HUMA Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 20, 2001

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin and continue our consideration of Bill C-2 regarding employment insurance?

[Translation]

Before introducing our guests, there are a few things to be settled.

[English]

I would like to do a couple of housekeeping items before we introduce our guests. The first, and I think we do now have a quorum—yes, we do—is to approve the budget. I think all members have received it. You all have a copy.

• 1110

The budget is coming. I'll go on to something else. The budget will be circulated and we'll come back to it in a moment.

The second thing is I would like to ask all the parties present, if they possibly can—I do understand the rules, but it would be a great help to our staff—whether we could have amendments as soon as possible, if not before the end of the day, at least by tomorrow. I would truly be most grateful to receive as many as you can.

I know that when we get to clause-by-clause, amendments can be introduced, and that's fine. If that's what people are going to do, that's also fine. But it would be nice if we could get the amendments early.

We have all agreed unanimously that we're going to report this bill to the House of Commons by Friday at the latest—and I think we're on track to do that. By the way, having been away, I want to congratulate you all on the hearings that were conducted last week, and thank our vice-chair, Diane St-Jacques, for her work. By the time we've completed these hearings, we will have heard from more than 60 witnesses. I think this is a very considerable achievement.

So, again, Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): [Editor's note: inaudible] It seems important to me that we adopt a clear position. Must our amendments be limited to the wording of Bill C-2? That position would be quite different from one which would allow us to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, based on all of the testimony that has been heard and that we will be hearing today.

This motion must be clarified in order for us to know the task at hand. If we decide to limit amendments to Bill C-2, then I would like there to be a discussion on what to do with all of the other comments that were heard, and on other improvements that we would wish to make to the law, not in two years, but in the foreseeable future.

This may not be the best time to have this discussion, before the testimony, but we should know where we stand before tabling any amendments.

[English]

The Chair: Paul, thank you very much.

When we get to the clause-by-clause, as chair I will have to rule on each amendment. The only amendments that we will be able to receive are those that pertain directly to this bill. They must pertain to the clauses—the 15 or 16 clauses that we have before us—and those that do not involve expenditures of funds.

Now, I know, and we encourage this, that in the discussion—and I have no doubt today—we have looked at employment insurance in a much broader way. We agreed early on that we should do that. I believe that this is very useful and that the information we have gathered will be useful in the future.

But, Paul, all I have to say is when amendments come, when they're presented to me, whether I receive them in writing in advance or whether I receive them in writing at the time we're dealing with the clauses, I will simply have to rule on them within the procedures of the House of Commons. But, as I say, I don't think the discussions that we have had, and that we will have, have been wasted. I don't. But our job at the moment is to deal with the legislation before us, and that is all we can do.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I agree with what our colleague Paul Crête said and I would like my position to be put on the record. Virtually all of the comments from the 60 witnesses that we heard from had absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-2. This bill does not deal with the problems. I think it's important that this Committee set itself a goal. If the Committee decides to deal only with Bill C-2, and the amendments apply only to this bill, then we may decided to make it a priority to work on the entire employment insurance program immediately after, and not wait until the next election.

I think that this is very important. We cannot set this aside. We cannot invite people from across the country, hear them tell us clearly that they are concerned about problems affecting employment insurance and then forget everything for three or four years. This would be absolutely unacceptable. I would like the record to show that over the last few weeks, we said almost nothing about Bill C-2 as such. We talked about what Bill C-2 did not do. Some witnesses spoke to C-2, but the others, 90% or 95% of people, spoke about what Bill C-2 does not contain.

• 1115

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I think there are members on all sides of the House of Commons who are very concerned about employment insurance in general. I'd like to think that's why we're all on this committee. But my job as the chair is to deal with this legislation in the way that is allowed by the House of Commons. I have encouraged general discussion in the hearings, and I don't believe it's wasted. But when it comes to dealing with the bill, we have to deal with the bill. We can't simply deal with things that are outside its scope. But I do understand our colleague's concern.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think good points have been raised in the depositions and bigger picture issues have come through. May I suggest that we arrange to have a discussion on this later on. Right now I think it's essential we get on with listening to the depositions. We can see how we can strategize that kind of an approach.

The Chair: Thank you for that. I see members nodding. I'm more than willing to do that. I'm simply explaining my role as the chair as we move through this week to the target of reporting to the House of Commons on Friday, which we unanimously agreed to.

Mr. Yvon Godin: If you want to make a motion that we deal with employment insurance right after Bill C-2, I will second the motion.

The Chair: I don't know if that's necessary, but you have my agreement that we will return to those matters.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Good.

The Chair: I'd now like to go back to the budget, because we do have a quorum. One of the effects of this extraordinary exercise we've been involved in for the last four months has been that the cost of bringing in these 60 or more witnesses from all over the country has been very high. Could someone make the motion with regard to this budget, please?

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): I move that we approve this budget of $77,400 to look after witness expenses and $5,400 for miscellaneous items.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: As she pointed out, $72,000 was for travel expenses for witnesses, which is as it should be.

To the witnesses, please excuse me for this, but I don't get the members' attention very often.

An hon. member: We're glad you're awake.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I asked for that.

With regard to the schedule for this week, colleagues, obviously, we're meeting now until 1 o'clock and then we meet again at 3:15. We have five more witnesses this afternoon. For tomorrow, Wednesday, as you know, it's caucus in the morning. I suggest we meet from 3:15 to 5:30. Then we'll be meeting with the Auditor General. I think it is important we do so. Then I suggest that from 5:30 until 9 we begin clause-by-clause consideration. Our budget, which we just passed, does provide for a light meal during that time, a working lunch. Then on Thursday, depending on what happens on Wednesday night, we'll meet at either 11 o'clock or, if we need to, we can start earlier. We will decide that tomorrow. That will be to get the clause-by-clause consideration completed. As you know, we have to do that in a reasonable time so that the staff can prepare for the presentation to the House of Commons on Friday. So our schedule is this afternoon at 3:15, tomorrow afternoon from 3:15 to 5:30 with the witnesses, 5:30 until 9 the clause-by-clause consideration, and then Thursday morning at 11 or perhaps earlier. Is that okay?

Colleagues, I would now like to introduce our witnesses. Again, my apologies for keeping you waiting here.

I think you know that we are on television. The hearings are not going out directly because the House of Commons is sitting at the moment, but they will be broadcast later. I hope you understand that.

• 1120

We're most grateful to you all for coming. You've seen our agenda. My suggestion, unless you have an objection, would be to go through the witnesses in the order we have here. Is that okay with you?

I think you know there will be five-minute presentations, and then there will be questions from the members of Parliament from all parties.

For the benefit of the people watching, I will mention the groups that are involved this morning. We have representatives from the Assembly of First Nations, who will introduce themselves in a moment; l'Association des municipalités francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick; la Coalition sur l'assurance-chômage du Bas Saint-Laurent; and the Greater Summerside Chamber of Commerce, all of whom will introduce themselves later. We do welcome all of those. Then there is le Regroupement pour une caisse d'assurance parentale québécoise.

Could we begin with the representatives of the Assembly of First Nations? Would you introduce yourself and your colleagues, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Picard (member of the Executive of the Assembly of First Nations of Canada and Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador): Hello and thank you very much.

My name is Ghislain Picard and I am the Regional Chief of the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, which is also a member of the National Assembly of First Nations. I'm joined today by Ms. Madeleine Buckell, who is our employment insurance adviser.

I will proceed immediately by reading our comments. First of all, I'd like to support the comments made by Mr. Godin earlier. I am more or less familiar with how this Committee functions, but I would nonetheless like to support the comments expressed earlier, to the effect that our discussion on Bill C-2 must take into consideration what the Bill contains, but also what it does not contain with respect to the people that we represent.

I will begin reading the brief that we prepared for your Committee and I would like to thank you for allowing the Assembly of First Nations and the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador to make this presentation on Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.

The aim of our presentation is to inform the Committee members of the initiatives the AFN is planning to take to ensure that the First Nations contribute to the development of effective labour market policies that address current needs. Another objective is to bring to your attention the employment insurance measures that have been taken, particularly by the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, since June 2000.

You will see that our presentation is not based on comprehensive studies and does not contain statistical tables, but is an accurate reflection of our circumstances and experience, intended to help shape public policies that will influence the future course of our peoples.

Regionally, in 1996 the AFNQL established a First Nations Human Resources Development Commission to ensure implementation of the National Aboriginal Human Resources Strategy in Quebec.

Nationally, the NAHRS led to the creation of 47 First Nations- HRDC Aboriginal Human Resource Development Agreements to support the development of a qualified Aboriginal labour force. Our employment and training institutions must draw on the experience and knowledge of the First Nations in order to identify labour market needs and ways of meeting them.

With that in mind, in January 2001 the AFN created a National Committee of Chiefs on Human Resources Development. The Committee's first project is to organize in the near future a national symposium of all AHRDA holders to analyze issues specific to our communities. Needless to say, issues related to labour market problems among First Nations will be discussed, and issues pertaining generally to the Employment Insurance Act are bound to be discussed and examined.

[English]

The Chair: I'm following your text, and you have about two more minutes. You realize that your written presentation does go in our record anyway. I'm just advising you of that.

• 1125

Mr. Ghislain Picard: I'll go back to the comments I expressed earlier. I think it is important to pay attention also to the absences of consideration in Bill C-2, which I think adequate time should be provided to us to present.

The Chair: I do understand.

As I mentioned, we will have listened to more than 60 groups.

Again, I'm not pressing it. The information you provided here is excellent. But in fairness to the others, in fairness to MPs who have to go to Question Period at the end of our hearings, we simply can't do it. We either cut down on the number of witnesses or we....

For example, our members' input is strictly controlled. We do our very best, and the members have lots of things to say, but we have to keep to some limit.

I'd be grateful if you'd continue, knowing that the material you provided is there. I do apologize for that.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: Does that mean I have just a minute left?

The Chair: Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you please show clemency towards Mr. Picard, who has come from very far away, representing the First Nations. We have heard from numerous chambers of commerce. We have heard from numerous associations which could have formed groups. Ten chambers of commerce would have basically the same thing to say. Yet we are only hearing from one Aboriginal community during these hearings, and what's more, the witness is the Chief of the First Nations.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous consent from this Committee to give Mr. Picard, not one hour, but at least 15 minutes more. Lets take the time to read this report. He is a representative of the First Nations of Quebec and of Canada. He is the only Aboriginal representative that we have heard from and it would be reprehensible to give him the same amount of time as one chamber of commerce. We have heard from 5 and we will likely hear from 15 if you include the extensions.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to seek the unanimous consent of the Committee to extend Mr. Picard's testimony by ten minutes in order to fully hear from the Aboriginal community through their spokesperson.

[English]

The Chair: I can answer that in a moment, but I want to say this to you. The witnesses we have received have been at the request of members of Parliament here. We've gone to great lengths so that your party and all the other parties here have been well represented. In fact, the vast majority of witnesses received have been suggested by opposition members. We agreed to this at the very beginning. I know you weren't here when we were planning this.

Are there other first nations groups on your list? We have certainly been through the lists.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to preach. I am asking you to continue and to seek the unanimous consent of this Committee to extend, by ten minutes, the time allocated to the Aboriginal community.

We are wasting time discussing this, Mr. Chairman. We are going to spend the ten minutes that we could have given to Mr. Picard to discuss this.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, knowing the rules, is there unanimous consent?

An hon. member: Let's move on.

The Chair: Okay, so there isn't unanimous consent.

Ghislain, I do apologize to you, but I think you were advised. In the question and answer part, there will be plenty of opportunity to elaborate on the points you have made.

Would you please proceed? You have about three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Picard: Okay, but in that case, I will keep to the parts of the text which, in our opinion, best describe the frustration that Aboriginal peoples are feeling, and the attempts that we have made, over the last two years, to have our voices heard and to argue our case. I will continue.

Last June, the AFNQL, the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, contacted the Minister to draw to her attention the need to quickly devise a real action plan to solve the problems created by the realignment of economic regions and to explore possible solutions to the ever-present problems which are faced by our communities and were totally ignored when the boundaries were redrawn and the reforms were carried out.

Despite all the attempts by the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador to inform her as objectively as possible of the validity of our ideas, the Minister chose to ignore our proposals and concerns, even though they are legitimized by the fact that we are elected.

• 1130

Moreover, because we lack sufficient funds and have no guarantee from the Minister as to what she might do with the results of efforts to pursue this matter, the following is all we are able to submit: Resolution No. 12/2000, passed by the chiefs of the AFNQL in the fall and submitted to the Minister on December 15, 2000. This resolution echoed the latest amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, which had a major impact on EI claimants, including youth, students, women, self-employed workers, persons with disabilities and workers in general.

In conclusion, the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador wishes to reiterate its message that the Employment Insurance Act needs a much more extensive overhaul in order to take our circumstances into account. Among the options we would like to explore is the possibility of developing a separate First Nations economic region.

In closing, we wish to say that we are deeply concerned about the use of any surplus that has built up in the employment insurance program because profitability seems to be taking precedence over the program's original function as a social security measure. Major changes to the Employment Insurance Act are needed to make the program more accessible. Steps must also be taken to ensure that the large surpluses accumulated are reinvested to meet urgent social needs in our communities.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much and I apologize for there being so little time available.

[English]

I truly am sorry about that.

We will proceed to L'Association des municipalités francophones du Nouveau Brunswick. Would you introduce yourself, please, Réginald?

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Paulin (Vice-President, Association des municipalités francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent an association of Francophone municipalities in New Brunswick, the only Francophone association of municipalities outside Quebec. With me is the Executive Director, Léopold Chiasson.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, our presentation will not feature many statistics, because we think that you have already heard enough of them since the beginning of your hearings.

The Association des municipalités francophones du Nouveau- Brunswick has a membership of 38 municipalities, representing approximately 100,000 residents of Acadia. Nearly all of these communities are rural and their economies are based on natural resources, forestry, agriculture, peat mining and fishing.

Need we really explain that, in Canada, regardless of the region in question, an economy based on natural resources is limited to seasonal activities? The climate, which is inescapable, is responsible for those circumstances. However, denying the significance of this economy would mean denying the geographical and historical bases of the nation that is Canada.

History tells us that this seasonal economy was developed by the colonists and pioneers who were our ancestors. This economy was the source of our country's growth in the first few centuries of its history. This type of economy, moreover, is called a subsistence economy.

A number of witnesses have stated that the employment insurance program should be aimed at encouraging people to take up full-time, year-round jobs. For that to happen, those jobs must first exist. The problem in rural regions is that those jobs are not always available.

We would like to point out that the economic health and vitality of a country are directly proportional to its ability to need its own needs. The workers in the sector in question therefore require assistance, because their activities are essential to the nation's economy. History shows that the major weakness of developing countries is their inability to meet their own needs, develop their economy and develop their natural resources enough to be self-sufficient. We would not like to see the rural regions of Canada suffer the same fate. That's why we are asking the government to act.

When the federal government created the unemployment insurance system over half a century ago, its intention was to help people who were temporarily jobless, people who, for one reason or another, were without employment. The government took action to make up for those people's lack of earnings during such times.

• 1135

Many witnesses have mentioned the Maritimes, as though employment insurance reform was intended for the Maritimes only. Unemployment exists throughout Canada, throughout rural regions. It was even suggested that people in the Maritimes were lazy. I think that these statements cost some people a certain number of votes in the last election.

In the early 1990s, it may have been necessary to make standards tougher because we had a $5 billion deficit. However, with today's huge surpluses, the rules should be relaxed, they should be more flexible.

Everyone knows that there are 52 weeks in a year. When a job lasts for 14 weeks and employment insurance lasts for 30 weeks, you have a total of 44. Today, no-one can live without money. No-one can send children to school without money. It was possible one hundred years ago, but it is no longer possible today. This must be taken into consideration. The government has the responsibility, Mr. Chairman, of ensuring that citizens have enough income to support themselves.

I will go quickly because I know that my time is limited.

The intensity rule provides for 55%. Everyone knows that 55% is not enough. Even if the rule provided for 75%, this would not be too much, because the majority of workers in these regions often have wages of less than $300 per week. With 75%, they would have an income of approximately $200, $210 or perhaps $220 per week. That's even less than most of the people in this room earn in one day. It would therefore be important to study this percentage.

I am almost finished, Mr. Chairman. I hope that lawmakers will be wise enough to ensure a decent income and standard of living for citizens, and that the employment insurance fund will not be used to pay down the national debt or to subsidize other programs because, when the fund was running a deficit, it was topped up with contributions from employers and employees, and not from other programs. This law has to be fair, it has to give people what they are entitled to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Réginald.

[English]

And now the Coalition sur l'assurance-emploi du Bas Saint-Laurent. If you could introduce yourselves, I'd be grateful.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Gagnon (Spokesman, Coalition sur l'assurance- chômage du Bas-Saint-Laurent): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for hearing us. The Coalition represents some 50 groups of young people, women and, of course, the unemployed. It was formed in the early 1990s.

I will begin with a few observations. We are very hopeful because, even though Minister Stewart had said that she would not make any changes to the Act, there have already been three major changes made in the last few years.

The first change was made when the regions were reorganized on May 16, when the Lower St. Lawrence was separated from the Gaspé Peninsula and the islands. It had been decided that that would not change. After consultation, the region was redivided and the Mingan area was added to it.

New measures, which came into effect on July 9, created many inequalities in our region. Once again, the Minister requested transitional measures.

Bill C-44, which died on the Order Paper, was replaced by Bill C-2. That was the third change, and it is why we are confident that your committee will be able to make changes.

By the way, I would like to introduce the person who is with me. His name is Alain Lagacé, and he is a member of Action Chômage Kamouraska Inc. He has been directly concerned with the implications of the Act for 20 years. When people have problems with the Employment Insurance Act, they go to see Alain. If you have any technical questions later on, Alain will be the ideal person to answer them.

• 1140

Like Mr. Crête and Mr. Godin, we will take a brief look at Bill C-2. But what we would really like to do is take advantage of this platform to put forward our demands for eligibility criteria, duration of the benefit period and the benefit rate.

The Bill proposes a benefit rate of 55% of weekly earnings.

Once again, this is a good thing. Anything that is an addition in this bill sits well with us, because in our view it already fell very, very short. But 55% is a half measure, because we consider that a minimum standard of living requires at least 60%. It would be ideal to return to 70%, which we had before, because weekly earnings of $280 are inadequate, as was said earlier, for our people to support themselves.

Repayment of benefits is something of a concern, because the threshold is being raised from $39,000 to $48,000. This is the threshold for repaying employment insurance benefits.

One of the marked improvements in this bill concerns the eligibility of parents after an absence from the labour market. We believe that this is a step in the right direction, but that more needs to be done.

Since the changes proposed in the Axworthy reforms, all the amendments made to the Employment Insurance Act have in our opinion had only two effects: access to the system has become extremely restricted, and government coffers have been filled to overflowing—more than $37 billion.

We realize that the imperative of market globalization requires governments in the richest countries to reduce their social programs, but in our opinion that should not happen on the backs of those who are less well off. As a society, we have acquired the means to survive during periods of unemployment. Moreover, negotiations on the unemployment insurance plan, conducted in the 1940s, were between provincial and federal government leaders. Accordingly, we are convinced that these changes to the plan require the approval of the provinces if they are to be legal. In this respect, the Coalition sur l'assurance- chômage du Bas-St-Laurent supports the Confederation of National Trade Unions in its legal action to obtain a declaration to the effect that the unilateral changes made to the law are unconstitutional.

Later on in our report, you will find a description of the seasonal industry that prevails in the Lower St. Lawrence region, where between the months of August and November, there is an average of 6,000 to 8,000 workers on the employment insurance rolls. This is taken from the regional action plan drawn up by Emploi-Québec, a group of labour market partners in the Lower St. Lawrence region, explaining the nature of seasonal employment in our region.

Our main demands are as follows. We propose a universal eligibility test that could be on the order of 420 hours. This would mean that all EI claimants who are applying for the first time would be on the same footing as those who are in the region who have had repeated periods of unemployment.

We believe that the benefit period should not be less than 35 weeks, precisely to avoid the gap we keep hearing about, during which people do not have money coming in for one, two or three months until they are able to resume their employment. This also has an effect on the employer, who quite often has to train staff. If workers cannot return to their jobs, if they are forced to go elsewhere for work in order to rack up unemployment “stamps”, then they will frequently not return to work for the employer which trained them. This means that the employer has lost on its investment.

As for the benefit rate and the intensity rule, we propose that the benefit rate be increased to 60% of gross earnings, which we consider a decent minimum.

With regard to the smaller divisor, we have for some years been stuck with a system whereby, in a region where 15 weeks of work are required to entitle the employee to benefits, two more weeks are added to the number of weeks required to determine the benefit rate. We feel that this is a punitive measure that should not be included in the government's new bill. This approach is quite inappropriate, especially when one considers that the spirit of the law, when it was decided to require hours worked instead of weeks, was to extend eligibility to people working in fish processing plants who would otherwise not qualify.

We propose that the benefit rate be calculated on the basis of the actual number of weeks worked.

With regard to the waiting period for special benefits, we propose that the waiting period be completely abolished for claims for special benefits.

The coalition would be delighted if you could accept the five main demands that it is putting forward. However, if it had to choose from among these five demands, it would give priority to relaxing the eligibility criteria and abolishing the smaller divisor rule. We believe that this would in part, or in large part, solve the problems related to seasonal employment.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Normand and Alain, I thank you as well.

[English]

I'd just like to say that I think the material on your region representing so many groups is very useful to us—the material you have provided in the report. Thank you very much.

• 1145

The next witnesses are from the Greater Summerside Chamber of Commerce, and if you would, please introduce yourselves. Jeannette, would you introduce yourself?

Ms. Jeannette Arsenault (President, Greater Summerside Chamber of Commerce): I'm Jeannette Arsenault. I'm president of the Greater Summerside Chamber of Commerce, and this is John MacDonald, our general manager.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We want to thank you and the committee for inviting us, the Greater Summerside Chamber of Commerce, to appear before it today to discuss Bill C-2, which proposes amendments to the Employment Insurance Act.

[Translation]

The Greater Summerside Chamber of Commerce would like to thank you for inviting us here today to give you our ideas on the changes proposed in Bill C-2.

[English]

The Greater Summerside Chamber of Commerce is a voluntary organization of business and professional men and women who have joined together for the purpose of promoting the civic, commercial, and industrial progress of Summerside and the surrounding area.

The comments we present are representative of our own chamber and do not necessarily reflect those of any other chambers of commerce.

We applaud the government for listening to the concerns expressed by Canadians and for moving ahead to introduce amendments to the EI Act under Bill C-2. We had great concerns with the 1996 reform and we expressed them at that time.

Amendments being proposed at this time are to eliminate the intensity rule, to adjust the benefit repayment obligation known as the clawback provision, to modify the re-entrance rules for parents returning to the workforce, to continue to monitor and assess the impact of the EI program until 2006, to allow the Governor in Council to set the premium rates for two years, to maintain the maximum insurable earnings at $39,000, and to coordinate fishing regulations with the enhanced maternity, parental, and sickness benefits.

Our members would like to see other amendments introduced to the Employment Insurance Act, but at this time we believe it is more important to deal with the amendments presently introduced in Bill C-2.

On Prince Edward Island the essential sectors of our economy are agriculture, tourism, fishing, forestry, transportation, education, construction, and government services. The three major industries are agriculture, tourism, and fishing, which by their nature require a large number of seasonal employees.

Also important to note is that the three industries need seasonal workers between April and November. Islanders want and need an employment insurance program that offers security when they are between seasons.

What is important to our region in Bill C-2 is the removal of the experience-rated regular EI benefits by eliminating the intensity rule and by modifying the clawback, which depends in part on the number of weeks of benefits received in the past five years.

Under this proposal all claimants will be eligible to receive a 55% benefit rate irrespective of claim frequency. This additional percentage will not only help recipients to pay bills but will inject more dollars into the economy, thus supporting the business community. Much the same can be said about the adjusted benefit repayment provision.

To summarize, the removal of the intensity rule is an important must-do as it helps to maintain good employees for businesses that have economic downtimes during the year or that operate seasonally. It also allows people to remain in the community, surrounded by family members.

As a partner in the insurance benefit program, the business community understands the importance of having well-trained employees who may have to be laid off because of a shortage of work in seasonal industries but who can be readily rehired when work commences once again.

There are many businesses in different parts of Canada that require skilled seasonal workers, and Prince Edward Island is home to several of these types of businesses. Our agriculture, tourism, and fishing industries require seasonal workers who are skilled in that particular industry. These workers are extremely important to the industry and the Island economy, and because of a lack of opportunities for other seasonal work during the downtime, they must rely on the employment insurance program.

On P.E.I. we have an excellent workforce that is willing to work. They want to work in full-time positions, but the opportunities are not always available to them.

There is a belief that the government should determine what a high income is and then have a clawback formula similar to that in other income security programs. We say that if yearly adjustments to the thresholds are not implemented, then an individual will be worse off financially this year than in previous years because of inflation.

We surveyed our members on pregnancy and parental leave benefits. There was a strong belief that if parents and their children can spend considerable time together to bond and establish their relationship early in life, it is truly beneficial.

There was also real concern on the part of employers about the loss of an employee for up to a year. There was concern about training a replacement and then having to retrain their regular employee when he or she returns. Most small businesses are experiencing a tight bottom line and do not have additional funds for training.

• 1150

Bill C-2 stipulates that the Governor in Council will set the EI premium rate. While we understand that the Governor in Council will have final approval, it is believed that there still needs to be an opportunity for employers and employees to participate in the process.

We would like to propose that the government move the EI account out of the general federal revenue fund. We believe it should have its own accounting system to more accurately reflect the fund. Any surplus in this fund could be returned to the employers and employees in the form of lower premiums and more training programs. It is very clear from the accumulated surplus in the account that premiums need to be further reduced.

Reducing the EI premium rate would stimulate job creation and leave employers with more disposable income.

The Chair: Jeannette, if you could conclude—

Ms. Jeannette Arsenault: To summarize—

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Jeannette Arsenault: —it is important to eliminate the intensity rule, to determine the amount of clawback according to an established income level, and to have a formula in place to take into account yearly changes.

It is important to monitor and assess the impact of the EI program on an ongoing basis and to allow the Governor in Council to set premium rates with employer and employee input. Maintaining the maximum insurable earnings at $39,000 is suitable at this time. Any modification of the set of entrance rules for parents returning to the workforce could be extended to include re-entrants and new entrants.

Many of our members understand there is support for training opportunities available from Human Resources Development Canada, but a more aggressive program is needed as they are unaware of what specific opportunities are available for either employers or employees.

On behalf of the Greater Summerside Chamber of Commerce, we'd like to thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much indeed, Jeannette. I appreciate it.

If we can, we'll proceed now to the last of the witnesses, which is the Regroupement pour une caisse d'assurance parentale québécoise. It's Claudette Carbonneau, and Claudette, you're on your own.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau (Vice-President, Confederation of National Trade Unions, Regroupement pour une caisse d'assurance parentale québécoise): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am speaking on behalf of the Regroupement pour une caisse d'assurance parentale, a group working for a parental insurance fund. It is a Quebec coalition, founded in 1989, which today represents over one million people who are members of trade unions, women's groups and family organizations.

The work of the coalition is based on the following convictions. In the first place, maternity leave and the various forms of parental leave constitute a kind of cornerstone for all our efforts to recognize social responsibility with regard to the family and children. Of course, such leave also encourages and supports women in the labour market. A leave program can also promote a better sharing of family responsibilities between men and women and, certainly, once the issue of maternity and parental leave has been settled by means of a public policy, that leaves room for businesses, which can be encouraged to develop support programs so that family responsibilities can be juggled with the demands of the workplace.

Certainly, I think that no one would deny today that the choice to have children is not just a personal choice, but one that generally benefits society as a whole. If this is accepted, why then are there so many problems with compensation for maternity and parental leave?

I would like to ask the following question. What exactly should we be aiming for in a good maternity or parental leave program? I would suggest that the main feature of such a program should be that it is accessible to everyone for whom it is intended. It would be completely unacceptable that a woman, that young parents, be denied access to such leave and find themselves penalized simply because they are bringing a child into the world. The program should cover all employed people, regardless of the status of their employment, regardless also of how long they have been in the labour force.

Now, we know that in the Quebec labour market, in 1995, nearly 17% of young parents were self-employed. The percentage of part- time workers was also very high, in the area of 18%. And we are familiar with the restrictions applied under the employment insurance system: on the one hand, self-employed workers are not covered at all and, on the other hand, part-time workers must accumulate a considerable number of hours in order to qualify for benefits.

In light of this, we think that the bill should be re-examined to increase accessibility. That is our first priority.

• 1155

The second feature of a good maternity and parental leave program is the level of protection it offers in terms of income replacement. I will tell you right away that the amendments contained in Bill C-2—a benefit rate of 55% with a ceiling of $39,000—are definitely inadequate.

We think that we should be aiming at a replacement rate of 100% of earnings and that, given the responsibilities placed on young parents, at least 75% of earnings should be provided in the beginning. This would allow them to meet their social obligations.

It is clear to us that the third feature of a good program is that it includes special measures for fathers. It is a matter of equity between men and women. We must encourage a change in mentalities and a better sharing of responsibility between men and women. This also contributes to the well-being of children and to the self-realization of fathers. Under the current system, there is no measure specifically for fathers, that might encourage a change in mentality.

The fourth feature of a good program, in our opinion, is, of course, the duration of the leave. We realize that amendments were made in this regard at the beginning of the year. This is commendable. In our view, this is still only the fourth priority, because what good is it to have a longer leave period if the majority of people still have difficulty gaining access to the leave?

My last comment will be as follows. It is abundantly clear to us that it is very difficult to deal adequately with issues of maternity and parental leave in an act that has as wide a scope as the employment insurance legislation. Illness, maternity, unemployment, the labour force and the misappropriation of part of the fund to pay down Canada's debt—these elements are too disparate.

We would hope that an adequate maternity leave program could be in place throughout Canada.

In closing, I wish to emphasize that there is currently a consensus in Quebec. A law was passed to set up a Quebec fund for parental insurance and maternity leave. We hope that the federal government will demonstrate openness in the negotiations to take place soon, so that all of the contributions that we pay to fund this component of the program can be repaid to Quebec, so that we can establish a program that is clearly superior in all respects.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Claudette.

[English]

We'll now proceed to the questioning of the witnesses.

Technically, there are 18 members on this committee, so 10 minutes extra per member is three hours. The way it works, we go from side to side, opposition to government. We move through the parties. The members have roughly five minutes, including the answers.

Again, I apologize, but it's the way we do it. Then, when we've been through, we start again and see how it's going. I will try to keep the members short, as well, if I possibly can.

I'll begin with Val Meredith, then Joe McGuire, Paul Crête, and Jeannot Castonguay.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank you all for appearing before the committee. We have heard a similar message from most of the people who have appeared, but we have heard from some of the employer groups who create the jobs that people have.

They felt or expressed that they pay 60% of the contributions into the unemployment fund, and they had no problem with government providing what they consider to be social policies, social benefits, but they were concerned that the businesses were being taxed, rather than the Canadian population in general, to provide these social programs, be it the maternity issues or programs for seasonal employees. They felt that this went outside of the original intent of the unemployment insurance, which was for short-term benefit to employees who found themselves laid off, for short-term programs.

How would you respond to them feeling that, really, they were just being taxed another tax as businesses to provide for programs outside of the original mandate of the unemployment insurance program?

The Chair: Would anyone like to comment?

[Translation]

Alain Lagacé, followed by Réginald Paulin.

• 1200

Mr. Alain Lagacé (Spokesperson, Coalition sur l'assurance- emploi du Bas-Saint-Laurent): To answer your question, Madam, first of all, I think if you have heard the same thing from other groups of witnesses, that is proof beyond any doubt that there is a problem with the Employment Insurance Act.

As for employers, I do not think we are talking to the same employers. The employers I talked to are people who actually want to maintain their work force and do not feel they fund employment insurance excessively. One solution to your problem, I feel, would be to simply lower employer premiums, because the current surplus in the employment insurance fund is such that all that needs to be done is to lower employer premiums to the same level as employee premiums. That would solve any problem and make everyone happy.

The Chair: Réginald Paulin.

Mr. Réginald Paulin: Obviously, employment insurance and the related premiums—whether they be employer or employee premiums—are there to provide money to workers so they can get by. Premiums become a tax when the government uses them for purposes other than those for which they were paid. As long as the government spends the money where it should be spent, it is not a tax, but rather a form of equalization providing money to those with none or very little so they can get by. Thus, it would not be a tax; it would be support for those who have none.

[English]

The Chair: Val Meredith—although, Val, I do have a couple more who want to answer. Do you want to continue?

Ms. Val Meredith: I guess the question then is should this fund be controlled by the employers and employees to make sure government doesn't use it for purposes outside of the program?

[Translation]

The Chair: Léopold Chiasson, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Chiasson.

Mr. Léopold Chiasson (Director General, Association des municipalités francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick): Madam, I think the employment insurance plan has too many objectives. The interests of every group in society cannot be combined into one program. There was a specific reason for employment insurance at the outset; that reason has since been distorted. I think interest groups approach you with irrelevant objectives. Tax practice or areas of taxation have no business with the issue of employment insurance.

It is a social program, and today, this social program is creating poverty in communities. It destabilizes families, uproots families from their home and sends them elsewhere to work. It is a bad program. It is a bad program because the government has too many objectives, both hidden and stated, in one program. Try to simplify that, and you will see it will be a very good program if you go back to its origins.

The Chair: Normand, be very brief, please.

Mr. Normand Gagnon: First, the management of the fund must be handed over to workers and employers. Second, four people out of ten who pay into employment insurance are entitled to benefits. That is unfair, having to pay employment insurance premiums from the very first hour worked, but not being entitled to benefits when they are needed. It is like buying insurance and then being told when you need it that you are not entitled for this or that reason. In our opinion, that is unfair. It has to be fair. People are paying for insurance to prevent hardship when there is a work stoppage, and the number of hours required to qualify is too high; as a result, people get no benefits and have been tricked. I feel the fund should be handed over to workers and employers. In this way, we will manage our own money.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Val, do you have a comment perhaps?

Ms. Val Meredith: No, that's fine.

The Chair: Joe McGuire, Paul Crête, Jeannot Castonguay, Yvon Godin.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome all the witnesses and presenters here this morning. I would first of all like to get the presenters' reaction to the statement by the Summerside Chamber that we should deal with this act now. We should get this through, and then continue to work on other changes—many of which we have heard over the past three or four weeks. Do you think this is a good policy, or should we look for more now and jeopardize what we have in the bill?

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Gagnon: I think the current opportunity to amend the Act should be taken to change that. Of course, there are all kinds of parliamentary rules that say this cannot be done, but since changes are being made, let's make sure that those changes are made once and for all and that people are satisfied with Canada's employment insurance plan.

• 1205

To answer your question, yes, changes are needed immediately. There is no point in waiting. Who knows how long it might take? I think it would be better to try to make changes while you are at it.

The Chair: Claudette Carbonneau.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I would just briefly say that the social needs call for greater vision in terms of the analysis. Just look at the number of times there have been piecemeal amendments to the employment insurance plan in recent years with no overall vision. This time, if you debate this again in Parliament, for goodness' sake, listen to what is truly needed. Let's put a stop to this senseless patchwork approach that no longer meets people's needs.

The Chair: Réginald Paulin.

Mr. Réginald Paulin: Mr. Chairman, the Committee you chair does not have the power to amend the Act, but your role, I believe, is to recommend amendments to Parliament. I would be disappointed if the Committee were to make only one recommendation, when so many people have come here to set out the real and serious concerns of communities with respect to the current employment insurance plan.

[English]

The Chair: John MacDonald.

Mr. John MacDonald (Manager, Greater Summerside Chamber of Commerce): Thank you, sir.

Back in 1996 the government introduced legislation to amend the act, seeing that it was ineffective in many areas, and took it upon itself to reopen the act. I think that should be applauded, to start with. It's not too often that governments will backtrack on something they've already put into place.

We feel, as a business community, you should deal with these amendments now. Get rid of the intensity clause. Get some of our people back in at least a halfway position, where they can live and put, as the saying is, some bacon on the table, have some sort of lifestyle. Then go back in and look at the whole act. The whole act definitely needs amendments, adjustments, but for the time being let's get some of this stuff on the table and taken care of.

The Chair: Ghislain Picard, and then I'll go back to Joe McGuire.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Picard: The reason we are here this morning as representatives of the First Nations, is that there is clearly a significant gulf between us and our Canadian neighbours, which requires your attention. We have repeatedly made these arguments to the Minister for over a year, and they have apparently been given no consideration. We support reform in principle, provided the process takes our diverse situations into account. Given the situation in our communities, at times, we would be happy with unemployment rates of 11% or 12%.

[English]

The Chair: Joe McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get their reaction to the changes of 1996 as regards young people. I think everybody recognized you made it much more difficult for young people to qualify for the first time, and one of the reasons it was done was that a lot of people were leaving school at 15 or 16 years old to join their father or become fishermen or to enter other seasonal occupations. Ten years later we're putting on literacy programs to get people to read and write. So this was a provision I think to keep people in the school system longer, so they would perhaps make more effective decisions on their futures than they were.

The Chair: Joe, you have time for one short answer, I'm afraid.

Alain Lagacé, and this will be the only reply.

[Translation]

Mr. Alain Lagacé: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think the 1996 amendments to the Act were well intentioned. However, the 1996 amendments contained many traps, which I will explain. You referred to young people. Before 1996, young people could qualify with 20 weeks of work. In 1996, that was raised to 26 weeks. To make things more readily acceptable, that was converted to hours, but young people with 26 20-hour weeks did not qualify.

• 1210

I was talking about young people, but I am also talking about women wanting maternity benefits. I have seen a number of them who wanted maternity benefits and who, prior to the amendments to the Act, were entitled after 26 weeks of work, even with 26 15-hour weeks. After the 1996 amendments, 26 15-hour weeks yielded 360 hours; so those women were not entitled. Thus there were traps.

The other trap I would like to call your attention to, is a statement of the then Prime Minister, who is still Prime Minister today, Mr. Chrétien, who said it was unfair that in fish processing plants, people were working 8 or 10 60-hour weeks and were not entitled to employment insurance. He said that from then on, they would be entitled, but there again was a trap. Processing plant workers are now entitled, but with the lowest denominator, which is a minimum of 14 for people who have worked 8 or 9 weeks, their earnings for that period are divided by 14 and multiplied by 55% or 50%. I wanted to draw the Committee's attention to these traps.

[English]

The Chair: Merci. It's Paul Crête, Jeannot Castonguay, Yvon Godin, Anita Neville, Carol Skelton.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

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

The presentations and demands of the groups who made those presentations here today are extremely varied, but it seems to me they have something in common: the employment insurance plan, year- in, year-out, collects about $18 billion in premiums and pays out about $12 billion. Six billion dollars goes elsewhere in the system.

I have a question for these groups. Would you feel the Committee had done its job if it only assessed the appropriateness of the amendments to Bill C-2, namely the intensity rule and associated factors, or do you think that in order to do its job, the Committee has to look at a much larger sample, a broader range of demands? Perhaps you could point out which demands you feel should be included.

The Chair: Normand Gagnon, followed by Réginald Paulin.

Mr. Normand Gagnon: To start with, I think the Committee should deal with Bill C-2 based on the demands groups have made.

Second, transitional measures currently apply to the new Lower Saint Lawrence-North Shore zone. They provide that for the next two years, you need 420 hours to qualify for a benefit period of up to 32 weeks. As early as next year, that drops to 28 weeks, and in 2003, it will take from 525 to 595 hours to qualify as things stand. That will bring us back to where we were before September 21, and seasonal workers in our area will be unable to qualify. Therefore, if changes are not made immediately, we will have the same needs in 2003 and will take action and so on all over again, because the people of the Lower Saint Lawrence will not agree to go without money for some period of time.

The Chair: Mr. Réginald Paulin.

Mr. Réginald Paulin: To add to what Mr. Gagnon just said, I think the role of this Committee must be to recommend to the government an employment insurance plan that meets the needs of Canadians who are in need, namely those who experience periods of unemployment. What use is it for the Committee to deal only with tiny changes. Last, I think your Committee should go well beyond its original terms of reference and make recommendations in light of all you have heard for a fair employment insurance plan. When I say fairness, I mean social justice.

The Chair: Mr. Ghislain Picard, then Gérard Asselin.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: We are in fact here because to some extent we are counting on the work of this Committee to get it through to the Government of Canada that there is a huge gulf between Canadian society in general and Aboriginal society. Canada may well rank among the best countries in which to live, where the quality of life is adequate, but if you delve into the facts to discover the situation of Aboriginal people, Canada ranks much lower, somewhere between 60th and 65th.

• 1215

I think this reflects a clear deficiency in the relationship between our communities and the Government of Canada. It is very clear to me that as long as you refuse to go beyond the framework of your legislative considerations and to actually deal with the issues affecting Aboriginal peoples... We have been banging our heads against the wall for several months, for too long, trying to get the Canadian Government to see that the First Nations are an important and separate consideration. I think you should listen to what we are saying.

The Chair: Thank you.

Gérard.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Under constant questioning from the Bloc Québécois and our critic, Paul Crête, in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister admitted that the federal government had achieved a zero deficit. The Prime Minister acknowledged during the election campaign that he had made a mistake and had promised Canadians that there would be a comprehensive reform. As we know, Bill C-44 disappeared before the election campaign, and the government came back with Bill C-2 when the House of Commons resumed its work.

Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois, like the NDP, the Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, and even the Liberal Party, would certainly have given unanimous consent for Bill C-2 to be passed in a single day if the government had agreed to a comprehensive reform of employment insurance. This bill would already have been passed in the House of Commons.

However, the Bloc Québécois and a number of other opposition parties realize that C-2 is merely polishing indirectly the money taken away from taxpayers to achieve the zero deficit. It is a disguised tax that was imposed on workers, chiefly seasonal workers.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Asselin, you're dividing your time with Paul. It's Paul's time. One very short answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I see that the people from the Lower St. Lawrence region tabled their demands today in which they call on the committee to conduct a comprehensive reform. Since C-2 does not do this, the committee should.

Do the Aboriginal representatives have any specific recommendations? We know that your unemployment rate is much higher than that of other communities. I would also like to ask those who are affected directly by this issue and who have not put forward any recommendations in their briefs to send them to the chairman of the committee.

The Chair: Ghislain.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: We would just say that it would be very difficult for us to support any process or any proposal from the federal government or its representatives until some consideration is shown for the principles underlying our demands. Yes, we have data to prove to the Canadian government that the First Nations, because of their situation, can constitute an economic region of their own, and that, as we told the Minister, the surplus in the EI fund should be used to restore some balance between the situation of Aboriginal people in this country and that of other Canadians.

To the extent that there is an answer or at the least an indication that the government is prepared to listen with this principle in mind, we would be prepared to support the process. As long as the government does not say that this is possible, we will be unable to support such a process, because we have an obligation to be somewhat firm about our principles.

[English]

The Chair: Jeannot Castonguay, Yvon Godin, Anita Neville, Carol Skelton, and then Alan Tonks.

I'm sorry, Claudette. I will come back to you if that's okay. Jeannot.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska-Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the people who have come to meet with us. Your testimony will certainly help us make some recommendations to the government.

Mr. Paulin, you say in the last paragraph of page 1 of your brief:

A number of presenters [...] have told you that the changes made to the employment insurance plan were designed to encourage workers [...]

In the following paragraph, you say:

Rather than being weakened, this sector of economic activity must be strengthened and supported by social measures such as the employment insurance program.

The presentations of the various groups put forward slightly different needs, and that is very much to be expected.

• 1220

There is something I am wondering about and I would like to hear what you have to say about it. Is the employment insurance program a genuine insurance program? Should there be an insurance program or should this be a program with a social function? Should we have other programs to deal with the specific needs of the groups that have testified before us? We have heard both versions. Some people tell us that the program should go back to its role as an insurance plan, but if we do that, we know that... At the moment, EI acts as a social program as well. I would like to know where we should turn for that.

The Chair: Do you have an answer, Claudette? That is fine. Claudette and Réginald.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: Yes, I will answer the question. Clearly, we would like to see separate programs for the maternity benefits and parental leave, for example. However, the transition must be organized properly. We cannot find ourselves left with nothing at all. The coalition maintained strongly that we are very badly served by the employment insurance plan and that this is a social issue that should be dealt with in a completely different way.

While earlier I was supporting the calls for openness, whether from the First Nations or other groups here, I do think that we have to look at substantial changes in the program. In some cases, a complete reworking of the Act is required. I would say that in the case of maternity benefits and parental leave, there should be a response to a bill passed by Quebec which provides for the repatriation of responsibilities related to the family, with all programs being put back where they should be. In addition, we should be given access to the premiums paid for this purpose. There will be a test of this very quickly, which does not even involve amending the legislation.

We are waiting impatiently for the federal government's response to the desire of the Quebec government to repatriate this aspect of the program in order to build something more consistent and satisfactory for our people. I hope that similar initiatives will be undertaken by all the provinces of Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Réginald Paulin, and then Ghislain Picard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Paulin: Léopold Chiasson will comment on behalf of our association.

The Chair: Yes, of course.

Mr. Léopold Chiasson: I would say, in answer to Mr. Castonguay's question, that employment insurance as such is not a social program. There is a social measure, the one with which we are familiar at the moment, but the government designed its program on the basis of its own economic agenda. It included it in its zero deficit strategy. It changed the program to attack specific sectors, such as seasonal employment, and so on.

If it were a social program, Mr. Castonguay, it would not be causing poverty, as it is in our communities at the moment. It would not have the perverse effects that it has at the moment. You know better than I that a government social program, and not one from our sectors... The government's role is to legislate in the interest of social solidarity, not to multiply inequities. Thus, employment insurance is not a social program, but there is a social measure. The liberal government has subjugated this program to a very specific agenda - restoring order to the country's finances. This is a very unhealthy approach.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Picard—and we have to be fairly brief, Ghislain.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Picard: We are in full agreement with an integrated approach. Your comment could be interpreted in this way to some extent. I think the problem is that the plan requires us to adapt our situation to its structure, whereas it should be the plan that adapts to our situation. That is where we went wrong, and we are calling on the government to take the time to look at the social and economic reality of Aboriginal communities in the hope that any future reform will take all that into account.

[English]

The Chair: Did you have a comment, Jeannot, or are you okay? No? Okay.

Yvon Godin, Carol Skelton, then the chair, and then Gérard Asselin.

[Translation]

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

First of all, I would like to welcome you to the committee. We should say that all this is important, but when we hear the comments, it does not look like this will go very far. It cost $77,000 to bring in witnesses, but apparently the committee does not have the power to make a recommendation to the Minister. It is unfortunate that we live in a country like this, and I am going to say exactly what I think.

• 1225

I have a quick question for the Aboriginal representatives. I think that the data has already been updated. The indication is that only 20% of Aboriginals can qualify for employment insurance. If I understand your opposition correctly, you are saying that we should be reviewing the situation as a whole with a view to making your region a separate entity, in order to be fair to the Aboriginal community. If we really want to do something positive, your community should not be included with the rest of the population in a city where the unemployment rate is low, because that skews the figures. That is what I understood from your remarks. I can tell you that you have my support on that. I think that's the only thing to do.

I want to congratulate you on the position you have taken—not when you say that Bill C-2 should be passed as quickly as possible—but the one where you say that you are not all in agreement with the Chamber of Commerce of Canada. I can tell you that they did not represent you well here. I did not like the way in which that was presented to us. I think they spoke for central Canada only and forgot about the regions. If they are part of this beautiful country, Canada, they certainly did not represent the views of all their members throughout the country.

So there was the Chamber of Commerce, the representatives of the municipalities, of the unemployed, of seasonal workers, Aboriginal peoples, parents, and so on, and everyone agrees that Bill C-2 does not go far enough. Mr. Paulin says that children are going to school hungry and employers are saying that they have lost EI money that used to go to small and medium-sized companies.

Everyone says that the government is stealing money from workers and employers and using it to pay down the debt. I would like to hear your comments. Should the government not turn back this fund to those to whom it belongs so that children can go off to school with full stomachs and so that employers can use the fund for economic development purposes, rather than moving backwards?

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Those were very long questions. Are there are some short answers to them, or comments? Réginald Paulin.

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Paulin: It is true, Mr. Chairman. At the time of the reforms in 1996 and 1995, the unemployment rate in Canada was 10% or 11%. We know that every time the unemployment rate drops by one percentage point, millions, if not billions of dollars flow into the economy. Today, the unemployment rate in Canada is approximately 7%.

So we replenished the fund. Now this has been done, it is time to spend some of this money. That is what we are saying, and that is what all the groups that have appeared before you have said. The change from 50% to 55% is not going to turn things around. That is almost nothing. Why go to so much trouble and do so much research and have so many people travel so far in order to do so little? I have said it before and I will say it again: the game is not worth the candle.

The Chair: Normand Gagnon.

Mr. Normand Gagnon: I think the goodies we get from Bill C-2 are just window dressing to hide the major change it contains: namely that the rate will be set by the Governor in Council. In other words, the bill would have the Minister of Finance set the rate so that he can determine if he should continue to draw on the employment insurance fund to pay down future deficits. After that, he would say that for a particular year, a given rate would be required to produce so many billions of dollars to be used for something else. I think that is the idea. Your Committee should take the opportunity to make some major changes to Bill C-2. Otherwise, the exercise will be in the interest of the Minister of Finance only.

The Chair: Claudette Carbonneau.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I really think the measures proposed in Bill C-2 are merely half-way measures. They do not form a basis on which we can build. After all that has been said about the misappropriation of the fund, I would say that giving the Minister of Finance such great authority to set the premium rate does not constitute even a half-way step toward improving the Act.

• 1230

It is entirely fair that premiums be balanced so that during good times, the fund can accumulate surpluses to be used during more difficult times, during recessions. However, giving this authority to the Minister of Finance conveys a completely negative message, at least from all the comments we have heard here this morning.

The Chair: Your time is up, Yvon. I am sorry.

[English]

Anita Neville, Carol Skelton, and then the chair.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief, but my question probably requires longer conversation.

I'd like to thank you for your presentation, Mr. Picard, particularly because it is a singular presentation, not one we've heard from many before.

You speak at some length about the redefinition of economic regions, and you talk specifically about the economic realities of aboriginal communities. I'm not familiar with the area you come from, but I am very familiar with the economic realities of Manitoba aboriginal communities. I'm from Winnipeg, but what I'm interested in—and it doesn't speak to the bill itself, to what we have in front of us—is the process that you would suggest to explore the possibility of developing first nations economic regions.

The Chair: Mr. Picard.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: I feel the question certainly merits a certain level of attention.

Ms. Anita Neville: I agree.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: We're not saying that's the solution that we foresee. What we're saying is that the situation in which we live as aboriginal peoples in this country deserves that we raise the question, at the very least. That's the only thing we bring forward to this committee this morning.

It is our view that if you have a town that has 15% unemployment and you have an aboriginal community just a few kilometres away that has 50% unemployment, then there is something wrong with the picture. We're saying to take the time to assess the situation of aboriginal communities across the country, compare that situation to the current EI legislation, and ask if the legislation fits the reality of aboriginal communities, our reality. If we see that it doesn't, then we should do something about it.

Ms. Anita Neville: Can I follow up?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Anita Neville: I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. What I'm trying to determine is how you see that happening, how you see the investigation happening, and what the process of looking at the situation should be.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: I guess we are here as representatives from—

Ms. Anita Neville: And I understand that.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: —one given region of the country, because we did experience impacts following the latest redefinitions of the regions. We're also saying that if we live it in our corner of the world, then it's possible that other regions across the country might also experience the same things as aboriginal communities.

We have structures in place nationally that oversee the work that we do in any given area, including EI. We have a committee on human resources, and it would be up to the committee to determine the process from which we would determine what actions to take and consider.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Chair: Réginald Paulin.

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Paulin: Mr. Chairman, while I do not want to take anything away from what Mr. Picard has said, I would like to remind you that there are some non-Aboriginal regions in Canada, regions where there are no First Nation peoples, where the unemployment rate is very high. In the French-speaking part of New Brunswick, for example, the unemployment rate is as high as 16% or 17%, whereas the rate in the Moncton area is 5% or 6%.

So there are unfair situations in that case too. There are some regions with very high unemployment rates compared to regions that are located very close by. This is true in the case of the First Nations, but also in the case of other rural regions that depend on natural resources in order to survive.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Thank you, Anita.

Carol Skelton, the chair, Gérard Asselin, and then Joe McGuire.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for your presentations.

• 1235

Over the period of hearing from the groups who have attended, the matter of social programs came up quite a few times. The chamber was the only group today that mentioned training. Do you, as individual groups, consider training a social program, or do you think that further training for employees should be continued in the EI program?

[Translation]

The Chair: Réginald Paulin.

Mr. Réginald Paulin: Mr. Chairman, we agree with training, but everything depends on how it is done. If we ask individuals age 40, 50 or 55 to go back to school to learn things they don't need to know, just to have them waste their time, there is no point in that. If we are talking about training that would help people get out of this situation... In our regions, there are people in the 20 to 35 age group on whom we should be relying for economic development. We should not be relying on people who are 50 years of age. Very often, our young people, those in university and community college, cannot find jobs in the region. So we cannot count on that group either.

We should be providing training for people in the 20 to 35 or 40 age group so that they can get jobs located in the region, in the community. These people already have families, they are established and have houses. So we could focus our economic development efforts on the population group to whom training should be directed. The training should not be a sham.

[English]

The Chair: It's Alain Lagacé, then Ghislain Picard, then Carol Skelton, and then perhaps Léopold Chiasson, but we'll see. Alain Lagacé and then Ghislain.

[Translation]

Mr. Alain Lagacé: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I fully agree as regards training, but there is something rather illogical about the Employment Insurance Act at the moment. When people take 16, 18 or 20 hours of training a week to increase their employability and perhaps get off EI once and for all, their benefits are cut off because they are not available for work. I think this is totally illogical. What is even more illogical is this: we cut off the entitlement to EI for people who want to take a little time to start up a business, so that they then would never have to go back on employment insurance. I saw two such cases last week in my office.

Do you realize under the current Act, people who want to start up businesses and no longer be dependent on social programs have their benefits cut off because they are considered not available for work? Making a change to correct this problem would cost nothing.

The Chair: Ghislain, then Carol.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: We would certainly gain by being far more flexible. I will let Ms. Buckell give you an example.

Ms. Madeleine Buckell (Employment insurance advisor, Assembly of First Nations): Hello, everyone.

As Mr. Picard says, we are obviously all in favour of training, particularly since Aboriginal communities have a very high drop-out rate and declining populations.

We have already studied the issue, and have come up with an idea we are going to put forward here, without having developed it to any great depth. We think this could be a positive way of using part of the surplus for a social measure. Sometimes, we seem to question that approach, but we do believe it is one solution.

We know that, under human resources development agreements or Canada-Quebec labour agreements, we can go back three years to make young people eligible for employment insurance, and enable them to go back to school. But this is not enough: in order to access that measure, the young person must have received employment insurance in the previous three years. But it is very difficult to get employment insurance when you need to have worked 910 hours.

We know that young people often work only during the summer and therefore do not accumulate enough hours. We would prefer to look to the future. Let's be proactive, and look to the future. Instead of going back three years, let's go forward three years. Let's develop an action plan in conjunction with employment advisors to ensure that young people achieve enough education to make them employable. Rather than looking back, let's look forward. That is one of the measures we put forward. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Carol, do you have a few...?

Ms. Carol Skelton: Do you find that sometimes when unemployed people go to an EI office they have problems with the people working in the office?

• 1240

The Chair: Comment—very briefly?

John MacDonald.

Mr. John MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things our members in the business community notice is that the HRDC offices have some of these programs, but I think their marketing of them is very limited. Knowing that they're even there is difficult. I know, and so does everybody else, that you really have to walk in there and pluck them out.

They feel they should be more transparent with their programs, so the business community knows what's going on. This whole training thing we talked about earlier in our presentation...there's also enhancement training for employees, to retain them for your business—so they don't become useless within the workplace because of technology changes and things like that. They could get put on the back burner, or others could come in and take their places. So I think training is a topic of broad scope and needs to be addressed in that particular fashion.

Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, thanks.

Colleagues, if I could take a question, we've been around together fairly well. I represent two first nations, and, Ghislain, I know you're the regional chief for Quebec and the Labrador coast—Sept-Îles, the Montagnais-Naskapi, and Schefferville.

I think I understand your basic point: the measures used for unemployment in many regions simply do not fit the first nations. So there are tiny areas that are completely different from the other areas. I understand that.

But in your region—and you're chief for the whole of Quebec and the Labrador coast, the whole peninsula—how would it work there? For example, do you envisage one economic region replacing Quebec and Labrador, one that would simply use the statistics of the first nations better? Or do you envisage a number of economic regions?

I think it would be useful, for the record, if you could use that as an example for what might happen across Canada.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: First, we haven't been able to really go far in our thinking, because of the lack of government response to our arguments. We feel this should be the first step.

If we do propose something, then we should be able to know whether it's going to be considered by the government. We feel these decisions that affect our communities are very unilateral. As representatives of our communities, we feel we have a duty to raise concerns and to protest on their behalf. The question you raise cannot be easily answered unless we have some indication from the government that this may be something it would consider.

But above and beyond that, we also want to call attention to the fact that there are major discrepancies between your situation and that of our communities. We feel this deserves special attention. When we speak about the EI fund surpluses, we say it has to be broad and flexible. It should meet the needs we communicate so often to your government. We feel we don't get that ear from government.

But to respond to your question, I could say, well, let's take the time to look at the specifics of all the communities. We agree that in certain areas, redefining the economic regions has not affected some communities to the extent it has the communities I'm from. But because of the general state of aboriginal communities across the country, I think we need to spend some time on it. That's the only concern we are raising with government.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Gérard Asselin, then Joe McGuire, then Yvon Godin.

• 1245

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At present, we are going through a very difficult period of the year. Winter is ending, but spring has not yet begun. Winter activities are drawing to a close, while spring activities have not yet started up. Now, we are in the gap, the period in which insurable weeks have expired.

Soon, we will be hearing in the news that unemployment has dropped in Quebec and Canada. But this is not because people have found work, it is because the government has stopped giving them cheques. It is the principle of communicating vessels. When employment insurance cheques are no longer issued, the number of people on social assistance goes up. That is what we are seeing today. Since they have used up all their weeks, and jobs in their field - be it forestry, fisheries, agriculture or tourism - have not yet started up for the summer, they fall into the gap.

When that happens, some of the people do have access to social assistance. But they often have to divest themselves of any assets to access social assistance. The impact of this from year to year is to increase poverty among some categories of people.

The Minister has of course proposed transition measures. We got on board; we believed in those measures, a bit like children believe in Santa Claus. The Minister proposed transition measures to deal with the gap. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that there are neither programs nor money. Why do we need transition measures? If there is no program, there is no money.

Mr. Picard said earlier that Aboriginal communities would be happy to have an unemployment rate of 8%. I am certain that though Statistics Canada announced an unemployment rate of 8, 10 or even 12% for certain regions, figures we find very high, Aboriginal communities would have 35 to 40% unemployment during those same periods. All the statistics are skewed, because Aboriginal communities are not included in the total number of people receiving employment insurance benefits in a given region.

My question is to Mr. Paulin and Mr. Gagnon. I also have a specific question for Mr. Picard.

Transition measures of course created expectations in your community. Is it true that in some communities... There are two Aboriginal reserves in my riding: Essipit and Betsiamites. Is an unemployment rate in the order of 35 to 45% reasonable? Does that rate occur fairly regularly in your communities? In the Lower St. Lawrence or other regions, are you experiencing the unacceptable gap we are coming up against in Charlevoix, on the North shore? Right now, people are no longer entitled to employment insurance, and frequently are not entitled to social assistance.

Thank you.

Mr. Ghislain Picard: We will probably both answer your question.

Our concerns frequently extend beyond your legislative process, because we find it somewhat too restrictive. Our challenge as community leaders is to find a balance. You talked about dependence on social assistance. For us, the bar is set very high, while economic growth and even unemployment as such are at the lower end of the scale. Our challenge is to bring them back into balance.

With respect to transition measures, I will let Ms. Buckell answer.

Ms. Madeleine Buckell: Thank you.

With respect to transition measures, particularly gradual measures implemented in the Lower St. Lawrence-North Shore economic region, we have struck a coalition. We had asked that an Aboriginal committee be established to study adaptation measures. We have not yet had an answer to that request. We know that four major committees have been established in Quebec, but we are not part of them.

With respect to the unemployment rate in economic regions, one thing is certain: we were not able to carry out a comprehensive study, as indicated in the text, but we can see that not a single one of the communities we know has an unemployment rate below 26%. However, the unemployment rates used as indicators for eligibility standards stop, I believe, at 13%. But our's is always higher. We could name specific communities, but in my view it suffices to say that we must consider establishing a separate economic region for Aboriginal communities. How could that be done in practice? We have to see.

The Chair: Réginald Paulin.

• 1250

Mr. Réginald Paulin: I wanted to point out that, when we talk about the unemployment rate, we are not necessarily talking about the jobless rate. Those are two different things. As Mr. Asselin has just said, many people are not on the unemployment rolls. If you went into the region and checked the employment rate, you would be surprised to see that the figures do not reflect what is really happening. The figures are being massaged.

In spite of that, the figures show that some regions, and not only Aboriginal communities, are indeed disadvantaged. The Acadian peninsula in New Brunswick, where I am from, has an unemployment rate close to 20%, while in the southern part of the province unemployment stands at 5 or 6%. So when we calculate the average for the province as a whole, we get 11%.

Those are the unemployment figures. However, the number of jobless is much higher, because the unemployed end up turning to social assistance when they can, of course. We must take all the damaging repercussions this could have on communities into account.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Gérard, I'm afraid that's it, and I apologize, Normand.

Joe McGuire, briefly, and Yvon Godin.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's been stated here today, and on a number of other days, that government shouldn't be a partner in the unemployment insurance system. There's an old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune. If that's right, we're not calling very many tunes. How do you think the transfer of these number of billions of dollars that are going east every year is going to improve if government is not there to legislate it?

The Chair: Normand Gagnon.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Gagnon: How can we say that the federal government is paying, when it hasn't put a single penny in the fund since 1990? You will have to explain something that I genuinely fail to understand. Employers and workers contribute to the employment insurance fund, and all the government is supposed to do is manage it. Perhaps its management entails costs and payments. Please explain that to me.

[English]

Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying that the federal government is paying it. I'm saying that the areas of high employment and prosperity are paying the majority of the money that goes into the fund. Every year there is a number of billions of dollars that goes to Quebec and Atlantic Canada—where I'm from—that wouldn't go there if the federal government didn't send the money down or legislate the money down there.

If the federal government is not in the picture any more, do you think those areas will continue...or send more down besides what's going down? I don't understand why you want to take the federal government out of the process.

The Chair: Normand Gagnon.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand Gagnon: Let me respond very quickly to that; we have not come here to ask for charity. If jobs are created in Quebec and the Maritimes, we will not need employment insurance benefits. It is because of labour market conditions that we need those benefits. So let's try to have an employment insurance system that makes it possible for us to live.

We didn't come here to ask you... Give us jobs, ensure there is work year-round, and we will not need employment insurance benefits.

The Chair: Réginald Paulin.

Mr. Réginald Paulin: I would like to add that the employment insurance fund was not created for allocation to all kinds of other things. It has to be used to meet the needs that are there.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon Godin, and then, briefly, Val Meredith.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you. I agree with Mr. Paulin's remarks. That's what a country is, that's what a province is, and that's what an association is. When we institute a system like employment insurance, it is for those who need it.

I have an important question for our witnesses, on which I would like their views. What we hear seems to imply that the employment insurance system established in the 1940s was not intended for seasonal workers. That is something we hear at almost every meeting.

I would like to ask our witnesses this: do you believe that seasonal workers have the right the employment insurance benefits, or do you feel that seasonal workers, like loggers, should turn to social assistance? When there is too much snow for logging activities in the forest, should they go on social assistance and forget all hope of having a house, or a car? Is that what we are saying to our loggers?

Is that the message we are sending to people in the fisheries—that they have no right to a house or a car because their work is seasonal? Is that what we are saying to people from Prince Edward Island, from New Brunswick, to people in Prince George, British Columbia, where loggers need employment insurance?

The question I have for you is very clear. Do you maintain that people in seasonal jobs should be part of the employment insurance program?

• 1255

Once we agree on that, I think we can go ahead and reform the employment insurance system, to bring it back to what it should be.

The Chair: Alain Lagacé.

Mr. Alain Lagacé: Of course I completely agree with you, Mr. Godin. Seasonal workers are those who need those benefits the most. Look, we should not ask them... I see people who are extremely uncomfortable about receiving employment insurance benefits. Yet in winter they cannot cut sod, cannot run the blower, they cannot cut timber, and fishers cannot fish because of the ice.

So it is quite clear that the Employment Insurance Act fails to take seasonal workers and their circumstances into account. I have lived among them for 20 years, and I think they are embarrassed about this. Seasonal workers—I know, because I meet them everyday—are embarrassed about asking for employment insurance benefits, since they have so often heard that they should go work elsewhere.

It is as if people did not understand the reality here, the fact that seasonal workers cannot work elsewhere. It isn't that they do not want to work elsewhere, they cannot work elsewhere.

In my view, the government has done more than take away seasonal workers' employment insurance benefits; it has taken away their pride as well.

The Chair: Thank you. Réginald Paulin.

Mr. Réginald Paulin: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add that the government has a responsibility—as Mr. Godin has pointed out—towards regions with high unemployment due to the nature of the local economy.

Last week, farmers came to demonstrate in front of Parliament Hill. There was a need, and the government invested hundreds of billions of dollars because it felt it had a responsibility towards those people, and that sector. The farmers said it was not enough, and came to ask for more.

Well, what the government is offering the jobless today is not enough, in our opinion. The message is clear across Canada: all rural regions with a seasonal economy have a need, and the government has a responsibility towards them. Mr. Chairman, we are counting on your Committee to make the necessary recommendations.

[English]

The Chair: Claudette Carbonneau, and this is the last.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: Very quickly, I would add that it is quite true the government has a responsibility towards those regions. Look at Bill C-2, which removes the intensity rule. This bill was introduced because you noticed that it was a punitive rule, and did nothing to help seasonal workers improve their capacity to get jobs.

What we have to do is not only correct the errors of the past, at least in part, but also show genuine openness to the scope of the problem.

The Chair: A very brief question, if you please, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I know that we have very little time, but I would like to hear the views of the Chamber of Commerce.

[English]

The Chair: It would have to be very brief, Jeannette.

Ms. Jeannette Arsenault: We do agree about seasonal business. Prince Edward Island is one of the provinces that has a lot of seasonal business, and it definitely has to be addressed in this system.

Our people are not lazy; they want to work, but there's just no work. So this is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed, and they need to be proud of the work they do get and not feel they're begging when they come for EI.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Yvon Godin: What a good question and what a good answer.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Val Meredith. Could you be very short, Val, if you will.

Ms. Val Meredith: In conclusion, I want to thank you all for coming.

I want to leave a message with you all that seasonal work and unemployment are not just issues in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. I come from the province of British Columbia. I know for a fact that Alberta oil workers also end up with seasonal reasons why they can no longer work.

This is a problem Canada-wide. What we've heard from you, we've heard from others, and it's that we can no longer continue tinkering with this EI program with changes. We need to have an overall re-evaluation of the modern workforce and where we should have an employment insurance program to support it.

So I want to thank you for coming and to say that we've heard the message. I think we're all in agreement, even on the government side, that we need to be looking at EI from a more comprehensive approach, rather than tinkering with the program.

The Chair: I would echo those thanks to you all.

I thank you for coming here, first of all. I thank you for your oral presentations, your written presentations, and your patience in dealing with the questions and the discussion in these circumstances.

• 1300

For my colleagues, I want to remind you that we're here from 3:15 to 5:30 this afternoon, and tomorrow it's 3:15 to 5:30, then 5:30 to 9 p.m. From 3:15 to 5:30 is the Auditor General and from 5:30 to 9 p.m. we begin the clause-by-clause. And the sooner we can have amendments, if you can, from the parties, the better.

[Translation]

Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There is one point I wish to raise: tomorrow evening is the annual Canada-France meeting... Has this been taken into account?

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, the only consideration I have is that we are truly trying to hear as many witnesses as we can. The Auditor General is tomorrow. We have agreed we're going to report by Friday morning, so we have to, I urge you, start tomorrow night.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would suggest that we consider outside the meeting the context in which we are prepared to study the amendment.

I will come back to my written proposal, which will probably be tabled by the clerk this afternoon: I'm asking whether this Committee can reach unanimous consent on tabling in the House, as quickly as possible, a report on necessary employment insurance system reforms. This would not prevent us from preparing amendments to Bill C-2.

If we can reach such agreement, I am convinced that the amendments for Bill C-2 could be studied very quickly, as could the report. I would like the Committee to have the opportunity to discuss this outside its regular proceedings, so that we can speed up the process when we look at the amendments from a technical standpoint.

As we all know, Bill C-2 reviews certain rules, and no more. However, there are many other points to consider. So if we could agree with this proposal, and on the way in which it would be submitted to the Committee and the Chamber, we would not need to set aside five hours for clause-by-clause.

[English]

The Chair: I'm quite willing, when we get to the amendments, which will be when we have finished with the Auditor General...we would begin by discussing exactly that, how we're going to proceed. I will have to be informed about what is acceptable and what is not. I will try to explain that to you.

At that point, Paul, we can discuss those things. But I have to say to you, with regard to tomorrow night, that if we're going to keep to our commitment—and it was unanimous—we have to discuss those things. If we finish early with the Auditor General, we can start that discussion early. And I would quite agree—colleagues, if you're comfortable with that on this side—that we'll begin with a discussion like that and then proceed to the amendments. Okay?

My thanks again to our witnesses.

Colleagues, we are now adjourned until 1:00 p.m.