HUMA Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 15, 2001

• 1521

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)): The meeting is called to order. We are here to consider Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations.

Our witnesses today are Mr. Bruno Lévesque and Ms. Lyne Poirier from the Comité de chômeurs du Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean, as well as Mr. Alain Bilodeau and Ms. Karine Lapré from the Mouvement Action-Chômage du Lac-Saint-Jean. I welcome you all.

We will start with the presentations. You will each have approximately five minutes to make your presentation. Afterwards, we will have a question period of approximately five minutes as well, including questions and answers. Each person will get a turn to speak, and if we have enough time, there will be a second round of questions.

I give the floor first off to Mr. Lévesque and Ms. Poirier, of the Comité de chômeurs du Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean. Welcome.

Mr. Bruno Lévesque (President, Comité de chômeurs du Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean): Hello. I am Bruno Lévesque and I am the president of the Comité de chômeurs. The committee was set up for one single purpose, namely to defend the interests of all workers in our beautiful country, Canada. I am a structural steel fitter by trade and I work in construction. This has allowed me to meet many people who keep on asking me what we're going to do to solve the unemployment insurance problems. Therefore we set up the Comité de chômeurs. To speed up matters, we have taken symbolic peaceful action, somewhat like Greenpeace, and I think this has been successful.

Several times we have met with Liberal ministers who have made us a few promises. They told us they would try to improve the existing legislation, to make certain arrangements, because the Employment Insurance Act was unacceptable as it stands. It did not truly reflect how the whole world sees Canada. We are proud of our country and we should also be proud of its citizens. We have to respect the people.

I give the floor to Lyne.

Ms. Lyne Poirier (Consultant, Comité de chômeurs du Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean): I will elaborate on the content of our brief and on Bill C-2.

The Comité de chômeurs du Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean is of the opinion that Bill C-2 is not satisfactory, and our appearance before your Committee is an excellent opportunity to discuss the changes to be made to the UI program so that it can achieve the goals it was intended to reach.

This also represents an opportunity to correct the inequities created by the eligibility rules that are too restrictive, and by the failures of certain legal and administrative processes that are very complex and unfair to the people who must confront the government in order to assert their rights.

Bill C-2 is inadequate. The surpluses in the fund are scandalous and unacceptable. The cutbacks imposed over the last decade by the government, which no longer contributes to the plan, have gone on for long enough. The unemployment insurance program has no meaning anymore.

I will explain how our brief is laid out.

• 1525

It has three components. We suggest changes that would improve first access to the system and the protection of workers in case of unemployment, second the administration of justice, and third the overall implementation of the program.

In order to provide greater access to the system and better protection to the workers, we recommend that a person should accumulate 420 hours of insurable employment in order to be entitled to a minimum of 26 weeks of employment insurance benefits. We also suggest that benefits represent 60% of wages so as to guarantee a more reasonable income for those who have had the misfortune of losing their job.

We also request that the divisor be removed as the basis for calculating benefit rates, as well as doing away with the qualifying period of 26 weeks, which was introduced in 1996. We recommend that the benefit rate be calculated, as it was in the past under the former Unemployment Insurance Act, according to the average weekly earnings over the 20 last weeks worked.

We agree with repealing the intensity rule as proposed in Bill C-2. We also ask that all clawback mechanisms be repealed, rather than reduced to a 30% level as proposed in Bill C-2. If employment insurance benefits are given to someone because they meet the necessary requirements, I do not see how we can on the other hand, take back the sums paid out.

We ask that the tougher entrance requirements in the case of false statements or so-called false statements, be abolished and that the administrative tribunals instructed to review the decisions of the administrative machinery be given, the power to amend any government decisions.

We also ask that special benefits be provided for workers who are required to quit their job to care for a sick member of their family. People have the right to quit their job in order to take care of a child, but we then consider them to be unavailable under the legislation. Therefore, they do not receive any benefits and they are faced with the trouble, problem of illness and lack of money.

We also want supplementary illness benefits to be provided in the case of serious illness. We feel that a 35-week period would be adequate, which would correspond to parental benefits for those who just had a child. It is just as worthwhile to care for a sick child, whether the child is four, five or six years old, as it is to care for an infant after pregnancy thanks to maternity leave.

We are also asking that paragraphs 5(2) and 5(3) of the legislation concerning the insurability of employment be deleted, in the case of small family businesses, or at least that the discretionary power of the Minister of National Revenue to decide on the insurability of this employment be deleted. We ask that the penalty imposed on a claimant who has been dismissed for misconduct or has voluntarily terminated his employment without just cause be reduced to a maximum of six weeks without benefits, and that only the employment lost or left voluntarily immediately preceding the filing of a claim for benefits be considered in such cases.

We ask that all discretionary authority currently vested in public officials be removed in order to put an end to arbitrary actions on the part of the Program's administrators. The legislation should also not allow the Commission to retroactively reassess claims for benefits. They should be able to do so only in cases where it has been proven that false statements were made knowingly, with the intention of misleading the Commission.

We also ask that the Tax Court of Canada expedite the processing of files. In our region people have to wait up to two years to be heard and argue their case before the court.

We also ask that an independent fund be set up for the employment insurance fund, and administered by workers and employers who are the only contributors to the fund, in order to achieve a sounder administration. We would also like to see an ombudsman position created at HRDC. The unemployed need someone to protect them, a watchdog because they find themselves faced with people who know the system very well, and who sometimes wrongly exclude them from the system.

The legislation is complex. The process is complex. Specialized assistance is hard to get. People don't have the means to defend themselves when they have been disqualified for unemployment benefits. It is David versus Goliath.

In conclusion, youth, women, workers with unstable or part-time jobs, as well as seasonal workers are the victims of the 1996 reforms. The meagre changes proposed in Bill C-2 do not or barely improve their situation. These people remain left out, and those who have gone through “black hole” periods will do so again.

More people will experience such situations over the next few years, and they will do so for longer and longer periods of time. Across the country, people experience difficulties because of the restrictions introduced to the employment insurance program, when we are going through a period of economic expansion. What would happen if we were to go through an economic recession?

• 1530

According to government researchers, the Unemployment Insurance Program serves as a powerful stabilizer of the economy. Two government studies from 1995 confirmed the importance of the program and the contribution it made during the recessions that hit Canada in the early 1980s and 1990s. Changes to the program will, in my opinion, change the stabilizing effect of the program. As a Canadian, as a Quebecker and as a resident of a region with a very high unemployment rate, I am concerned.

The system has undergone significant cuts since 1993. In the event of a recession, would the program still be able to play the crucial role of an economic stabilizer as was intended? This is no doubt a question which our government will have to answer much sooner than we could have imagined.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you Ms. Poirier and Mr. Lévesque.

It is now time for Mr. Bilodeau and Ms. Lapré, of the Mouvement Action-Chômage du Lac-Saint-Jean. Welcome.

Mr. Alain Bilodeau (Coordinator, Centre populaire de Roberval, Mouvement Action-Chômage du Lac-Saint-Jean): First I would like to introduce myself, my name is Alain Bilodeau. I am the coordinator of an advocacy group and community centre. A community group from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—Roberval region. I do not work so much with unemployed people, but rather with social assistance recipients.

Ms. Karine Lapré (Community Worker, Comité des droits sociaux, L'Encrier d'Alma, Mouvement Action-Chômage du Lac-Saint-Jean): As for me, it's basically the same thing for Alma, in Lac-Saint-Jean. I will read the brief and then Alain and myself will be available to answer your questions.

The Lac-Saint-Jean, a resource region, has been and continues to be hit hard by the technological revolution that began in the late 1970s, which has shaken its socioeconomic underpinnings. Economic growth and the expansion of big business, which in the past have always generated new jobs, have instead led to massive lay-offs in the aluminium and forestry sectors, the mainstays of our economy.

The dismantling of our economy has forced whole families to turn, far more often than they would like and with increasingly disappointing results, to the employment insurance system. However, the government has gradually been using the surplus funds in this system to balance its budgets, and is now using them to finance tax cuts for the richest among us.

The employment insurance laws passed in 1994 and 1996, inspired by the wave of neo-liberalism that has swept the country since the early 1990s, have drastically reduced eligibility and accessibility, so that barely 40% of the workers who pay into the system can receive benefits.

Despite considerable efforts to regenerate employment in our region, the recent revision of EI regional boundaries had disastrous consequences for our seasonal workers and industries particularly. Now, all of the municipalities in the Lac-Saint-Jean area as well as a number of rural communities in the Saguenay, will be grouped together to create the new Bas-Saint-Laurent—Côte-Nord region.

We wish to propose amendments to the act and the regulations that would make the existing universal system more flexible by tailoring the eligibility and accessibility conditions within a single EI region to the economic reality of the various sectors, more specifically those involving seasonal employment.

Lastly, we feel it is high time that the federal government recognize the value of the work done by organizations that defend the rights of employment insurance claimants.

Our testimony here today will focus basically on the negative effects, already felt and to come, as a result of the creation of this Bas-Saint-Laurent—Côte-Nord region, where the residents of Lac-Saint-Jean live.

Who is hit hardest by this change? The answer is seasonal workers. Planting trees, working in a hotel or a resort, growing vegetables or harvesting, these are all activities which can only be done during the summer months.

Even within Quebec, the type of work done can vary significantly. Let us look, for the sake of comparison, at the latest statistics available, which date from November 2000: on the Island of Montreal, seasonal workers accounted for 17% of claims in the downtown area and for 24% of claims in north Montreal. The corresponding figures were 36% for Quebec as a whole and 44% for the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.

Under the new requirements that will come into effect, seasonal workers in our area, who are not lazy, as some would have us believe, can look forward to poverty-level welfare benefits while waiting for the good weather to return. Will they accept this? Certainly not!

• 1535

They will abandon these industries and many of them may well decide to leave the area. This will contribute to the depopulation of our regions and to the decline of many of our communities.

And if you think that once these workers have left the problem will disappear, think again! When the good weather returns, new seasonal workers will have to be hired to do the sowing and harvesting, to welcome tourists and to plant new trees. And just as these new seasonal workers will no longer qualify for employment insurance, an increasing number of small businesses will no longer be able to find the competent staff they need in order to grow.

Members of the Committee understand that we are not lawyers and that our intention today, in tabling these proposals, is to ensure that the Employment Insurance Act will contribute positively to support the socioeconomic development of our region, rather than causing poverty and draining our communities.

In the Act, at paragraph 54(w), we would like the following to be added: “or based on the recommendation of the regional offices of the department responsible for administering the Act”; at paragraph 54(x), the following should be added: “the seasonal nature of the work and”; and with respect to the Regulations, the following should be added to subsection 18(2): “or on the recommendation of a Human Resource Centre of Canada its Regional Office”; and we would like the following subsections 18(3) and 18(4) to be added:

18(3) The recommendation of a Human Resource Centre of Canada to its Regional Office must be based on an annual consultation with the appropriate socioeconomic organizations and experts.

18(4) A program shall be developed to support the work of social and community organizations recognized for this purpose, so that the voice of the unemployed in all regions of Quebec can be clearly and distinctly heard.

In conclusion, we would simply like to point out that several ministers of the current government have visited our region and have told workers that the Employment Insurance Act would be amended to meet the needs of the unemployed in our region. They include, of course, the Minister Paul Martin, who stated in Alma that, if presented with valid arguments, he would be open to amending the Act. The same is true for Ministers Alfonso Gagliano and Denis Coderre. Indeed, Mr. Coderre made a personal commitment to change the Act so that it would meet the needs of the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The time has come to deliver on these commitments.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you Ms. Lapré and Mr. Bilodeau.

We will now begin with the questions, and we will be starting with Val Meredith, followed by Joe McGuire, Monique Guay and Jeannot Castonguay.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, CA): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for attending the committee today.

I just want you to understand that your communities are not alone in this issue of changing economies. I represent a community in British Columbia, and I know that in our province we've had communities completely close because the resource-based industry was no longer viable. It's very hard, but the reality of the traditional workforce is that some of our traditional places of employment can no longer be sustained.

You mentioned you felt that unemployment insurance should be used for the socioeconomic development of the area, rather than being a negative drain. We've heard from other witnesses representing small and medium-sized businesses who put in 60% of the fund. They had no problem with contributing to an employment insurance fund to help out employees who found themselves unemployed, but they did object to putting money into a fund for social and other kinds of programs that they felt the government may have a responsibility for. They didn't feel it was fair that they should be paying the largesse of that program. Do you feel that funds for these economic development programs and social programs should come out of the employment insurance fund, or should they be dealt with separately so that the EI fund can be used for employees who find themselves out of work?

• 1540

[Translation]

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

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: I will tell you that I'm not sure whether we should use social programs. What I do know, is that employment insurance must remain employment insurance and must be there for employers and employees. In our region, it helps maintain economic activity. As was mentioned, it is a stabilizer in our regions. We live us outlying areas, and we often depend on seasonal work. Should social programs be added? I really don't know. What I do know, is that employment insurance must remain as a complement to the work in our regions. Seasonal work is one of our realities.

I compare Canada to a big human body, and pretend that our regions are the tips of its fingers. In order for the finger tips to live, they don't need huge veins; they need all sorts of small things in order to survive. When you take away all these small things, among them employment insurance, our region withers away, and Canada loses a tip of a finger. Yes the body still exists, obviously Canada still exists, but what I want, is a Canada that provides for all of its regions, and I'm thinking specifically of rural regions. As far as I'm concerned, employment insurance has a role to play in this.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: My question was, should employment insurance be that support base? Should it be supported by the whole of the country? Should it be supported by people who don't pay into unemployment insurance? The essence of strong economic communities is for all to be concerned, not just the small business community and not just the employee. That was their concern. If it's a tax, call it a tax. If it's an insurance program, then it should only be used for the purpose it was established for, and that's to help employees who find themselves out of work in between jobs.

[Translation]

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. It has to be used for the purpose for which it was created, as an insurance. If there are employment problems in my part of the country, because the economy is based on tourism, fisheries, agriculture or forestry, the rest of the country has to contribute to help solve our problems and to help us survive.

We are not asking for charity. We are not asking for help all of the time. Our region can be developed and wants to be developed. I do not believe that we're becoming dependent on unemployment insurance. We use it and we can use it to help us grow and to improve our living conditions. What we are saying, is that we need it, it allows us to get through these black holes. In our brief, we do not mention the number of hours. A number of witnesses have mentioned this, and you all know that there are these black holes. These should be eliminated. We have to be able to live and people shouldn't come to me, at the community centre, living on social assistance. These people need to live with dignity, with an adequate income.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Ms. Poirier a short answer if possible.

Ms. Lyne Poirier: If people are paying employment insurance premiums through their salaries and if employers are paying employment insurance contributions, it's so that we are able to pay employment insurance benefits. Therefore, the money that comes from employers and employees should be used for people who are in need. If we start to use this money for all sorts of other purposes, as the government is already using it to pay down its deficit... Could this be called a social program... Since it's paid for by employees and employers, it should be used for the purposes for which it was created. Once you start to play with that, you're opening the doors wide open and there are a lot of people who can sneak in and use the money for other purposes.

• 1545

I think this money should be used for employment insurance benefits or proactive programs which will allow people to relocate. There are programs that already exist, for example the self- employment assistance program, that, if it were properly used, well adapted and more flexible, would no doubt allow for the creation of more jobs than is actually the case.

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

Now it's Joe McGuire's turn, who will be followed by Monique Guay and Jeannot Castonguay.

[English]

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to refer to something Lyne said in her presentation—that the appeal process takes two years.

There's an infamous case in my riding where the appeal process took five years, and those who appealed it right to the end eventually were found innocent. But it took a heavy toll—emotionally and in many other ways—over that five-year period. It's a very inhumane process. If the department could do anything to streamline that process to make it... I think if I committed murder I would be dealt with more expediently than those people who were caught in the EI net. It was really a tough time for all concerned there.

You both mentioned you were visited by various cabinet ministers during the last campaign. I'm assuming you all agree with the proposed changes that are in the proposed act now and that you're looking for that plus.

If you had two more things to add to this bill, what would they be? Would they be the black hole or an adviser? What would they be, and why would these be your priorities?

Lyne.

[Translation]

Ms. Lyne Poirier: I can start. First of all, I would definitely make changes with respect to the employment insurance eligibility criteria for new entrants. Those who are the most penalized are young people, women and casual employees. It's almost impossible to accumulate 910 insurable employment hours. I believe that the employment rate among youth under 25 years of age in 1996, according to government studies, was approximately 17%, an among these 17%, only 15% were eligible for employment insurance benefits, because they were new entrants.

This also creates other problems. Many seasonal industries are having serious problems recruiting staff and ensuring the next generation of employees. Young people are no longer interested in working in the forest industry, the fisheries and the agricultural sector. Does Canada still need these industries? Have there been studies conducted which allow us to say that without agriculture, fisheries and these other industries, Canada would be better off?

Yesterday I heard some people saying that the average age in some industries is 53 years. Sooner as later, there will be problems other than employment insurance. I think that we need to look after these, and easing the eligibility criteria would be a first step towards this.

Second factor: the calculation of the benefits is now based on 26 weeks and the divisor. Anyone who accumulated their hours of work in fewer than 13 weeks is penalized because the first divisor is 14. If you earned $9,000 or $8,000 and you accumulated your hours over a certain number of weeks... Back home, the unemployment rate is currently 10%. The divisor therefore is 18. You can just imagine the amount of benefits that are paid, at 55% of the rate when it's not 50%, because the intensity rule still exists.

Those are the first two factors I will look at, but they are not the only ones.

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

• 1550

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: I completely agree with my colleague, but I would add one thing which I have not yet heard here today. In my opinion employment insurance should be closer to the regions, more sensitive to the regions.

In our brief, it says that it's the office known as the Human Resource Centre of Canada that should decide. For us, that's in Chicoutimi. We need to strengthen or refine the thinking around employment insurance back home.

There are rules, that's true. But back home, together, with bureaucrats from your Centre, it may be decided that this is the situation, in our region, and you would be informed since we would ask you to listen to us.

Right now, nothing in the legislation that says that. For example, we have been drown in a region that, statistically, is doing well. Essentially, when you merge three regions, the Côte-Nord, the Bas-St-Laurent and the Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean, you dilute everything too much. Our region can no longer make its case. It becomes impossible to get the pulse of the region. What happens is that you get the pulse for all of Quebec. As far as I am concerned, it makes no sense. We should have the right or the opportunity to have our voice heard in order to strengthen the system.

[English]

Mr. Joe McGuire: What did the people—Madam Chair is cutting me off again.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Your time is over. Maybe you can have a chance to come back. I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Okay, no problem.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Bilodeau. Now we will hear from Monique Guay, who will be followed by Jeannot Castonguay, Joe Comartin and Anita Neville.

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

I would like to congratulate you all on the quality of your briefs. They are really quite clear. You have come up with concrete solutions, and amendments which had been well researched, and very well written. So I would like to congratulate you for the quality of the work you've done.

For a number of weeks now, we have been hearing from a great number of witnesses at this Committee because we want to amend Bill C-2. You are all telling us the same thing. All other groups, with the exception of one, are saying the same thing. As my colleague Val mentioned earlier, there is only one group of economists, of great minds who told us that we needed to encourage young people to study, otherwise they would end up in a seasonal field of work and we would be encouraging unemployment. This is completely false. I do not think that is what is happening at all in our regions.

I come from a tourist oriented area. We live off tourism. We have been told that seasonal work does not exist, that it is seasonal industry that exists. Well we cannot change that. When there is no more snow, there's no more skiing and there are no more jobs in that area. When it is winter and it is freezing, it's quite unfortunate but we cannot exploit our summer resources. It is over. That is when we fall into black holes, slack periods of a month or a month and a half, where people have to get employment insurance benefits. Accessibility doesn't exist anymore. It is extremely difficult. People have to work an unbelievable number of hours in order to try and get employment insurance. It often happens that a couple, both of them, will work in the same field and will find themselves with only 50% of their income over a month and a half or two, each one penalized for two weeks. Moreover, this couple runs the risk of loosing their daycare spots for their children because they are not working. This is a difficult situation that we absolutely must fix. We have the opportunity to do so now, with this bill.

I have two small questions. You did not speak about family businesses. I don't know if this affects you in your region. It is probably the case. You probably also have this problem in your area. I would like you to talk about it a bit, because I am going through this as well. In small communities, there are many family businesses. They are also very heavily penalized. They are mostly women—98%—who are penalized in this regard.

I have another question. In your brief, Ms. Poirier, you said—and I find it quite touching, because you are the first person to bring that up—that quitting your job or being fired can be very expensive. I believe that the way in which the law is administered penalizes the employee. If someone is unhappy in his work environment, basically the employer has power. The employer can even blackmail his employees. It's a point that should be brought up. It is important. You were the first person to raise it. The Committee will keep this in mind.

• 1555

If you would like to say something, go ahead. You have the floor.

Ms. Lyne Poirier: Small family businesses probably interest me more than most people. I have done a lot of consulting, and I act for businesses before the administrative tribunals, including the Tax Court of Canada. My clients are essentially small family businesses who have to fight against government machinery in order to get the benefits to which they are entitled.

These people are subject to an inquiry process that is extremely inflexible. It is important to point out that people who apply for employment insurance benefits are subject to inquiry process x, while those who work in small family businesses and who do not apply for employment insurance benefits are subject to inquiry process y, which is much more slack and much less onerous. Those who do not ask for it, are asked a few simple questions and then strangely enough, they are always insurable. Those who apply for benefits are in for what I call the whole package. An incredible number of questions are asked, and an enormous of documents, photocopies of documents are asked for, and the process can be very long.

I must tell you that just this morning, people telephoned me from my area. They are clients of mine who fought for three years and now the process is starting again. The inquiry process is starting up again and the same officials want to check again their employment. These people start to weep when they get this kind of phone call.

Ms. Monique Guay: That's terrible.

Ms. Lyne Poirier: It gives you an idea of what these people have to go through.

Ms. Monique Guay: They are been found guilty even before having...

Ms. Lyne Poirier: They are suspects. These people are suspects even before applying for employment insurance benefits. Those who have the good fortune to be getting some, or so they think, must always tell themselves that one day, perhaps, they will have to pay them back. People have been asked to pay back three to six years worth of benefits. I saw one family wrongly asked to pay back $135,000 worth of benefits.

Ms. Monique Guay: It is debilitating. I hope that the federal ministers who toured your region, mine, Jocelyne's and all the other regions will remember the promises they made and the improvements that they promised as regards employment insurance.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Ms. Guay, do you have another question? Is that all Monique?

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes.

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

I now give the floor to Jeannot Castonguay, who will be followed by Joe Comartin and Anita Neville.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Godin is the regular member, but one of his cousins passed away. He had to go to New Brunswich for the funeral.

[English]

I want to thank you for coming. I'm from Ontario and I come from an area where we don't have this type of seasonal problem. It would be much better if Monsieur Godin were here, as he could address this more specifically. However, I do have a couple of questions that I would like to ask you from the brief you gave us. I'm sorry again for being late, but we were just trying to shuffle to get someone here.

You made a point in the written presentation—I don't know if you said it verbally as well—that you were concerned after the legislation changed in 1996 that people would leave the region because they couldn't get benefits in a reasonable fashion. Can you give us any numbers or any sense of how many people have moved because of that?

[Translation]

Ms. Lyne Poirier: I cannot give you proof of this, but I am told that every week a busload of young people, our next generation, leaves the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. These young people are going elsewhere and they are not coming back. What is worse is the fact that these young people leave and that their parents follow. I have two teenagers. Obviously if my teenagers leave, I am going to follow them closely. I am definitely not the only person who thinks like that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Does someone else have an answer?

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: I would say that there is no major industry in our region. We depend on seasonal work. If we want to keep our workers, if we want to keep our children, we have to have the means to do so.

• 1600

Mr. Bruno Lévesque: When we travel we have no difficulty finding a place to stay. We have friends in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary. According to the latest statistics, 22 young people leave our region every week. I am talking about people under the age of 21, young people who leave our region in order to follow, if I can put it this way, the aluminum ingots and trucks full of wood to be processed outside of our region. A decade ago, there were 300,000 people in our region. According to the last censes, there are only 206,000 left. The villages are becoming empty as well the big cities. It's a problem that does not only affect our region. This is also happening in Gaspé, in Abitibi, on the North Shore and in the Maritimes. It is untrue to say that we want to take advantage of employment insurance. We receive benefits because we do not have any choice. Perhaps some people took advantage of the system a few years ago. Whatever insurance system we look at, whether it's health insurance or some other system, there are always some people who take advantage of it. I work in construction and all my colleagues and I want is to build and to work. I have two children and I can't see myself living on this small amount of money provided by employment insurance. It just barely allows you to keep your head above water, but if we don't behave correctly, according to employment insurance officials, we are pushed back under water. This is what we are experiencing in eastern Canada. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Is that all, Mr. Comartin, or do you want to use the minute you have left?

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin: Lyne raised this point about people who don't get benefits and have to go on to what I assume is municipal welfare or regional welfare benefits. Can you give us any numbers of how many in the last year or two?

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Does someone want to respond?

Ms. Lyne Poirier: We don't have any figures, but the government could certainly provide the studies that they did on the subject. For example, a study established that in 1993, when the benefit rate fell from 60 to 57% and when cuts were implemented affecting people who were quitting their job, the number of welfare claimants automatically grew. We can just imagine what happened following the 1996 cuts. Perhaps my colleagues have more data, being closer to...

Ms. Karine Lapré: I don't have any data. I also want to talk about people who don't get any cheque, because I'm also working to defend the rights of welfare claimants. They are many, but there are also a lot of people who don't receive any cheque and who seem to have disappeared. We see so many and they are wondering what to do. They are so helpless, and even we no longer know what to do. They have no money and no resources.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): I made a mistake and gave two questions to people on the same side of the room. I am sorry, Jeannot. I give the floor to Jeannot Castonguay now, who will be followed by Anita Neville.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. That suits me fine. I believe that even though we are members of different parties, the committee's goal is to meet the needs of all Canadians and in particular those who need employment insurance.

I really appreciated your presentations. We have heard witnesses for three weeks already and it is obvious that we have to make improvements to the unemployment insurance plan. I come from a region of New Brunswick where there are many seasonal workers. You mentioned the importance of seasonal industry. We were even told that if seasonal industries were to disappear, other industries would follow suit. If no one supplies the wood, the paper mills will close down and we are well aware of this. I believe we are here to try and improve the situation.

I sense the same concern as you in my region. We are told that young people do not want to work in seasonal industries because the seasons are too short and people don't get rich on employment insurance. That is a fact and we are well aware of it.

• 1605

I wonder if you have given further thought to the matter in an effort to see what we should do as a society in order to ensure that these industries remain in business, that we can encourage a new generation to say that there is something that can be done to improve the lot of these people. I ask myself serious questions because, as you were saying, people do not want to find themselves employment insurance claimants, because it is not profitable. It should be there as a means of support, but how can we ensure that that workforce will still be there? The workforce is aging, and I would like to hear some suggestions from you to help us in our thinking.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Ms. Poirier or Mr. Bilodeau.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Anyone can answer.

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: To give you an idea, in the logging industry for example, we can see that this industry often contributes to job insecurity. For example, lumberjacks will come and cut wood in the summer, and in the winter, they will mill the wood or something similar. But as regards forest management, planting must be done at a specific time. If we do not develop this and if we do not keep people employed in this sector, the entire forest industry will decline. If we maintain this, it would not be automatic, but it would give us a chance to develop, in our country and in our region, a second processing of wood. The industry would be more prosperous. We would maintain a strong logging industry for example.

People want to go ahead and I tell myself that we will find the means to make plywood. We make plywood in my area. We make beams by sticking together pieces of wood. There are some things that expand, but if someone is always pulling the rug off from under our feet from the outset, for example as regards forest management, right away things go dormant, we limit the development of the industry and we only keep what we already have and the regions collapse. But if we give them the chance to carry on, there will always be seasonal work. Even if it is not profitable, there are people who can get that training, have the desire to work in the forest, planting or whatever. Therefore, we have to encourage this. It is a direct means by which to make our regions go ahead, I believe.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Bilodeau. Ms. Poirier, do you have anything else to add?

Ms. Lyne Poirier: I also believe that in a region such as ours, we should invest or look for ways to do some processing. There is wood, obviously, but there is also aluminum. The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region is the aluminum valley. We should encourage people to develop projects, to develop ideas to set up processing plants. I think we have to consider this. We also have to give people more opportunities to get training.

We cannot always think of training, with the motion that everyone can be trained and get five, six or seven diplomas. There are some people who do a job and that is the job that they are able to do. We have to value their work and not always tell them that they can go out and look for more. Some people are not able to look for more. We have to tell the truth. We mustn't put people down in what they do; we have to encourage them, and try to make it possible for them to learn different tasks in the same work environment in order to prolong their working lives. There's definitely a need for development.

There are groups presently, action committees from Human Resources Development Canada that have been set up in various regions. I serve on the Human Resources Development Canada committee meeting in my region. When I attended at the first meeting, I thought I was going to meet people from my community who would be able to bring solutions, who would come up with solutions, who would talk about what the community was experiencing, business people. There were 13 public officials around the table and two or three people from the community. I think things move forward slowly with this kind of committee. The public servants are there, they're doing their job, they are doing their best, but they have been aware of the problems and the statistics for years and they have not found any solutions.

We have to go to the grassroots, to the workers. I believe that they have solutions. They have things to say, but they are never given the opportunity to speak. In the future, when we set up these kinds of committees, we will have to look to the grassroots. It is not always the big wigs who are able to think for everyone. At the grassroots, there are people who have ideas and I think that if we go looking for them, we will find solutions.

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

I now give the floor to Anita Neville, followed by Carol Skelton, Joe McGuire and Jocelyne Girard-Bujold.

• 1610

[English]

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I'm impressed with both of your presentations. They're both very thoughtful. As others have said, we've been sitting here for three weeks, but both of your presentations offer something new to the discussions.

The question I was thinking of, Ms. Poirier—you touched on it in your last comments—concerns the whole concept of community involvement. I realize also that Mr. Bilodeau and Karine spoke to it in their presentations. I too have been involved in a variety of human resource sectoral councils—I'm from Manitoba, I should add—that have had the representation of government, industry, and employees. You made some suggestions about giving more voice to those who are recipients of unemployment insurance. I'd like to know how the federal government can facilitate increased involvement of the community in the decision-making process.

I also wanted a comment on the ombudsman. I read what you presented on this and am concerned. I recognize the role of an ombudsman, but that in itself, given the regional nature and the diversity and complexity of the system, will in turn create another bureaucracy, and I'm not sure that's what we need. Would you care to comment?

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Ms. Lapré. I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to answer. Does anyone want to respond?

Ms. Lyne Poirier: First of all, I would like to answer your question concerning the ombudsman.

Obviously, we have an ombudsman in Quebec who, I believe, is doing an excellent job. To have an ombudsman with a Canadian perspective, with different provinces experiencing different problems, it might not be so easy, but it may be possible to have a Canadian ombudsman with offices in each of the provinces. It is certainly possible to work something out. Where there's a will there's a way. Canada has a lot of resources. I believe that it is essential, because people are faced with a huge machine. The machine is enormous at the provincial level, in many ministries; imagine what it is at the federal level. For people in a region such as ours, Ottawa is a long way away.

It isn't always easy to get answers to our questions or the information we require, even if the Auditor General says that 80% of the services are offered the regions. Just recently, some people called me to ask for information on the new special benefits that the government has been boasting about, the maternity leave benefits that will give young mothers 50 weeks of employment insurance. Some people have gone to the Human Resources Development Canada office in my region, seeking information, and have been told that they must file a request in order to have their questions answered.

If the civil servants are aware that these people are entitled to speak to someone, to have their questions answered by someone and be properly accommodated, then things would change and may be the employees would think twice before treating people that way. I believe this is of outmost importance.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Bilodeau also wanted to answer.

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: I don't want to bring up the issue of the ombudsman, but rather the approach we could take to consult with the citizens. And I mean that we should consult the population, not only the workers. We forget that we have both the workers and the industry. The employers are also interested in all of this. They are as involved as everyone else. I don't know how, but I have a feeling that Ms. Stewart knew what she was doing when we had a problem in our region, when they lumped us in with the Lower St. Lawrence. There was a general outcry, and a committee was set up at the HRDC office. She managed to reach me at my office. She was given my name and she was able to find people and tell us to go and sit—some people might not have gone because they thought that it was not on the up-and-up, but whatever. There are ways to go about things, and I think it is fine. There is a way to reach people. We can speak on behalf of the workers. There were people representing the Chambers of Commerce at that table. There were all kinds of people. I'm sure there are ways to make oneself heard.

• 1615

[English]

Ms. Anita Neville: I can ask you very quickly one follow-up question—I have many.

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

Ms. Anita Neville: Are you looking for new models of decision-making? I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking whether you are looking at new models of decision-making, and whether there should be—I don't know whether in this legislation, but perhaps on a pilot basis—new models of decision-making on a regional basis? Is that what I read into your brief?

[Translation]

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: That is exactly it, Ms. Neval. When all is said and done, we would like to decide upon our own fate, in the regions. I don't mind having guidelines and being told that this is the way things are done, but I feel that if we want the decisions to be tailored to the needs of each of the regions in Quebec—and here I am speaking of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, but it applies to all of them—then these people must be consulted. They must be the ones to say how things work where they live. Ottawa is a long way away. We came here this morning; we got here quickly, but it is still a long way.

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

We will begin our second round with Carol Skelton, followed by Joe McGuire and Jocelyne Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CA): Mr. Lévesque, I have a question. You said you were in the construction business—is that correct?

Mr. Bruno Lévesque: Yes.

Ms. Carol Skelton: They used to pay you to go and take your training as an apprentice, to get your journeyman's. Is that what they do in Quebec? EI used to pay for your first two weeks of training. They've taken that away now, and a lot of apprentices don't have any money for the first two weeks. Is that what they do in your region? Is that keeping a lot of apprentices away from taking further training?

[Translation]

Mr. Bruno Lévesque: I'm not sure I understand the question.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Could you repeat the question?

Ms. Carol Skelton: In Saskatchewan, where I come from, when you started the training for your employment, you were paid when you went back to school for the first two weeks of training—you're paid for those two weeks of going to school. The EI people have removed that, so you do not get paid for those first two weeks. Is that what they do in Quebec in your area?

[Translation]

Mr. Bruno Lévesque: I don't know.

[English]

Ms. Carol Skelton: He doesn't know. Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bruno Lévesque: It must be different because it is the first time I've heard of it.

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: I can tell you that social assistance pays people, the first month, to find another job, but I'm not sure that applies to employment insurance. Do you understand what I mean?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Do you have another question?

Ms. Carol Skelton: That was a great concern brought to us by the other industries, about the two weeks of payment when you're going back to school—in some areas that's what's being done.

The way you've been talking, would you like to have the employees and the employers administer the EI program, instead of having government involvement in it?

[Translation]

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

Ms. Lyne Poirier: It states in our brief that it is obvious that employees and employers would be the best people to manage the program. I don't doubt that there would probably be some disagreement because they take opposing stands from time to time, nevertheless, I think it would be the best option.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Would you like to continue, Mr. Bilodeau?

• 1620

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: I would like to add that, for my part, not that I am against what has already been said, but I believe that the government should be a distributor of wealth. The wealth must be distributed by the government. That is not our responsibility. But I think we could be very efficient managers.

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

[English]

Do you have another question, Carol?

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

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Mr. Joe McGuire, followed by Jocelyne Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Mr. Joe McGuire: The other Joe took my questions.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Oh no.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Yes, but I'd like to follow up on that because if this thing is not working for young people, then we've got a big problem. The out-migration of young people is something I'm quite used to. In Atlantic Canada we've been emigrating to other parts of Canada and the United States for over 100 years, and every ten years there are 70,000 people who leave, which is equivalent to the population of the city of Fredericton.

Where they go is the question. If they are being forced out because they can't get enough work to qualify for EI, I don't know if that says there's a problem with EI or if it's a good thing. Perhaps they are going to another region of Quebec or another region of Canada where they're getting good jobs, working year-round, raising their families, and contributing to society. In that case, I would say it's good. But if they're going someplace where the unemployment rate is just as high and where they're having more difficulties and more social problems, then we do have a problem.

But if the efforts that are made in the Saguenay-Lac St-Jean region to create new work in the new economy... What effort should be made there? Under part 2 of the Employment Insurance Act there is a tremendous amount of money being transferred back to all provinces through labour market development agreements to help create new jobs.

Then you have the DEC organization of the regional development agency, which should be working with the LMDA to create jobs in the region that are not in the lumber industry, the fishery, or seasonal industries. You can set up high-tech industries anywhere. Basically, all you need is a good telephone line. Are there any efforts in your region from these agencies from the top right down to the community improvement level to create new industries in the region through use of economic development money or EI money?

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Would someone like to answer that? Mr. Lévesque.

Mr. Bruno Lévesque: I said that very often, we have no choice. People move, which creates jobs elsewhere. It's a type of job creation. When you move from one region to another to share a home with a brother or a relative, it costs money.

Lets come back to the regional problems. I find that the multinational corporations operating in our regions, for example, Alcan, Stone Consolidated, Abitibi-Price, or other large multinationals, come to extract the best from our region. They take everything, right down to the roots. They extract the best minerals from the ground. They cut down all the trees, they divert the flow of the rivers, and, generally speaking, nothing is left for the workers.

I don't know if the government can force companies to create a minimum number of jobs in a region. If we take Alcan, for example, their plant only does primary processing. There must be a way to correct the situation, where 82% of Alcan's profits leave the country. Part of these profits should be reinvested where this wealth was generated, in this little corner of the country. This is something that warrants closer attention. That is what I had to say.

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

• 1625

Ms. Lyne Poirier: I would like to add something. Earlier, you mentioned the young people who leave and never return. The plan affects young people because, regardless of the field or the training, one's first job, very often, is neither full-time nor permanent. Instability is everywhere these days, which is why people tend to move to the larger urban centres.

Earlier, you mentioned technology. In Montreal, there are great industrial parks in which large sums of money have been invested. There are probably fewer of them in the region; that was not as great a priority for them. Therefore, people leave in search of their first job because they want to gain some experience, and they expect to return. But they don't come back. Once they have left, once they have taken the bus with 20 others, they don't come home.

So we have to keep them from getting on that bus. We must be able to give them their first job, even if it is not a permanent one. These people have to realize that they won't start in three, four, five or six months. They must be able to gain experience and find a worthwhile job that will allow them to stay in their region. I think that is something we must consider, that is, a first job for new entrants.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Ms. Poirier. A brief answer, Mr. Bilodeau, if you can.

Ms. Alain Bilodeau: I would say that I don't think EI and keeping young people in the region go hand-in-hand. I don't know if they find something elsewhere when they leave. At least, they have the hope of doing so. When they leave, it's because there is no hope left where they are. I think that employment insurance might help them stay in the region, but it is not a sure thing. It might make things easier. It could help to keep their spirits up and to keep something good from leaving our areas.

With respect to creativity, do we have any ideas? Are people working on it? Yes, we have help. We have LDC's, local development centres. There are all kinds of ideas. I said earlier that, by sticking bits of wood together, we can make beams that are stronger than steel, or with a milk protein, we can develop biodegradable plastics. These are things that are being done or that will soon be done in our region.

Therefore, let us continue, let us maintain what we already have and facilitate the transfer of energy or, to use the analogy I made earlier, we can't let the finger die.

Ms. Karine Lapré: Notwithstanding those efforts...

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Excuse me, Ms. Lapré, but your time is up.

Ms. Karine Lapré: Yes. I simply wanted to say that, in spite of those efforts, we still have the black hole.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Do you want to add something?

Ms. Val Meredith: Is the rotation finished?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): No. We can come back if you want.

[Translation]

Therefore, I would like to thank all of you, Mr. Lapré and Mr. Bilodeau. The next questions will be put by Jocelyne Girard-Bujold and Joe Comartin.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Thank you, Madame Chair.

I would like to congratulate the four people who come from my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I must say that I am proud of you. I was touched by our briefs. Ms. Poirier and Mr. Lévesque, your brief was truly a reflection of what we see and experience in our regions.

Mr. Bilodeau, I think that, in your brief, you said we had to grow. People invest in employment insurance in order to grow. However, after listening to Ms. Poirier, I realize that instead of making us bigger, this insurance has made us shrink. It includes very restrictive criteria that prevent people from seeing the light of day and breathing fresh air. That is what happens.

However, people were told and made to believe that the system would work to their advantage. I note in your brief that it is the federal government that is benefiting from the EI system. In 1999-2000, people paid $18.5 billion in premiums. Only $11.3 billion was paid out in benefits. So there was a surplus of $7.2 billion, and I think this surplus belongs to the workers and the employers.

Your presentations and the answers that you have given to the government members prove that this could help satisfy the requirements that we have in our regions, that this should take into the reality of our regions.

The system has imposed so many restrictions that all of the regions, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Vancouver, Toronto, all appear to be more or less the same. The regional variations are no longer taken into consideration.

• 1630

The government of the day wants to benefit from the EI fund and, as you have said, Ms. Poirier, they want to pay down the deficit and tell our youth that they have no future at home, and that they will have to go to the big cities in order to have that future.

Ms. Poirier, you also alluded to the small family businesses. We have a large number of family businesses that have created jobs. Officials from the government came along to ask them questions. They were made to repay the benefits they had received.

These small family undertakings are now asking their own questions. Do they want to continue with the EI program? I would like to hear what you have to say about that, Ms. Poirier.

Ms. Lyne Poirier: Actually, the small family businesses are increasingly aware of the fact that when they need EI benefits, they must undergo an investigation. They also know that if they are on EI for any length of time, they run the risk of having to repay the benefits.

For some time now, people have been coming to me to see about dropping out of the plan, to try and make their job non-insurable, so that both employees and employers will no longer have to pay the premium; they would like to have a type of private insurance, something that would protect them if they fall ill, for example, some type of income that they could count on. In the case of small family businesses, very often these people are self-employed, and, if there is enough work, they hire the people around them.

So, when you start a small business and need to hire someone, the first ones who come to mind are the people around you because you can count on them, because you can trust them. You can't offer these people an income if the business is not healthy. For example, a woman who is pregnant is not sure when she will need the now, very attractive, maternity benefits. Therefore, even the young mothers working in family businesses could be penalized, and that happens more often than one might think. When I say that people pay into the plan for years and are left with nothing when they need it, that is the truth. It is not fiction: it happens every day.

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

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Earlier, Mr. McGuire asked the four panellists to suggest two small amendments to Bill C-2. I think the brief submitted by Ms. Poirier, Mr. Bilodeau, Ms. Lapré and Mr. Lévesque are full of amendments that the Committee could recommend for Bill C-2.

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

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you, Madame Chair. I believe that I understood Mr. Bilodeau to say earlier, that the federal government should play a leadership role in all of this creativity, this innovation. He mentioned doing things differently, with value-added products. Somebody has to be a leader, at some point. Does the federal government have a role to play? How can we promote that? I agree with you: these are all good ideas, but how can we make all of this happen? I think that we all share the same interest, but often, the problem is in the doing. I would like to hear what you have to say about that.

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: I think that the way to accomplish all of this is perhaps to have an employment insurance scheme where the profits would accrue to the workers. If leadership means that you can take the money that was raised to give it to the people to whom it belongs, whatever means is used to do that, for example by creating jobs—remembering all the while that this is a type of insurance—I would agree that you take the lead. Employment insurance belongs, above and beyond all, to employers and employees, and we should have a good plan that eliminates the black holes that we have been talking about since this morning.

• 1635

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I appreciate your answer. We have been told that money is transferred to the provinces and, it would seem that in some provinces, it is used for the right purpose, perhaps for training, while in other provinces, we are told that it does not work that way. That is the case for New Brunswick, for example, when we were told by some witnesses that things were not working in their province. They don't know where the money goes. I think that money must be available, but someone has to take charge, as we say. Something has to be done. How can we make that happen?

I see, Ms. Poirier, that you have raised your hand. Do you have something to say?

Ms. Lyne Poirier: I think that our government has some work ahead of it. When I learned that the Human Resources Development Committee would be studying the problem of seasonal employment—that was the name of the committee—I was delighted because I thought I would be part of it and that I could suggest some ideas. As I have said, 90% of the people here have always been here and have never been able to find a solution. Those people were there, as well as some people from the area. A number of unions were invited to take part. The unions represent unionized workers. They know what is happening in their workplace. However, the unions did not want to participate because, when the Committee travelled from place to place before the changes were made in 1996, everyone was involved. They had been invited and this time they said, when the HRDC committee made the rounds, that they were not going to get involved because they didn't want to be had a second time. People are losing faith and they hesitate to join the federal government in finding solutions. I am telling you what happened in my region. That is my interpretation of the events. Not one union wanted to get involved, because they didn't want to be taken in once again. That is the first part.

As for the second part, some programs do exist. There is the Self-Employment Assistance Program, which was initially administered by the federal government and which has been transferred to the provinces along with training. People come to see me, after having applied for self-employment assistance, in order to draw EI benefits while they start up a small business. Their application was turned down. These people were so convinced that their project was viable, in spite of what some civil servants or some groups might have told them, that they went ahead on their own. They were unfortunate enough to make a go of it, at least according to the powers that be, and a year later, they were asked to repay the benefits that they had supposedly fraudulently obtained. They had created two, three, four or five jobs, and they were asked to pay $3,000 or $4,000 in benefits that had been paid to them when they created their own job and jobs for others in their area, where jobs are so badly needed. What should people think? What should small business people think of our government?

There are some good programs, programs that could yield very good results if they were more flexible and allowed entrepreneurs to create their own jobs, if they left people alone to live their lives. Just being able to live their lives, that would really be something. It would be wonderful.

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

I think Mr. Bilodeau has a short comment to add.

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: Just a brief comment. I think the present government has a good track record. Mackenzie King created employment insurance in 1940. In 1970, Mr. Trudeau made it more or less universal. It would be unfortunate if Mr. Chrétien were to be responsible for a destabilized or diminished employment insurance program. I think there is work to be done in that area.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): Thank you, Mr. Bilodeau. We will now end the question period with Mr. Joe Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I think I will speak English. I apologize, but I want to be sure that you will understand me. It will be better if the interpreter says it for me.

[English]

In the smaller of the two briefs, you finish off item number four... If I'm reading this correctly, you're looking for some assistance to provide help to people who are having difficulty getting their benefits. I'm not sure what organizations you have, but the sense I have is that they're not funded at all by HRDC. Is that correct?

• 1640

My follow-up question is that it appears you'd like some assistance—again, I assume—from HRDC to have a community organization that would be looking to develop other forms of employment. It's a two-part question, about both aiding the individuals or working in the community. I'm asking about funding. Have you applied for funding or do you have funding available?

[Translation]

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

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: You are probably alluding to point 18(3) or 18(4) of our brief. What we are requesting in 18(3), essentially, is that those involved be consulted. We recommend that you add: "We recommend a Human Resources Centre".

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's 18(4).

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: It means that we are an advocacy group that depends on the religious communities to make ends meet, that asks for donations from just about everyone in order to defend the rights of the unemployed who have no resources in their area, who would like to meet with their member. They go to see their member and they ask him to call. There's no help for those people. The member does not have the time to go with them. So, we should think about these groups that do exist and that offer help at a low cost but who need funding. It isn't to fund individuals but rather to fund groups.

Mr. Joe Comartin: You have no money for that at this time.

Mr. Alain Bilodeau: At this time, there is none. There is funding for what we call the MAC, and Mouvements Action-Chômage. They ask the Province of Quebec for money. But, to my knowledge, nothing comes from the federal government.

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

I would like to thank all of the witnesses who appeared before us today: Bruno Lévesque and Lyne Poirier from the Comité de chômeurs du Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean and Alain Bilodeau and Karine Lapré from the Mouvement Action-Chômage du Lac-Saint-Jean.

I can assure you that all of our colleagues here have taken note of your recommendations, and I would like to thank you for them.

Before closing, I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their understanding and patience this past week. We had a very heavy agenda. I would also like to thank our clerk and all of the staff because we heard a large number of groups; we met six times. Don't forget next week's meeting, on Tuesday. We will be hearing six groups at 11 a.m. and there will be six more appearing in the afternoon. I hope you will all get some rest so that you will be in good shape next week. Have a good weekend.

The meeting is adjourned.