[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 19, 1996

.0904

[English]

The Chairman: Order. First of all, I'd like to welcome the representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group, Ms Popham and Ms Willens.

As you know, we are studying Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada. As members of this committee we are quite pleased to see that many good ideas have arisen as a result of the interventions thus far, and I'm sure you will add more insight into this bill for us so we can improve it.

.0905

We have approximately one hour. You will be making a presentation, and thereafter we will have a question-and-answer session.

Ms Rosemary Popham (Coordinator, Campaign 2000): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by pointing out that we represent Campaign 2000, which is a coalition of50 partners, among which is the Child Poverty Action Group. Dominique Willens is in fact on the steering committee of the Child Poverty Action Group, and I'm the coordinator of Campaign 2000.

Among the other partners of Campaign 2000 are organizations representing housing, child care and social policy, family-serving organizations, and immigrant organizations. If you're interested in the membership list, then we shall certainly be pleased to share that with you.

The focus of Campaign 2000 is on a 1989 all-party resolution to end child poverty. Therefore we're very interested in the undertakings of this committee in the past and, again, in terms of the current legislation in front of you. We would like to congratulate you on your continuing focus on child poverty and the best government instruments to address it.

In assessing this legislation, Campaign 2000 has asked four questions. First, what would be the impact on child poverty? Second, is the Employment Insurance Act an appropriate vehicle for addressing child poverty? Third, how can we enhance existing policy vehicles, such as the child tax benefit, to address child poverty better? Fourth, what is the best long-term strategy for addressing child poverty?

We believe that the committee is on the right track. To continue to look at all pieces of legislation and how they will impact on children in poverty is the right thing to do.

There are 300,000 more poor children today than there were in 1989. It's clear that Canadians continue to worry about this. In polls in each of the last three years, they continued to identify child poverty as a priority for the federal government and continued to appear to be uncertain about how to address that problem. In fact, Mr. Martin seems to share this dilemma. In an interview about a month ago with The Ottawa Citizen he said that his number one priority was child poverty and went on to say if only he had the money....

So we congratulate this committee on continuing to address the issue of child poverty and trying to find the money with which to do it.

In terms of the question about whether or not the legislation before us will reduce child poverty, we've looked at three components of the legislation. One is the family income supplement; the second is the impact on maternity leave and therefore on children; and the third is the impact on child care.

According to the study done by the CCSD, which has already been presented to this committee, about 260,000 children would be eligible for the family income supplement, or about one out of five of the children who are living in poverty. This would not mean that they would be lifted out of poverty; it does mean that their economic situation would improve. This is a substantial number, but it still leaves in poverty four out of five children who are already there.

At the same time the CCSD pointed out that about 30% of modest-income families that currently are eligible for a higher rate would receive a reduced rate and would have no benefit from the implementation of the family income supplement.

We're very concerned about this strategy, because it is divisive. It means that modest-income families who are holding on by their fingernails just above the poverty line will be paying a rate that is going to affect poorer families positively but have no benefit for them. We believe this will pit those two families, who are both in very real need, against each other.

In the past one of the things UI has been able to do is protect modest-income families from falling further into poverty. This would be a reversal of this strategy and not a positive move.

.0910

We are also concerned about the impacts of this legislation on maternity leave. It would appear that those who are on maternity leave, no matter what their income, would not benefit from the family income supplement. We feel this would be a significant omission if we were to proceed with the legislation. It's significant because this is a time in a child's life, in the early pre-natal period and post-natal period, when all income support that's available should be put into the family. Research on a daily basis underlines the importance of investing in these early years in a child's life.

Secondly, the new legislation would reduce the number of women who would be eligible even for taking maternity leave, because of the requirement of a longer work expectation. This is a step in the wrong direction. Canada is already behind European countries in our approach to maternity leave, and this would be a loss of support for this population.

Last year the standing committee acknowledged the importance of the period of maternity in the development of a child's well-being in its recommendation that a child tax benefit be available to pregnant women. This appeared to recognize the importance of this period. On the other hand, the current legislation seems to withdraw the recognition of that support. We don't support that.

Finally, about the UI vouchers for child care, it's our understanding that currently about $100 million is spent on vouchers for child care and that with the current legislation this practice would be continued. There is no evidence that this is part of a longer-term plan to address healthy child development, which we believe a national child care program would do. Therefore we would recommend that the $100 million be directed towards a national child care program, rather than continuing to invest in the vouchers.

About the mechanism of the proposed Employment Insurance Act as an anti-poverty strategy for families with children, we'd like to raise some significant questions. The Employment Insurance Act, or the Unemployment Insurance Act, was never meant to be an anti-poverty strategy. People who were poor when they were working are still going to be poor when they're on employment insurance. But even if, with a family income support program, they were lifted further from the poverty line, we would still have to ask the question whether or not this is an appropriate mechanism. Campaign 2000 believes it is not, and here is why.

We believe there is already considerable confusion for Canadians around which level of government is responsible for which programs. Campaign 2000 is clearly of the opinion that the federal government should be responsible for income security for families with children. We believe a program already exists in the form of the child tax benefit. We believe by adding on a family income supplement under the Employment Insurance Act we perpetuate the confusion that already exists in people's minds, we add a further goal to a program, and we confuse jurisdictional responsibilities, because both employment and social security are provincial responsibilities, yet this is federal legislation.

A year ago the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development stated it felt it was opposed to making UI conditional on family income. We would agree with that. We did at the time, and we continue to support that.

Secondly, we believe by including a family income supplement in the proposed Employment Income Act we're perpetuating an inequity in how we treat children in Canada. Consider a child whose family earns $20,000. Presumably that child is of value to society regardless of whether that income comes from social assistance, from employment insurance, or from the labour market. However, currently each of those children will be treated differently by society and will be provided with three different levels of support. We think this is problematic, and it would be perpetuated by a system of introducing yet another program of income support for children.

.0915

We understand the committee's concern. This problem was created because of the fact that the child tax benefit does not allow additional support for families on either social assistance or unemployment insurance. We concur that there is a problem, but we do not believe the solution is creating this additional program. We therefore reject the Employment Insurance Act as an appropriate mechanism to address child poverty.

So what do we recommend? We recommend that the committee use the existing program of the child tax benefit. It should be enhanced so it provides additional support to families with children where there is no employment income. It should be indexed, since it is losing value yearly. The option already recommended by the committee a year ago, that it be integrated with provincial income support for families, should be explored.

It is our concern, however, that even with that having been done, the child benefit, if enhanced and integrated, would still be faced with constant assault in the attack on the deficit. You have to remember Mr. Martin's comment about how if only he had the money....

So what can we do to ensure the money continues to be there? The committee has already identified the glaring gap in income support for children in proposing the family income supplement - and indeed there is a glaring gap. There's CPP for seniors. There's UI or EI for unemployed vulnerable-age adults. But what we lack as a nation is a protected fund for families with children.

Campaign 2000 recommends that we establish a protected fund for families with children, one we would call a ``social investment fund''. It would be (a) separate from general revenues, in the same way as EI is and CPP is; (b) it would protect children from deficit reduction; and (c) through it funds could be provided for an enhanced child tax benefit, a GST credit for child care, and even possibly maternity leave or parental leave. If in fact the legislation does proceed with the family income supplement, that money could also perhaps be diverted to a social investment fund.

I'd like to ask Noele to sum up and highlight our recommendations.

Ms Noele Willens (Member, Campaign 2000, Child Poverty Action Group): Several years ago unemployed individuals with dependants used to receive higher rates of UI. This practice was reversed as policy-makers argued that both the family allowance and child tax credit greatly assisted lower-income family heads and replaced the need for higher UI rates for families. It is not now appropriate to revert to the former practice because of the shortcomings in the programs designed to address child poverty. The larger challenge before the committee and Parliament is to build an income security foundation that can reduce and prevent child poverty.

Campaign 2000 is only too aware that every child who is prevented from falling into poverty or whose depth of poverty is reduced is one less child who is prone to illness, to school absenteeism, and to drop-out rates. Each one of these children becomes an asset to Canada's social and economic future. It is therefore uncomfortable to advocate against a change that in the short term could benefit a group of children who are poor, no matter how the small the increase in money to that family and no matter how few children will be impacted on.

That having been said, Campaign 2000 must disagree with the policy instrument chosen to achieve the goal of reducing child poverty, the family income supplement proposed in the Employment Insurance Act. Its shortcomings are that it is divisive, its impact is too limited, and it confuses an insurance program with a program to recognize the special cost of child rearing. Moreover, government has a policy instrument, the child tax benefit, which can be improved to be more effective in achieving the goal of reducing child poverty.

.0920

I would like to go back over the recommendations we have made.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development should reconsider the increase in entrance requirements because of the negative impacts for maternity leave; redirect spending for vouchers through employment insurance to create a national child care plan; reject the family income supplement as part of the employment insurance package; revisit its earlier recommendation that the federal government work with the provinces and territories to create a new, integrated benefit for children of low-income families; urge the Minister of Finance fully to index the child tax benefit; and urge the federal government to establish a social investment fund for families with children.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation.

I just want to note to the members of the committee that the issue of maternity leave has come up one more time. I expect some work to be done on that particular issue in order to improve the bill.

We will move forward to questioning from the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Chairman, we'll share our time if that's possible.

First, I'd like to congratulate you ladies for your most relevant presentation. I also congratulate you for Campaign 2000. I'm the Official Opposition's spokesman for training and youth. To date, there have been at least two debates in the House on the objectives of Campaign 2000, but that was a while ago. I think it started in 1989.

I have a simple question. I've read your recommendations closely. Do you think that...

[English]

The Chairman: There are some problems with the earpiece.

Is everything okay now?

You might want to give a quick synopsis of what you just said.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Thank you for your presentation and congratulations for all the work you've done to date. I find it very interesting as a critic in the area of training and youth. I share your objectives. However, I've often noticed that the ideas put forth in debates on youth often don't translate into reality. Of course, that's not your fault. More often than not, they're wishful thinking. We have a bill and I'm in agreement with most of your points but I'd like you to give us more details on the recommendation. Access to benefits is being limited and that has a negative impact on maternity. On the other hand, don't you think the bill improves the situation? Is it offering concrete answers or do you find it's a step backwards?

Mr. Crête will be putting another question later.

Ms. Willens: As far as we are concerned, this bill is only a rough draft, something tentative that doesn't go far enough. It's something that can damp some problems in the short term but it's not very creative with solutions and, in a way, it doesn't consolidate the future. That's a general impression.

As for mothers' benefits, it's clear that anything delaying payments to the mother is going to have a negative effect during a period when their needs are greatest. These greater needs have been broadly established long ago. If the child is to be provided adequate nutrition, the mother has to have proper nutrition during that period. So when you start lengthening the period before she can start getting those benefits, you're going to have an increasing problem. Actually, children are being robbed of one more possibility of starting off on an equal footing in society.

I know the National Action Committee on the Status of Women has been asking for a while now that maternity benefits be withdrawn from unemployment insurance and a special fund be set up to show that we really believe that it's a positive contribution for society in general. That has not been done. Maybe we should be looking that way again.

.0925

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): On page 2 of your brief you've drawn my attention to the fact that benefits are going to be increased in those cases where family revenue is below $26,000 but that 30% of those people getting amounts previously will not be anymore. People living just above the poverty line will be falling back into their previous category.

Do you think that the new requirements for the new arrivals on the labour market, 910 hours, for example, will have a negative impact on families and on the decision to have children, since a new incertainty factor is being introduced?

Finally, I'd like you to tell us more about the social investment fund you mentioned. I think it's very important. A lot of people tell us that unemployment insurance should only be insurance against unemployment and that the rest of it should be part of another plan but the different groups are afraid that if those things are taken out from under unemployment insurance, they'll simply wind up as pie in the sky. I'd like you to elaborate on that.

[English]

Ms Popham: On your first question, there's no doubt the age at which people are getting married, when they choose to get married or if they choose to get married, is being delayed. There is no doubt they are now having children later. I don't think in making that decision a particular piece of legislation would influence people's decision one way or the other. However, the whole package of society's attitudes towards family formation and child-bearing sends a clear message to people that probably consciously or unconsciously influences the decisions they make.

On the specifics of people who see themselves as being above a particular threshold as opposed to below, I don't think that would influence their behaviour in whether or not they would choose to live in a family or not live in a family.

In fact, I find that analysis - I'm not saying it was your analysis, but that analysis, which seems to be part of the public perception of people's use of social programs - quite destructive. One of the things we're frequently confronted with when we go on a talk show or talk to groups about people's use of social programs is the abuse of them and how people set themselves up in order to take advantage of programs in a manipulative way. That's certainly not our experience. People use the programs when they need the programs. Programs that are designed to help people when they're unemployed are used for that reason and usually for no other reason.

On your question about the division of this program and whether or not it should be specifically for the purposes for which it would be designed, it is our feeling that it should be maintained as an employment insurance program; that anti-poverty strategies cannot be achieved effectively through this mechanism and should be separated out; and that the federal government has definitely a role in both, and a very particular role in reducing child poverty, and it has a mechanism at hand in the child tax benefit.

On the question about maternity leave, I would be happy to be corrected on this, but it was my understanding that one of the groups that would be most significantly impacted by the changes in the requirement for the period worked would be part-time employees, and the most dominant population in that group is women, and women between the ages of 24 and 44. Those are the very women who are most likely to utilize maternity leave in order to bear healthy children and spend time with them. That's the origin of our concern.

.0930

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: The Fédération des femmes du Québec appeared before us and had the same kind of questions. There are factors that have a definite negative impact on maternity and perhaps we hadn't seen them at the outset. We'll see if the answers are interesting in this respect.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): I too want to thank you for your presentation.

I'll give you my bias to start with, just so you know the context in which I'm framing my comments and questions. I think any investment we as a society make in children particularly will pay tremendous rewards downstream, and as a society we should be putting far more concern into certainty in the life of pre-school and particularly adolescent children than we do. As a society, if we have to make a choice between spending money on those in their declining years and children, our bias should be towards children. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for us as a society to look, for instance, at minimum levels of support for seniors with a start at $52,000 annually, as evidenced by the budget, when the average is far, far less for families or singles trying to rear children and when we're talking $15,000 to $25,000 a year.

I'll frame these as questions to you and ask for responses. Why do we dance around the edges with a hundred different support programs? Why don't we just say that as a society we're going to have a minimum amount of money going into every family and have a guaranteed annual income? Why don't we look at a global approach to this and say forget the multiplicity of a hundred different programs; let's look at getting support to the people who need it in the most efficient manner? If that means we look at something like a guaranteed annual income, then that's what we should do, so people know where they're coming from.

Second is the proliferation of part-time work. In my view, one of the reasons society has a problem with certainty is the proliferation of part-time work for males and females. People have to have two and three part-time jobs in order to get along. One of the reasons for this is that when someone is hired on a full-time basis the baggage that comes with the full-time commitment, including maternity leave, is such that employers just say they won't do it; they don't want the baggage that comes with hiring people full-time. Therefore people hire part-time. That exists.

Another question has to do with child support. It seems to me our society creates all kinds of child poverty as a result of marriages that break down. When someone gets married and decides to have children, they don't ask society as a whole whether or not they should have children, but society as a whole is responsible if the marriage breaks down and the children are not looked after.

I believe strongly the child support package in the budget is a very worthwhile step in the right direction, but - and this is what I'd like to have your comments on, because it speaks to child poverty - I think we should carry it one step further, so maintenance payments awarded by a court - let's forget the tax treatment - become a source deduction and are paid into the government coffers, and then the receiving parent, whether male or female, would receive a cheque on a consistent basis.

.0935

So it's the source deduction, and the responsibility to pay goes in just like a tax deduction, because it's a certainty the custodial parent has to deal with. When the custodial parent is fighting with the other parent in order to get the money, it creates a problem between the parents. Let the paying parent fight with the government.

I know I've put a lot on the platter, but it seems to me that these are some common-sense things we should be looking at, rather than dancing around the edges.

A voice: [Inaudible - Editor].

Mr. McClelland: Yes, but I can say it and get away with it. If you guys say something like that, everybody's scared, because you're a bunch of liberals.

The Chairman: Unfortunately, we read press reports too, and we know that's not always the case.

Ms Popham: Working backwards quickly - and I'm really pleased that people around the committee table are thinking of all these issues as they relate to children - we too thought the child support package was a very positive step forward.

The suggestion that we raised regarding collecting from the non-custodial parent by government and flowing those dollars to the custodial parent is in fact part of one of the suggestions of the enforcement package. Some of the provinces are already planning to undertake that.

Unfortunately, in Ontario, where there has been a program, called the family support plan, that actually garnishees wages, that program is being reduced right now, with the potential for its falling apart. Nonetheless, some good experiments are going on and it's certainly a direction we would support.

I would like to make one caveat in response to your analysis of the problem. I think it's a mistake to believe that child poverty is created by family breakdown. Certainly it perpetuates child poverty, but many of the children who end up in poverty after marriage breakdown were living in poverty before marriage breakdown. So it doesn't eliminate the problem. Even if we get great guidelines and great enforcement, we're still going to have a problem with child poverty that becomes a larger problem for us.

Personally, I'd be very careful around your question regarding support to seniors versus support to children. Even though I am obviously an advocate for children and am deeply concerned about their well-being, it would be a mistake for us now to say we did a great job with seniors, so let's revisit that, change the approach, and take that money and redirect it towards children.

What we need to do is learn from the experience with seniors, which, as you said, took a hodgepodge of ineffective programs, put them together into much more effective programs, and, with political will, addressed an adequate level of income for them, which has lifted seniors out of poverty at the same time as children have fallen into poverty.

I would hate to see us lose the reciprocity of caring for each other and decide that now we'll target a different population. It's very important that we invest in each other and invest in children and recognize that reciprocity - which takes me to your second question.

One of the things employers fail to recognize when they fail to support part-time workers is that the children who are born of part-time workers are the workers of the future and they should have an investment in their well-being.

Claiming an inability to support part-time workers now, and therefore the progeny of those part-time workers, and therefore exposing them potentially to greater income insecurity because they won't be eligible for these programs is short-sighted, because it doesn't indicate that they understand that ultimately they need these little workers to be healthy.

Mr. McClelland: I agree, but that doesn't change it.

My concern is that the proliferation of part-time work takes away full-time work, which builds the community, and that we need more full-time work and less part-time work, and that people are now employing people on a part-time basis because of all the attachments that come with full-time employees.

That is a substantial societal problem, but we can come back to that, because there are all kinds of questions.

The main one is the guaranteed income. I know that everybody over there has -

Ms Popham: Our position on the guaranteed income is that there should be a guaranteed level of support through the child tax benefit for all children, and we would want to protect that for children through the social investment fund.

.0940

The Chairman: Just a note to the members of the committee. We are here to review the legislation as presented in the bill. I would really appreciate it if the questions were to begin to be focused a little more on this actual bill.

Ms Augustine.

Ms Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are many things I wanted to react to in the presentation.

First of all, I do know the work you're doing. Rosemary and I have spoken several times. I know of the concern expressed through Campaign 2000 and other groups who are deeply concerned about child poverty in Canada. I'm pleased with the critique you've done.

As I went through the brief with you, as it were, my sense was that we were not reviewing many other areas, and the uncertainty in so many areas, because of the fiscal and other ways in which we're operating, or the fiscal climate in which we're operating, and as we were reviewing so many of the other areas, maybe we could focus a bit more. We want to look at what we can do in this piece of legislation, which is geared to reform, which is geared to changing the system, to moving away from a system where women and families have been disadvantaged to a certain extent because of their inability to get into the world of employment.

From what I understand, the impacts of the EI proposals would assist low-income families overall. Low-income families would get about 7% more in benefits and single-parent low-income families with children would get 10% more in benefits as a result of the family supplement compared with UI. Given that child poverty is very much connected to the earnings and supports provided to parents in your arguments, I fail to see how we can ignore these issues in the context of providing assistance to unemployed Canadians. That is, I feel we need to ensure they have the assistance they need to support their families while they're looking for employment, looking for work.

I would like you to address the whole question of how we recognize the realities of their situation in light of reform, and what we're attempting to do, and the benefits there. I think you would agree - you've stated so - that there are good parts to this reform, there are a number of positive aspects in this reform, and there are areas you have some concern around. I wonder if we can examine that a little more closely to make sure we address the concerns you have and we have the best possible piece of legislation in the fiscal climate in which we're operating.

Ms Willens: I think 7% and 10% are not really what's coming out of this legislation. By lowering the insurable earnings ceiling, what you're actually doing is bringing the level of EI down to 50%, which is the North American standard. When you add the 7% to that, you're slightly over what used to be at 55%, and the 10% is also only getting people to 60%, which was the case before. So I don't see that as an added benefit in this legislation. I see that as bringing the people back just a bit to where they are in the same circumstances as before.

.0945

Ms Augustine: Could I make one point about that? Under UI, 55% of low-income families are not receiving 60% benefits. About one-third of those receiving had that $45,000 family income level. Under the new system, the claimants in single-parent families will see a benefit.

Ms Popham: What you've identified is that this is a very difficult recommendation for us to make - because if any families with children are going to benefit from a piece of legislation, we should celebrate it.

In the short term every single one of those families is going to be better off. In the long term it is our belief that this is not a good direction in which to go, for the reasons we gave.

I understand what you're saying about the fiscal climate. However, the reality is that we are told by Mr. Martin that this fiscal climate is going to change. The deficit issue is going to be dealt with. The government has committed itself to priorities, including the elimination of child poverty.

This is not an instrument, as a policy vehicle, that we believe is the best way to go, for the reasons we gave.

There are two issues. The first is the adequacy of the initiative: who it impacts on, who the winners and losers are - and indeed there are some winners, but, as we pointed out, there are some losers. The second is whether or not in the long term this will be the best mechanism to ensure that we will have the best program in place, in the same way as we tried with seniors to get the best program in place.

One of the things that really concerns me about this is that, for example, I got a phone call on Friday from a woman who is a reporter in Newfoundland who had done a 20-minute special on a family who have three children whose father worked 17 weeks and was not eligible for EI. Under this situation, he would not be eligible. They get $12,000 from social assistance. They went on Newfoundland CBC with this program, and the little girl in the program said that for her birthday she wanted, more than anything else in the world, a ring. They got 360 calls from people who saw the show. The most they'd ever had at that CBC program before was 15. Most of the people who called wanted to give that little girl a ring.

Well, we want to give all the little kids who would benefit from this piece of legislation the advantage of that money, but it isn't going to change the broader problem of how we're going to address the fact that there are still a lot of people on UI who would not benefit from this. No one on social assistance would benefit from this. There is no coordinated approach to what we're going to do about child poverty, and this only perpetuates the hit-and-run approach.

Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): I'm very confused when people make the comment that people on social assistance will not benefit. Under this particular piece of legislation, under part II, on the employment initiatives whereby we're trying to help people get into the job market, 45% of social assistance recipients who didn't qualify for the programming before will now qualify under this bill. In fact, it's been broadened and made more flexible in order to include a lot of people who are not even in the employment insurance system now, who are on social assistance, so they will benefit from the package.

I'm very surprised that you would make that comment. Under the old act, you're right. People in my region who were on social assistance who wanted to take a training course, who wanted some help, were told, ``No, you don't qualify''. Under this new legislation, 45% of those who are on social assistance would qualify. That's a big change and a very large improvement, and much more proactive. Why would you say that if in fact under part II of the bill that's not the case?

Ms Popham: Out of sheer ignorance. I wasn't aware of that, and I'll be very interested in revisiting it.

You're saying that 45% of people on social assistance would be eligible for the family income supplement under the Employment Insurance Act?

Mr. Nault: Yes, with an attachment to employment insurance within the last three years, or five for people who are women who are out for maternity benefits or to raise children. We've built that into the program in order to help those who have somewhat of an attachment but quite frankly don't. We're broadening the horizon, so to speak, to help those folks.

.0950

The last issue I wanted to ask you about is this whole issue of federal-provincial relationships and jurisdiction. I understand your interest in the child-care side of the issue, and of course broadening and having a large program. But how do we do that when on a regular basis the provinces tell us to mind our own business, and what sense do you get when you talk to the provinces about these particular issues, as you're telling us to do? When we talk to the provinces - and a place such as Quebec is a great example - they tell us to get lost. That makes it very difficult for us, under our jurisdictional areas of responsibility.

Based on that, this bill is dealing specifically with what we believe to be a federal responsibility. The family income supplement is geared to that particular reality in the real world. I'd be interested in knowing how you feel about the fact that we're caught between a rock and a hard place.

Ms Popham: May I deal with the first one first? I'm very interested in the information you've provided. I'm curious, given that, why still only one out of five children who are poor would be positively impacted on by this legislation. I want to go back and look at that again. Thank you for directing us to do that; and yes, we will do it.

I would still like to understand why in your view, apart from the fact that you're dealing with a single piece of legislation and that's your job in this legislation, this would be a preferable vehicle for addressing the problem of child poverty, as opposed to the child tax benefit.

Mr. Nault: First of all, we have started to deal with that particular issue in the last budget. We've increased it. The argument can be made that it's not enough.

Quite frankly, we do agree with you. But on the EI side, the unemployment insurance side, we're going from a system that was put in in 1971 and that basically was straight insurance. The trouble I'm having with some groups such as yourselves is you're suggesting we stay with the old system of straight insurance and this is the wrong mechanism, when in fact under the new rules.... People of my generation I talk to think we should be more active on the training side and the employment measures we can use to help mothers and fathers and low-income Canadians get into the working world.

Under this new system 98% of people who are working, and employers and employees, will now be paying premiums. In fact, the majority of Canadians who would pay if we had a regular tax increase are also paying in this system. So I question what the difference is. A dollar is a dollar. It doesn't matter what pocket you take it out of. If we are helping people who need help, whether it's in this system or the income tax system, I thought you would be rejoicing in that. In fact you seem to be saying you don't appreciate the measures because they're not exactly the way you'd like to have them.

Ms Popham: I hope we were a little less facile than that. I think it's clear we do appreciate the intent of the measures. We are very concerned about the elimination of child poverty being embedded in this piece of legislation.

A dollar is not a dollar. These are employee dollars and employer dollars. That's different from a commitment from general revenues to protect and support a particular population. From our point of view it's a quite different mechanism. It is problematic, because a potential for erosion of this exists if we have a multitude of programs, one for this group, one for that group, one for another group. From our point of view there would clearly be a benefit from amalgamating to a single approach to the elimination of child poverty.

Mr. Nault: My last question relates to the argument that putting it in the income tax system is a better approach for people trying to get into the workforce. My experience during income tax time is that you get basically a tax credit for child care. For people who are desperately in need of having child care, whether it be a voucher or another system.... And of course the voucher system is being created because the provinces tell us to get lost and you can't enter into their jurisdiction, so we're trying to get a system that's cooperative.

.0955

My problem with the argument you're making is that it doesn't solve the immediate problem of a single mom who goes down to the EI office and says she would like to take a training course and she needs child care now. You know what happens at income tax time. By the time they get that refund, they're so far behind in making ends meet that it's never saved for child care for the whole year or for a rainy day, it's spent immediately. So they're still caught in that trap.

This is a reflection of that view in my mind. Now we will be able to help them directly, at the moment when they need it. Do you not think that's of benefit to people who are poor and who are looking to get into the workforce?

Ms Popham: I think it simplifies the obstacles to people getting into the workforce. It presumes giving a person a voucher is going to provide them with the quality child care their child needs and provide them with the job they need in order to maintain an adequate living standard.

So yes, it's one possible approach. No, it wouldn't solve the problem. Certainly the research indicates that what is far preferable and what all the western European countries have adopted is a child care program with qualified, high-standard child care; and we're going in the opposite direction.

I can't remember if there was another part to your question.

Mr. Nault: My final question dealt with the whole issue of the fact that this is fundamental restructuring and change from the old 1971 passive process to a more proactive approach to try to get families and young people involved in getting training, because that's a lifelong process, and then the education and the tools needed to do that.

When you talk about the European countries, interestingly enough, my background is the union movement. I have spent some time looking at what they do with these kinds of programs in Germany, France, England; you name it. They're much more proactive than passive. The direction we're going in now is the direction they've been in for a number of years. If we look at this bill in its envelope and don't talk about the general picture of what you'd prefer to see, that's exactly what they're doing. They're asking workers and employers to pay for child care, to pay for training, out of that particular pot of money. So why would we be opposed to doing that in our country when other countries have been doing it for a number of years?

Ms Popham: They've been doing it in conjunction with a fairly active labour market strategy. You're absolutely right, employers and employees and the general population have made a much larger commitment to that than Canada has; but they haven't done it in isolation. They've done it in the context of a labour market strategy, in the context, for families with children, of a universal recognition of the cost of child-rearing, which Canada doesn't have - and by setting up another program that's separate from a child tax benefit we're moving even further away from that. They've done it in the context of a national child care program. They've done it in the context of recognizing the need for income security for families with children. So they've approached it from a fairly broad point of view. It's not just through a single piece of legislation.

However, I want to say I don't believe anything we said was attacking the intent of providing support for families to participate in training, provided jobs are there, or to increase their income security. That was not our intention.

The Chairman: That basically concludes this presentation. I would like to thank you very much for bringing out some major points. Of course in the issue of child poverty you have adopted a macro-approach, which of course is significant in public policy.

The issue of child poverty is very important to all members, from the Bloc, the Reform, the Liberal Party. One issue this committee needs a bit of clarification on, though, is the issue raised by Ms Augustine about the family supplement. If we were to look at the present legislation, unemployment insurance as it is today, and compare it with the possibilities that exist with the employment insurance program, would you agree that between the two the employment insurance program is better than the unemployment insurance program?

Ms Willens: That's a huge trap.

The Chairman: No, it's very specific.

.1000

Ms Willens: No, it's not better, because it's diverting the original intent, which was to provide for people who paid into a kitty to get that money when they need it.

What we've been doing since 1984, with the reform and the additional training money that came out of there and so on, without the accord of the people who were paying the bill, is taking that tool away and really going to a non-insurance program. It's considered as an amount of money that we can use in any way we want in order to address the needs of the day.

It's lacking foresight and lacking accountability to the people who have been investing in that fund thinking that they could use it some day when they needed it.

Granted, there have been abuses. Granted, we've let those abuses go by for the longest period of time. When employers were saying they were going to lay people off for three months and use that on an annual basis, we let it slide.

Right now, by changing even the terminology, we're doing a soft-sell job on saying that it's an employment program or an employment insurance program. No - it should be an unemployment insurance program.

The employment insurance program should be something different that you create so you make sure that you do the training, that you create the jobs, and that you have a strategy to do it.

The Chairman: Ms Willens, you're not telling me now that you're speaking on behalf of the 350,000 claimants in low-income families who would benefit from this particular top-up family income supplement. If I were speaking to them, they would probably be happy with the fact that they can receive up to 80% of their average earnings.

Ms Willens: I guess we need to pull back from just this and look at the global picture and see, as Rosemary pointed out earlier, that we need a global social strategy to deal with this and should not take this in isolation.

We can't put in the UI, or in EI, whatever we want to call it, every measure or any measure that is related to another field. But we are doing this.

I thought the process of government was to try to streamline the process of government. What we're doing here is actually adding another fund that's going to be dealing with something that's also linked to the child tax benefit.

The Chairman: In the real life of those 350,000 people who are going to benefit from this program, as a member of this committee if I were to knock on their doors today, do you think they would be happy in their everyday life with these changes? It's a very simple question. Yes or no?

Ms Willens: We've seen the reaction from the people in the Acadian Peninsula. We've seen the reaction of the people in Quebec. I would like you to go and knock on their doors. They are not happy with what you're proposing.

The Chairman: We're talking about the family income supplement.

Ms Willens: They take all of the legislation together. You want to single out the family income supplement. Let's single it out, but let's put it elsewhere. It shouldn't be in this piece of legislation.

The Chairman: But you haven't answered my question. Do you think those people will benefit from this legislation? Do you think they'll be happy with that?

Ms Willens: In the actual economic situation, any money will be a bonus to a number of people. But it's a short-term bonus. It's not creating employment and in the long term it's not going to bring solutions for them.

Ms Popham: Also, Mr. Chairman - and you may have met with them or you may be meeting with them in the local hearings - if you knock on the doors of the 30% who are not going to benefit and who are going to receive lower UI because of this, who are just above the $26,000, you will see what their attitude towards this will be.

That underlines our concern about the divisiveness of this in clearly targeting the poorest while withdrawing from modest-income families support that could protect them from falling into poverty, and about the short-sightedness of that. So you have to ask that other side of the question in terms of winners and losers.

.1005

The Chairman: I just wonder whether you feel comfortable with the fact that if we do not reduce the MIE to $39,000 and we keep the present legislation, we'll reach approximately 146% of the average industrial wage, and whether in an economy as globally competitive as ours you would see that employers would basically be competing for labour from people who are currently on unemployment insurance. Do you think that's healthy for an economy?

Ms Popham: No. I'm trying to figure out what the other question is, though.

The Chairman: That is the question. I'm just asking whether you think that creates a distortion in an economy, where unemployment insurance benefits.... If we did not lower the MIE to $39,000, you would actually have unemployment benefits at 146% of the average industrial wage. Is that possible? I'm just asking you a question. I want your insight on it.

Ms Popham: No. However, our concern is not around that decision. Our concern is around the fact that those who are living at $26,100, as we understand it, are not going to benefit from the family income supplement. In many instances those people are going to be losers over the current situation. Yet they are hardly people who are living in comfort.

The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very much.

There are a couple of things I think we can learn from this particular presentation. One is that some issues keep coming up and committee members should address them as quickly as possible.

Another issue is that there seems to be some misinformation in the public domain, as was stated earlier by the parliamentary secretary's comment, vis-à-vis the eligibility of individuals on social assistance as it relates to part II of the bill, about employment benefits. So this is a message to the committee that on both sides we need to put more information into the public domain so people have a better understanding of the proposed legislation.

Ms Popham: I think that would be very appropriate. Part of the problem for groups like ours, no matter how well we think we've followed the legislation, is that we received two days' notice to appear. It's very difficult to become fully immersed in the information. Any information that can be provided beforehand to groups that are appearing, as well as to the public, would be very helpful. We certainly have access to the bill. We think we have done the ins and outs of it; but obviously we haven't in all cases. So that would be very helpful. Also, longer periods of notice would be very helpful.

Finally, I really appreciate the time the committee took to look at the broader issue of child poverty, even though that was not the mandate here. Thank you for that opportunity.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I'd just like to make a comment about the questions put to the witnesses.

I think we have to show respect for the witnesses as well as their presentations. We can put questions to them to gain a better understanding of what they want to say. The role of the committee isn't to convince witnesses that the bill is good. They're here to tell us what their understanding is.

As for me, I've perfectly understood that they're worried because the program is targeted. The poorest ones, those whose income is less than $26,000, are being targeted. I think the questions are going too far. It's as though we're trying at all costs to force the witnesses to approve the good aspects. There are some good aspects, but it seems to me that we should be careful of that. The witnesses came here to tell us about their reaction and perception.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Dubé.

.1010

I thought this particular presentation was very good. It has engaged members of the committee in what I consider to be very healthy debate. Of course it is the responsibility of the individuals who are presenting to make a very strong case, as you have. But it's also the responsibility of members of the committee, if they know the facts to be different, to engage in that type of debate. I see it as being a quite healthy exercise.

On the style of questioning, that's an individual choice that, as chair, I really cannot otherwise impose upon. I can never think of stopping you asking your questions, because you're usually a well-briefed and eloquent questioner.

Mr. Nault: On that point, it's somewhat ridiculous for the opposition to suggest that we on the government side should not put the facts on the table, especially when the questioning by the opposition at times deals with some misinformation and suggestions that there are certain things in the bill that in fact are not there.

The objective of these meetings is to inform Canadians - they are listening to this as well, and they get the minutes of these meetings - and also to help the witnesses to understand certain parts they may not have thought about. I take exception to my colleague opposite suggesting that we can't question based on our own perceptions of what we're doing.

If we were to accept what some of the witnesses have said and what the opposition has said, then we too would throw this bill out. We tend to think it's a lot better than how it's being portrayed by some of the folks across the way. That's the objective of the questioning. I take exception to that, and I don't think we should change the way in which we want to do business on our side.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Nault.

On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your presentation.

We'll suspend the meeting for a few minutes as we await the arrival of the next presenters.

.1013

.1029

The Chairman: We'd like to welcome the representatives from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union - Canadian Region, Ms Janet Dassinger and Josefina Moruz.

As you know, at present we are reviewing Bill C-12, an act respecting Employment Insurance in Canada. We have already heard from a number of witnesses and have received some good ideas from all of them. Our major purpose here is to improve this piece of legislation, so we look forward to your input. You have approximately 40 minutes. We will hear from you, and then we will go into a question-and-answer session.

.1030

Ms Janet Dassinger (Director, Training Programs and Policy, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union - Canadian Region): Thank you very much.

Because we were invited only yesterday at 10 a.m., we don't have a formal brief to distribute. Within the week, we will be forwarding to the committee a proper brief in both languages.

I'll try to give the highlights of our comments on the bills, and then we'll be pleased to answer any questions.

Just by way of background about the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, we are a very large union in Canada. We have approximately 185,000 members across the country, working in about 20 different sectors of the economy. The largest segments of the union are retail food and distribution and food processing, but we have increasing numbers of members in other sectors, such as health care, food services, hotel and motel chains, all types of manufacturing and service, personal health care, etc. So we really represent from the cradle to the grave and all kinds of different sectors. We have 80,000 members in Ontario alone, and about 40,000 in Quebec, so we are a quite large union.

We want to state at the outset that we are opposed to the changes to the UI program. We agree with the position the Canadian Labour Congress has taken on the bills and feel that a number of dangers are present in the legislation as it stands.

We're very concerned about the lack of discretionary powers in the bill for government and are concerned about how decisions will be made.

We're also very concerned about the fact that this is the eighth major cut to unemployment insurance since 1981, the second for this government. Given that expenditures are declining and the benefits being collected by Canadians have declined dramatically, we're wondering about the justification for the cuts. To date we haven't seen any information that would satisfy us that the cuts are required.

I'll move right into the body of our presentation and explain why we feel that we have a somewhat unique understanding of the implications of reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

In a general sense, our union has a lot of first-hand experience in any matters relating to the effects of UI reform and labour market programming. Since 1991 we've been very active in national initiatives related to workplace training, but also, more pertinently to today's proceedings, we've been very actively involved in providing labour adjustment measures and assistance to displaced workers in our union.

We created a pioneering program, which was supported by then Employment and Immigration, called the lay-off and closure program, because we were seeing massive lay-offs in all sectors of our union.

In the early stages, it was undoubtedly in food processing. We were finding that thousands of our members were being displaced from meat and poultry processing, vegetable and fruit processing, and non-grocery products manufacturing. The jobs were disappearing by the thousands. However, since 1993 what we would describe as the second wave has been hitting the retail food sector, whereby we've lost thousands of full-time jobs across the country. These are well-paying jobs with benefits that are being replaced by part-time, low-pay, and insecure work.

Likewise, in non-food retail, where we're also gaining membership, department store workers are constantly vying for a scarce number of hours, without any hope of ever having full-time work.

Similarly, other sectors where we're experiencing growth, such as food and beverage, hotels and motels, parapublic and private health care, and personal services, are also experiencing lay-offs and reductions in working hours.

In short, there is really no sector of the economy where workers have been immune, and there has been a marked shift from full- to part-time work with low rates of pay, few or no benefits, and an absence of guaranteed hours of work.

.1035

To illustrate the breadth of this problem, I'm going to highlight only a few of some of the workplaces that have closed in our union over the last year. I'll give you just a few, and when you get the brief, you'll see that there's a much more exhaustive list:

- In Ontario, for example, Miracle Food Mart stores, 700 full-time jobs; Canada Packers, 950 full-time jobs; Heinz tomato and ketchup factory, 200 full-time jobs; Valdi discount food chain, 724 part-time jobs.

- In Atlantic Canada, Coca-Cola in Moncton, Moosehead Breweries in Halifax, Labatt Brewing in St. John's, Dalton Fisheries in Newfoundland, Truro IGA - those jobs losses exceeding 300.

- In western Canada, Labatt Brewing in Winnipeg, 150 full-time jobs; Fraser Valley Foods in British Columbia, 500 full-time jobs scheduled to disappear on April 1.

So contrary to things improving - and I'll allude to this in a moment - we don't see that happening at all. We see continued lay-offs in all sectors.

I'm giving this information to highlight the grave concern we have about cuts to unemployment insurance in this context.

The second area in which the union has amassed considerable expertise in training is our sectoral training council. The Canadian Grocery Producers Council was co-founded by our union and others with the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada. We plan to provide industry-wide training to more than 200,000 members in the food processing sector, and we feel that, with the changes, potentially there could be very harmful effects on those sectoral initiatives, particularly with respect to devolution of labour market programming to the provinces on that initiative. Again, I'll refer back to that.

Finally, in addition to the direct experience we have in assisting laid-off members and the sectoral initiatives that we're engaged in, our union is represented on the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre, several of the provincial labour force development boards, ABC Canada, and two sector councils. So I stress that we have a grasp of the policy and program implications embodied in the bill.

The changes that are being proposed to UI and to labour market programming are in an environment that continues to be characterized by chronic high levels of unemployment and an intensification of part-time and contingent work.

Since 1991 we have gained really intimate knowledge of how these factors directly affect the individual men and women who are confronting them. Consequently, it's with a lot of frustration that we continually hear governments at all levels and the media trumpeting the need for UI reform and reform of labour market programs. In our opinion, these calls are almost always based on insupportable claims of what UI does, such as that UI increases dependency, UI recipients have no desire to work, UI cuts are necessary because social spending cuts are necessary, and so on.

Frankly, we have come to regard the litany of explanations of what UI does as being the eight great lies, and I'll go quickly through those.

Lie number one: things are getting better. I've already alluded to the fact that in all sectors of our economy we're still seeing record numbers of lay-offs, from St. John's to Victoria. Unfortunately, we don't have the resources to keep systematic records in the way governments do, but we know from all our staff representatives from across the country that no local union has not experienced dramatic lay-offs.

In the retail food sector, where we represent 90,000 members across the country, the proportion of full-time work is down to about 15% to 20%. In many establishments the part-time jobs that have replaced the full-time ones that have been eliminated are at much lower rates of pay. For example, in the Miracle Food Mart case, 700 full-time jobs were eliminated at a rate of pay of $14.85 an hour and replaced by part-time jobs paying $6.85 an hour. Many workers were laid off voluntarily from these full-time jobs and rehired at a lower rate of pay with no seniority and were forced to compete for hours with an ever-growing pool of part-time workers.

In food processing many older workers are left jobless because of the closure of large plants. Canada Packers in west Toronto displaced about 950 mostly older workers, many of them physically disabled from the nature of the work they had been doing. As I'm sure all of you know, their chances of being re-employed are almost nil.

.1040

More recently, the Fraser Valley Foods division of Pillsbury will have 500 mostly Indo-Canadian members who will require lengthy periods of upgrading even to acquire basic skills, much less job skills, and they're going to be displaced.

So when we confront the proposed changes as well as the real disarray that seems to be happening at the local level in the human resources development centres, where the staff can't be clear about the employment programs that are available, individual workers are really extremely bewildered and frustrated. They know their situation is worsening. They see even past programs disappearing that were difficult to access, such as direct purchase, and they see community-based employment programs that had sensitivity to their needs disappearing on a daily basis.

So in the face of restricted eligibility and reduced benefits as well as what appears to us to be a very chaotic transition to the new employment programs, being told the economy is improving doesn't make it so.

Lie numbers two and three - we'll bundle them - are that UI recipients are cheaters and/or too dependent on UI and that UI recipients have no desire to work.

The evidence in our organization does not support this. During the last six years of economic upheaval in Canada, we have found workers strongly motivated to work and to take whatever steps are necessary to become re-employed. Even workers who lack English and French proficiency and face other barriers have formidable determination to succeed. Individuals who have worked all their lives, often in jobs many Canadians would shudder at, such as in meat-packing plants and poultry processing plants, have the will and the desire to work.

Quite simply, it's not these individuals who are lacking in motivation, as the reform suggests, but an economy with persistently high levels of unemployment and fewer and fewer well-paying full-time jobs at the lower end of the occupational hierarchy. Even when workers retrain, many are unable to find work in the new field, and when they do, it can often be at much lower rates of pay. So workers are anxious to avoid UI and they will, and they do, take part-time low-paying jobs.

In the retail food sector, for example, I'll give the case of Valdi. When they went bankrupt, over 700 part-timers were displaced from their jobs. A union adjustment committee revealed that over 80% wanted retraining and were willing to travel to take it. Within eight months of being displaced, 90 workers were employed full-time. More than 250 were employed part-time and 112 were enrolled in training.

Even though the figures don't reveal it, we know from anecdotal information and follow-up that those folks wanted to work and that's why they took work, and that most of them who became re-employed took jobs at much lower rates of pay and benefits, usually in absence of benefits. So if alternative employment was not as attractive as the previous job or UI benefits, how then do we account for the willingness to take these lower-paying jobs?

In the case of Miracle Food Mart we have even more concrete evidence. In July 1994 we surveyed a group of the full-timers who had been displaced. We learned that their average hours of work had dropped from 37 to 15 and that the average wage had dropped from $17.33 an hour to $5.98 an hour. So in addition to accepting that type of work, these individuals, over 93% with an average educational attainment of grade 12, indicated they wanted training in areas as diverse as math, reading, writing, basic skills, etc.

If these unemployed workers are at all representative - and our experience during the past six years across all sectors confirms this - how do we explain the government's insistence that UI creates dependence and is fraught with corruption? It seems this is more convenient mythology, designed to justify the cuts, than reality.

Finally, on the question of fraud, this too is insupportable by the facts. The department's own figures on the rate of detection of fraud and conviction are low. After years of assisting individual recipients and also training local union representatives to advocate on their behalf, we have concluded that the causes of disentitlement and disqualification are almost always administrative.

Despite all the attempts to simplify the application and reporting process, the UI process is mysterious and complicated for most Canadians. Which one of us would truthfully not dread having to go into a human resources development centre and apply for UI benefits? The rules and regulations are, for the most part, not explained and information about UI programs or insurance rights and entitlements is frequently not provided in adjustment programs, even where workers are fortunate to have them.

.1045

When this general lack of information is compounded by the inability to speak either official language, it is not difficult to understand how mistakes can easily be made. Unfortunately, the rule of UI is ``guilty until proven innocent'', not the reverse.

While more and better counselling, including culturally and linguistically sensitive counselling, would go a long way to correcting this problem, the proposed changes to labour market programs will exacerbate the difficulties. Rather than expanding counselling in the human resources development centres and developing a coherent system of community-based training, human resources development centres are being closed and replaced by computer kiosks in shopping malls displaying low-paying jobs. Workers wait an average of eight to twelve weeks for interviews with HRDC employment counsellors in many locations, which is far too long in a shrinking benefit period.

Lie number four is the skills mismatch. This is another frequently used rationale for the federal government's apparent unwillingness to confront the real problem, which is chronically high unemployment. Instead of acknowledging the extreme difficulty Canadians have in finding work, we are asked to believe there are sufficient jobs but workers lack the skills to fill them.

Lie number four lines up nicely with the ones about UI dependency and fraud. It shifts the burden of responsibility from government attempts to reduce unemployment to individual workers who should retool to find new high-skill jobs. The overwhelming evidence in our organization is that the types of jobs that are being created are not high-skill high-wage jobs that workers could retrain for, but instead low-paying part-time or contingent work with little security of employment.

A further damaging effect of the skills mismatch theory is that it produces more simplistic responses. The official response to skills mismatch is a call to generate more and better labour market information. The problem, we are told, is not that there are no jobs but that people are not getting the information about the jobs that are out there.

While we agree that there is basic value to labour market information, we also understand that government cannot create information about something that does not exist, nor is labour market information really useful without personal face-to-face counselling. The shift embodied in the proposed labour market programming is away from counselling provided by human resources development centres toward the auto-directed kiosks. I don't know about the members of this committee, but I, for one, would not want to be on the street with nothing more to turn to than a computer screen.

Transmission of information is only one, and arguably the least important, component of the counselling process. Yet more and more we are reducing programs and services and shifting responsibility onto workers for finding and then financing their own training.

Lie number five: we need to cut social spending to fight the deficit. I'm not going to put too much emphasis on this. I'm sure you understand labour's position. Social spending is not high relative to the other OECD countries; in fact, the fund is running a surplus and will continue to run a surplus. We reject cutting social programs in order to fight the deficit; instead, we call on the government for a more systematic approach to economic and monetary policy that creates employment growth and therefore fights the deficit on the revenue side.

Lie number six: UI reduces flexibility and mobility. The point was made earlier that workers do want to work and will take whatever steps are necessary to work, and that includes relocation. We have much evidence in our union of workers moving, particularly in Atlantic Canada, from city to city, from region to region, and out of the province altogether in order to find jobs. In fact, one of our local unions in Newfoundland has an extensive initiative to develop a national job bank so its members can be shifted into jobs outside the province.

So we reject the claims that UI reduces mobility and I don't think the facts support it. People will uproot themselves and their families in order to have a decent standard of living, as we all would.

We also want to make the point that it probably doesn't do much in terms of redressing the inequities between regions to have a brain-drain of the most skilled and educated from provinces that have high unemployment rates.

Lie number seven: UI is a social program. In our opinion - and we agree with the Canadian Labour Congress on this point - UI was created to stabilize the income of workers by giving temporary income replacement, and entitlement is based on payments made during the period worked and not on individual or family income.

Lie number eight: lower premiums will create jobs. The evidence that lower premiums will create jobs seems to echo the mythology of the Harris government that tax breaks to upper-income Ontarians will magically create employment. The CLC points out that its request for an evaluation of the premium reduction program for small business, introduced in the December 1992 budget, have so far gone unanswered.

.1050

The call for lower premiums is but another example of the insupportable trickle-down theory that Canadians have been subjected to in one version or another for the last ten years. The trickle-down message is so persuasively delivered that many Canadians have not yet questioned its validity.

However, all governments should take note that their citizens' patience is wearing thin. Despite all the concessions demanded by employers, the promised good times are not materializing. Instead, there is tremendous insecurity and heightened skepticism by workers about the benefits of market theories.

Part-time work: this is a real threat to our members, and again I'd like to reiterate that we have 90,000 workers in the retail food sector and most of those are part-time workers...70% to 80%. More than half of those part-time jobs are held by women.

While the number of hours that part-timers work varies according to each collective agreement, it can be stated in a general way. The ceiling is generally no higher than 24 hours and can be as low as 4. The minimum is one shift, which must be at least 4 hours. So it really can fluctuate from 4 to24 hours on a weekly basis.

The proposed changes on eligibility for part-time workers will have disastrous effects for our members, but we support counting eligible hours beginning with hour one. Raising the threshold as high as proposed will mean many members will need to work twice the number of weeks they now do in order to qualify.

For example, a UFCW member who works an average of 15 hours in a retail food store in a region of 8% to 9% unemployment will need to work 39 weeks under the proposed changes compared with 17 weeks now. For a worker who is newly eligible - for example, someone working an average of 10 weeks who would now be eligible - the needed weeks will be 59. This can hardly be interpreted as an improvement.

For workers with 15 or more hours a week, the new ceiling represents a penalty. For workers who are newly eligible, an excessively long eligibility period combined with an extremely low benefit rate makes UI almost meaningless. But perhaps that's the point.

A very striking illustration of the impact to part-timers again was where, after a lengthy labour dispute with the Miracle Food Mart group, we agreed to the company's request to eliminate 700 full-time jobs. The company did eliminate those jobs and the part-time ones that replaced them were reduced to minimum wage. This lay-off created a multitude of problems related to both unemployment insurance and training programs.

Although there is a provision in the act for workers who opt for voluntary lay-off to create space for others, the eligibility for benefits was widely and variously interpreted by local unemployment insurance officials. It was argued to us by HRDC that because the workforce actually expanded due to the expansion of part-time over full-time jobs, we actually were not in a position to apply for UI benefits for our members. Some members, who were offered part-time jobs at a reduction of more than half their previous wage and refused, were considered quitters. In summary, many members were considered ineligible.

Two other problems compounded the lack of income support. First of all, when workers were deemed ineligible for UI they were also ineligible for UI-sponsored training. This created a very unfortunate situation where some workers from the same store would be considered eligible for UI and training while others would not.

Furthermore, though in this case the industrial adjustment service, the federal government program, provided funding for a labour-management adjustment committee, it was very explicitly stated that this was an exception and that retail lay-offs were not considered part of the mandate of the IAS. As well, those who took buyouts were not deemed in need of adjustment.

The overall effect of restricting access to income support training programs and adjustment mechanisms was profoundly disturbing to our union. The implication that thousands of workers in retail food were somehow less deserving of UI benefits, training and other adjustments measures was shocking but also quite enlightening as to the perception of the federal government toward non-industrial workers.

The attitude that workers who are highly paid and offered buyouts make the choice freely and voluntarily is a false one. For most of our members, the choice was between taking a buyout that offered some semblance of compensation and bumping into part-time work at a lower rate of pay, or taking a buyout and returning to part-time work at a lower rate of pay and competing for scarce hours. Furthermore, each time another store closed, the workers would bump into another location, increasing the surplus pool of labour so that there were even more people competing for the scarce number of hours.

.1055

So we know that workers, in this context - and for many it's a way of life in our sector - are supplementing these part-time earnings with other part-time jobs, usually also low-paying. We know that in the Miracle Food Mart case people went to work in gas stations, fast-food restaurants and other low-paying retail jobs. So this patching together of part-time jobs at low pay and no benefits is a way of life for many of our members.

In summary, the situation for part-time workers is growing increasingly untenable. They're denied access to many adjustment and training programs because of rigid interpretations of UI eligibility and the attitude of federal government adjustment programs that non-industrial workers are not part of their mandate.

The proposed changes will do nothing to help them. The eligibility period will be dramatically lengthened, and because there are fewer hours at lower pay, the benefit rate will be minuscule. To understand their plight, the committee members might perhaps consider how they would survive on 55% of minimum wage for their benefit rate.

Finally, the proposed employment programs will be of virtually no assistance. The skills loans and grants will shift responsibility for financing training onto individuals. For an individual who has little ability to save funds and whose benefit rate will be extremely low, long-term meaningful training, even with loans and grants, is nothing more than a fantasy. Furthermore, as adjustment programs are continually shaved, including community-based employment programs and counselling through the human resources development centres, workers in this sector will have nothing more to turn to than the computer kiosk.

The retail food sector, which was once envied in the broader sector for its stable employment and good wages, is being transformed into another low-wage ghetto with little stability and benefits. The proposed changes for part-time work will do nothing to halt this transformation.

I'll try to sum up because I've taken quite a bit of time. I can certainly give more elaboration if people want it. But we want to make a general point about the impact of devolution.

We're very concerned from the perspective of individual workers who, even now, are really confronting mass confusion and disarray at the local human resources development centres. We're getting this from every part of the country, despite whatever provincial programs may be in place. Employment programs are being cut or are getting such short-term agreements with HRDC that they are seriously destabilized and don't have the cashflow to survive. So there's a lot of frustration being expressed by unemployed workers, even now, about what seems to be a very chaotic transition from the old CJS and other programs to the new employment tools.

At the national level, I mentioned earlier that we are very committed to the sector counsel process that we have engaged in. We're very concerned about the fate of these national structures, which I think have yielded very positive results in terms of increasing the level of training, and particularly the funding for training in the private sector. We wonder what the impact of devolution will be and what kind of destabilizing effects the transformation could have on these very successful structures.

Finally, we are very concerned about the authority that is embodied in the bills for the government in terms of the way that developmental uses of the fund can be used. It seems to us that there's very little accountability built in for the labour market stakeholders and that the role of the labour force development boards has been reduced to almost nothing. Even the provincial boards are in jeopardy. So we're quite concerned about the implications of devolution, the lack of thought that appears to be going into the changes in labour market programming and the lack of public debate that's actually gone on in terms of how we move to a new system.

In conclusion, we'd like to say we're strongly opposed to the amendments. We don't believe there's been sufficient debate or consideration of the implications. We strongly reject the premise that workers are shiftless, lazy or dependent. All of our experience tells us the opposite. We're concerned about the shift away from public support to private and individual responses. We're deeply concerned about the federal government's actions and we call on them to withhold these bills and engage in broad public consultations on strategies and means of increasing employment and economic growth that are not totally fixated on social spending cuts.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will have one seven-minute round. We will start with Mr. Dubé from the Bloc, followed by Mr. Regan from the government side.

.1100

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: Thank you for your presentation. Even though regrettably you didn't have a lot of time to prepare, as you mentioned earlier, you did give us a lot of information on your areas of activity.

Basically, you're telling us that the labour areas you represent within your union association are a world that is undergoing considerable change. Full-time jobs are becoming part-time jobs, on the one hand, and there's increased competition from part-time employees coming from elsewhere to fill in the holes, so to speak.

You also talked about self-employed workers about whom you are concerned, but you said nothing of the phenomenon of increased reliance on sub-contractors by corporations. You're a union but there is a phenomenon: corporations, whether they're big or medium sized, are trying to avoid employee unionization by massively relying on contracting out. That's an aspect you did not address but it's important to take it up because that is also an important transformation occuring in labour.

You say you presented a brief. I'd very much like to see it. You say it's hard to put figures on everything, but you did say at the beginning that there was a 25 % decrease in full-time jobs and a decrease in salaries. Corporations threaten closing their doors and tell their people if they want to keep their jobs they should take a part-time one. People are being offered downgraded jobs. You're saying salaries are being ratcheted down and that also confirms your other affirmation that the economy is doing poorly.

Here, on Parliament Hill, on the Opposition side, we're hearing people from the government side say: Since we were elected, the unemployment rate has gone down X %. You have to admit it's true because there has been a decrease.

But what you're saying is also an important factor: the labour market is evolving, it's being transformed, you could say it's crumbling and salaries are going down. All the while, the government is saying: We're going to decrease the ceiling on benefits because at this rate we're going to be catching up to the average industrial wage. Now, you represent 185,000 people and I'm sure that the weekly or yearly salaries aren't as high because you have a lot of part-time people.

I hear that message. In this area, you're having problems answering the Chairman when he asks you to suggest improvements. Basically, the status quo, although it was already precarious, would be an improvement for you. You've indicated your sector has already taken several cuts in unemployment insurance even if only through Bill C-17. I don't remember the number of the bill introduced by Mr. Valcourt, but that already meant a deterioration in living conditions.

I'm not asking you for an answer today but, in your brief, I would like you to provide us with data on the average annual salaries of your full-time members and the financial impact of those measures for those who are losing their full-time jobs and are then being offered less well-paying part-time jobs. We'd like to have an idea of that.

.1105

The government hasn't sufficiently addressed this real change in employment conditions. On the contrary, within the context of unemployment insurance reform, they're acting as if things were still the way they were three or four years ago and the present situation is not being taken into account. I'd like to hear you on that.

[English]

Ms Dassinger: Very briefly in response, contracting out has not been as major an issue for our union as for others, but we will certainly address it. Thank you for the request for the information.

In terms of the salary decreases being used as a rationale to save companies, we hear that continuously, whether it be in retail food or in manufacturing. In fact, that was very much the nature of the labour dispute with Miracle Food Mart, who claimed that they were in such a precarious financial position and their profit margin was so low, less than 1%, that they required these huge concessions. They required more part-time work in order to increase their flexibility.

I'd like to say that our union has been quite accommodating in this area, because we do understand that establishments need to be viable. However, many times it hasn't done us any good. We heard a similar call in the breweries for team and other quality measures. We've performed very well and cooperated very well, and still establishments that were profitable closed down. So in all sectors we're finding that wage cuts are not really producing the intended results.

We have a great stake in stabilizing employment. Just recently, in one of our more enlightened supermarket chains we signed a seven-year collective agreement. We have a wage reopener, but I think that really demonstrates the commitment the union has to making sure the operations are viable. But we also have to be very skeptical about companies who are very quick to use this threat of closure in order to depress the wages even further.

I agree with you that the labour market is transforming, and in ways that don't appear to be positive for workers. So I will take your requests very seriously in the brief to come and try to get the figures that you asked for.

The Chairman: Okay, one more question.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: You say your union offers on-the-job training to its members. What kind of training activities are you offering? Do you consider it's really up to you to be offering them? Isn't it really an employer's responsibility? In my opinion, it benefits business to have better qualified workers. I find it a bit strange to see you offering complementary services.

[English]

Ms Dassinger: That's a very long answer, so I'll try to be extremely brief.

We have three major initiatives. We have a labour adjustment program to assist unemployed workers. We've had to do that because companies do not take responsibility. I can state that unequivocally. There's no legislative reason for them to do so and most of them don't voluntarily do it, or if they do it, the amount of funding they put toward labour adjustment is extremely minimal.

We offer a basic skills training package to local unions in order to help them coordinate basic skills: English and French as a second language and literacy for English and French speakers.

Finally, we negotiate agreements at the local level to provide job skill training. We generally request a cents-per-hour contribution toward a training fund. This fund can or cannot be jointly trusteed, depending on the desires of the company and the local union.

In a very notable example, we have a local union in southwestern Ontario that has such a fund, which is jointly managed with the Zehrs supermarket chain. It's been extremely positive. The whole strategy of that chain is toward enhanced customer service and value-added rather than cost-cutting through wage reductions. What they have tried to do is take our members and jointly we plan and deliver training that will make that establishment more competitive in terms of better customer service, etc.

That is the nature of the types of training we do, sometimes jointly with employers, sometimes on our own. We are also involved in national sectoral initiatives, having recently formed the Canadian Grocery Producers Council for food processing workers.

In terms of responsibility, yes, we do think it is the employers' responsibility. We also think there is a responsibility for public funding, because as in the case of the sectoral initiatives, I think the evidence is there that they can yield extremely beneficial results.

.1110

So we believe it's a shared responsibility. We're certainly prepared to do our part, but we would not be in the least upset by a training tax or any other enticements to make the employer pay more for the cost of training. We're certainly prepared to be front and centre in terms of assisting our members.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: I'd finally just like to say that in Quebec, even though certain corporations did react, there is a 1 per cent training tax. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Regan, we have extended the 40 minutes, of course. This is quite an interesting discussion. Please go ahead.

Mr. Regan (Halifax West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming today. I want to raise actually six points.

You have made it very clear that you want us to reject the bill entirely. Perhaps we could leave it there and not really have much discussion about different aspects of the bill, but I think it is important - we probably aren't going to reject it entirely; I don't foresee that - and necessary to discuss different aspects of the bill. Hopefully we can find some common ground for discussion.

One of those points is the issue of the clawback for high-income earners. I can tell you that in my area, in Atlantic Canada, I find a lot of support from people who have complained for a long time about people who make a good living every year in perhaps six, eight, ten months, and then collect UI the rest of the year, year after year after year. They say that's not what it was designed for. They don't feel it makes sense to keep doing that year after year. One of my questions is whether you agree with that.

Some of the low-income workers in Atlantic Canada might say, look, let's go back to 10 and 42 - which isn't likely to happen. But those are the ones who certainly would support the clawback, it seems to me, for people who are earning high incomes. They also would probably support the lowering of the MIE, the $39,000. They feel that the system should be maintained for those who need it the most, not for those who don't need it that much. That's the first question.

The second point I want to raise is about the divisor. We heard last week from some of the construction unions. They agreed that there was a need to have an incentive to work somewhat longer that the actual period of eligibility. In other words, if the eligibility period equates to 12 weeks times 35 hours, you should have a somewhat longer period that people would have to work, or you would divide the income over that period as a divisor to figure out what the benefit would be. You probably understand that well, I assume.

The question is, what should it be? Right now in the bill it says, for instance, in areas where it's the equivalent of 12 weeks for eligibility, or 420 hours, your divisor is 16 weeks. So you'd divide the income over the past 16 weeks to determine what the benefits are to be based on. Then, in an area where it's 16 weeks, you'd have to have a 20-week divisor. In an area where it's a 20-week eligibility, it's a 20-week divisor. I'm concerned it may be a little bit harsh, or create some hardship in some areas, in terms of that extra 4 weeks.

As well, it seems inequitable to me that in fact you have a situation where we're saying in the regions where the highest employment levels exist, you should have to increase it by 4 weeks to have a divisor, to have incentive, but you don't need an incentive in the lowest regions where you have 20.

What about the idea of instead of saying, for example, in areas where we require 12 weeks of eligibility, or the equivalent thereof...that you require two more and then in other areas it's 2 more, and 2 more, in each place, rather than 4 and 0 at 20 - if you understand? That's the second question.

Third, I was pleased to see that you do support - or it sounds like you do - the move to an hours-based system. It seems to me that the old system, whereby if you were below 15 hours a week you would not qualify and you could never get eligibility for UI, was an incentive for employers, particularly in your industries, to hire people only part-time. While there are those who want to work part-time, more and more people these days are categorized as involuntary part-time workers. They want full-time work and can't get it. As a result of these changes, that incentive to companies to hire only part-timers has gone. I think that's a positive thing, and I hope you'll agree that it is.

As well, those people who are working a small number of hours in multiple jobs, who weren't...or I'm sorry, small numbers in this hour, but it adds to a good number per week, will actually be better off because of this system.

Fourth, you talk about the problems in Canada Employment Centres, where they seem to be unclear about the rules for different programs. With 39 different programs to administer, to me, it's no wonder. It's not surprising. As we're moving to the five measures that have seemed to be the most successful in the past at getting into employment, and into long-term independence, those are going to be simpler for people in those centres to understand and to explain. We'll have more money, $2.7 billion, going into those programs.

.1115

I'd like to know which of the five active measures you do or do not like. I'm sure you're familiar with what they are: the wage subsidies, earned supplements, self-employment assistance, job partnerships, and skills loans and grants.

The fifth point is that you talked about those who are earning 55% the minimum wage and what happens to them. I suggest to you that for low-income people with families, the working poor, this is a good bill, because in fact they can get up to 80%, not 55%, because of the family income supplement. So that's a positive measure for 360,000 people, and children, in this country.

The last point is that over the past 15 years we've seen the cost of the fund - that is, the cost of the premiums that are paid in by both employers and employees, who pay for this fund - go from $9 billion to $20 billion. You can put aside the amount of that that's for active measures or different measures in the system, but even then the growth of that is far faster than the unemployment growth in this country, and it's far faster than the growth of inflation.

We have to deal with that issue and the fact that it's growing so much and the fact that in the early 1990s, in the recession, the fund went $9 million into deficit and the government (a) had to fund that deficit, along with the other problems it already had in a recession, and (b) ended up raising premiums.

I know you don't feel that's trickle-down theory and all that, but it seems to me that if a small business is thinking about hiring someone and realizes it is going to have to pay so much additionally because the premiums have gone up, there's a disincentive to hire people. So it seems to me that it does relate to the question of hiring.

There are six big ones for you.

Ms Dassinger: How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman? I could spend an hour on each of them.

The Chairman: Two days.

Ms Dassinger: I'm sure you don't want me here for two days.

I have three problems with the clawback. One is that again it really is based on what I believe is a false assumption that workers can control their hours of work. I don't think sufficient account has been taken of the regional differences, say between rural and urban and between different regions of the country, in the nature of the labour markets. It's all based on the notion that workers are making conscious and deliberate decisions and that there is availability of good work. I think that if we look at that in a hard way, that won't be borne out.

In terms of the high-income earners, it's just as difficult for someone who's making a higher income to maintain their wages when they're left unemployed as it is for someone with a lower income.

The whole purpose of the UI fund when it was created - and I'm sure Mr. Allmand remembers very well when it was created - was that it was to be a wage -

Mr. Nault: In 1940.

Mr. Regan: He remembers the year it was created. I'm talking about every year.

Ms Dassinger: I'm not that old. I'm talking about in the 1970s, when the more generous provisions were put in. It was intended to be a wage replacement program, an income replacement program - not a social program. The purpose has been continually distorted since that time.

In terms of the low-income earners -

Mr. Regan: I'm sorry to interrupt, but isn't one of the distortions to say that someone who is making a high income can take out of the fund much more than they're putting in year after year after year? That's far from insurance principles. The kind of principle that the Reform Party wants us to follow is strictly insurance.

I don't want to take that route, but we could take it and it would be damaging for a large part of our society.

When we're talking about people who have high incomes and who are putting in a small amount each year and taking out a lot more every year, that's what I'm asking you about, because I think people in my area strongly favour changing that.

Ms Dassinger: I guess it really goes to the heart of whether you consider the unemployment insurance program to be an income replacement program or a social program. If it's an income replacement program, then it's based on the participation you've had while working, so you are paying into it at a level equal to your earnings. If it's considered to be a social program, then you're looking at a minimum ceiling, as with welfare.

From our perspective it is an income replacement program that is based on the contributions of employers and employees. We think it has integrity as that. The more changes we make and the more things we do that distort its original purpose - such as paying for training and for workfare and all of the things that are potential in this bill - the more we get away from that, and that is something we need to be very concerned about.

.1120

I just want to respond to this question about the lower-income earners resenting the higher-income earners. I think that's true, and I think governments at all levels have exploited that inequity. There is growing inequity in the labour market, so it is very convenient to say, the lower-income people really resent that you're working and they're not, that you're earning more and they're not, etc.

What you have is a situation, which I think governments have actually in many cases very shamelessly exploited, in which people are told, this other guy is really getting screwed, so you should be happy with what you've got. It all contributes to this overall mentality of going down to the lowest common denominator. Instead of saying that the more higher-income earners and the higher the benefits the better overall it is for us as working citizens, we go with the reverse. We say, the other guy is always worse off and you should be at the level of the other guy. I think that's a really dangerous mentality. It's certainly one we're fighting very hard to correct among our members because we're only ratcheting down to the lowest level when we buy into that logic.

In terms of the incentives, again this goes to the heart of the fallacy that people have the choice of work. I would not have a single problem with any of this stuff, including the labour market measures, if we had even 5% national unemployment rate. Then I might be able to buy it, but not when we have had 10% plus on a national level for this many years. You're talking about how the expenditures went from $9 billion to $20 billion, but you have to take into account that it was also around 1970 that the federal government abandoned full employment.

It's not really all that surprising, when we've had systemically and chronically high levels of unemployment, that our expenditures are increasing. How else do you get expenditures down except by cutting benefits? That's exactly what's been done - eight cuts since 1971. I just have a lot of difficulty with this notion that people need to be prodded to work.

Again, I can only give you our very subjective experience of working with men and women in our union. People want to work. They want to work full-time and they want to work hard. They don't want to sit around eight months of the year. I've been everywhere in our country from Plum Point, Newfoundland, to Fraser Valley, British Columbia, and if there's -

Mr. Regan: [Inaudible - Editor] ...the union last week telling us, in fact, that they felt that we had to have those incentives, so -

Ms Dassinger: Who did? The construction unions? Well, I can't speak for what -

Mr. Regan: That's based on their experience, which must be different from yours.

The Chairman: [Inaudible - Editor] ...want to carry on a conversation, we can't do this. You've asked your questions, now I want the answers so that we can use your material to improve the bill.

Ms Dassinger: Yes. In terms of the hours-based, we support the fact that you start counting from hour one. What we have some problems with is the threshold being doubled and tripled so that, as in the case I pointed out, the person who's newly eligible at 10 hours is going to have to work 56 weeks. It's those folks who are going to have the least amount of insurable earnings.

Now, you're pointing to the fact that a lot of those folks are stringing together all these part-time jobs. That in itself is a very tenuous way of life, because most of those jobs don't have any benefits. People are scraping together whatever employment they can.

But it also has another impact in terms of retail workers. Some of those workers - and this is one of the benefits we've negotiated - have health and welfare benefits. That's why they keep part-time work rather than seeking full-time work. They know that if they were working full-time in Zellers, for example, they wouldn't have a benefit plan. So they try to remain on the payroll and work as many hours as they can.

The difficulty becomes that the stores require a certain availability, so it becomes extremely difficult for people to organize their lives. Of course, it's felt most by women who have to balance work and family responsibilities. To say that it's good for people who are going to work at the gas station Tuesday and at Becker on Wednesday and at Zehrs on Thursday and Friday is far from the best scenario. Do you know what I'm saying?

Yes, they are going to be eligible because they're going to patch together enough hours to qualify for UI. However, the threshold is so high and it has such an impact on their work and family life that it's not what we would consider an alternative to full-time, well-paying employment, which is what we want.

To go finally to your question of the employment measures, overall we have a lot of problems with the shift from public to individual responsibility with those employment measures. I would argue that the disarray in the human resources development centres has nothing to do with the fact that there are too many programs. It has to do with the constantly shifting policy and program changes in HRD, formerly EIC.

.1125

Having been an observer of employment programs for the last six years, I wouldn't consider myself to be an expert, but I'm certainly grounded. I tell you, I find it bewildering, and you must, too, if you look at them. I don't think it's because there are too many programs. I think it's because they change every two years. The flavour of the month comes in and now we have to gear up for a whole new set of programs.

So I don't really think the staff has too many programs. I think it's just that it changes too much. Part of that relates to the absence of an accountability framework.

The national Labour Force Development Board, the provincial boards and the local boards formed a very rational, very coherent, framework - even if the Tories did bring it in. I'm very sad to see that abandoned. It was a way of making sense of what is actually quite a complex system in a federal context.

The Chairman: Your time is up. Thank you very much. We of course look forward to receiving your brief.

I'd like to make one minor point here. Given the fact that the status quo is not an option for this committee - I want to make that very clear to everybody who comes in front of us - I would like to get some points on how we can possibly improve the present legislation, given the parameters within which we are working. The members of this committee are working within certain parameters. That's the story.

So we need people like yourself, who come to this committee, to help us out with this within that parameter. When you're forwarding your brief, it would be very useful for us if you could keep that in mind.

Thank you very much.

Ms Dassinger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Our next presentation will be from the Canadian Association for Community Living. Representing them are: Diane Richler, executive vice-president; Raffath Sayeed, first vice-president; and Ann West, director.

Welcome. You know what we're doing here. We're trying to improve Bill C-12, a piece of legislation referenced to us by the House of Commons. As a committee, we prefer that the people presenting give us a summary or an overview of what are their major points. Then we get into a question and answer session where we can perhaps pinpoint some of the key issues.

You may begin.

Mr. Raffath Sayeed (First Vice-President, Canadian Association for Community Living): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Raffath Sayeed. I am the first vice-president of the Canadian Association for Community Living. I'm from Lloydminster, which is the eleventh province in Canada. Some of you have heard about it. It sits on the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan. It's unique in its own way.

With me are Ann West, a director on the board, and Diane Richler, our executive vice-president.

I'll begin by giving you what is probably a philosophical background as well as a map that we planned in Saint John, New Brunswick. Four hundred parents, advocates, professionals and community members gathered together from every province and territory of this country, and spent two and a half days hammering out a consensus. This was a consensus of dreaming and soul-searching by all these people who had considerable input into and from their communities. We called it the Saint John declaration, and it is appended to your brief there.

.1130

I must apologize. Our brief was done pretty hastily because I didn't hear about this meeting until 9 a.m. yesterday while I was on my way to small-town Saskatchewan, where there was a doctor who needed to be helped out and replaced. I'm a family practitioner by profession, so when Diane said she needed me here, I travelled on the red-eye to get over here. So I'll read to you.

We the families and individuals of the community living movement, acting in times of social, cultural and economic change and supported by the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; understanding the fear and reality of the discrimination and exclusion that has come from living with the experience of having a disability; and recognizing the diversity of all people, our need for relationships and the richness that comes from inclusive communities and the contributions that people make, believe in a society within which individuals and families have the assurance of life, fairness, respect and dignity; the status to ensure their self determination; full information about their human rights and society's commitments to these rights; the resources necessary to enable full participation - that's the key that we're talking about - the acknowledgement of their strengths and the opportunities to develop them; the provision of safety in communities; the reasonable necessities of life; the recognition of responsibilities and opportunities to contribute to life. This is what we plan to work towards for our brothers, our sisters, our children.

I'm a parent of four children, the second of whom has been labelled as having an intellectual disability. I was a community advocate and a volunteer in the field of intellectual disability before I was even married. As a physician, I see people with intellectual handicaps who have been denied the opportunities to participate fully in society.

I'm also an employer of twelve people. The people we're talking about are people who want to work, people who are loyal, who believe in a good day's work, and who want to be paid a decent wage for a good day's work. By focusing on the employment insurance aspect, which is narrow, we're missing out on the opportunities for real reform. We're excluding people who up to now have been excluded, but this time they're going to be excluded by government edict.

Today, with technology, anybody can work. I personally believe that to say there's work unavailable is to say something that is not true. We have examples of people using many different kinds of supports - be they technological, computers, or whatever - to gain employment and to maintain jobs.

There is overt discrimination for people with intellectual handicaps. Despite protections against discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial human rights legislation, persons with disabilities report a persistent discrimination in the workplace, including dismissal, lack of required accommodation, and sexual harassment, especially among women with disabilities. These factors have contributed to making full-time, year-round work with long employment records - i.e. a major attachment - an impossible dream for many persons with disabilities, even when they have been able to get the required training and experience for such employment. Thus many persons with disabilities are either outside the labour force or are working part-time.

.1135

For a brief stint, I was the acting chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. I can tell you that after the first year, mental disability was included in the Human Rights Code. Within the first six months, our complaints rose from 3% to 9% of those people who had mental disabilities, and even simple accommodation or an interview was being denied to them. If they managed to get a job, there were examples of how they were let go without even being given a chance.

There are numerous examples of people with mental handicaps who have been working in the workforce. There is a good project in St. George's Bay, Newfoundland, where a person who's severely and multi-handicapped owns and runs his own business. There is a community board that supports him. He is the proprietor and he employs people.

I know of a person in my own community who is supposed to be a ward of the state and have a public guardian. He cannot go to a picnic without permission from the state, but he is now working as a welder's helper for $10 an hour. There are people who work in cinema theatres taking in tickets and working at tills, where the tills are so computerized that no money changes hands because people use their Enteric cards. So to say that work is unavailable and that in this high-tech world people are going to fall by the wayside is a fallacy.

The thing that hurts us most is the lack of opportunities to get training and the lack of accommodation on the part of post-secondary institutions to give us the training we need. That provinces will and may assume responsibility is a new theme. There is no program or policy in place right now for the provinces to assume that responsibility, and with the pull of health and education....

Again, as a physician, I know the emotional pull and the spin I can put on it when I speak to one of you and ask where you would send your money. Do you want your heart transplant or your gall bladder removed, or do you want to give money to some welfare case that is not so tangible and nebulous? The pull will go toward health and, secondly, education because people place emphasis on education. Again, we are left by the wayside. We will not have the opportunity. Forget major or minor attachment, there will be no attachment. The people we speak for will continue to live in poverty and will be disenfranchised.

Today, approximately $4 billion is being spent on people with disabilities. I dare say if that money were converted into a positive strategy it would put our people in the workforce, make them taxpayers, make them very proud of what they are, and give them their full citizenship in a country that champions human rights around the world.

I'll stop there and let Ann say a few words.

The Chairman: Ms West.

Ms Ann West (Board Member, Canadian Association for Community Living): I'm working in a school for handicapped teenagers, and every two weeks I get paid $330. At the end of the month I get roughly $286, or maybe less than that. I don't have enough money in one account or both accounts to pay for the rent on my apartment and groceries. I don't have that much money.

The family benefits office has been writing to me that I'm going to get less and less money. At the end of every month I get this card and a friend of mine fills it out and sends it to the family benefits office. What I can't understand is that I get drugs and I have to pay about $45 because family benefits will not help pay for the cost of my drugs, but it covers my dental expenses.

.1140

If my family benefits worker leaves, I don't hear from any new ones who get called. Family benefits employees won't give me the names of my family benefits workers. When new ones come in they don't phone to tell me. So I get really frustrated. I've been writing to them saying that if I don't get what I want I'll be out on the street.

If I lose a job, go on welfare and then want another job, I will find it pretty hard to get another job. I've been working at the same job for 25 years. If I lose this job it will be pretty hard for me to look for another one.

Mr. Sayeed: Diane has some questions for Ann.

Ms Diane Richler (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Association of Community Living): Can I just clarify a couple of things? You said you get paid $330 every two weeks at your job.

Ms West: Yes.

Ms Richler: Then the other money you get is from family benefits, which is the Ontario provincial program.

Ms West: Yes.

Ms Richler: Then you also get your dental benefits covered, but you have to pay for your own prescriptions out of the money you get.

Ms West: Yes.

Ms Richler: You've been working for 25 years. Tell us a little more about the things you do in your job. Who is your employer?

Ms West: My employer is the Peel Board of Education. I look after two boys who are developmentally challenged. I support them, and sometimes I help by taking them around to the different classrooms.

The teacher will often ask me to sit in a circle with some of the teenagers in our classroom. She'll get a book for me and I'll read to them. They like that very much. I even put on some music and they like to listen to that too.

Ms Richler: Thank you. If I can just summarize a couple of things, as long as you don't earn more money than you're making now, you don't lose your family benefits, and you keep getting coverage for your dental work.

Ms West: Yes.

Ms Richler: You are working full-time for the school board, but it doesn't have to pay you full wages.

Ms West: No.

Ms Richler: How do you feel about the situation?

Ms West: Well, I feel so-so.

Ms Richler: Why do you feel so-so?

Ms West: I feel out of sorts when they tell me what's going on.

Ms Richler: What about your friends? Are many of your friends working at full-time jobs?

Ms West: Yes, most of my friends are working at full-time jobs, but they tell me they're afraid they might lose their jobs also.

Ms Richler: Do they get paid the way you do?

Ms West: They get paid less than I do.

Ms Richler: Thank you very much.

I think what Ann has been talking about is an example of what Dr. Sayeed mentioned in terms of the discrimination that exists for people who are doing full-time jobs but not necessarily being paid for them. It's not always because their employers are trying to exploit them, but because the system is exploiting them. They can't afford to give up their jobs because they would lose the benefits that go with the income - not just the direct dollars, but access to medical benefits, dental benefits, sometimes access to attendant care, to support where they live, or whatever it happens to be.

.1145

Just to conclude our presentation, I think one of our concerns in appearing before this committee is not so much the direct impact that the employment insurance bill is going to have on people who have a disability, but the indirect impact, the fact that by not taking a holistic approach to the whole issue of employment for people with a disability, there are risks of reinforcing systemic discrimination in the workforce.

It's very interesting to note that so many members of the Atlantic caucus, who clearly have an interest in some changes to the legislation as it was introduced, are here today. I think the difficulty people with a disability have is that they don't all live in the same riding. They live scattered across the country. Yet the research we've done has shown that right now there are at least 500,000 people with a disability who could be working, who could be paying taxes.

If they all lived in any one of your ridings, then chances are their voices would be heard much more around this table. That's one of our concerns.

A related concern is that the reform that takes place, that's being considered by this committee, by the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and by the finance committee, is seamless reform in terms of how it's going to have an impact on people with a disability. While it may be easy for those of you who are looking at the employment insurance to say, ``But we're focusing on one population; someone else is going to be concerned about disability'', we're concerned that in fact people with a disability are going to fall through the cracks. We're concerned that by setting up a number of programs that, each one, independently excludes or discriminates against people with a disability, it will in fact continue to force people with a disability to be recipients of social programs when they want to be contributors to the economy, want to be paying taxes.

It was interesting; in a post-budget breakfast last Monday Mr. Martin made reference, in a rhetorical question, to the impact on the economy that would be felt by promoting more participation in the workforce from people with a disability. Our preliminary research says that's $4.6 billion. We'd like a chance to prove that. We're concerned that by a piecemeal approach to legislative reform that's not going to be possible.

One last point is that we did take some hope from the not-yet-released but widely circulated report of the provincial ministers of social services - supposedly this is going to be released by the premiers - in which they indicate a willingness to collaborate with the federal government on programs related to persons with a disability. Specifically, they made reference to the possibility of an income program for people with a disability. We're very concerned that the federal government not put any systems into place that are then going to make it impossible for people who have a disability to receive supports they need because of their disability and also to participate as workers.

Those are our comments. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask for clarification before the questions start. It will be very brief.

Do you represent people who have mental illness as well as disability? For example, do you represent schizophrenics and those types of people, or is it just mental disability?

Mr. Sayeed: We primarily represent people with mental disability. Some people in our constituency may have mental illnesses, but we speak on behalf of people with intellectual handicaps.

Mr. Allmand: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll move to the Bloc with Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé: This is the third time I've had the opportunity to hear representatives from your association at this Committee on Human Resources Development. You no doubt recall that there was pre-consultation followed by the green paper and then cross-Canada hearings.

.1150

And today, I see you are concerned that nothing you said got any results. You would have liked to see something specific to address the needs of the handicapped in the bill, but there's nothing in there.

You would have liked to see a special fund for that. You say the provinces had indicated there might be one but that you're afraid there won't be and the federal government isn't setting any up.

The government is puting a lot of effort in the selling of this bill. They're saying, yes, it does decrease benefits in general but we'll be giving more help to those who need it the most. Who has more needs than the people you're representing today? We must admit that there is nothing new as compared to what we had before.

If you could add only one new thing to address this absence of services, what would it be?

Ms. Richler: What we would like is that you not have the same requirements for the handicapped as for the others. The government should see that you can't use the same criteria for the handicapped who want to qualify for benefits under the program.

You've probably noticed our report was available only in English. You'll have to excuse us because we didn't have much time to prepare it.

We do make a recommendation on page 7 and I'll read it to you in English.

[English]

We're recommending on page 7 an endorsement of a recommendation that is being made by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities: that the requirement for major attachment to qualify for benefits exclude those people who have a disability; further, that persons who have a disability be exempt from the time restrictions on eligibility for employment benefits; and that any establishment of a benefit period at any time, whether while disabled or not, be sufficient entitlement for a person with a disability.

[Translation]

If the requirements were the same for a person with a disability, it would be impossible to qualify for all the benefits. We don't want a discriminatory situation where people with a disability don't have access to all training programs.

Mr. Dubé: I'd like us to be very clear about this. Are you saying that you'd want the requirements to be less stringent for people with disabilities? Do you want to keep the old criteria, in other words the status quo for eligibility standards or do you prefer an improvement as compared to what existed previously in this regard?

Ms. Richler: Yes, what we had in the past was not enough. We've already fought this fight for people who couldn't qualify. Now, with all the expectations we have in this reform, we hope that we'll be able to get something in the system for people with a disability.

Mr. Dubé: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. McClelland, do you have a question?

Mr. McClelland: Yes, thank you.

Actually, my experience both as a parliamentarian in the last two years and in various committee work, of course.... My regular position is with the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, so I've been fairly close to this. But I've been really surprised at the amount of great entrée that persons with disabilities have to the Parliament of Canada. I don't know if this is just because it looks good or because people keep coming here...and it's a safety valve, because it looks like something is happening.

.1155

But I know most parliamentarians are fairly conscious of the situation and the problems facing not only persons with mental disabilities, and community living and what your organization is doing, but mobility handicaps and all the rest. The problem seems to be that there is no accountability.

Did you read the report that persons with disabilities came up with after the last session? Are you aware of the report and the recommendations therein?

The problem I have is that here we are in front of this committee, talking about exactly the same things as we talked about in the human rights and persons with disabilities committee, but there seems to be no one persons with disabilities can hold accountable for actually achieving something or getting something done, which may be the reason it seems to be falling through the cracks. Could you respond to that? I'm sorry I can't be more direct. I'm sure others will be. Could you address the feeling or the notion I have that there seems to be a lack of accountability or a lack of who in the Government of Canada and at what level? Is there a deputy minister? Where is the level of accountability for people with disabilities in the hierarchical structure of the government of the country? Is it a top-level priority or a lower-level one?

Mr. Sayeed: You have probably vocalized our frustration, which is why you see us appearing time and time again - and we don't give up. This is why when this opportunity arose I sacrificed my family, a day's employment, taking a midnight train to be here. I will go back to work, on call, at11 p.m. tonight. Somebody else is doing it till 11 p.m. We never lose this opportunity to speak to our leaders, because we expect sooner or later you will listen to us and give us the opportunity.

When you spoke about disability in general...yes, people with disabilities do have a hard time accessing the labour force. We speak on behalf of those who are at the bottom end of the totem pole, those who usually cannot vocalize for themselves. Not all of them are as eloquent as Ann. We're proud to have Ann on our board. She's a very positive contributing member on our board.

We don't know who in the federal government is responsible for people with disabilities. We would like to see somebody. We would like to see a federal monitoring mechanism to make sure all federal departments consider the impact of their policies.

Mr. McClelland: May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that perhaps something positive this committee could do to move this along, and it would be doing so in harmony with our committee, would be to make the recommendation that persons with disabilities in Canada be represented at the deputy minister level. We know we're not going to have a minister, but it should be at the deputy minister level, not at a level under deputy minister.

We wanted to try to have a cabinet impact statement for every decision in the cabinet. There's a cabinet impact statement: how is this going to affect women; how is it going to affect minorities; how is this going to...? So we thought, well, why not add one more?

The Chairman: Mr. McClelland, I think I'm attending the same meeting you are and everybody else is. This will be, of course, outside the Employment Insurance Act we're now discussing. Is that correct - this is an aside?

Mr. McClelland: No, because they're here as part of this -

Mr. Nault: Mr. McClelland should know the committee he sat on last year made recommendations to the government. The report and the recommendations have been submitted to the government and they will be answered. One of the recommendations, if he recalls, asks about this very issue, which is who is responsible for the disabled. That question will be answered. So if he waits for a little while he'll get his answer, and I think the organization that is here will also get its answer. The question that was asked in that report was this: is the Minister of Human Resources Development responsible for the disabled?

The Chairman: I will take Mr. McClelland's point.

Mr. McClelland: That's why I asked.

The Chairman: Great. Thank you.

Ms Augustine.

.1200

Ms Augustine: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the presenters, especially for having travelled ``red-eye'', as they said, and for being here with us all bright-eyed.

I want to stress again how sensitive we are to the needs and concerns of persons with disabilities. It is important to note that this committee is well aware of the under-representation in our labour force of persons with disabilities. We also know that when they do get jobs they find themselves concentrated in low-paying, low-status occupations.

I want also to stress that it is precisely the issue of fairness, of dealing with everyone and ensuring we have the best possible piece of legislation, so that Ann is not worried about her future and her place in the world of work. But it is also the intent of what we do, especially when we build flexibility in the system.

In part II several things are set out in several ways in which we can have expansion of employment, eligibility for employment benefits for those who've made a claim within three years, the hours-based system, the extension of coverage, the labour market partnerships. All those things we find in part II of the legislation again would speak to the issues you have brought before us.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the presenters, not really to pose a specific question but really to ask that they continue to be engaged with us as we look at the different parts of the legislation, especially the areas where there is flexibility within the various programs.

The Chairman: Are there any concluding remarks?

Ms Richler: I would like to make a comment on that. Many of you know our experience with employment-related issues has been very negative. Certainly there was never any intention for the Canada Employment Centres to discriminate against people on the basis of disabilities. But as the member just pointed out, when we look at the workforce in Canada it is very evident that people with disabilities are employed differentially.

So our concern is that the good words are not enough, the intention of having flexibility is not enough, unless there are very specific elements in the legislation that guarantee there will be an onus on those who are implementing the legislation to ensure the workforce reflects the diversity of the community. Just saying in general terms there will be flexibility has not worked for people with a disability. They don't end up getting the jobs.

We know the systems are changing, but our experience in the old Canada Employment Centres has been that the measurement of success of the centres has been how many people pass through and how many people get jobs. If some people take longer to acquire their training, if some people need support on the job that costs money for a while, then those people don't make the records look so good. Unless there's a record of how many people with a disability have been supported, and a measure, and people are held accountable for ensuring that people with a disability in fact become part of the workforce, then we're afraid it won't happen and the goodwill that may exist won't be translated into jobs for people with a disability.

Mr. Allmand: I want to point out that I was also on that committee for the disabled and participated in that report, and it was a unanimous report. It's interesting that Mr. Dubé, Mr. McClelland, and I were all on that committee. You're right in saying we made many recommendations in these areas and we're waiting for a response from the government, but I would recommend that perhaps our research staff, or the clerk, should get a copy of that report for members of the committee, because the recommendations of the committee.... It would be unfortunate if we went ahead and approved of things here that were contrary to what a committee unanimously recommended. The right hand should know what the left hand is doing, in other words.

.1205

The Chairman: We know very well that the right should always know what the left is up to.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Mr. Sayeed.

Mr. Sayeed: I just want to thank you for giving us this opportunity, and to say that we hope you will show leadership and vision in giving us some legislation that will support us. Finally, our dream is to be as employed as the rest of the population. If we achieve that, we'll be very happy.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

On a personal note, I just want to tell you that I remember reading the 3,300,000 report, which talked about disability here in Canada. There is no question about the fact that we need to be more sensitive, we need to do more to break down many of the barriers. I'm sure you have a number of members - as a matter of fact, all of them - who are very sensitive to the issues related to disabled Canadians here in Canada.

I also want to congratulate you for the contribution you made when the government changed some of the legislation dealing with disabilities recently, and also on the issue relating to Canada student loans. For the first time in a long time, we now have special opportunities grants that enhance opportunities for disabled people.

So we are listening, and we're going to try to improve the lives of the Canadians that you represent. But essentially, we'll also build a better society.

Thanks very much.

Mr. Sayeed: Thank you.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m.

Return to Committee Home Page