The Chair: Diane St-Jacques.

[English]

I'm sorry, Gilles.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Taillon: I would align myself with Jayson's remarks on this.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Diane St-Jacques, very briefly.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back to parental leave, because I have some difficulty with what you say. If a woman pays an employment insurance premium, she should be able to receive employment insurance benefits, because she is on temporary leave from her job. As you said, the point is to provide temporary income replacement. She stops working for six months or a year, as she chooses.

Am I to understand from your answer that your goal, or your recommendations to the committee, is to completely eliminate parental leave from the employment insurance system?

The Chair: Gilles Taillon.

Mr. Gilles Taillon: I think it's clear enough—yes. However, a separate parental insurance plan should be established, and it would be funded and managed separately, not as part of the employment insurance plan.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: So women who expect to have children would not stop paying into the employment insurance plan, then?

Mr. Gilles Taillon: No, women pay employment insurance because they might become unemployed for reasons other than parental leave, I think.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I'd like to thank our witnesses.

First of all, I apologize again. We normally keep quite strictly to the ending time of our meeting. That has to do with your future business and with our future business. But today, as you know, we started late, so we finished a little bit late.

I want to thank the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. It has been a very useful exchange for us. We appreciated your oral presentations, your written briefs, and your answers. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, the meeting is going to continue so that we can discuss the list of witnesses we've just circulated. We'll go straight to that now.

Anita, can I describe the list first?

Ms. Anita Neville: Okay.

The Chair: Colleagues, each of you now has a list grouping about two-thirds of the witnesses. This is important for us, because this is how we're going to handle and group witnesses in the weeks to come. This deals with between 60 and 70 of the 90 witnesses who were listed, which is a very considerable number. The groupings have to be viewed as tentative because we don't know if certain individuals can come on certain days and so on. But there has been an attempt here to deal with the requests of individual MPs; party requests, some sort of balance there; regional interests; and the groups that want to appear before us. So you're looking at a way of handling roughly 65 groups.

• 1310

Are there any comments? Paul Crete.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I think we have done some very good basic work. If ever a group was unable to come, I would like to substitute someone who was not on the list of people suggested.

There is another option; let me give you an example. In the list, there is a group that I really want to see; these are people who were penalized in the summer of 2000 by the change in the electoral map, for two months. Their situation is very particular, and they are not on the list, as I see. Could we not combine them with people from the Lower St. Lawrence Employment Insurance Coalition, or with the Gaspé-Matapédia-Matane Coalition, or with another group, so that we can understand what problems they have had?

What I am saying is really two things. First of all, can we still make minor adjustments and replace people who cannot come with people who were not on the list? Secondly, can we add specific groups?

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, feel free to comment on this in a moment. I was given some flexibility in handling this, and that's how we produced the list we have here. If I had it, I would certainly try to accommodate requests such as that one. I don't know about the specific one, of course. We would not want to hold a meeting when we have fewer witnesses than we could deal with because we want to meet as many as we can. Colleagues, are there any comments on that? Do you agree with what I just said, basically? Anita Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that this is only two-thirds of the list and that some of those listed here are national organizations. But as I look through the list, I'm struck by the lack of representation from western Canada. I don't know if you have others coming forward, but it is of some considerable concern to me.

The Chair: Anita, the list is based on the suggestions I solicited from members. You will notice that the names of the members concerned are placed there. I hear what you're saying. You heard what Paul just said about adjustments, and if that's a serious concern for you, I think you should try to adjust it. That's all I can say. On two or three occasions I did ask members and parties to submit lists. As you've indicated, 90 to 100 names were listed, and we're trying to cope with those. By the way, if what you say is true, bear in mind that the national organizations are well represented.

Raymonde Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, in support of my colleague Ms. Neville's request, I would like to explain something. This committee has been the only committee on which I have sat since my arrival in Ottawa where francophones, particularly from Eastern Canada, are extremely well represented. This may explain why there is some lack of equilibrium between East and West.

Thus, I would ask committee members to make an effort, and I would also ask the clerk to suggest some names. It is a bit difficult for me to know which groups in British Columbia might have an interest in appearing, but I do think that other people can be invited. My colleague Mr. Crête would like us to invite other groups, and I would support him in that. However, I do think that Quebec groups are already very well represented. If a group is unable to come, I would like to substitute another group, particularly from Western Canada, since the East is already over- represented on this list.

[English]

The Chair: I don't think Paul was pushing for additional representation. He was making a more general point. Anita, I think at least the western fishing groups are represented. I don't see anybody here objecting within the limits of what Paul said. In other words, the chair will try to accommodate suggestions. I think, members, that if you have a serious concern about that, we should try to do something about it.

Yvon Godin.

• 1315

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: If this could help the committee, I would have no objection in contacting the West if there is a problem on that side, to ensure that a worker's group from that region can appear before us and make a presentation.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, I don't think we have any trouble getting the contacts. I would simply say, on your behalf, that I would welcome any suggestions, but there are western and national groups here, and I was simply trying to explain to Anita the process we've gotten to. I will bear in mind what Paul said, with minor adjustments. We're going to proceed on this basis.

Now, you all know that when we return after the break, there will be two meetings on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. You will get an indication of the time. It is very important that the meetings start and finish on time because if they don't, we're going to have members unable to do any other work. They won't be able to go on to their next committee. Please understand that, and look very carefully at your schedules.

Diane St-Jacques.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I have a short question on the distribution of groups. I see that we will see six groups at each meeting. Will we be hearing three groups in an hour, or will we hear all six during the two-hour session?

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Again, I discussed that.

Colleagues, there are two approaches here, and perhaps we should do both, depending on the group. But sometimes for the first hour—or hour and a quarter, as the case may be—we would have three witnesses, and we would proceed partially through our list.

Then for the second hour or hour and a quarter we would have three witnesses, and members would have to know. We would continue with our members list. On some other occasions—and I think some of the groups here fit that scenario—I think it might be more appropriate to have six. Okay?

Again, if you could leave that to us, we'll come up with some arrangement. Each group—and there may well be groups watching this, as with today—will be asked for a five-minute opening statement. They will be asked to present whatever written material they wish, and ideally it will be in both official languages. If it's not, we will have it translated, and it will be circulated to all members. Then we'll proceed as we did today, with roughly five minutes per member in the rotation we have traditionally used.

Jeannot Castonguay.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Would it be possible, now that we have a little more time to have the documents they want to give us, to receive them ahead of time?

The Chair: Yes. They have been given.... Just so you know for the translation ones, they only have until the 16th, and they will know that. Increasingly, now, Jeannot, you'll see. There's a week to go—the break—and we're going to get them in advance.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Good.

The Chair: There's only one group today. We had received their documents, but they were only available in one of the languages, so that's why we couldn't circulate them.

Colleagues, can I take it that this is approved and that this approach is approved?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.