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]

Wednesday, March 14, 2001

• 1749

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)): We are studying Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations.

I would like to welcome our witnesses this evening. We are still awaiting Ms. Morna Ballantyne and Mr. Joe Courtney from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. We welcome Ms. Philippa Borgal from the Canadian Conference of the Arts; Mr. Ron Cormier and Mr. Michael Beliveau from the Maritime Fishermen's Union; and Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Phil Benson from the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association. Welcome to you all.

I would like to remind you that you will be taking turns in making your presentations, you will have five minutes each and afterwards the Members on both sides of the table will also have five minutes each to ask you questions and hear your answers. Sometimes, I will have to cut you off to stay within our timeline. There are indeed many of you here this evening.

If you agree, we will begin with Ms. Philippa Borgal of the Canadian Conference of the Arts.

Ms. Philippa Borgal (Associate Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts): Good evening and thank you, Madam Chair. First, I must apologize for the fact that my presentation is only in English, the translation is not ready yet. I will send the French version to the francophone Members on Monday at the latest. Please accept our apologies.

• 1750

[English]

The Canadian Conference of the Arts thanks the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development for the invitation to present our brief today. Our national director, Megan Williams, sends her apologies that she's unable to attend herself.

At the end of January the CCA sent a letter to Minister Jane Stewart expressing surprise that seasonal workers in the cultural workforce had not been considered when the amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, Bill C-2, were drafted. Our request in that letter was that the Department of Human Resources Development carefully examine the peculiar employment patterns of the cultural sector before bringing any further amendments to the Employment Insurance Act before Parliament.

The CCA is pleased to add its voice and the voices of the 250,000 artists and cultural workers it represents to the presentations of other cultural organizations, particularly our sister organization, the Cultural Human Resources Council, which appeared before this committee yesterday.

Much of what I am going to put forward in this short presentation comes from a brief the CCA presented to the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in June 1996 when Bill C-12, the act that changed unemployment insurance to employment insurance, was under examination. The picture has changed little in the intervening years.

In January 1995, at the time of the establishment of the Cultural Human Resources Council, which is the cultural community's sectoral council, HRDC stated that “...the cultural sector represents the workforce of the future: highly skilled, entrepreneurial and largely self-employed”. Despite this statement the government remains a long way from any understanding of how the cultural sector works, and presumably, therefore, how the workforce of the future will work.

To give this standing committee an outline of the special qualities portrayed by the cultural labour force, here are some of the main characteristics: a highly educated, multi-skilled, and extremely adaptable and mobile workforce; a significant proportion of multiple job holders; and a large number of self-employed individuals.

Coupled with these characteristics, artists and cultural workers earn among the lowest salaries in the country. Statistics Canada data, based on the 1996 census, indicate that Canada's artists, musicians, dancers, etc., are among the highest educated but lowest paid individuals in the country. Its quarterly bulletin, Focus on Culture, stated in a recent issue that:

...of all the occupational categories used by the Census, selected culture occupations...are all in the bottom half. In fact, artisans and craftspersons were found among the 25 lowest paying occupations in Canada in 1995.... No culture occupations...were found in the country's 25 highest paying occupations (which make on average $80,200).

In other words, painters, sculptors, and other visual artists rank below taxi and limousine drivers, hotel front desk clerks, and hairstylists and barbers when it comes to professional income earned, while artisans and craftspersons come even lower, after general farm workers, cashiers, and ironing, pressing, and finishing occupations.

While most Canadians are more aware of the cultural industries that have built up over the past years, surprisingly few remember that all these mega-industries depend on individual creators: performers, writers, composers, painters, and choreographers.

Many of those in the cultural sector, both employees and self-employed, work on a seasonal basis; for example, those employed by companies whose seasons run from October through to May or only in the summer. During the periods without income from their professional activities, most artists must continue to practise their craft. Musicians must still play their instruments for several hours each day; dancers must exercise for long periods daily; and actors must ensure that their instruments, their body and voice, are in performance condition at all times. Artists, therefore, can be seen to have unique circumstances that frequently make it very difficult for them to take up alternative work during these downtimes, yet they may not accumulate sufficient hours during employed periods to qualify for EI.

• 1755

There used to be recognition by Revenue Canada of this dual status. Its publication entitled “Tax Information for Professional Artists”, now unfortunately no longer in circulation, stated that professional artists

show characteristics of an employee and a self-employed artist at the same time in a taxation year because of the different jobs [they] have.

While this dual status has traditionally been unique to the cultural sector, it is increasingly evident in other sectors as well.

Given the extremely low salaries earned by most in the cultural sector through their cultural work alone—the average income in the cultural sector hovers around the $13,000 per annum mark—many turn to other sources of income. Symphony musicians might teach, actors work as bartenders, etc. There continues to be ambiguity over the ability of self-employed artists and cultural workers to access social benefits, such as employment insurance, even when obliged to pay premiums through deductions from work carried out in an employment situation. In addition there is no compensatory system for reimbursement to self-employed individuals for any EI premiums paid.

The CCA continues to urge the government to recognize the unique status of Canadian artists, creators, and cultural workers. This means that professional artists should be able to retain their self-employed status for taxation purposes. They should also have access to programs such as EI to which they have contributed.

In 1995, then Minister of Canadian Heritage, Michel Dupuy, asked “How many people know that employment in our cultural industries is more than six times greater than employment in fisheries?” The fishing industry in Canada is regarded as a special case when discussing employment insurance. The CCA has no desire to make direct comparisons between one sector of the Canadian economy and another, nor to argue their respective merits. However, the CCA feels that equitable treatment should be accorded to all self-employed individuals who might be earning low incomes and be excluded from traditional access to EI.

For nearly a decade the CCA and others—witness the quote from HRDC at the beginning of this presentation—have been pointing to the cultural labour force as the model for the workforce of Canada's future. As we have indicated, those who work in the cultural sector have unique work traits, which other sectors are increasingly starting to emulate. This pattern of work, termed “non-standard” employment by HRDC, has grown at a faster pace than standard employment in the intervening years.

Given this fact, it is surprising that government policies have not at least attempted to keep up with the rate of change. The 1997 report from the Advisory Committee on the Changing Workplace stated that:

...in the information society, mobility, flexibility, initiative and ongoing dialogue will be the keywords, and the changing nature of the employment relationship calls for innovative approaches and initiatives.

I'd like to stress those words: innovative approaches and initiatives.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): I'm sorry to interrupt, Ms. Borgal, but do you think you can make it very short?

[Translation]

Ms. Philippa Borgal: I have half a page left.

[English]

The cultural sector is indeed a model for this workforce of the future: entrepreneurial, creative, flexible, motivated, and largely self-employed. To quote from the Cultural Human Resources Council, “the `new economy' looks more and more like the ages-old economy of culture”.

The CCA recommends that the Government of Canada examine improved ways and means to meet the increasingly diverse employment insurance needs of Canadians as we start a new century, recognizing the rapidly changing nature of the Canadian workforce as a whole. We believe the employment insurance plan as it currently exists simply doesn't address enough people and circumstances to be relevant any more. Constant tinkering with it, an amendment here, an amendment there, won't make much difference. We strongly believe that HRDC must look to a completely new and innovative system, one that addresses more adequately the workforce of today and tomorrow, rather than the workforce of yesterday.

The CCA supports the suggestion made by CHRC in its presentation yesterday that a pilot project be undertaken to research ways for EI to meet the needs of the new economy, with its initial focus being on the cultural sector. The cultural sector stands ready to assist HRDC in any way it can to achieve this goal.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Now, we will hear Mr. Ron Cormier and Mr. Michael Beliveau from the Maritime Fishermen's Union.

Welcome, gentlemen.

• 1800

Mr. Michael Beliveau (Executive Secretary, Maritime Fishermen's Union): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am accompanied by the President of the Maritime Fishermen's Union, Ron Cormier. I will first put forward a few ideas about Bill C-2.

[English]

At the Maritime Fishermen's Union, we're a little bit surprised. We would have thought we would have been in earlier, with the other fishermen's unions. I would have appreciated hearing what they had to say, but I assume we'll have a lot in common. The difference with the Maritime Fishermen's Union and the B.C. and Newfoundland unions that were in earlier is that we represent inshore fishermen exclusively and basically owner-operator inshore fishermen. Even the crew members who fish on our vessels are not really organized within the MFU, although we're certainly concerned with their status.

The Maritime Fishermen's Union is based in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia especially. We have some members on Prince Edward Island, but not in sufficient numbers to form locals there.

It's a great pleasure to have been invited to appear before you. We've been interested in and concerned about unemployment insurance for as long as we've been in existence, which is 25 years. It's with some relief that we come before your committee while not feeling the same pressure we have felt many times in the past.

Fishermen's unemployment insurance, as even the previous speaker remarked, stands out in some ways. We've had various task forces, commissions, corporate lobbies, and various gurus run at us to try to, one way or another, cut unemployment insurance to the fishing communities and cut unemployment insurance to fishermen.

I'm using “unemployment insurance” because I never really enjoyed the shift in name. I don't understand why they did it when they did the reforms and changed it to “employment insurance”. Unemployment insurance is still what most people on the shore think of and use when they talk about this program.

Part of the reason we're here...we certainly don't have any objections to the amendments being proposed with respect to intensity. We're quite pleased to see intensity gone. I think the minister herself noted the intensity rule was punitive. We would certainly concur with her, and we would tell you that, indeed, it was punitive to some of the weakest people in our society in terms of having them pay for some of the surpluses we see the Government of Canada holding at the present time in the UI fund. So, again, we're glad to see intensity is gone. That's a gesture.

The clawback, I think, is generally acceptable and appreciated. We nevertheless are struck by the fact that employment insurance with respect to fishermen and our own members has worked reasonably well. The changes have worked reasonably well for our own members, so I don't want to be misinterpreted on that score. We don't have big complaints in terms of its applicability to an owner-operator inshore fisherman. They shifted it from a weeks-based system to value of catch in order to be eligible.

Of course, there were problems at the margins. There were quite dramatic increases in the premiums that the individual fisherman met with, because he ended up being the employer and the employee—in some cases, twice—and he ended up paying on the full value of his catch up to $39,000, while before he used to pay on ten weeks and so on. So there was a bit of a shock there, but fishermen are living with that. That's not a problem. They appreciate the basic change to that new system as fishermen owner-operators.

• 1805

The crew member business is closer to the problems seasonal workers are having with this program. In particular, I think everybody finds the divisor rule a bit draconian in some cases, and certainly arbitrary. It seems to be punitive in a certain sense. If you are so unfortunate that you can only find 12 weeks of seasonal work in a given area, for example, you are still faced with a 14-week divisor. In many instances, this impacts on a very small income in a year, and it can impact reasonably substantially. There are other complexities with crew members in the divisors, the weeks and so on, that I can't get into.

The thing we feel strongest about—and we're in solidarity with the other fishermen's organizations, with the trade union movement and so on—is this business of the gap, the trou noir, not having sufficient benefits for seasonal people living in coastal economies. There is a reason for seasons there; there's a function for seasons. To leave people without any kind of income for three, four, six or eight weeks, and for a reason that's not clear to me...to still allow that gap to be there and not have it as part of the amendments is very unfortunate.

I think my time is up. At least, I assume it's up, Madame. We very much appreciate the opportunity to come before you. We want to stress again that from the point of view of our own members, who are the owner-operator, inshore, independent fishermen, the program is working reasonably well.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much, Mr. Beliveau.

[Translation]

We now give the floor to Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Phil Benson from the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association. Welcome.

[English]

Mr. Robert Brown (Director of Canadian Affairs, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association): Good evening. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for allowing me to appear here this evening on behalf of our organization. I have forwarded a one-page summary to the clerk's office for distribution.

I would like to begin by saying that the Canadian office of the Canadian Sheet Metal Workers' International Association comprises 25 local unions and represents over 14,000 highly skilled craftspeople working in the building, construction, and related industries. The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, in conjunction with the Canadian Building and Construction Trades Department of AFL-CIO, has participated in the EI reform process that led up to the adoption of the Employment Insurance Act.

We have for some time expressed our concerns that the 1996 reform was not sufficient. Bill C-2 shows that some of our arguments have been heard. However, there are still limitations to the program and much-needed amendments are required. We support repealing the intensity rule and modifying the clawback rule—we congratulate you for that; however, the entrant rule should be extended to cover all claimants no matter what their circumstance.

In addition, Bill C-2 does not deal with the small week problem, which seriously affects our construction workers. We would hope you could consider and address the small week problem.

One issue near and dear to our association is that of apprenticeship. Currently, the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association represents close to 3,000 apprentices across Canada in the building trades. The unemployment insurance program always assisted these apprentices. All unemployed workers have a two-week waiting period before collecting benefits. Apprentices had this waiting period waived, with their benefits paid from the consolidated revenue. Such was the importance of this assistance to the future of the apprenticeship system and the vital role it played in keeping apprentices in school that previous governments accepted the recommendation of the industry, creating a system that would pay the first two weeks of benefits to apprentices immediately upon their attending classes. The EI reform eliminated paying this two weeks of benefits to the apprentices. Given the government's drive to encourage education at all levels, we can only assume this was another unintended consequence of the reform.

• 1810

Apprentices do not have any control over when their courses are scheduled. They simply receive a notice to attend school. An apprentice with a family to support, a mortgage or rent to pay, and a job that may at that time pay only 40% of a journeyperson's rate, has only two options: to attend school and ignore the family consequences in order to increase their employability in the future, or, secondly, to delay their education.

The construction industry faces an aging workforce and reduced intake of apprentices. This is clear from the HRDC studies in respect of the trades in Canada. The industry and the country cannot afford the loss of any apprentice if the industry is to continue to produce a quality and cost-efficient product.

We have received numerous reports that apprentices are delaying their education and that the two-week loss of funding is at least partially responsible for this. Apprentices are not students in the traditional sense. They are learners who have jobs, families, and responsibilities. The system that allows them to complete their technical training with the greatest ease is in the national interest. Last year, apprentices returning to work after their schooling saved the EI program $177 million in unpaid benefits. It cost the EI program about $10 million in the last year the government paid the two-week period to apprentices.

Restored benefits would come from the employment insurance account. They are paid from part I benefits. As such, they are within federal jurisdiction. When we canvassed the premiers a few years ago on this subject, they supported the restoration of funding. I would respectfully request and urge the government to review and make the necessary changes to EI to rectify this very serious flaw in the current program and to reinstitute the required funding.

Apprenticeship is the lifeblood of the construction industry. It is sound policy and it's cost-effective. Restore this funding immediately.

In reference to setting policy, premiums, and the employment insurance account, I would simply say this: the stakeholders and government should work together to examine the governance issue in order to make EI responsive to the needs of the unemployed and an effective tool in increasing employment and opportunity across Canada.

Thank you very much for your time.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Brown. Now we give the floor to Ms. Margot Young and Mr. Joe Courtney from the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

[English]

Mr. Joe Courtney (Senior Research Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees): Good evening. My colleague, Margot Young, is joining me this evening in the place of the other person who was supposed to be here.

By way of introduction, the Canadian Union of Public Employees is the largest union in Canada. We represent some 480,000 workers from coast to coast. Our members work in a variety of industries, such as school boards, hospitals, municipalities, universities, public utilities, homes for the aged, day care centres, children's aid societies, libraries, transit systems, emergency services, and other publicly funded employers. We also have members who work for private companies, including airlines.

We'd like to thank the standing committee this evening for allowing us the opportunity to voice our concerns on Bill C-2. The message we bring before the standing committee this evening is simple. The proposed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act are insufficient and fail to fully address the needs of many working Canadians.

CUPE acknowledges that proposals to abolish such penalties as the intensity rule, to adjust the benefit repayment or clawback provision, and to modify the re-entry rules for parents returning to the workforce are steps in the right direction. These improvements would repair some of the damages caused by the UI reforms implemented in 1997. However, our recent experience tells us the proposed changes to the act do not go far enough.

Specifically, under the proposed changes, many Canadian women will still be disqualified for maternity benefits and many university workers will not accumulate enough hours of work to qualify for benefits. Likewise, many school board workers, the majority of whom are women, will continue to face hurdles qualifying for UI due to the requirement for more hours of work.

A CUPE survey of school board workers in Saskatchewan reveals 196 cases of individuals being denied UI benefits. The majority of these denials, about 84%, occurred after 1997, the year when changes to the UI legislation were implemented. A lack of qualifying hours has been identified as one of the main reasons why workers were denied benefits. Significantly, almost all of those denied UI were women—approximately 98%.

• 1815

It has been reported that the proposed amendments to the act will cost approximately $500 million. Admittedly, $500 million is a lot of money, but it represents a fraction of the total moneys presently contained in the UI fund.

It was also recently reported that the UI account had ballooned to $28.2 billion. CUPE believes that with such a huge surplus, real improvements can be made to the UI system, for example, by making positive improvements to qualifying criteria and extending the amount of time one can collect benefits.

The UI surplus consists of funds collected from workers and employers. The federal government makes no financial contribution to the UI fund. Workers contribute to the UI fund with the expectation that they can access benefits in the event they are laid off. We think it's important to remember that UI is, above all else, an insurance system, and it is time to start treating it as such. The UI system is a social safety net, and moneys in the fund ought not to be used to pay down the national debt.

The UI system is intended to help working Canadians, who are subject to labour market forces and demands that are beyond their control. Workers have no control over layoff decisions on the part of their employer, and should not have to fight tooth and nail to access funds they have paid into and are entitled to.

CUPE contends that much more can be done to address the plight of the unemployed in this country, and we believe our list of recommendations would be a positive step in that direction. Among our recommendations are the following.

Abolish the requirement of 910 hours of work for new entrants and re-entrants to the labour market. This initiative would provide coverage to the thousands of Canadians who have had no labour force attachment for a year or more.

Abolish the variable entrance formula. Under this formula, the number of hours required to be eligible for UI varies from 420 to 700, depending on regional unemployment rates, with more hours of work required in low unemployment areas and fewer hours required in areas of high unemployment.

Replace the variable entrance formula with a universal entrance requirement of 360 hours.

Institute a longer benefit period. Presently the benefit period ranges from a minimum of 14 to a maximum of 45 weeks, again depending on a region's unemployment rate.

Lower the threshold of 600 hours required to qualify for maternity benefits to 300 hours.

And treat UI as a true insurance program for the unemployed, not as a slush fund to pay down the national debt.

CUPE believes that these recommendations will ensure a more fair and accessible UI program for working Canadians. By contrast, Bill C-2 does not go far enough to address the problems faced by the unemployed in this country. Almost one million unemployed Canadians are disqualified from claiming UI benefits every year, and yet these same workers were eligible for assistance prior to the changes implemented in the UI Act of 1996-97. The current bill fails to address this problem.

The proposed legislation will do nothing to help the 100,000 women who will not qualify for maternity and parental leave benefits. And we are sorry to say the bill will not extend coverage to the hundreds of thousands of jobless Canadians who have paid premiums for years and yet are not eligible for benefits. Unfortunately, many of these workers are older.

The undermining of the UI program has resulted in more stringent entitlement criteria, reduced benefits, and shorter benefit periods, and we believe this is simply unacceptable.

In closing, we would like to thank the House of Commons standing committee for taking the time to hear our concerns, and it's our hope that our recommendations will be taken seriously and acted upon. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Now we will go on to question period. Let me remind you to be as brief as possible in your questions and answers so that everyone will have a chance to speak.

Thus we will start our first round with the Honourable Members Jim Gouk, Joe McGuire, Monique Guay, Georges Farrah, Yvon Godin and Jeannot Castonguay.

[English]

Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I'd like to start with a couple of comments. The apprenticeship program that was mentioned I happen to think is one of the best programs we've ever had, and I can't understand the pressure for pushing it out. We seem to go more for job training, where people get trained for jobs that sometimes don't exist, and with the apprenticeship program, they're actually being employed. I think we should be doing everything possible to enhance that particular program. There are not many programs that work so well, and when we get one that does, we should be doing everything we can for it.

• 1820

One thing I'm really curious about—I address it to Mr. Courtney from CUPE—is with regard to qualification times. The one that particularly jumped out at me is the 300 hours for maternity benefit, whether, I assume, it be the six-month or twelve-month period. I realize not everybody works a 40-hour week, but we could have someone start in a 40-hour-a-week job, and seven and a half weeks later, you feel, they can qualify for six to twelve months of maternity leave. Is that correct?

Mr. Joe Courtney: Sorry, can you repeat that? I didn't catch your question.

Mr. Jim Gouk: You said you would like to see the qualification for maternity leave reduced to 300 hours, which on a 40-hour week—I realize, as I say, not everyone works a 40-hour week—would be seven and a half weeks. Do you feel it appropriate that they should then qualify for six or twelve months of maternity leave?

Ms. Margot Young (Equality Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees): I would remind you that when the UI program was first revamped in 1971, that was all the time you had to work to qualify for full benefits. And it is an affirmative action matter that's very important for women, who are, more often than not, making lower incomes, patching together many jobs, and don't typically have the opportunity to avail themselves of the normal 40-hour work week.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I can appreciate there are some problems, and we need to seriously look at these things. You were saying that there used to be lower requirements, but it was also, I believe, a 15-week period of coverage. Now we're moving to 12 months, and I have a problem with the notion of someone who was, perhaps, already six months pregnant taking a job that would employ them for seven and a half weeks and then getting up to a year's benefits. That's very difficult, not only for the fund that all people are going to pay into, but also for an employer who has to deal with those kinds of circumstances.

Ms. Margot Young: Why would that be hard on the employer, beyond the leave issue? The leave's already there.

Mr. Jim Gouk: You're guaranteeing a job for someone who's worked for you for seven and a half weeks; you're going to hold their job for the next year.

Ms. Margot Young: I think the percentage of people that fall into that case.... First, you have to be a women. Second—

Mr. Jim Gouk: Which is 52% of the workforce.

Ms. Margot Young: —how many people are going to start their jobs just before they're about to give birth? I think you're dealing with a very small group of people.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I'm dealing with the specific example you bring up. If someone's been employed with a company for a year and a half, we don't have that problem. You are the ones who brought up the concept of someone who comes and works for 300 hours.

Ms. Margot Young: It's trying to take into account people who have disjointed work patterns.

Mr. Jim Gouk: So you're looking at someone who maybe works a longer period of time, but only amasses 300 hours.

Ms. Margot Young: No. We're trying to take into account what happens to work patterns of women. The rules as they were changed disqualified many people who would have normally qualified, and we're trying to bring some fairness to it. I think we can agree to disagree on this point, because we're definitely in favour of it, and it doesn't sound as though you are.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay. I just want to be clear what the intent is.

One thing I would put out to anyone as a final point, if I may, is the concept of the time-income formula. Maybe some fisheries, and perhaps not this one.... I come from the west coast, and sometimes they have a terrible season and it's devastating to them, but sometimes they have an incredible season in a matter of a week or two. If you're insuring your earnings, in essence, for $39,000, and in a short period, in a good season, you have an income in excess of that—and we see that in some seasonal professions, where, by the very nature of their work, they get very high income, because that seasonal nature is recognized.... Should someone who makes in excess of, say, $39,000—it could be $50,000, some arbitrary figure—someone who makes in excess of what other people work an entire year for at a regular job, still get the same rate of unemployment benefit for the period they're not working, despite the fact they've made what for many people is an annual salary?

• 1825

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): I will be able to allow only a very short answer.

Mr. Michael Beliveau: First, with respect to this characterization of the fishing income, maybe you are talking about the west coast. I don't think so, but I saw some figures the other day. The average employment income from fishing on the west coast and the east coast is between $20,000 and $25,000 per person-year. So there are going to be very few indeed in the kind of category you're talking about, and I would have thought the clawback business took care of that.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Now I give the floor to Mr. Joe McGuire, followed by Monique Guay, Raymonde Folco, Yvon Godin and Jeannot Castonguay.

[English]

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to ask a question on the system of “every hour counts”. Initially we were getting feedback of a very positive mood, but we ran into a little rough spot here today. So I wonder how it's working with the people you represent, the “every hour counts rule”, compared with the old system of weeks.

Mr. Phil Benson (Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association): The building trades department strongly supported the “every hour counts, every dollar counts” from day one, our affiliates' members finding it to work very well.

The one problem with the program is that in some cases every hour doesn't count and in some cases every dollar doesn't count. There are issues with our vacation pay and statutory pay. They have found creative ways to carve some income out of every dollar, though EI premiums and taxes are paid on them. It's more an issue of including them all than finding a new formula.

Mr. Joe McGuire: What about the fishing industry, Mike?

Mr. Michael Beliveau: It's a fair question you ask, and both Ronnie and myself are a bit weak on some of these things. But we know what the gentleman just said, that sometimes every hour doesn't count.

We very much looked forward to the shift to hours. We thought it was going to be good, not only for the crew members, but also for the plant workers. But the divisor, for one thing, poses a problem. You could have a particular crew member who is working an 80-hour week, but he maybe is only going to get six weeks of those things. That's great in terms of qualifying for benefits—he qualifies—but then he gets a divisor that knocks half his benefits away. So it's actually one of the disappointments of that hour system. We all looked forward to it when it first came up in the Kirby task force as an alternative, but it doesn't seem to have completely played out right, with the week thing still kicking in. In fact, everybody on the shore still talks of weeks. I'm baffled by that.

Mr. Joe McGuire: How is the system carving away some dollars and some hours?

Mr. Michael Beliveau: If a plant worker, for example, can get a large number of hours, but only end up with 12 weeks of work, the divisor still is 14, if you follow what I'm saying.

Yvon could probably tell you better, but with our crew members, it turns out, with the actual benefit, they can lose. I had a woman come in one day and tell us about this in respect of a particular fishing season, because it was shortened. She, as a crew person in this case, was going to lose, I think, close to $2,000 in benefits because of this divisor, where she didn't actually have the number of weeks.

Maybe somebody around the table can explain it better than I can.

Mr. Phil Benson: One of the problems with the construction industry—it's not a problem, it's a joy—when our members have work, they have to pick up their tools and go. That's why we're called journeypersons. Under collective agreements people have travel time. It's only fair that if you're going from Cape Breton Island to the tar sands in Alberta, or out of town 60 or 100 miles, you get travel time. Well, travel time doesn't always count. There are all sorts of things that don't count as work time that are in fact work time.

• 1830

On the other side is vacation pay. In our industry, we get paid a percentage. It can be 8%, 10%, or 12%. We don't get paid statutory days, we get paid cash, simply because that's the nature of the industry and the way it works best for us. For those statutory hours, if you work for an employer and you get paid that Friday, you get those eight hours. We don't get the eight hours. You can have vacation time. If you take vacation for two weeks, those two weeks will count for hours, but they won't count in our industry.

So it's some of the vagaries in the system having difficulty dealing with how we do business in our industry, and it means that members lose hours, because not every hour counts, and on the other side, they lose dollars. Of course, with the divisor rule and other issues, the goal is to have every dollar earned that you can and every hour credited that you can be credited. So far as it's not so much a problem with the divisor, although there are concerns, it's an issue to make sure that the dollars and hours that accrue from work actually get counted in a meaningful way.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): I'm sorry, Mr. McGuire, I'm going to have to cut you off there.

[Translation]

I give the floor to Ms. Monique Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I would like to welcome you here. I am pleased to see that you represent various sectors; the arts, fisheries and the metal working industry. You represent all kinds of industries experiencing the same problem with Employment Insurance among other things.

Ms. Borgal, you mentioned artists, who are self-employed. I would like to have your opinion on that matter. You mentioned it briefly. Perhaps you could elaborate and tell us how you view the matter. I have spoken a great deal about this. Self-employed workers now make up 18% of the population. Self-employment is on the increase. Should these people not be covered, and how should we include them in the Employment Insurance system?

Here is my second question. Mr. Courtney, I am very glad to see that a man is interested in the status of women, namely pregnant women who want to take maternity leave; they should not be penalized. Childbirth should not be considered as a punishment but rather a joyful event in our lives. A woman does not bear 50 children. In our times, we have one or two. Thus, why should women be penalized by requiring them to work a staggering number of hours to make them eligible for Employment Insurance? This is outrageous. I find this totally unacceptable.

I had children and I collected Employment Insurance. I was entitled because I had paid premiums. I think it is quite appropriate to collect EI benefits with normal working hours. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

By the way, Mr. Courtney, you have excellent recommendations. They are very clear, and I hope that the committee will take them into account.

Finally, I would like to raise the question of an independent fund for EI. We raised that point already. I would like to have your comments on that. You have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Joe Courtney: I'm sorry, can you elaborate on what you mean by an independent fund for EI?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: We are talking about an independent Employment Insurance fund that would not be administered by governments but rather by EI contributors namely employers and employees. This Employment Insurance fund would be administered by their representatives, independently from the government. The government does not contribute any money to the fund. The government administers it but does not contribute a cent. It is funded by employers and employees, and now the surplus is directly applied to the repayment of the debt. We suggest that there should be an independent fund.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mrs. Borgal is first, and then Mr. Courtney.

Ms. Philippa Borgal: Thank you.

First of all, in the cultural sector we're over 50% self-employed, so it's much larger than the percentage in the workforce as a whole, and that is why government departments and other people have considered us to be the workforce of the future.

• 1835

As self-employed individuals, it's clear that our people are not covered by employment insurance. We would very much welcome some system whereby they could both pay in and be insured in some manner. It does exist in other countries. In some instances, it's government-run; in other instances, it seems to be a stand-alone insurance scheme that is organized by the cultural groups themselves.

I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting with your caisse, but we would certainly be interested in looking at such an example.

Secondly, within their working habits, self-employed people in the cultural sector do frequently take work as employees as well. This is part of the dual status. So during a year, although they are claiming themselves as self-employed for the purposes of taxation, they may also have some work for which they are employees, and they pay EI. But even though they're paying EI, they have no access to employment insurance because they are primarily self-employed individuals. Also, they have no means to have a reimbursement of the payments they've made. They can't refuse to pay them and they cannot have them reimbursed. It's a very unfair system, and we would like to see something that addresses the needs of the self-employed in a much broader fashion.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Courtney, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to go for a very quick answer.

Mr. Joe Courtney: Okay, I will give a quick answer.

I certainly agree with the argument you've put forward in terms of the fact that the federal government does not contribute financially to the UI fund. However, CUPE is a public union, we represent public workers, and we would like to see the fund managed in a public fashion. That's our simple response.

Mr. Michael Beliveau: May I comment on the same thing, Madam?

I'd be very concerned about this kind of concept. An immediate response would be that it sounds like another form of privatization. This is a national program we're talking about...I'm misinterpreting then. Okay, we'll clear it up later.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Maybe you will be able to do that the next time.

[Translation]

Now let us continue with Raymonde Folco, followed by Yvon Godin and Jeannot Castonguay.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before putting my question, I would like to comment on something that was said several times around this table.

[English]

Several people have mentioned that the Canadian government does not contribute to the EI account. I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that the EI account is a national account and that the moneys actually come from general revenues. This was established as a result of the Auditor General's advice in 1986, in which he advised the government of that time that the account for EI moneys should be done in this way.

Furthermore, for 10 out of the last 18 years, the EI account has been in a deficit, and no matter what the party in power, it is the Government of Canada that has made up that deficit. Therefore, the Government of Canada has stepped in when it was required to do so because there was not enough money in the box. If it's not giving money into the box right now, it's because the money is not really required. We're in a surplus situation rather than a deficit situation. You may want to react to this later on.

[Translation]

I would like to put a question and I do not know to whom I should address it. It is directed more or less to all the members of the panel.

I've heard it said several times, not only this evening but also at other meetings, by groups appearing before this committee that the problem was not only Employment Insurance as such, but also training and, specifically, the training of youths, because there are many seasonal industries that are not being renewed with a younger labour force. So, on the one hand, there is a problem with training youth for these industries.

On the other hand, training youth is an excellent idea, but if we train them to work in a vanishing industry and if there are no other industries in the area, does this finally serve any purpose?

• 1840

Here is the question I would like to ask you. What role could training play in your industry on one hand and, on the other hand, when it is a seasonal industry, as in Mr. Beliveau's case, what would you propose to the government in order to help the regions in building other industries that could provide employment to young people in those regions?

[English]

Mr. Michael Beliveau: I don't know whether I have a lot to comment on except from the point of view of the Maritime Fishermen's Union.

We're quite concerned about whether the young people will be able to enter the fishery. We think the fishery is an often misunderstood phenomenon in this country, but we're actually doing reasonably well in the in-shore fisheries in the Maritimes and are employing an awful lot of people.

But we're running into a demographic problem here where our fishermen-owner licence-holders are getting older. As for the young ones, it's not so much that they aren't getting training—it's amazing, if you look at the stats, how much the level of education has improved—but they're having an economic problem in terms of buying into the industry now. There's a problem of transfer of licences that's very complex, and I'm sure this committee doesn't really want to get into it very far.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I think the last witness who appeared before you this afternoon spoke about this very problem.

Mr. Michael Beliveau: Our organization is affiliated with some of the other organizations in terms of a professionalization initiative across the country. We're very much concerned with the entry of young people into the fishery. We think there are very noble careers in the fishery. The block now is not so much formation and education. The block is more the transfer and the value of the transfer of licences and so on, and the prohibitive nature of getting into this business for the young people.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Does anyone have anything to add? I put my question not only to Mr. Beliveau, but to anyone who wishes to answer it.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Could we have quick comments, please.

Mr. Robert Brown: If I could say something on behalf of the construction industry, I'd like to refer to comments I made in reference to apprenticeship and training and education.

I made a point—such as this gentleman has just alluded to—that the demographics in the construction industry are pretty staggering. I referred to the enhancement of the two weeks, to put that back into the EI program. It was there previously, and it seemed to be an incentive for youth to take the initiative, no matter what their circumstances were at the time; they had notice to go to school with respect to the building trades. That helped them over that initial hump of getting into the program, and then they were in the system and they carried on with the system.

This seems to be a penalty in their minds. When I talk to the younger people in the industry, there's a lot of pressure other than schooling obviously. But as they progress through their apprenticeships, this is one area where the government could really step up and take a leadership role in telling the youth of this country that it's a good industry to get involved with; it's a good industry to make your livelihood at, to support your families, to pay your taxes, etc.

I would really urge you to look at the issue of re-implementing the two-week period to encourage these young people to come into the program.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Brown.

[Translation]

Let us now continue with Yvon Godin followed by Jeannot Castonguay and, on the second round, we will hear Carol Skelton, Alan Tonks, Monique Guay and Anita Neville.

[English]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Chair, first of all, I want to clear up one of the statements that was made.

When they say the government was told in 1986 by the Auditor General to take the money from the EI fund and put it into the general fund, and that it's the fault of the government that did it, I think this is a shame. At that time, it was about $11 billion in the hole. Today they are stealing $32 billion from the workers and the companies that paid into it. I think it's a shame to use those types of arguments, especially when we just heard the construction union ask why we are going to punish their people by stopping them from going for two weeks of training with earnings? They're not abusers.

• 1845

The argument the government used at that time was that we had to make changes, because while people depend on EI, they abuse it. Here we have witnesses saying they have people who they want to train and who the government wants them to train, but the government is going to take away two weeks of earnings, which will stop people from going on training. I think this is a shame, and now I would like to hear some comments on that.

At the same time, when we talk about the black hole, the gappers in the fisheries, I think it's ruining our people. Our youth don't want to go back to the fisheries, and they're going to university. At one point I said this to various meetings and groups, and I've said it almost all week: you cannot find a lobster on Yonge Street in Toronto nor on St. Catherine Street in Montreal, and you have to respect our industry in our country. If you want one, you will have to go to Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where our friend on the other side, Mr. Farrah, comes from. He came in and said

[Translation]

that he was making a cry from the heart to the Minister of the Human Resources Development.

[English]

I hope he continues that way, to scream right from the heart. We need to change what needs to be changed.

For women who go on parental leave...it was a disaster when we brought in those 700 hours. Women working in the fish plant could work 15 hours a week before, get their 300 hours, and go on maternity leave. The government took EI away from thousands and thousands of women of this country who at one time used to qualify.

I say that the Liberal government has no right at all to come down and steal from the working people, who deserve it so much, who built this country, and who work hard for this country every day. The government is only the government. Even the money that was there in the past doesn't belong to the Liberals; it belongs to the people of this country.

I've tried to shoot a lot in three minutes, and as you said, I'm not that tired.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Is that the question, Yvon?

Does somebody have an answer?

Mr. Michael Beliveau: I appreciate your passion on this. In fact, I got thrown off by this five minutes. I should have had a formal presentation because I feel the same way you do.

EI is kind of working for our members, but we live in the communities you come from, on the Acadian Peninsula and all along eastern New Brunswick, and every day we see what you're talking about. I think it is scandalous as well. The surplus that has been built up over those years was built up on the backs of the poorest people in the coastal communities of eastern Canada, and I couldn't agree with you more. If I were in the House of Commons, I'd speak as strongly as you do on that particular aspect of the business.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Beliveau.

Does somebody have another answer?

Mr. Brown.

Mr. Robert Brown: Again, I'd like to go back to the comment on training. I hope the members here look at it from the industry's perspective, not just the individual's, because these young people are going to be building this country for many years—hopefully, for hundreds of years to come. They are serving the industry. They're serving the mega-corporations of this country. They're building the facilities. I don't just focus on the individual. They are providing a very worthwhile service across this country, and I think they should be supported in that.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Now we will continue with Jeannot Castonguay, followed by Carol Skelton, Alan Tonks, Monique Guay, Anita Neville, Wendy Lill and Georges Farrah.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Madam Chair, I thank you very much and I thank our guests.

For several days now, we have heard a lot of evidence which I think should help us make quite specific recommendations to the government to improve our condition.

In the various evidence we received, it was mentioned, this very afternoon, that seasonal industries insured the survival of bigger industries. I understand this very well because I live in an area where wood harvesting is important for paper industries like Fraser. I am aware of the fact and I appreciate it.

We also hear that young people are not interested in seasonal work for various reasons and that this might be a challenge for us later on because, basically, this kind of work will always be important for the Canadian economy. I also understand that very well.

• 1850

Now, should we encourage the diversification of skills of young workers now coming into the job market and who say that they do not want seasonal work for various reasons? Should we encourage diversifying the skills of these young workers so that they can work at different jobs in different seasons and when a season is over they can go out some other kind of work, or should we simply encourage them to say no, to be satisfied with one kind of work, when we know full well that their recruitment is difficult because it does not seem to be what they are looking for? I would like to hear your comments on the approach we should adopt to ensure that that work gets done.

[English]

Mr. Michael Beliveau: You make me think of one thing I'd like to put on the table. Again, I don't know whether your committee really wants to get into it, but the inshore fishery in the maritime provinces has evolved into something none of us really predicted. It appears to have a long-term future.

One of the approaches we're taking to the inshore fishery is that the people should hold many-species licences, in order to pursue different species at different times of the year as they arrive. We've had this kind of program for 15 years and it's working reasonably well. If you have access to a several-species licence, rather than going in the highly specialized direction, if you're polyvalent and fish as the fish arrive at different times of the season, you can basically have full-time employment.

Now, of course, the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence ices over, so there's a period when you're not actually on the water. But there's enough work in fishing the different species that if you're only on the water 100 days a year, it doesn't mean you aren't doing a 240-day year's work. That's definitely a full-time occupation.

Just for the public record, I think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans—which is not your bailiwick here, I understand—has still not really grasped how an in-shore fishery might be properly developed in the future to create better and longer-term employment for all those who have been involved in the past.

If you want a speech on that, I'll write it down sometime later.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Jeannot.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: On the one hand, I hear that young people don't want to get involved in seasonal work. So how can we make sure they will be there tomorrow to do that work? We also hear people who say they're not asking for EI; it should be there in case they need it, but the objective is to create jobs. I'm trying to find out from you how we can achieve that.

Mr. Phil Benson: The modern construction industry is cyclical in nature. Thanks to technology, tools, and materials, the seasonal component has been reduced to a very small part of the industry. A large part of it is set by government regulation, as in road building. The season for building roads is not determined by the weather, technology, or the ability to do it. What day you start and what day you finish are determined by government fiat and regulation.

Because of innovation, technology, training, and learning—how we build in the industries today is not how we built even twenty or thirty years ago. I think part of your answer for other industries is to follow our model: the innovation, technology and capital, and the training of individuals to carry on functioning no matter what the weather.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Benson.

Now, let us go on to Carol Skelton, Alan Tonks, Monique Guay, Anita Neville, Wendy Lill and Georges Farrah.

[English]

It's your turn.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Coming from Saskatchewan, I know about CUPE very well. I was wondering, have you done official studies on the intensity rule and the clawback provision and what they've done to CUPE members? Have you got official—

Mr. Joe Courtney: The Saskatchewan survey did not address the intensity rule per se.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Canada-wide?

• 1855

Mr. Joe Courtney: Unfortunately, it was actually overlooked. We're hearing from our members that it is problematic in Nova Scotia. In Cape Breton, for example, we know it has been a problem for our members there. We're glad to see that one of the recommendations is to abolish it.

I don't know, Margot, whether you're aware of any studies we've done. I'm not aware of any.

Ms. Margot Young: We do have some surveys we could make available to you.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I would appreciate that. But have your other groups done any surveys on the clawback and the intensity rule and how they have affected your people, your workers?

Mr. Phil Benson: If you're talking about surveys, our leadership certainly makes a point of talking to members. I know I have gone around to different union halls. But I'd say that at a meeting of about 100 people, clawback was an issue with 25% or 30% of the people there.

As for the intensity rule, we've just come out of one of the largest recessions we've ever seen. We had locals, even here in Ottawa, 30% to 35% unemployed. So needless to say, from 1996 to today their clocks were ticking on the intensity rule. Hopefully, now that we're picking up, they'll start getting some of those times back.

The answer is yes, a great number of our members were suffering—losing benefits I think they were entitled to. It was more a punitive or a revenue-generating issue than one that made any difference to their ability to work. When they wanted to work, they worked, and when they needed unemployment insurance, they applied for it and they were paid it.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I'm very interested in the training program because my son just finished his apprenticeship at the end of February. He's a family man. He applied two weeks early, but he had finished six weeks of his course before he got a cheque. For a lot of other family men and women, it was over two months before they got a cheque. Is this a problem with the system, or with the accountability of the people who are looking after these cheques and getting them out?

Mr. Phil Benson: Under Mr. Mulroney's government, the industry united. The contractors, unions, and associations highlighted the problem of this being a great disincentive. It's not just the two weeks. It was the fact that you were basically off work for eight weeks. When you go back to work, the first cheque you actually get is the cheque in your ninth week from your employer. And sometime down the road, you get the cheque from the government.

Under the system in place, the first day the apprentices showed up for class, people from EI were there cutting them cheques and handing them two weeks' pay. Even in those days, that was the only pay the people would see from EI for maybe four or five weeks. There really needs to be a system to address that problem—not just for apprentices, but for an awful lot of workers who wait four, six, seven weeks to get an EI cheque. Most people live paycheque to paycheque, and that is an issue.

I know the HRDC bureaucracy and staff have tried very hard to address this, but it's a serious issue. When somebody's 27 or 28 with children, as a lot of our apprentices are, they want to get ahead; they want to be the next group of tradespeople to build this country. But EI basically says nine weeks later we'll get you your cheques. That's a problem, because the bank doesn't wait nine weeks.

Ms. Carol Skelton: They were having a hard time buying groceries.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Could you send the survey you're talking about to the clerk, so that everybody will then be able to have it?

Ms. Margot Young: With pleasure. I think you'll see from it that many women were inadvertently harmed by the last changes. It demonstrates that in a fairly concrete way.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Now let us hear from Alan Tonks, following by Monique Guay, Anita Neville, Wendy Lill and Georges Farrah.

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Joe and Margot, I noticed in your presentation that you referred to the problem of women re-entering the job force after maternity leave and their inability to have the qualifying hours. You quantified that and said that 98% of women fall into a particular category. Would that be the category where they couldn't muster the 900 qualifying hours? Could you elaborate on that a bit? I wasn't quite following that.

• 1900

Mr. Joe Courtney: Unfortunately I was not the researcher on this survey, so I wouldn't have those details. The survey was done in Saskatchewan. But certainly we could find that out.

Mr. Alan Tonks: The bottom line was that fixing it would require $500 million, and your caveat was that with the $22 billion surplus, that shouldn't be too difficult.

You then went on to give two or three suggestions to amend the worker entrance criteria, to reduce that to a universal entrance of 360 hours. You had a lower threshold for maternity benefits to 300 hours, and then you had a regional suggestion. I didn't quite get that one. Could you tell me what that was?

Mr. Joe Courtney: Are you talking about the universal...?

Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes.

Mr. Joe Courtney: I'm sorry, what don't you understand about that?

Mr. Alan Tonks: You said there was a regional variance formula that was used.

Mr. Joe Courtney: Right.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I didn't understand that.

Mr. Joe Courtney: At the moment, depending on the unemployment rate in your region, you would need a minimum of 420 to 700 hours of insurable work in order to qualify for benefits.

Before the changes, as I understand it, the universal was 300 hours. So right off the bat you need at least a minimum of 120 hours more.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. So your approach is that if you reduce the threshold, that would be superior to a regional variance.

Mr. Joe Courtney: Yes.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I would argue that a regional variance, if you didn't reduce the threshold, would still be your best safety net. But I suppose it just depends on what you accept first.

Did you cost out, or did your research cost out, what the impact of those would be, based on maybe the experience in the last two or three years?

Mr. Joe Courtney: Are you referring to the $500 million?

Mr. Alan Tonks: No, not the $500 million; you've quantified that. I mean reducing the threshold to 300 hours, for example.

Mr. Joe Courtney: No, I have no idea of the cost of that.

Mr. Alan Tonks: You have no idea.

Mr. Joe Courtney: No.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay, I wondered if your research had done that, just for some guidance.

Mr. Joe Courtney: It's a good idea, I fully agree. But no, that's something we haven't looked at.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay.

To Robert Brown and Phil Benson, on the apprenticeship, I had been under the impression that it was so self-evident how important it was to do those two weeks that actually our bill had included that, but I guess I'm wrong. Is there any idea as to cost with respect to implementing that? Have you any research, across the trades?

Mr. Phil Benson: The last year it was in effect, it cost $10 million. The departmental people, the government people we've talked to, have somehow inflated that to perhaps $30 million or $40 million. We're talking about a very small amount of money for a great benefit to the country.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay, thank you.

And then for Philippa—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): This is your last question.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I'll make it quick.

On this notion of self-employment, with self-employed persons would you not agree that it's difficult to predict when people voluntarily give up their work, when they reach retirement or whatever, as compared to those who would fall into the category of being self-employed and quitting their own job? How do you determine that? I don't know.

Ms. Philippa Borgal: I'm not quite sure I understand your question. With most people in the cultural sector, you pretty much stay at your profession until you die. There's no retirement age. Actors go on until they're 80 years of age. Jean Louis Roux is in his seventies. There is no pension plan and no retirement age, and in many of the professions—not dancers, obviously—you can continue until you are a senior citizen and almost beyond. So it isn't really relevant to the cultural community.

• 1905

Mr. Alan Tonks: I didn't mean to be facetious.

Mr. Phil Benson: Could I address the self-employment issue? It's a very important one.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay.

Mr. Phil Benson: I will not speak for the other industries, but for the construction industry the self-employment issue was a major concern when it came to underground economic activity. We worked very hard with Minister Martin, Minister Peterson, and then Revenue Minister Dhaliwal to deal with this problem. Thanks to their leadership, we now have a mandatory reporting system for subcontractors, we have a clearer definition of employee and self-employed, and we have a restoration of the fair wage act.

So although a lot of people talk about self-employment—and I won't address other industries because they may have other concerns—for our industry the covering of people who are self-employed for employment insurance may in fact open up a can of worms that we worked very hard to put to bed to ensure that those hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue are collected when they're due.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Benson.

[Translation]

Now, let us continue with Monique Guay, followed by Anita Neville and Wendy Lill, and finally Georges Farrah.

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think artists will always remain artists; I am convinced that an artist will never become a fisherman. We cannot tell how many years an artist will work in his field of endeavour. It is a strange question to ask.

Regarding the question of granting up to 300 hours to women who want pregnancy leave, I think that there will never be enough children born in Canada, Mr. Tonks, to use up the $33 billion surplus.

We have a $33 billion surplus somewhere, and I think that it should be used for something, such as—and this is an urgent matter—allowing women to leave their jobs during pregnancy without penalizing them and without making them feel guilty for taking leave in order to be able to bear a child and take care of their baby during the first months of its life. With $33 billion, I think that Mr. Courtney would be able to do quite a bit for his Public Service employees.

Having said that, I thank you all for coming here today. I would like to know whether any of you has submitted concrete amendments. If not, I invite you to do so and I would like to know what each of you would list as their priorities. This could help us in our consultations. Which amendment to Bill C-2 would you put at the top of your priority list?

You have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Michael Beliveau: I would go along with Monsieur Godin that the seasonal worker in this country and on our coast has to be grasped and understood for what he or she is. I really think we should do everything to change the scales on those formulas so that we don't have this trou noir. It has to be eliminated. The kind of human suffering that goes on in the most rural and poorest families is just not right when you have the kinds of surpluses we're talking about here—and even if we didn't have the surpluses it wouldn't be right.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Brown.

Mr. Robert Brown: My wish list would be that the entrant rule be extended to all claimants. When you get the older workforce being treated under the guise of a re-entrant or a youth, it's pretty difficult on those folks.

As I somewhat harped on this evening, I would really like you to consider the reinstatement of apprenticeship funding for the initial two weeks.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Madam Borgal.

Ms. Philippa Borgal: I have a slightly different approach, because, as you know, we'd like to see it changed all together. We'd like to see something much more innovative be brought in that relates to the workforce of today and tomorrow. But I would like to see a pilot project undertaken by HRDC, using the cultural community as an example, to see whether there are much more creative ways in which some sort of insurance fund for employment for all Canadians can be brought in.

• 1910

I'd also say that when it comes to self-employment, yes, Revenue Canada has made quite clear the definitions for “employed” and “self-employed”, but the four tests are not particularly relevant to the cultural community. They are based on what we would consider an antiquated industrial model, and they don't really apply to the cultural community. We were not consulted on them. They may work for some sectors and not for others. Again, we tend to be a square peg in a round hole, or the other way around—I can never work out which way it goes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Ms. Borgal.

Monsieur Courtney and Ms. Young.

Mr. Joe Courtney: I think the whole issue of special benefits needs to be revisited, and particularly maternity benefits. We know women in this country are penalized economically. Women tend to be concentrated in fairly low-paying jobs, in female job ghettos. They work a double day most of the time. They are responsible for home and family responsibilities. On average, they make 80¢ to the dollar of what a man earns in this country. So I think that whole issue is vitally important and needs to be looked at in a serious fashion.

I guess the second wish list we would have would be to revisit the variable entrance formula that we spoke about earlier.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Courtney.

[Translation]

Now we will go to Anita Neville, Wendy Lill and, finally, Georges Farrah.

[English]

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, all of you, for coming out this evening. At this hour of the evening, some of my questions have been been pre-empted, but I'm going to revisit some at a slightly different angle.

My first comment or question is to you, Mrs. Borgal. I appreciated very much your presentation. I missed the presentation of your colleague yesterday, so I was pleased to hear yours today. I was pleased with how you captured the industry, if one can capture it in all its many variables. It's an industry I'm well familiar with for a whole variety of reasons.

I have thought often of the issues of self-employment and the vagaries of the industry and the level of earnings, etc., but I have not thought much of the ambiguity of being both self-employed and receiving employment insurance on the in-between jobs that one often takes.

You proposed a pilot project. I'm wondering whether you have, in your discussions in proposing such a project, consulted with other organizations. I'm thinking of organizations like Actors' Equity, like ACTRA and their equivalents. Have these bodies talked about or discussed some of the possible avenues that might be available?

Ms. Philippa Borgal: Normally, when it comes to training and human resources issues, it is the Cultural Human Resources Council that deals with them. When they made their presentation yesterday, they had a representative from ACTRA with them.

Ms. Anita Neville: I didn't realize that.

Ms. Philippa Borgal: They are putting the proposal for the pilot project forward, so my understanding is that, yes, they have consulted with others in the community.

We ourselves represent Actors' Equity, ACTRA, and all the major arts organizations, as well as a number of the individual artists separately. If it were agreed to in principle by HRDC, we would have to sit down with them and with our members in order to discuss how this could best be handled. I don't have details at the moment, but I think where we need to go is toward having some sort of opening with HRDC, a willingness to perhaps look at the facts that we are not an industrial model and that the workforce of tomorrow is not necessarily an industrial model either. There needs to be some sort of willingness to look at some flexible method that could be used for employment insurance. We're very open to that, and we hope they will be as well.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

Do I have time?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): You still have a minute.

Ms. Anita Neville: My next question is to you, Mr. Brown. You have spoken at length about the apprenticeship and the importance of the two weeks. I must admit I have some sympathy for that. I guess what I'm also interested in knowing, because I've heard an estimated cost, is how much that factors into being the deterrent for people not entering an apprenticeship, as opposed to other life considerations. Can you measure that?

• 1915

Mr. Robert Brown: It's not an entrance into the apprenticeship program; it's a continuance.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'm sorry.

Mr. Robert Brown: Once they're in the program, this can be a determining factor of whether they're capable of continuing or whether they go in another direction—as to whether or not they leave the building trades, for example.

Ms. Anita Neville: So you're saying the loss of the two weeks' income is, for most, a significant number?

Mr. Robert Brown: I think I pointed out in my report that it's a partial problem. I'm not going to try to say it's the overriding problem in the whole scheme of things, but it certainly plays a part in it. As was pointed out here earlier, it's not the two weeks, because that two weeks continues on possibly for the whole duration of the schooling period. That focuses and puts a lot of pressure on young families, and it creates problems that abound in personal lives. So it's something not needed in the industry, and it's just another hurdle that young people can get over to keep their lives flowing.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Brown.

[Translation]

Now Wendy Lill has the floor followed by Georges Farrah.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming today and for speaking about your concerns. I have a question for the CUPE representatives, and then one for Philippa.

I hold in my mind the idea that one million unemployed workers who were eligible before 1997 are disqualified every year. I wasn't an MP before 1997, but I think most of those million have come to see me since 1997.

An awful lot of people in my community are unemployed. A lot of them are black, young Nova Scotian males. They have a lot of trouble getting into the workforce, and they find it impossible to reach 910 hours. So do persons with disabilities. That's just like some magical number they'll never achieve because they're working part-time or they have a lot of trouble getting into the workforce. If they are lucky enough to get part-time work, it takes forever to get up to 910 hours. The job may disappear by then, or whatever. So I really agree with you that the eligibility number has to be drastically reduced, and that has to be done now.

The other thing I find about not being EI-attached is that you also are not able to get any training. You're not eligible for job creation programs or technology training. All of those things sort of follow from being able to get EI, so we have a different level of citizenship for these people, for a large number of people who can't get this magic EI attachment.

Have you done any research on, for example, persons with disabilities in public service? I'd be interested in hearing this.

Ms. Margot Young: We've recently set up a working group on disability issues to advise us, and we are going to be putting forth a plan, because, as you allude to, they are the group that is the most disenfranchised if you look at unemployment rates or income rates, be it earned income or overall annual income. Without really good employment equity measures, these people are going to continue to be marginalized in employment. Even their barriers to getting into the job market are high, and their ability to maintain attachment is very fragile. We're hoping to develop over the next year some very serious recommendations on that. We have a committee of members across Canada who have disabilities, and they are working on this issue now.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

I just have one more question.

Philippa, I'm sorry I wasn't here for your presentation, but I'm interested in knowing something. You've done studies on...I understand 50% of your members are self-employed. Some of them pay into EI because of part of their work. Do you have any idea how much money is paid by artists every year into the unemployment insurance fund, but which they are never able to access? What happens to that money, and where do you think it should go?

• 1920

Ms. Philippa Borgal: I don't have those figures, Wendy, no. It might be something we'd be able to get some estimate of. We haven't done it so far, and I'm not sure any of the organizations have with their individual groups—the writers or the actors or visual artists or whatever.

Where does the money go? I suspect it goes into a nice, big, black hole somewhere in the government. I don't know.

As self-employed individuals, artists, of course, do not have access to training or professional development through EI either, so they're penalized in many respects even though they may have paid into the fund.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Wendy, thank you.

[Translation]

The last question will be put by Georges Farrah.

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la- Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Now it is my turn to give you a very warm welcome. To start with, let me mention that coming from the Magdalen Islands and that representing the Gaspé Peninsula, I am very sensitive to the problems of seasonal work, especially in the fisheries, and very sensitive to the effects of the black hole, or the gap, as well as those of the 14-divider. All these things have an impact on our people. I have already said so many times and that's why I do not want to dwell on it further.

Thus, I am very aware of the current situation, especially in the fisheries. The total of 910 working hours, as mentioned by Mr. Courtney, is not easy to reach by young people on their first job. It is not easy to become eligible for employment insurance in our regions, because 910 hours practically mean 25 or 26 weeks of work and, unfortunately, that amount of work is not there for those people. This is not because they do not want to work. The real situation is that seasonal work sometimes only amount to 10, 12, 14 or 15 weeks.

I have a more sensitive question regarding the fisheries. I am not blaming anyone at all. I only want to know your opinion. At certain times of the year, ships' captains are faced with the situation where the available resource, like herring or mackerel, is less economically viable than lobsters or shellfish. If they collect employment insurance at that time, they may be tempted not to stay ashore because mackerel and herring are less viable economically.

I would simply like to know whether this occurs and, if so, to what extent, because then, plant workers can suffer because the fish processing plants have no supplies.

Please do not think that I am blaming anyone. I can readily understand that if he has to pay out of his own pocket to go out because the available fish is not viable, and if he can collect employment insurance, he might be motivated not to go out, which might in turn have an impact on plant workers.

Let me repeat that I do not want to blame anyone. I simply want to know whether this occurs and if it does, to what extent.

Mr. Ron Cormier (President, Maritime Fishermen's Union): I suppose that in certain cases, this might happen; in some places, herring, mackerel and scallop fishing may not be viable at all. But most captains I know in my region want to fish and do so. It is in their blood. Most of us consider this as a historical fact and I think that this is mainly how we work.

Mr. Georges Farrah: All right. In my opinion, this has been observed. It is really quite obvious.

Here's my last question, Madam Chair. Obviously, I think that your claims regarding the black hole, the 14-divider and all the rest seen legitimate to me. Given that these factors can have quite a significant financial impact, what order of priority would you assign to them? I know that this is not an easy decision to make, but if you had to list them according to their relative importance, which of these problems, in your mind, would be the most serious and the most urgently in need of a solution?

• 1925

I know that most of these problems are very important, but if we had to rank them according to their priority, which one should we hasten to remedy first?

Mr. Ron Cormier: I think that we should first deal with the problems of people working on ships, and collecting employment insurance in the winter. There are times when there is no income, as during the month... Let us say that their benefits end in mid- March and that the herring fishery begins in mid-April or late April. There is a long period without any income.

There is a problem that must be solved which occurs during the time between fisheries and during the waiting time when they should normally expect some funding.

Mr. Georges Farrah: I thank all of you for coming this evening. We appreciate this very much. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you very much.

I would like to thank our guests this evening namely: Margot Young and Joe Courtney from the Canadian Union of Public Service Employees; Philippa Borgal from the Canadian Conference of the Arts; Ron Cormier and Michael Beliveau, from the Maritime Fishermen's Union; and Robert Brown and Phil Benson from the Sheet Metal Workers International Association.

Your evidence will be very useful to us and, once again, thank you for coming.

Let me remind my colleagues that another Committee meeting will be held tomorrow, at 11:00 o'clock, in Room 253-D, in the Centre Block. It is just across the way.

Thank you and good evening.

The meeting is adjourned.