My name is Diane Carroll, and I'm the assistant deputy minister for employment programs with the Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada. I'm joined by my colleague, Réal Bouchard, from the Department of Finance, and by Bill James, also from Human Resources and Social Development Canada.
The individuals at the table are here to talk about the first item on the EI account and the premium rate-setting mechanism. We have handed out a short presentation deck that I will walk you through in no more than 10 minutes, as a way of doing the presentation. There are some colleagues in the back who will deal with the summer career placement issue.
In terms of purpose, the deck sets out to give you a sense of how the EI account works in the context of the EI program and to give a bit of information about the new premium rate-setting mechanism that was put in place for the first time this current year. There's a new mechanism that sets the premium rate for 2006.
First, I'll give you some background on the account. As I'm sure most members of the committee recognize, the EI account is an integral part of the fiscal framework of the Government of Canada. Since 1986, it has been integrated with the books of Canada, which means it is not an account that holds cash but one that tracks how much is collected in premiums for EI and how much is paid out in benefits.
The account's resources are integrated with CRF, which means that if you spend more on EI, you impact the overall fiscal situation of the Government of Canada. It is integrated, which was a recommendation of the Auditor General back in 1986. Given that the EI program is an integral policy for the Government of Canada, it should be integrated with its overall spending plan.
Page 4 gives you a bit of background on the new rate-setting mechanism that was launched by Budget 2005. What it did was address five key principles that had been set out by the government at the time in Budget 2003, stating that the premium rate-setting process needed to be more transparent, that the premium rates needed to be based on independent expert advice, and that the expected premium revenue should correspond to expected program costs. We should try to set the premium rate so that the expenditures on the program are equal to the premiums collected.
The premium rate setting should allow for mitigating the impacts of the business cycle, and we should create some kind of stability in the premium rate over time. This is a particularly important issue for employers, because you don't want to be in the situation where you're constantly changing employer cost from one year to the next, and particularly you don't want to be doing that when you're moving into a downturn in the economy.
The rate-setting mechanism, which was set out in Budget 2005, also took into account many of the views of the standing committee that had looked at the entire EI account and premium rate setting.
Slide 5 sets out what the legislation actually provided for that set the new premium rate. What it basically requires is for the Department of Finance to provide the chief actuary with all the relevant forecasts: the economic variables for the upcoming year. That has to be provided by the Ministry of Finance by September 30 of the preceding year. The chief actuary then prepares a report that is forward-looking and designed to be break-even, meaning that the premiums to be collected in the upcoming year will come as close as possible to equalling the benefits to be paid out that year.
He has to submit a report to the commission by October 14 of each year. The commission must make that report public and consult with the constituencies. They can hold very broad public consultations with the public, but the key constituencies are obviously the representatives of the premium payers, which are the workers, unions, and employers organizations.
The rate is then actually set by the commission itself, and it must set the rate by November 14. The government does have the ability to change the rate. The legislation basically says it can be done if it is felt it is in the interest of the public to do so. The government would have to have a rationale that the premium rate the commission set is either too high or too low due to situations that are projected for the future year.
In terms of the principle of transparency, the legislation sets the timelines. They are defined fairly clearly and give a lot more certainty to employers and employees. It ensures that the rate is set much earlier than it has been in the past. There have been years where the premium rate has actually been set as late as mid and late December. This gives very little time for employers to prepare for the collection of different premiums that have to start on January 1. The lead time for employers is extremely important.
The chief actuary's report is actually made public; one was released last year. It sets out how he set the rate. There is broad consultation authority that the commission must lead. The Governor in Council can substitute a rate, if it so decides, but again, they have to demonstrate that it's in the public interest to do so.
In terms of the principle of independence, this new rate-setting mechanism ensures that the commission has the full legislative authority to set the premium rate. In setting the rate, the commission is required to take into account three basic things: the principle that revenues will equal program costs in the upcoming year; the actuarial perspective; and what it has heard from the public, from the representatives of the two key constituency groups.
In matters related to setting the rate, the chief actuary has a functional reporting relationship directly to the commission. The chief actuary is actually an employee of Human Resources and Social Development Canada, but in his role in terms of setting the premium rate, he has a direct reporting relationship to the commission. The commission itself, for those who don't know, is made up of a representative of employers--somebody who represents the employers in the business community--and a representative of the workers and unions. The chief commissioner is also the Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. It's a tripartite commission, and it makes decisions by a majority vote.
On slide 8, in terms of premium rate stability, there were a number of things put into the legislation to ensure that the premium rate did not dramatically fluctuate from one year to another. There is a maximum change that the commission can actually make in setting the rate. It cannot increase or decrease the rate by more than 15¢ from one year to the other. There was also a ceiling put on the premium rate for both 2006 and 2007, that the rate could not be higher than $1.95. If the government were to decide to substitute its own rate for the commission's rate, it is restricted by those two rules as well.
In terms of next steps, 2006 was the first year for the new rate-setting legislation. Last year, the commission set the premium rate for 2006 at $1.87. This followed a consultation process with representatives of the payers. It was consistent with the break-even rate that was calculated by the chief actuary and actually decreased the rate from $1.95 to $1.87. In 2005, the rate was $1.95 for employees. It dropped to $1.87; the employer's rate dropped from $2.73 to $2.62. This was the 12th year that the premium rate has actually declined. If you look back to 1994, the premium rate was $3.07 for employees. It has now gone from $3.07 to $1.87 over that 12-year period.
Although the commission continues to consult its constituencies throughout the year, the substantive work by the chief actuary and the commission for the 2007 rate will start this September. The first step is the receipt by the chief actuary of the economic forecast for 2007 from the Department of Finance. That's when the chief actuary can actually start the process of analyzing what his recommended rate would be for 2007.
That is just to give you a sense of how the process works.
We can turn back in terms of any questions, but I'm not sure if you are moving on to the second presentation first.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you.
Good morning to the committee members.
My name is Donna Achimov. I'm the assistant deputy minister with the citizen and community service branch of Service Canada.
Joining me today are Robert Smith, director responsible for the youth initiatives programs directorate; Julie Lefebvre, also from the youth programs directorate; and Renata Borysewicz, director of target strategies with Human Resources and Skills Development.
Thank you for inviting us here today. I have provided each of you with a copy of my presentation, en anglais et en français, and I am pleased to start with a short overview of the presentation.
I'm turning to slide 1. The purpose of the presentation is to provide an update on the summer career placements initiative in 2006. What I'll touch on today is an overview of the summer career placement initiative, for those members who are new to the table; a little bit of context in terms of what we did last year; updates for this year; and an update on the Service Canada centres for youth, which are interrelated.
[Translation]
Now for a brief overview of the SCP initiative.
Part of the YES, the Summer Work Experience program is designed to help create summer employment opportunities for secondary and post-secondary students. The program supports the delivery of the Summer Career Placement and the operations of more than 320 Service Canada Centres for Youth across the country.
As part of the Summer Work Experience program, SCP is a major component of the Youth Employment Strategy.
[English]
Slide 3 has an overview of eligibility. The summer career placement objectives are to help secondary and post-secondary students acquire the employment-related and career-related skills they need throughout the summer during summer jobs to support their return to school and to help finance their education.
To be eligible, very simply, students have to be between the ages of 15 and 30 inclusively. They have to be registered full-time students in the previous year, with the intention of returning full-time in the next academic year. They have to be without another full-time job, they have to be legally entitled to work in Canada, and they have to be a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident, or a refugee.
Slide 4 shows that annually the program helps over 50,000 students gain valuable summer work experience. Funding provides wage subsidies to help employers provide career-related summer jobs. The wage subsidies can be 50% of the prevailing provincial-territorial minimum wage for private and public sector employers and 100% for prevailing provincial-territorial minimum wage for not-for-profit employers.
The career placement work experience ranges from six weeks to a maximum of 16 consecutive weeks each summer. In the 2005-06 fiscal year, over 31,000 contribution agreements were signed with employers. The majority of those were with the not-for-profit sector.
Slide 5 indicates that the program is traditionally launched in January every year, allowing sufficient time for employers to submit their applications. The application deadline date for summer career placement is normally at the end of March, and applications are processed throughout the months of April and May. The program is delivered locally; applications are submitted to the local Service Canada centres for review, assessment, and approval, and all summer career placement agreements are supported and managed at the local level.
Slide 6 talks about the role of members of Parliament. MPs are invited to provide concurrence on the summer career placement recommended projects. They can choose to participate, delegate to an assistant, or decline entirely their participation. MPs provide concurrence on the list of Service Canada recommended projects, and Service Canada officials approve the summer career placement projects for funding on behalf of the minister.
Slide 7 is the budget process. The budget is allocated using a two-step budget allocation model. A national allocation model distributes funds to the regions, and the constituency allocation model further allocates the regional amount at the constituency level. The model is based on two variables from census data, as I mentioned earlier: full-time student population between the ages of 15 and 24, and full-time student unemployment rates for those between the ages of 15 and 24 years.
Slide 8. In 2005 the allocation model was revised to allocate funds from 301 to 308 constituencies. We were using the 2001 census data, and the use of variables was consistent with that of previous years. The 2001 census showed marked changes in youth demographics in some parts of Canada more than in others. Notably, there was a decrease in the youth population in five of the eastern provinces and increases in some of the western provinces. I have a little bit of an overview and a breakdown of that in annex A in the attachment at the very end of the deck. Applying the revised model resulted in changes to funding allocation at the regional and constituency levels.
Slide 9. To reduce these impacts, Service Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada introduced two specific measures. The first was that regional allocations were maintained at the 2004 level. The second was that no constituency budget decreased by more than 30% from 2004. The $4.2 million in additional funding for the summer career placement program that was required to support these measures was drawn from within the department. The 2004-05 budget was a total of $93.3 million, and the 2005-06 summer career placement budget was increased to $97.5 million.
Slide 10 gives a brief update. Summer career placement was successfully launched again in January 2006 and was announced by Minister Finley in March 2006 in Quebec City and Kitchener, Ontario. The application deadline was March 31 across Canada, except in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, where it was extended to April 7 of this year.
Minister Finley approved the summer career placement budget allocation of $97.5 million for this year. Again, this is the same as the budget we had for last year. We have received over 38,000 applications this year. Project approvals are currently under way, and 320 of our Service Canada centres for youth, formerly known as HRCC-S, are in the process of opening across the country in support of students.
Slide 11. On May 16, the Office of the Auditor General's report on grants and contributions was tabled in Parliament. Chapter 6, on the management of voted grants and contributions, referred to the summer placement program, which was one of five contribution programs assessed as part of this review.
Slide 12. HRSDC and Service Canada received a positive report for all elements of the summer career placement that were assessed in the February 2006 Auditor General's report. The summer career placement system for ranking applicants was considered to be the most transparent and objective of all of the programs that the Auditor General examined. The summer career placement risk assessment process to determine the level of monitoring and reporting requirements of the recipients was considered to be rigorous.
Finally, the summer career placement system has built-in features and controls ensuring rigorous accountability and management procedures.
Moving to slide 13, Service Canada continues to look for ways to further enhance delivery of the summer career placement program. An implementation plan is in place for automating the summer career placement application process for the next fiscal year. An earlier application deadline date is also planned for the summer career placement program, starting in 2007.
We're reviewing input from various sources to identify the most effective and efficient ways to improve client service and to have continuous improvement. We currently have a field survey of participants, employers, and Service Canada officials on the go. A recently completed examination outlining ways to reduce administrative burden and to improve the delivery of the initiative is part of that process.
[Translation]
Let us turn to page 14. There are over 320 Service Canada Centres for Youth serving students and youth across the country. A plan is underway to further enhance the services offered by the centres to better meet the needs of students and youth. It is expected that enhancement will be made in the near future to include a more extensive Youth Outreach Strategy designed to more actively reach out to youth within communities.
[English]
In conclusion, the summer career placement program is an extremely important initiative designed specifically to help secondary and post-secondary students acquire relevant, career-related employability skills and to help them finance their education. Providing more than 50,000 students with valuable summer jobs each year speaks directly to the success of the initiative and its positive impact on strengthening the Canadian economy.
We'd be pleased to answer any questions the committee has.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The first question I'm going to ask concerns employment insurance. I'll then talk about Summer Career Placements.
If you know what is happening with employment insurance currently, you'll be aware that in the next few days—and there will be other changes over the upcoming months—one of the pilot projects may not be renewed. I'm referring to the pilot project that provides for five extra weeks which is intended to fix the black hole problem, if I can call it that. We're currently getting an indication that this pilot project won't be renewed.
In October, there will be a similar situation with another pilot project. I don't know in which direction that pilot project is headed, but I'm afraid that it may also be left by the wayside. I'm referring to the pilot project on changes to some regions' economic areas, including Madawaska and the Lower St. Lawrence in Quebec.
Do you intend to or do you want to find solutions? On June 4, one of the pilot projects will come to an end. We've heard there will be only an assessment and that these people will be in a very tight spot as of June 5. Those who don't manage to tally up enough weeks over a 52-week period will find themselves in a black hole for some time.
Do you intend to continue with the pilot projects until the evaluations are conducted so that these people and the families that rely on them will not suffer? As we say, bills have to be paid. You've got to keep paying the rent, the mortgage, the groceries and electricity. It is no longer like it was in the 30s where you could buy on credit at your general store. That's no longer the way things are done. This is 2006.
What's your stance on that issue?
First, I'd like to thank you for your presentation, which served as a reminder to us of the way these two programs work.
I was hoping that we would be able to have an exchange on perceptions, opportunities, projects and a concrete contribution from the Employment Insurance Fund designed to help people who lose their job. I understand your answer, and you're right in saying that this is a political issue involving political decisions. I'm sure you'd agree, however, that this is all totally surreal.
Whilst we look for ways of improving employment insurance, this morning, we've heard an essay on the history of the Employment Insurance Fund which reminds us, at the end of the day, that over the past 12 years, every year, the premium rate has dropped. In no way has it been demonstrated to us that every year, the income support eligibility conditions for people who have lost their jobs have become more and more difficult to meet.
In my opinion, the government's main role is to assist these citizens, to regulate the way revenue is distributed and the means at each person's disposal. The Employment Insurance Fund formerly called the Unemployment Insurance Fund—the terminology is important—is insurance for those who lose their jobs.
I'm not blaming you, I understand you must honour the mandate which has been given to you, but in 1994, 88 per cent of people paid into the Employment Insurance Fund and 88% of people were assured they would receive an income should they lose their job. Today, this percentage has fallen to only 39%. How did this occur? Is it solely due to the way the actuary manages the Employment Insurance Fund? I believe that the fund is there for the people.
This is not only a perception, it is a reality borne out by the facts. The UN strongly criticized the way Canada manages its Employment Insurance Fund and notes that only 39% of the unemployed actually get employment insurance. This is not something to be proud of! This morning, we should have got an accurate description of the unemployment situation and increasingly impoverished families.
Mr. Chair, I would have liked to have asked concrete questions on what was said this morning. These are facts that we are quite well aware of. They serve as a good reminder. I appreciate this and I thank you for it, but when we're told that the Employment Insurance Commission is representative of the people who contribute to the fund, it's enough to make you laugh.
Whom do the employers' and employees' representatives and other government representatives appointed by the minister consult, exactly? The real consultation has gone on here over the past two years.
We produced a report containing 28 recommendations which were all brushed aside without any response worthy of the work and thinking behind the testimony of groups which appeared before us here. They took the trouble of coming all this way and they've asked if they'd be doing it all again for nothing. Regrettably, I'm compelled to tell them that that is indeed the case.
Some of those members who were here over the past two years agreed on these 28 recommendations and would have liked further light to be shed on what's at stake for the edification of our new committee members. And that is why you are here this morning.
Does the government and do your superiors intend to implement the 28 recommendations? If they don't intend to implement them all, which do they intend to implement? That is my question to you this morning. If I don't get an answer, I'll take it for granted that we need to vote on the 28 recommendations again, without waiting for the department's opinion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
As perhaps Mr. Lessard knows, I cannot answer that last question. Obviously, whether all or any of those recommendations get accepted is in the hands of the government to decide.
I guess I would just make two really quick comments, one on the number of unemployed covered by the unemployment insurance system. The main reason for the drop was not the changes to the employment insurance program; the employment insurance program actually allowed more people in than before. What has actually happened is that the nature of unemployment.... When you think about who the unemployed are, there's a group of unemployed who are working, paying EI premiums, and losing their jobs, with the vast majority of them qualifying.
The other big portion of the unemployed is people who are looking for a job but who have never worked before; they could be young people, they could be new immigrants into Canada, they could be people who have a very marginal attachment. There are also people who are self-employed—and there's a question, obviously, of whether they should be paying premiums, but they do not pay premiums. Increasingly there are people who are now unemployed for two weeks or less, because unemployment in large parts of this country is very marginal. So if you're unemployed for two weeks or less, you are not eligible for EI, because everybody has a two-week waiting period.
So the question is not so much, is the EI program providing benefits to the people who are paying premiums and lose their jobs. The argument in that case is, yes, they very well are doing that.
There is another question that needs to be asked about the other group of unemployed who have no work attachment, or who have never worked before. The EI program is not designed for them; obviously, if you're not working and haven't worked in the last year, or are a new immigrant, you have not paid EI premiums, so you cannot be eligible for a program that is there for people who pay EI premiums. The question then is, do we have other programs to help those people get into the labour market? Do we have programs that enable new immigrants to actually find that first job and get them into a job where they are paying premiums? Do we have programs to help the long-term unemployed?
It's not a question of the EI program no longer being there for people who pay EI premiums.
I have to tell you that I honestly didn't intend to ask you any questions because you are not teaching us anything new.
The last answer you gave us, Ms. Carroll, is an insult to Canadians, and to this country's workers! We know that only 32% of women and 38% of men qualify for employment insurance and that the Liberal Party stole $49 billion from the employment insurance fund to balance its budget and to get rid of the deficit, and that the Conservatives have always made do by saying that the premium rate needed to be reduced. It's gone from $3 to $1.92. In the past, a person working 15 hours per week and 150 hours per year could qualify for employment insurance, whereas today, the same person has to work 910 hours before being entitled to employment insurance for the first time.
Ms. Carroll, I have to tell you that the statement you just made is completely false. Don't come and talk to us about immigrants and those two weeks. I'd like to hear what you have to say about what I've just said.
Just think about this. Previously, workers would be eligible for employment insurance by working 15 hours per week, that's 150 hours per year. A worker applying for employment insurance for the first time had to have worked 20 weeks over the year to be eligible, whereas today, it's 26 weeks or 840 hours; it went from 910 hours to 840 hours.
Can you believe how the statistics have changed! How can you make a comment like you just made? How can senior officials briefing the government have such an attitude? As you so clearly stated at the start of your presentation, this money went into the government's consolidated revenue fund. Every time you touch the employment insurance fund, you affect government revenue and that has an impact on the amount of money the government gets. The basic problem is this: it's the little guys that bear the brunt, it's the workers who are being hit upon and it's hurting them.
Ms. Carroll, you're not the one who is going to solve the problem; we need a government that really wants to reform employment insurance and believes that important insurance isn't a tax imposed on its citizens, but rather a payment for which companies are responsible. If they aren't able to have their employees working 12 months out of every year, then the companies should pay for insurance so that employees can support their families. That's what the unemployment insurance program was like when it was set up 50 years ago. The Auditor General made a big mistake in 1986 when he transferred the money into the government's consolidated revenue fund. He gave the government a cash cow for it to use as it saw fit. And now look at the program.
:
The questions, I feel, that the member was asking should have been answered by Finance perhaps, which brings into question pilot projects. What actually can be expected of them, even in the future? When they're set up, are they meant to be put into place? I wonder about the rate-setting mechanism. Will that set limits to programs and projects, because you're now setting it so it's almost revenue neutral? If it all goes into the big pot, what will that do? I'm just wondering about the rate-setting mechanisms.
I want to ask Finance as well what they thought should be done with the notional EI reserve, because obviously I think that's what the problem is. It no longer seems to be about EI benefits.
I also have a question about the 15 weeks meeting the objectives of providing temporary income support. You responded to a report talking about the 15-week maximum being based on the examination of the private sector in other countries. Would you agree with that assessment and the rationale behind it?
And then I have a question for career placement, particularly about concurrence and members of Parliament having to concur with reports. What practical purpose does this have, and what concerns have been raised with this process? And if there haven't been any, I have some.
I would like to go back, first of all, to the EI sickness benefits. What was the rationale behind your...? Would you agree with the assessment?
And then I have a few questions to ask Finance, just to see where they're at with all that they've just heard.
It has been described before. Up to 2006, prior to having the new rate-setting mechanism, in theory the surplus was taken into account in setting the premium rate. But with the new process in place, essentially that past cumulative surplus, which has been alluded to, does not enter into the calculation of the break-even EI premium rate. So the $48 billion or $49 billion notional surplus, which is the past accumulation of surpluses and deficits, no longer enters into the calculation of the premium rate. From now on, it's essentially based on program forecasts for the coming year. As Ms. Carroll indicated, if we were to make a change to benefits, there would somehow be an adjustment to the premium rate to reflect the increase in benefits.
The impact of moving in tandem between benefits and premiums, on a forward-looking basis, is that it would have a neutral effect on the government's bottom line, because revenues would go up as benefits go up and the two would be a wash.
There is a distinction to be made—Mr. Godin is gone—between the past and the future. The surplus that Mr. Godin alluded to is a reflection of cumulative surpluses of the past. From now on, we have a new policy in place. That notional surplus is still sitting out there, but it's sort of dormant. The impact it had in the past on the government's bottom line, as Ms. Carroll said earlier, was that it impacted in the year when an annual surplus actually occurred. If there was a $2 billion surplus, it had an impact on the government's bottom line. But once the year was past, the cumulative number essentially had no meaning. It's an accounting device that simply adds up the pluses and minuses, and so on. It's a bookkeeping entry.
The impact took place annually, depending upon revenues and expenditures in that year. Today, the surplus does not enter into the calculation. It does not have an impact on the government's bottom line. It is sitting dormant in the box, although in theory it could still go up by notional interest being “credited” to the account, at the discretion of the Minister of Finance. It is a plus and minus in the books, and it's a wash as far as the government's bottom line is concerned.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is something basically unhealthy about the dynamic that has developed around the employment insurance fund. We are told about a theoretical reserve, about theoretical surpluses. The premiums are not theoretical. The cutbacks to employment insurance are not theoretical. But the way in which this is used, and which we are not aware of, is not theoretical because the money is accumulating in the fund.
On December 7, 2005, at the request of the committee, Mr. Malcolm Brown who was then the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, came to testify. He had done some research following which he appeared before the committee to give us the results of his calculations.
The highest cost, for a coverage rate of 55 to 60%, was $1.2 billion per year. If the eligibility threshold was set at 360 hours, the cost would be $390 million and we would reach 90,000 more unemployed. If the criteria of the 12 best weeks was kept, the cost would be $320 million and we would reach 470,000 unemployed workers. If the maximum went from 45 to 50 weeks, the cost would be $11 million. That does not seem like much, and he was then asked why this seemed like so little. He answered that not everyone reached the 45-week level. He told us that they extrapolated according to the experience within the system, which allowed them to assess this hypothetical amount of approximately $11 million. The maximum insurable amount would then go from $39,000 to $41,000, therefore at $245 million, for a total of $1.9 billion. At the time this research was being done, the employment insurance fund was generating huge surpluses, year after year. The surplus for 2004 was $3.3 billion. For 1997, it was $7 billion. This is not theoretical. The premium rate was quite high, and at that time, the employment insurance eligibility rules had already been radically tightened.
In its 28 recommendations, the committee suggested that these diverted funds be gradually brought back into the fund, the funds that have been referred to as theoretical sums. We were told, and this is quite right, that this money was used at the discretion of the minister. However, these amounts should not be used at the discretion of the minister, but rather at the discretion of those who paid money into the fund.
The reimbursement of this money to the fund, at the rate we have foreseen, that is $1.5 billion per year, which would in no way compromise Canada's finances, would allow us to meet almost three quarters of these costs, without counting the surplus. Let us see how much of the 12-billion-dollar surplus achieved by the Canadian government this year has once again been taken from the fund, despite the reduction in premiums. That is what I have to say about the answers you have sent us.
I will now give the floor to my colleague, who wanted to ask a question about the Summer Career Placement Program.
:
I will finally get some answers to my questions.
On page 9 of your presentation, it says that the budgets for ridings were reduced by more than 30%, which is incorrect. We provided you with the figures last year. Some lost 66%, and I would like that to be corrected.
I have a great deal of difficulty with some officials. You say that the placements within the Summer Career Placement Program should be decided by members of Parliament. Certain sectors of Service Canada do not allow members of Parliament to become involved with the Summer Career Placement Program. You should communicate with all of your people in the field to tell them that the final word or the final signature is up to the member, because if the official is able to decide, this is all for naught.
You have a 97-million-dollar budget for all of Canada. I am alone in my riding and my share is $1,350,000. As part of our 14 recommendations, we had asked for an increase in the budget. According to my calculations, for 51 members of Parliament alone, the budget would be $75 million. Do you know if there is a budget increase planned for 2007? This is very important.
We tabled 14 recommendations for 2007. Are you aware of any changes that will be implemented in 2007? Do you agree with the committee's report and when will you sign off on it?
:
I think there are two main points.
Concerning the budget for 2007, those decisions are made later on in the planning year with regard to the availability of funds. As you know, the minister decided to maintain the budget at $97.5 million for this fiscal year.
That's an overall increase of the base budget, so those decisions have to be made later on in the year, as the new fiscal year comes up, in order to see if there is the availability of funds to make that decision. So I can't respond positively or negatively to that question.
With regard to the 14 points in the report, as you noticed, there are two that we've highlighted specifically that we're looking at. Our policy colleagues in operations in Service Canada continue to look at how to make the program better, and we are looking at those recommendations.
With regard to your question concerning what I think about some of them, some of them are more problematic than others, in that the terms and conditions of the youth employment strategy are for those aged 15 to 30. So it's not a quick decision with regard to changing that. The fact is that the youth employment strategy is a program designed for those aged 15 to 30. I know some members are concerned about mature students, and so on. I just put that point out. That's just a fact, that the terms and conditions state that.
On the other issue, regarding allocations, one of the recommendations is to get rid of the regional cap and just go straight to federal constituencies. If you look at that just in terms of pure numbers, we multiply the full-time student population times the full-time student unemployment rate. If you look at the last chart in the document, the annex, if we hadn't multiplied variables but went straight with youth demographics, you would notice that if we got rid of the regional caps, those regions that lost youth potentially could lose money. Newfoundland lost 17%. So if you got rid of that cap and went straight to allocating at the federal constituency level, depending on how the variables work, Newfoundland could potentially lose 17%.
I just throw that out as a cautionary note, because I know the committee at the time was obviously rushing to get the report out. That's just an observation on my part on that report.
:
I'll speak first to the issue of maternity parental benefits provided under the EI program, if that's okay, and I'll then speak to the issue of coverage for people earning their income from farming. These are somewhat different questions.
With respect to maternity parental benefits coverage, the current program does not provide coverage to self-employed persons. That's a common characteristic with respect to all the benefits in the program. It's something we monitor in the context of the program's coverage of the different aspects of the workforce, but with respect to maternity and parental for that population itself, it's not part of the government's current policy.
The additional comment I would offer is that under the provisions of the employment insurance program, a province can implement, if it so chooses, its own maternity and parental program. In one case, in the case of Quebec, the government reached an agreement with Quebec, and it has since implemented a program.
I'm mentioning this just to draw it to your attention that the program implemented by Quebec is the first one that I'm aware of to provide that type of coverage to self-employed persons. They're in the first year of establishing that program, which provides an opportunity for all governments to see how it works.
Generally speaking, the work characteristics of self-employed persons are very different from those of employed persons. That is the general reason why self-employed persons haven't been covered to date under the employment insurance program, which was designed more specifically on employment relationships.
With respect to the coverage of self-employed persons with farm income, generally speaking those persons are not covered under the program for the general reasons I just mentioned. There are specific situations in which people living on farms can be eligible for unemployment insurance in respect of their earnings from an employment situation, but there are quite complex rules around that. I'd be happy to have someone who's better informed than me address it.
:
We have about 20 minutes left.
One of the things we discussed going into the meeting today was that we would deal with some of the motions we have before us. If you look at our orders of the day, we do have about 13 issues on the list.
Perhaps I'll draw your attention to the proposed schedule for the committee for some discussion now. I believe there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven or eight motions before us right now. There is a list of the order they have come in, which you should have as well.
To answer Mr. Regan's question, the list of the order in which they came is this list here. What we've tried to do is to match up motions with people who are coming in to speak.
Today we thought we'd address the two motions with regard to EI as well as employability issues. We have suggested that on Thursday, June 1, we will look at the two motions from Mr. Martin on social economy and old age review. Then for next Tuesday we have proposed looking at motions from Mr. Lessard on the pilot project.
I understand, having talked to Mr. Lessard today, that he would like to bump that up. We thought that would make sense since we were going to have the minister in to talk about that, but we will work with the committee and deal with whatever the committee wants to deal with.
You have some proposals there. We do want to make sure that we deal with all the motions over the next couple of weeks. I know there were some questions that our clerk fielded from various members of Parliament and maybe from the whips' offices. So I do want to put that out there right now.
Mr. Lessard, I know that one of the things you're suggesting is to deal with the pilot project sooner rather than later.
The question for the committee is how we want to proceed from here.
Yes, Mr. Regan?
:
I would say not, but thanks for trying.
Very quickly, we'd like you to look at the budget. What you have in front of you are proposed budgets that were sent to your offices last Thursday. You have an operational budget of $39,400. This is essentially to cover any witnesses' expenses. You have a travel budget of $104,890 for the east, which would be St. John's, Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto. You have a travel budget of $86,000 for the west, which includes Vancouver, Calgary, and Saskatoon. This travel budget could be a little bit less if MPs were to use their travel points and if the logistics officer were to buy the tickets and reserve them. Certainly, if we're going to be doing any travelling, I'd encourage members to use their points.
The proposal is to have a total of six meetings in Ottawa with panels of three to five witnesses per 90-minute session, for a possible total of 35 witnesses. Then on the road, at a pace of a city per day--except Toronto, where we should stay two days--the proposal is for four 90-minute panels per day of three to five witnesses, for a possible total of 200 witnesses. The suggestion here is that the main part of the travelling will have to be done during the break weeks in October for St. John's, Halifax, and Toronto--unless, of course, we can see our way clear of the whips' deciding on travelling during sitting weeks. Then we could likely look at the west for Friday, October 20 through to November 13 to 15.
What we're suggesting is that we look at travelling during break weeks to deal with this issue of foreign credentials and skills mobility, pending that we could get any cooperation from the whips' offices to do it otherwise.
What we're dealing with today is to get approval for the budgets so that we can move forward. We haven't decided on and booked the travel and all of these things. This is really to get this information before the liaison committee so that it can be approved. Should we be able to work on logistics for the travel coming up, it would already be approved.
Are there any questions?
Yes, Ms. Bonsant, and then Mr. Martin.
:
I have no difficulty travelling and getting out to hear from people across the country on these issues, particularly given the differing nature of our country, seasonal employment, big cities and immigration, and all that kind of thing. I think we need to get a clear sense of what the issues and challenges are. Going out there and talking to people is not a problem for me. I think we should do it.
As some of you know because I've spoken to you, I'm very interested in getting a study going on the social transfer. I'm going to be coming forward with a motion as soon as I sense that I have some consensus on that.
I was hoping that it would happen in the fall, but you've now taken up all of the fall with the employability study. When I earlier agreed to the employability study, I thought we were going to get it done this spring and maybe into early summer. We were going to get it done this spring, because it was of an urgent nature, in my view.
There's a lot of shifting going on out there, where skill requirements are concerned, with the issue of foreign-trained workers, etc. It's been dragging on for a number of years now, and it needs to be addressed. We need to make recommendations. The government needs to move on this. We can't study it forever.
I thought the employability study was a study that we would get done in the spring, and we will be looking at the possibility of another study of the social transfer in the fall and winter of next year. What is the thinking on that?