[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 14, 1996
.0906 
[English]
The Chairman: I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is our second day of hearings for BiIl C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada.
I would like to welcome the representatives from the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Tom Norton, president; Terry Anne Boyles, vice-president; and Pierre Killeen, government relations officer. Welcome.
The tradition here in this committee would be to hear from you first and then engage in a question and answer session - yesterday's was very insightful - amongst the members and the presenters. You have approximate 55 minutes, and you may begin.
Mr. Tom Norton (President, Association of Canadian Community Colleges): Thank you very much. We'll do our part to make the answers insightful, in any case. We've been here before, sir, and it's always a pleasure to come back. But it does mean that my normal opening now has become rather boring for some of the members, so I'll try to tighten that part up a little bit and cut to the chase, as we say.
Our association represents 175 colleges across Canada. That is not all of the colleges; there are about a dozen that are not members, but it's most of Canada's community colleges, institutes of applied science and technology, institutes of technology, and colleges of applied arts and technology. Actually, we'll use almost any name other than community college, but the collective nickname is community college, and that's what we're known as.
Our colleges are Canada's largest training agent inside Canada and internationally as well. We work in 68 countries right now, I believe, basically helping other countries develop national human resources development strategies and frameworks. So our interest and our knowledge is not restricted simply to training within institutions. It's a broader interest in terms of how countries relate skills development to national economic success and a look at the policy options that different countries have selected to try to relate the growth of skills of their workforce to the emergence of new industries, to responding to economic change.
It's really on that basis we'd like to speak today, not simply with regard to the self-interest of our institutions but rather, in a broader way, with regard to options that Canada has, various policy options that are available, and how many countries respond in the longer sense to relating the national workforce to the skills that are required in the economy.
As such, for instance, many options are open in which colleges have quite a small role. Many countries don't have colleges at all, and we're cognizant of that. So what we're then speaking to is not simply that we want more, or you can't leave us now, or what about the colleges; it's much more a question of what is a system that makes sense as a national human resources development strategy for Canada working in an international environment, in an international marketplace, and how do we, for a moment, think beyond the internal issues within our country and think of how our workforce will be a competitive workforce in a world market.
.0910
As such, for instance, provincial standards and national standards really don't have much value when we talk. The only standards in truth are international standards. Our workforce will be as competitive, as imaginative, as creative as the workforce of Singapore or Korea or the United States or Japan or it simply will not be able to compete effectively in those technologies, in those services, in those activities. I think it's important from our standpoint that we speak in terms of an internationally competitive workforce, reaching international standards, and with national policies that are facilitating the continuous rediscovery by the workforce of the skills it needs for new industries, for new technologies, for new services.
So in a brief way, that is an attempt to paint the platform we're using to speak again to you today, and I hope that's a little different from our platform last time so it's not quite as repetitive.
As we have said to this committee repeatedly, our institutions are provincial institutions, and therefore we completely endorse and support the emphasis of our institutions and the provincial governments for which they work on a movement of responsibility for training into the provincial authority. There's no question in our mind, in that sense, that this is where the provinces are going, and hence that is the type of position our colleges endorse. So that is a preface to our other remarks.
As such, we are very interested in the relationship between the Government of Canada and what we call CMEC, the Council of Ministers of Education Canada, because as we see a movement away from a federal presence in a coordinating role or a federal presence in a national overview role, our question is: Over the next three years, as the national government disengages from a number of activities, how will the Council of Ministers or a subset respond to the new responsibilities? How will they find a way of coordinating, as an example, national apprenticeship activities? Can they do it? How will the national government and the Council of Ministers work cooperatively to discover what the leadership roles are in terms of training as it relates to a national human resources development strategy?
It is not the same to say that as the national government withdraws from the direct funding of a number of activities, it can avoid, I believe, a leadership role or at least ensuring that someone takes the leadership role in the maintenance of these training systems, in the development of them, in the assistance of the adjustment of them to respond to new environments.
We're certainly not saying, if I may stay with the apprenticeship example for a moment, that apprenticeship is perfect, that we should continue into the 21st century training narrowly in construction trades or training narrowly in defended and narrowly defined activities. What we are saying is that the concept of apprenticeship is worth while. The concept of a relationship between employers and institutions in training has been proven over time to be worth while. The notion of apprenticeship as a national vehicle whereby we can have national mobility of labour because of skills is worth while.
Now, with the national government quite correctly moving away from a direct responsibility that it's had and moving that responsibility to the provinces, how do we develop some type of transition that in the next three years does not represent an abandonment of those systems that have served us well in the struggle simply to move responsibility from one authority to another? That is the kind of concern we would like to express in this area: how will we achieve the maintenance of those things that are good in the process of moving responsibility?
I will not, of course, read our brief. The brief is there. We recommend it to you. We're proud of it - certainly my colleague Mr. Killeen is very proud of it - and I hope it will be part of the record.
.0915
Without picking every issue in our brief, we would also like to speak to the notion, if I may use the word, of the ``marketization'' of retraining. We have two concerns here. By moving the resources to individual Canadian citizens - and it's through a loan or grant process - and asking them to make decisions on training that make sense to them, we most certainly empower the individual and make it clear the responsibility is with the individual.
We feel there's a very strong obligation to ensure that those individuals have access to the very best information around employment opportunities, emerging skills areas and future economic trends, and what we're doing is really empowering our least informed citizens and in many cases our least literate citizens to make decisions of enormous complexity and of enormous importance in their personal lives. Our question is how can we develop, maintain and make easily accessible information, coaching - counselling perhaps, if the more formal term is required, but it doesn't need to be at that very formal level - to the unemployed, to people searching for work, to people who need the skills to find work? How do we provide that information to them?
We feel this is fundamental to a system whereby individuals are empowered and encouraged to make those kinds of decisions themselves. They must be given, and must be helped to understand, a good information base so that their decisions are made as well as possible within a framework of reality. We don't see where that exists now. We don't understand how over the next three years that's going to be created. We don't see the mechanisms whereby that will happen.
We, of course, feel our institutions might play a role in that, but there are other institutions that could play a role too. We want to speak first to the issue of how the unemployed will receive good information that they can understand in easily accessible locations so they can make good decisions. We feel that has not been addressed effectively. We feel it's very important.
Secondly, we are very supportive of the emergence into the marketplace of private sector trainers. The amount of training that must go on, that is going on in our country and must continue to go on, is simply staggering. We talk about Canada becoming a learning society, and this is a priority. I would maintain in many ways, and our association would, that Canada has become a learning society, that if we look at participation rates in part-time learning, at adult education, at the percentage of the workforce actively engaged in reskilling, in updating, in learning new futures, we think it's absolutely extraordinary. We're certainly amongst the top two or three countries in the world in terms of that kind of individual investment by people in their own skills.
Our concern here, though, is that the national government will provide, through loans or grants, money to the unemployed, to individuals, to buy training. If the government were buying, let us say, an air conditioner, it would insist that the air conditioner meet certain standards. It would require that it have at least CSA certification. Before buying it, it would make sure that one of the prospects is not that the air conditioner could blow up in the face of the participant. It would make sure it met certain volumetric standards.
Without extending this too far, there are no standards for training in Canada. The Government of Canada is basically saying, you go and buy training and we will not ensure, we will not guarantee, we will not help you in terms of the quality of the training you buy.
We feel there's an urgent need for national exit standards from institutions, private and public, to which government-sponsored people will go for training. We'd be quite happy to work together with our private sector training colleagues to develop those kinds of exit standards. We don't believe this is an intrusion into the educational marketplace. We believe this is a reasonable position by anybody purchasing a commodity, purchasing training. There should be some assurance to you that the result of your investment will meet some standard that makes sense in the community.
.0920
One way of saying that, of course, is that the only thing we're interested in is whether or not the person becomes employed. That's an interesting measure, but taken to the individual level, if I have put ten months of my life and have acquired a significant loan to acquire skills that do not meet a minimum standard, that do not make sense in the marketplace, how do I deal with that?
Again, may I say this is not an appeal the consequence or the objective of which is to exclude private sector trainers from training. That is not what we're saying. There's room for public sector institutions such as ours and the private sector in this. It is simply that we feel we and the private sector should work together to develop exit standards, minimum standards for people taking training that is supported, subsidized, funded, however we want to put it, by the national government. Our information is that our private sector colleagues would be quite happy to do that as well. But in the long run, it would require the federal government to take action either by itself or, if it felt it was more proper, through the Council of Ministers. That for us is a major issue.
Linked to the notion of exit standards is the notion of a national occupational framework or national trades standards or national occupational standards. We've spoken at some length about this before and I don't think it's proper for me to ramble on today yet again, but as I said earlier, we feel the word ``national'' interferes with what we're doing. We should be thinking in the international context.
When we're thinking of NAFTA right now, for example, we're looking at standards that Canada, United States and Mexico can share in environmental technology, for electronics technicians, for telecommunications technicians. The issue is not national. The issue is around multinational employers that want mobility of their own labour. The notion is around Canadian students who graduate, quite legitimately seeking their early employment in Singapore, in Hong Kong, working easily and comfortably in Indonesia, in the Middle East. The notion of it being only a national market where there are only national standards is simply not true. We need to find international standards to help define those international standards for all Canadians.
Again, the responsibility in this may well be the Council of Ministers of Education, but the responsibility for seeing it happening, for encouraging it, seems to me to call for a federal role. Where are those international standards? Where do we search for those,
[Translation]
a second time for the same thing?
[English]
We'd like to speak - and I will wind down shortly - very briefly to basic education. We went through a period of great concentration on adult literacy, or adult illiteracy as it was in Canada, and now that remains an issue but it doesn't get the same attention as it once did. Our concern here is that in the area of basic literacy the resources made available by the federal government be primarily in a grant form rather than in a loan form.
We feel that if people have to incur debt just getting up the ramp to trades training or to skills training, it would be a massive disincentive for these people who have not had an effective basic education to start with to ever get off welfare rolls, to ever become part of the productive sector. Our hope here is that as we look at people without basic academic skills, without basic literacy, we think of the grant portion of the new funding as being the primary portion that they would receive as opposed to any form of loan.
Mr. Chairman, let me wind down at this point. We feel that the movement of responsibility to the provinces is proper. We feel there are some real concerns.
.0925
We'd be delighted to do our best to answer any questions that you would care to ask us.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Norton.
I was quite intrigued by the notion of international standards. As you know, as a nation we're still debating the issue of who should be setting national standards, if in fact national standards should exist and what have you, but I think you've enlightened the committee. Perhaps we should be looking even further down the line in addressing the realities of the global village in both economic and social terms.
We're going to have one ten-minute round, and we're going to start with Mr. Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): I am my party's critic for training and youth. Therefore, you can probably guess what I'm going to talk about.
I understand your position well and I get the feeling that your views have changed somewhat since the last time we met. However, you do not see the problem the same way that we do. You say that the federal government should be the one setting national standards.
Like the Chairman, I too was pleased to see you express the desire - and everyone agrees with this - for minimum international standards to be set to facilitate worker mobility. In today's globalized economy, people everywhere recognize, whether they hail from Quebec, Newfoundland, the United States or somewhere else, that we have to move in this direction. We are talking about minimum standards which would allow as many people as possible to transfer their knowledge and to be able to work in foreign countries.
You undoubtedly realize as I do that some professional corporations guard their standards very jealously. I am thinking here in particular about members of the medical profession. In fact, most professions are not very open to this.
I would remind you, even though you are already aware of this, that in accordance with the Constitution, education comes under provincial jurisdiction. That's the truth.
You seem to acknowledge this fact, but at the same time, you're saying that it is up to the federal government to... On page vi of your brief, you recommend that:
- Human Resources Development Canada, in partnership with the Council of Ministers of
Education, Canada, develop a national system of training outcome standards for EI funded
learners;
Is this a translation error or does this recommendation truly express what you want?
[English]
Mr. Norton: If we focus simply on the word ``develop'', that is not our intention. In English - and I don't have a French copy in front of me - what we say is that HRDC, in partnership with the Council of Ministers of Education Canada, develop a system. The nature of that partnership is not clear. From our standpoint it is the accountability of the Council of Ministers. We don't know what support or assistance they might need to do that. That's not clear. The Council of Ministers is a very small group with a very small secretariat, and whether it would be possible for them to do this, whether they even at this moment would identify it as a priority, is not clear. The Council of Ministers of Education has very little experience in this area. They've been primarily concerned with primary education and secondary education and developing, in fairness, some national standards in those areas.
.0930
My concern is that we're looking at about a three-year window of transition. I'm certainly not suggesting that the federal government needs to take over this job, but I am saying that in partnership with CMEC it is a reasonable question: how can we support you, how can we resource you, how can we provide information to you so that you can do this? That is the partnership we envisage.
So the word ``develop'' is probably not the correct word in that sense, if taken in isolation.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Norton. We'll move to Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): Mr. Norton, I have here in my hand a letter written by the Executive Director of the Fédération des CEGEPs in January. In his letter, he describes how his organization which represents all Quebec CEGEPS cannot find any reason whatsoever for supporting your draft submission. He then mentions the resolution of the Quebec National Assembly calling for all powers in the area of manpower training to be handed back to Quebec. I sense from your presentation that you are concerned about this issue since you spoke of the importance of respecting provincial jurisdiction.
However, on page 13 of your brief, you recommend that:
- Human Resources Development Canada, in partnership with the Council of Ministers of
Education, Canada, develop a national system of training exits standards ... ;
- Doesn't this contradict the position of the Fédération des CEGEPS?
[English]
Mr. Norton: Without going through the same answer I gave before, I would reconcile it by again saying that what we see is a partnership in this transition between the national government and the provinces. We obviously accept that this is the responsibility of the provinces to articulate.
The issue of provincial or federal responsibility can create a difficulty for us, as institutions, in trying to address it, but we must address it. As this transition takes place in the debate over the responsibility, let us not lose sight of the issue that the outcome is a national training facility or a national responsibility. We must speak to that. Frankly, I would prefer to avoid speaking to that, but I don't know how to.
As individuals, as institutions, if we do not have some exit standards that make sense, then the institutions in Quebec, the private sector institutions and the public sector institutions, have the same debate as those in every province. I know there is consensus in the sense of getting a standard that all of us must meet. Around accountability there is also consensus. Clearly by the Constitution it's provincial. As for the transition, how do we manage that? How do we make sure it happens?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I have one brief, final question. On page 7, you recommend that:
- pre-training counselling services be included in the range of services under subsection
61(1)(c), for which the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission may provide
financial assistance.
Mr. Norton: Yes, it is. The issue is not a simple one, but you have made yourself clear.
.0935
[English]
It is clear to us that when someone is unemployed there is a range of options open. There is a range of training choices, and difficult choices must be made.
The key point we're making is not necessarily that the CEICs should be directly involved in that coaching but rather that, from our selfish standpoint, there is a system of 900 campuses of our colleges across Canada plus several hundred private sector training institutions where this kind of support, counselling, coaching, monitoring could be very helpful.
There are some interesting experiments going on in British Columbia at the moment, for example, whereby unemployed young people become part of an institution and for the first nine months coaching takes place to help them find work. They don't find work. Then the training option is examined: how can we enhance the skills you already have, and how can we build on those? We think the notion of developing a coaching partnership with the individual is a very important one, not just a one-point counselling opportunity.
So it's that type of thing. We think our institutions could have a role to play in this. But each province will make its own decisions around that.
As for the issue of moving into a slightly longer-term discussion with individuals rather than the one-hour conversation and saying now you will go to training, we think we must talk about that more effectively.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Norton.
Mr. Regan.
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): Thank you, Mr. Norton and colleagues, for coming today.
I want to focus first of all on the question of accreditation of training institutions, which of course would be a provincial jurisdiction matter, as we've agreed, and the question of the development of exit standards, which you've referred to, in which you suggest there should be federal involvement. I want to suggest to you that the idea, as you know, in part II of the bill in relation to employment measures would be monitoring of the job-related results of taking training. It seems to me that these two ideas are not incompatible. That's the first point I'd like you to respond to.
The second point has to do with the way we create and monitor the standards. You are probably aware that the government has created human resources sectoral councils in 19 sectors, in everything from steel to auto repair to even horticulture. These are created for defining occupational standards and curricula for your colleges, for example, to follow. Isn't it better to have the private sector establish high national training standards and to hold the colleges accountable rather than having federal bureaucrats do that?
Mr. Norton: I would certainly agree that neither educators nor federal bureaucrats should articulate those standards. They may be involved in the process, but it is employers who must identify the standards. Our interests is not in what our students should learn in this instance; it's what our graduates must be able to do. The only people who can describe what the graduates do as employees are the employers.
As for the sectoral councils, we strongly endorse that process. We have college participation, I believe, in all of those sectoral councils, and that reflects our commitment to endorse, to support the employers and, I must say, employees in this as well - a joint participation and articulation of those standards.
I would like to speak just for a second on the issue of accreditation. When the word ``accreditation'' is used, it often brings up the American notion of assessing institutions and saying that is a good one and that is a bad one, based on input variables - how many PhDs are there, how big is the library, how many classrooms. From our standpoint, those things are interesting but not relevant. Our issue is exit based: how well were the graduates accepted by industry, how did the graduates feel about that training? That's why we tend to focus on those exit standards.
Mr. Regan: Are the provinces going that way? To what degree are the provinces accepting those terms...? If they are going to be the ones doing the accreditation and saying who is certified and who isn't.... It's fine that we look at the issue of monitoring the results. Are they doing the same thing?
.0940
Mr. Norton: As you know, the Council of Ministers of Education is hosting a meeting in May, the second national meeting on education. Certainly we will be bringing that to the table again there.
I'd say the interest in that is growing. If you remember Stuart Smith's analysis of universities, this was the whole thrust of his comment on universities, and we think that has captured national attention, certainly among legislators. So I would have to say yes, there's some movement in that direction.
Mr. Regan: My second question has to do with the need to adapt to a changing world. We talked about the international situation and how the standards are constantly increasing. Maybe I have the wrong impression, and I may hear about this comment from community colleges in Nova Scotia after I say it, but I sometimes have the impression that community colleges haven't always been as quick to adapt as they might be. If I could make an analogy to a computer, for example, I sometimes have a sense that we're back with a Commodore 64, we need to move to a Pentium 160, and by the time we get halfway there we'll need the next thing along.
What can you tell me to make me feel better about the ability of community colleges to adapt quickly to a changing market?
Mr. Norton: I'll try to make you feel better by saying you're absolutely right in suggesting we have not always been as nimble as we should be.
That set aside, the issues are really complicated for us. One is that our colleges can exist only in partnership with enterprises generally. In the evolution of the definition of education over the last thirty years, from being something that takes place at the beginning of people's lives for twenty years into now a notion of education that spreads across the lifespan, the colleges have been changing too, having the opportunity now to work much more with industry.
If you look at many colleges.... Right here in Ottawa would be a wonderful example, Algonquin College. They've developed a whole department in communications where the equipment now all comes from industry. The college cannot keep up with that, cannot afford that, so it's an active partnership between the industry and the institution. The industry will use it for its training. The institution will borrow it to use it for its own students. That's the kind of model that's emerging.
I'll wrap up. The community college system in Nova Scotia did not change much for a great period. Now it is changing so quickly in catch-up it's remarkable to watch. The leadership there now has really brought in a whole new direction. The last three years especially have been very exciting.
So your impression from Nova Scotia is quite right. It was...not dormant, but very slow moving. Now catch-up is wonderful to watch.
The Chairman: Ms Augustine.
Ms Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get Mr. Norton again to stay with the whole issue of exit standards. I find that really intriguing, with the whole period of lifelong learning and continuous education.
Have you spoken to the Council of Ministers, the sectoral councils, and all the other players that would be part of that partnership? Do you have a sense of how all this can work?
Mr. Norton: We have a very strong sense from the private sector - and by ``private sector'' I mean both employees and employers - that there's a need, a desire, a hunger, for this exact thing. So we know there's an issue.
About the Council of Ministers, I must say they quite correctly have been very preoccupied with education, as was suggested, in the primary-secondary-university flow-through. Colleges are a fairly new phenomenon. You say we're thirty years old, but for ministers of education they are not a preoccupation at the moment, not in the way primary, secondary, and university are. We understand and accept that. But we think there would be an interest in this, especially if their own institutions - that's us - and the employers and employees expressed that to them.
So whether there's an interest or not, I can say there is not a resistance. I think that's useful.
I'm happy with that question. Usually you remember what I said at the last meeting and say ``Last time you said....'' That's a new question. Thank you.
.0945
Ms Augustine: I have one small question. About the part of the legislation that provides for the development of the individual action plan, it seemed to me we were clear that counselling, assessment, information, and all these would be involved in that. Could you speak to where you see the gap is in what the legislation suggests and where you and the council, say, could give us some advice in this area?
Mr. Norton: We have a few concerns here. One is that when someone becomes unemployed, or a young person has never been employed, the process of their finding out what to do about it is not a one-hour event. It's not a three-hour event. It's an interactive event over a period of time. Giving people a whole bunch of information to start with is not useful to them.
So in the same way as coaching and counselling are a longer-term process than advising, we're concerned that there be a process over a period of time that helps people as they look at the labour market, as they get more understanding of it, as they understand their own capabilities, as they understand what's offered, what's available, and how the national programs and the provincial implementation of those work, so they can make good decisions.
I've been involved in this forever. I remember in the old days of Program 5 individuals would end up in a program called Automatic Screw Machines. This was a complex industrial process in the past. They might spend forty weeks in that process. The environment in which those machines operated in industry was so noisy and so dirty that some people simply couldn't deal with it. Because there was no exposure to that at the beginning, a forty-week investment would be made in someone who couldn't work in the industry.
Those days have gone. But I set that as an example.
How do we have an iterative coaching process that helps people look at choices and helps them build on their own skills? That can't be done quickly. We're interested in there being a period and a longer-term relationship around that.
Ms Augustine: I was asking more for a critique of what is suggested in the bill itself on counselling, assessment, and information, and wondering if there are some areas such that you can give us advice we can focus on.
Mr. Norton: The only area I would offer advice on is that the institutions can play a very strong role in that process, and they're not cited in that at all. Again, by ``institutions'' I don't mean just our colleges. We don't need to develop more coaching facilities. We don't need to expand the capacity of people who don't have that now. We can use existing institutions to provide it; and that's what we'd like to do.
The Chairman: If I may, as chair I would like to ask one final question. There are those who have been analysing the transformation of the global economy and who feel the future really belongs to those individuals who are well trained, well educated, have a multi-skill set, and can adapt easily to the changes. I would like to know from you how you feel this proposed Employment Insurance Act addresses some of those issues.
Mr. Norton: From my standpoint, any initiative that addresses, supports, is helpful to the long-term learning of Canadian citizens, is positive. In the long run, every factor of production, every factor of economic competition, can be purchased - except the skills of the workforce.
In Canada we have never developed a national human resources development strategy as a companion piece to a national science and technology strategy or a national industrial strategy. Other countries have done this. Countries such as New Zealand have a very good understanding of what they must do in human resources as a companion to a national industrial or science or technology strategy.
One major difficulty in Canada, from our perspective, is that the discussion about responsibility for this has meant a delay in any national response to it. As institutions, what we're calling for or hoping will happen is that while that discussion plays out, we can somehow bring the Council of Ministers together with the national government to think through the urgent priority of a national policy in this area. By ``national'', I mean one that is inclusive, articulated by the provinces, if that's required. So for us there is an enormous concern there.
.0950
I think this policy, one that leads more and more to employers and employees in enterprises taking an active responsibility for the skills of the workforce as opposed to this simply being the exclusive problem of the national government, as it was twenty years ago, is a move in the right direction. Unless employers and employees are actively engaged in their own learning, in the planning of their own skilling, then we will always be defined in a circumstance of providing help to people only once they're unemployed, which means that a whole - pardon the expression - social salvage activity has to go on to give people confidence in themselves again before they can learn new skills.
So the engagement through the sectoral councils, through the new plan, of the players is extremely positive, and the more the private sector and the unions can be brought into this, having a sense of responsibility for the skills in the workforce, from our standpoint the more positive that is.
I will just close by saying Canada's community colleges and institutes are part of Team Canada in Canada in the development and maintenance of a skilled workforce. That's what we want to be. To the degree that we can be included in this program as active players and not as the external provincial enemy, we feel this program wins, and will be winning. We have a $46 billion investment in our colleges, and it's there to serve these programs.
Ms Augustine: Would you give us the assurance if we support them?
The Chairman: Mr. Norton, Mr. Killeen, Ms Boyles, I would like to thank you very much. I think you leave with the committee a very important point, that as we try to figure out which level of government - and whether it's industry or sectoral councils - decides standards and establishes a human resources strategy, there are those who, during this time of indecision, are perhaps going to become part of the polarization of the classes that will be the result of this lack of coordinated strategy. I think the committee members will be taking note of this excellent point that has been mentioned.
Thank you very much.
.0953
.0956
The Chairman: The next presentation will be from the Réseau des SADC du Québec. The presenters will be Ms Simard and Mr. Corbeil.
Welcome to our committee. We look forward to your comments. As you know, we're trying to improve the employment insurance bill that was referred to the committee, so we will be looking forward to your contribution.
You're probably going to be hearing a bell in approximately 15 or 20 minutes. The way I would like to proceed is that we will hear your presentation first. Then the members will find their way to the House of Commons to vote. We will return, then engage in the question-and-answer session between the members and yourselves. Is that clear? The committee agrees with that, I gather.
Okay. You may begin.
[Translation]
Ms Hélène Simard (General Director, Réseau des SADC du Québec): Honourable members, I would like to begin by thanking you for allowing us to testify before this committee today. I will be presenting a brief and my colleague, Mr. Corbeil, the chairman of one Community Futures Development Corporation, or CFDC, will be sharing with you some experiences and viewpoints from the field.
The focus of this short submission is the proposed unemployment insurance legislation. The Réseau des SADC du Québec is an umbrella organization of 52 community futures development corporations, or CFDCs, in Quebec. CFDCs are non-profit organizations and are administered by a board that reflects the diversity and the commitment of their entire area. The boards are made up of representatives from the various socioeconomic sectors in our communities and have a global view and a realistic vision of the social and economic situation in their community.
Our corporations provide services to communities with a high unemployment rate and with development indicators that are clearly below the national average. We are located in 60 per cent of the municipalities in Quebec, that is 903 out of 1,474, and we serve all areas except for urban communities and medium-sized cities. More than 80 per cent of the people in the areas we serve live in municipalities of less than 2,000 inhabitants.
CFDCs were set up to encourage the community to participate in the planning for its future. To achieve this goal, CFDCs develop a vision of the future of the community through activities that promote cooperation and partnership, encourage the community to adapt and to plan its human resources requirements, and support the establishment, consolidation and development of businesses by providing technical and financial services.
When we submitted an earlier brief to the committee in December 1994, we put particular emphasis on the fact that the reform should be based on a genuine will to improve the living conditions of the people and that it should take into account conditions particular to the community. We also stressed a number of components that could worsen or alleviate the devitalization of our economy and our areas.
However, while the draft bill does contain a series of measures aimed at temporarily supporting our fragile local economies, a significant number of its measures could have the opposite effect, wiping out any positive effect sought.
At the outset, we want to focus on the importance of altering our approach to development. The intensification of global competition and rapid technological progress have changed the world over the past 20 years. The geographical distribution of economic activities and the growth paths of local and regional economies have been transformed. Companies are restructuring to enter world markets. The importance of national economies and domestic markets has diminished as the economic environment and competition take on international proportions. Some regions have seen their economy decline while others have experienced growth and prosperity. The result has been a new definition of the role of government on both the national and regional levels. We might add that it is increasingly obvious that economic growth no longer generates employment growth.
In May 1993, the OECD held a high-level conference on the theme ``From global to local: a new perspective for adjustment and reform''. During the conference, a number of experts and representatives from various countries explored development concepts. It is now clear that public spending at the macro-economic level does not guarantee either employment growth or an improvement in the standard of living.
.1000
However, it is also acknowledged that governments must support communities in the development process in which local partners endeavour to use local resources more effectively to retain and create jobs and to strengthen and promote business activity. This strategic process is an attempt at coordinating scattered initiatives and at improving the conditions and the environment in which these initiatives are carried out and to tie them in with a comprehensive local strategy or policy framework. It also provides an opportunity to influence corporate behaviour and internal decision-making, and to support their adaptation to change.
It was very important for us to remind you of these principles to help you understand our position on the planned reform in the context of the changes that we want to see adopted and that could help our communities in their fight against devitalization.
Our brief will focus on the specific aspects of the bill that affect our communities in particular and which seem to hinder their economic recovery. Our first brief was more concerned about the general situation. In this brief, we will confine ourselves to commenting on certain very specific aspects of the bill.
We would like to begin by focussing on measures affecting seasonal workers. We are aware of the specific problems involved in the management of unemployment insurance in a seasonal economy. However, we feel it is particularly harsh to target this clientele through measures that will result in noticeable impoverishment and will not result in changes to the labour market structure. We are referring to the eligibility standards for newcomers, the reference period for total earnings and the reduction in the benefit rate depending on the benefits that were received previously.
The proposed eligibility standards for newcomers will make it almost impossible for a significant number of newcomers to the labour market to have access to unemployment insurance and will penalize in particular those who are not entitled to unemployment insurance because of the stricter rules and who have had to fall back on social assistance. These people will be discouraged by the more restrictive eligibility criteria from accepting seasonal or uncertain employment since eligibility for employment insurance will be a virtual impossibility for them. Furthermore, in our smaller communities, stricter rules could hasten the exodus of young people.
Mr. Marc Corbeil (Director, Pontiac CFDC): I want to talk to you about the Pontiac since I am most familiar with this region. The Pontiac has consistently encountered problems in keeping young people from leaving the region. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Pontiac, it is located 60 miles from here on the Quebec side in the Outaouais. It is primarily an agriculture and forestry-based community, although efforts are also being made to promote tourism.
The Pontiac is no stranger to full employment. In 1963, the unemployment rate in the region stood at 3 per cent, but it has now risen to problem levels. Unemployment problems have affected young people who are fleeing the area. In a region such as ours, when young people leave, the future goes with them. More restrictive rules governing access to employment insurance have a greater impact on young people who are trying to break into an already limited market. Because of these stricter rules, they will chose to leave the area. The overall impact will be very destabilizing.
Ms Simard: The total earnings reference period is also an unacceptable measure because it penalizes seasonal workers who are the most dependent on weather conditions and natural resources management methods. For instance, the forestry worker who stops working for several days because of the weather, or a worker in an agrifood processing plant for a seasonal resource will be penalized since, even though they have the same number of hours of work as other workers, their benefit level will be considerably lower.
Earlier on, Marc related to me a situation that will be occurring as soon as spring arrives in the forest. It illustrates clearly what happens when averaging is applied to the total earnings reference period and the impact this can have.
Mr. Corbeil: My example is quite simple, but highly revealing. As we speak, forestry workers in the Pontiac are working around the clock to harvest the forest because in a few days time, a thaw will set in and they will no longer be able to harvest the trees. Of course, this is one very specific sector but we mustn't forget that the temperature, snow, rain and good weather are very important considerations in rural communities.
.1005
Right now, workers are hard at it day and night because in a few days, the season will be over. A person employed in this sector is going to be unemployed either next Monday or Wednesday because there will no longer be any work.
The question is whether anything else can be done, but this example illustrates how a simple matter such as the temperature is important. It has a critical impact on the life of these communities.
Ms Simard: We see the same problem in the fishery and in processing plants. The situation in the fishery varies from one season to the next. When a plant is retooled, workers are laid off for one, two or three weeks before they start processing another species of fish. These workers would also see an averaging of their reference period, which would lower the number of hours they work as well as their benefit levels. These measures would further impoverish them.
With respect to the reduction in the benefit rate depending on the benefits received previously, this measure, averaged over five years, primarily targets those who are repeatedly unemployed. Combined with the other measures and based on a benefit rate that has already been considerably reduced over the past few years, this measure is likely to transfer the burden of job insecurity to the other income security programs, and thus back to the taxpayer.
While it is true that unemployment insurance must become employment insurance, formulas must be found that do not push current workers onto bypasses. The seasonal economy is a reality of the Canadian economy and particularly of resource regions. Ways of changing the economy must be found that acknowledge the importance to the seasonal economy of keeping a high quality workforce in the region.
While Canadians who benefit from the spin-off effects of industries such as forestry, the fishery and tourism, among others, may be ready to abandon their support for the workers in these areas, are they really prepared to abandon comprehensive plans for the national economy and for its growth? Should we start thinking about more focussed forms of solidarity, such as putting revenues from the sales of harvested resources into a guaranteed income fund for the workers in these industries? The proposed reform provides only a disappointing and unacceptable response in this regard.
We feel that this series of measures affecting seasonal workers is likely to contribute to the impoverishment of a number of Canadians and threaten our collective prosperity.
With respect to piecemeal training, the formula for the provision of loans for training is another measure that is likely to impoverish the unemployed and limit access to professional training. In this regard, the inhabitants of rural and remote areas will be doubly penalized, as any training involves high travel costs. They will have to go further into debt and further limit their chances of finding new employment and playing an active, constructive role in the local and national economies. We realize that this formula is intended to control the perhaps exorbitant administrative costs of professional training, but we ask that ways of increasing consistency and eliminating overlap be found before penalizing those looking for work.
Mr. Corbeil: As far as controlling costs is concerned, there is one thing that seems obvious to me. I am still speaking from my perspective as a front line worker. If operations are decentralized as much as possible and if community organizations - I'm thinking in particular about agencies such as the one I oversee, the CFDCs - are given a mandate to assess training requirements, find training systems and so forth, then costs will be reduced.
For instance, in the Pontiac, a course on setting up and expanding a business has been given for the past six years. Persons interested in starting up a business can enrol in this 16-week course. As you may recall, several years ago, the federal government had established local training groups and given them the mandate to provide this type of course. We negotiated directly with one institution, the Heritage College in Hull. The cost was 20 per cent lower, simply because an intermediary had been eliminated. We were in a position to assess needs, to find the people, and so forth.
.1010
The struggle to eliminate overlap and duplication may be a very hot topic, but from where we stand, we find that we are systematically forced to set up groups based on totally artificial criteria. For example, for the purposes of professional or other training, we must form groups of 15 people. We are told that participants must be unemployed workers, social welfare recipients and so forth.
The Pontiac, as it happens, has a total population of 15,000. The breakdown is 55 per cent anglophone and 45 per cent francophone. We do not have a large population base to draw on. However, when we are told to find 15 people, we do so. We are very happy when we manage to find 15 people to undergo training.
When we have people who are prepared to undergo training but who do not meet essentially artificial criteria, as a rule, training is, quite simply, not given.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of training in all aspects of day to day life. In the Pontiac, there is a great deal of potential to be exploited. Training remains the basic problem. Our cause is not helped much when roadblocks are put in our way. We have to sell people on the concept of training as ours is not a training culture. People must be cajoled. As I was saying, it often clashes with real needs. Anything that delays the process will have very negative consequences, not only at the local level, but overall as well.
Ms Simard: In some of our regions, people must occasionally travel for two hours to get to a learning institute or a training centre. The costs are enormous for fathers or mothers wishing to recycle themselves and get back into the economy. Care must be taken that in a tenuous situation such as layoff, no additional debt burden is put on people so that they can once again become productive citizens who will reinvest in the community.
Another area that we wish to discuss is self-employment assistance or SEA. We could not fail to acknowledge the excellent initiative involving the SEA. We are extremely satisfied with the increased focus it has received in this reform package. For our communities, the SEA is not merely an ordinary business subsidy program. It is a wide-ranging and inspiring incentive for local initiatives and job entry. Granting self-employment assistance support to a person recognizes the project's validity, stabilizes the entrepreneur's family income, and this enhances the long term results.
In the same vein, a clear message is being sent that taking on responsibilities is important and is rewarded by the government. In the past, some measures have had the opposite effect. The SEA is an excellent program that must receive the support it deserves in terms of coordination, support and context awareness. The records of the Pontiac CFDC show just how positive an impact this program has had.
Mr. Corbeil: This program has been up and running in our region for six years. A total of 150 people have become entrepreneurs. We have seen a range of businesses started, from a person setting up a processing plant in the forest to individuals dispensing services and many other things.
We have no statistics as yet on the five-year success rate of the program, but based on our evaluation, 61 per cent of these 150 individuals still operate their own business today. While there have been some changes, 61 per cent are nevertheless still in business. After one year, the figure was 74 per cent.
Another statistic is absolutely essential: 74 per cent of these people continue on in business. Of the remaining 26 per cent, approximately 21 per cent find employment because they are in the loop and on the road and have learned how things work in business, how a manager thinks when he hires employees, pays them and so forth. There have been successes on this score.
Equally important, but perhaps less understood, is that this course provides a feeling of hope, a feeling that anything is possible, to communities that are often quite beleaguered.
.1015
It also gives people opportunities and lets them know that anything is possible if the effort is there. The success enjoyed by those who were the first to undergo training is proof to others that training does work.
Ms Simard: With respect to the financial impact, the reform will genuinely penalize the regions with high unemployment rates. Without any investment measures, the effects will be tragic. Our concern, however, is for the period after the end of the transitional phase. These measures will end in the years 2001 and 2002, leaving behind an impoverished population that is no closer to a solution.
This integration into the new world economic order flies in the face of the principle objectives underlying the implementation by previous generations of large-scale protection programs. While it may be brave to want to correct the shortcomings of an often criticized system, it is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water and abandon regions with fragile economies and with no means of changing their circumstances.
In light of the testimony about the cost effectiveness of the measures, we feel the savings generated by the reforms must be reinvested in local economies but from the bottom up, by really putting the population's potential to the test.
At present, our communities are dealing with the issue of the fisheries' policy and the first compensatory measures. There are certainly problems with this logic. When the government approaches the people, it's often to tell them what to do and how to do it and this leads to real problems. Heavy handed management is extremely costly and the resulting measures are developed according to criteria which do not necessarily correspond to local cultures.
With respect to job creation partnerships, all too often, major compensation programs - the fisheries measures, for instance - are only band-aid solutions. They argue that the communities involvement is necessary, but are unable to generate much involvement. The cultural changes necessary to meet the challenges waiting for us all require courageous solutions. Partnerships with business are inherently important in rising to meet new challenges.
However, is it necessary to point out that the solutions must not involve mechanisms that use the local populations merely as window-dressing? All to often we have not experienced "partnership" but rather "pater-ship".
Communities with high unemployment have worked very hard in Quebec to set up credible local development organizations that are able to work with the community and that support the retention and creation of jobs with the assistance of small business, among other steps.
Any partnership must recognize the existing structures and work with them. Too often, new structures are created with each new program or product, with each department setting up "its" own partnership committee with "its" own population.
In our communities, we are a little concerned that some proactive reform measures have been called into question. It is extremely important to preserve flexible intervention tools geared to the community. This issue has given us cause for some concern.
With respect to compensation funds, CFDCs manage a local investment fund the goal of which is the creation and retention of jobs in their communities. The funds invested by the Canadian government under the community development program have contributed to the creation of 22,000 jobs and the retention and consolidation of a further 26,000. The fund has survived and has even increased from a new yield of 3 per cent per year, which has made it possible to inject more than $154 million into the local economy and small business in less than 10 years.
Our funds are manage locally by a competent volunteer investment committee and benefit from business support measures to maximize the return on investment. We are therefore in a position to provide the government with guarantees as to the sound management of the funds entrusted to us and their spin-off effects.
We believe that compensation funds for high unemployment areas should be managed locally, on our territories, by organizations that are accountable to the people and that have the expertise necessary to ensure that the funds go to achieving the main goal, namely job creation.
We must, however, point out that in view of the scope of the reform and the tax bites targeting the most vulnerable people, these funds should be increased and open to other types of businesses and should be governed by a long-term policy.
.1020
The year 2000 is fast approaching. Do not ask populations weakened by the economic restructuring to perform the miracles that the central government is no longer in a position to perform. However, if you place your trust in your local communities and give them the means to achieve a structural turnaround, we will certainly get better results by working together than we have thus far.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madame Simard and Mr. Corbeil.
As you've probably heard, the bell is ringing, which means we'll have to go and vote. However, since it is a 30-minute bell and the vote will be at approximately 10:45 a.m., I will have one ten-minute round and we will hear the Bloc's questions. Then when we return - and I apologize for the interruption - we will go to the government side.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: Thank you for an eloquent presentation on the perception local communities have of their development. You have raised a fundamental question that I would like to tie in with the presentation made to us yesterday by the Canadian Construction Association. We were told that unemployment insurance rules should be the same for everyone across Canada and that workers should have complete mobility.
Today, we are being told that we will have the choice in the future either to move in this direction or to adopt the measures that you are suggesting, that is to work with the community.
I would like you to comment further on the SEA initiative. Yesterday, the Canadian Construction Association asked us to do away with this program. Could you tell us a little more about this initiative, for example the impact it would have on the generation of new entrepreneurs who could emerge in the regions?
Ms Simard: It is surprising that some people object to having this goodwill sustained. Those who have worked in developing countries know that the worst enemy of development is defeatism. We are working to fight defeatism in our communities. This kind of attitude can in the long term put an enormous social and human burden on them. Complete segments of society would be excluded if such a line were drawn between the employed and the unemployed.
As I said, the SEA is a small, simple, locally managed program which can be cheaply and simply administered in the communities. This program is being actively promoted. People attend information meetings and then take steps to become eligible. Right now, to be eligible, one must be unemployed and have in mind a constructive, useful job creation project.
One of the program's unique features is that a local selection committee reviews the business plan with the applicant to see whether the business will be competing with a local business, if it will lead to a new economic development plan and if it has any chance of succeeding. Locally, the SEA has been enormously successful and has produced excellent results.
As I said, this program helps to change attitudes and to develop a new culture by giving people with ideas hope and the desire to take action. The program helps people to avoid some of the inherent risks associated with starting up a business and helps potential long-term unemployed persons to develop a project and to receive the training and support they need to see it through to fruition. The support is ongoing throughout the initial year to help put the business on solid ground.
After a few years, we have seen that the results are not only satisfying, but also convincing. Given the enormous investment that unemployment insurance represents for our communities in terms of transfer payments, only a small investment in initiative is required. It is important that we stop encouraging inactivity.
.1025
Not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur, but those who have potential and ideas can use a layoff or period of unemployment resulting from an economic restructuring to their advantage. Some business leaders or skilled workers working in a threatened business have had to reorganize themselves. As a result of this program, instead of becoming a burden, growing old at 50 and living out their days on unemployment insurance and, subsequently, on welfare, these people become job creators and employers in a relatively short period of time.
As such, this is a very interesting initiative which has had an impact on the culture and the mentality of our communities. It does not treat unemployed people as incompetent and incapable, but rather as assets to their community.
Mr. Corbeil: I can understand the reason for your concern. In our region, our committee sees to it that all of the rules are respected. That is very important.
It should also be noted that in our region, there were no duly licensed contractors. This program enabled people to get their license. It enabled people who were working under informal conditions to become officially involved in this field of work.
We have to look at things from the perspective of the person wielding a handsaw and a hammer who would like to do something a little more constructive. The program makes this a possibility for him.
I realize that this is not something that you experience in your day-to-day lives, but it can be a terrifying situation for someone whose unemployment insurance is coming to an end or who receives social assistance. He is worried that he is getting sucked in to the bureaucracy, that he will be asked to pay ... The cost of a construction contractor's licence in Quebec is $400. There are costs involved and steps to be followed. The process is very valid and no one is arguing this fact.
A program such as this one enables people to gain a foothold in the construction industry. I know all about this because I was an unlicensed construction worker. The program helps people become part of the industry. Without this kind of support, people naturally have a tendency to say that they will continue working with their handsaws and hammers. I understand these concerns. We are always telling our client that we are not going to use his neighbour's taxes to help him go out and sell french fries more cheaply than he does. That's obvious and people understand that.
Ms. Lalonde (Mercier): I would first of all like to say that it is extremely interesting and comforting to hear you speak. You speak with authority on a matter you know well. It is extremely useful for the committee.
You said at the end:
- ...these funds should be improved, open to other types of companies and be the focus of a long
term policy.
- I would like you to elaborate on that.
Regional economies based on seasonal work or a sizeable problem that we will have to study. We are witnessing an important structural change in the Canadian economy at present. We can decide to only carry out such structural change in the successful regions like Toronto, Laval, the Montreal region, or even in British Colombia, in the developed areas of large centres because central urban communities are dealing with the same problems as our rural regions.
.1030
We can decide to truly create an active policy to transform our economy as well as to support the seasonal economy by saying that it is one of our strengths, one of our characteristics.
Canada and Quebec have grown up over the past 300 years. And with our good economy, the country has advanced a fair amount. It would be in our interest to learn from this, and to not isolate all of the regions. We shouldn't say that we're going to send trucks to the resources and that, if nobody lives there, it does'nt matter. This is a danger that threatens us if we don't adopt active measures.
With regard to other types of businesses, our programs are presently focused on businesses run by one person or on small companies. In certain regions there are wonderful examples of a collective economy, of cooperatives, and of community economies. By following these examples, we could avoid excluding some part of the people and contribute to the development of a richer economy for everyone.
There must be openness, and funds should be given to people in order that they use them to design dynamic projects based on the criteria of their community. Is there any need to remind you that the people of a community know their local economic situation quite well and quite often can manage it in a more rational manner than it could have been done within the framework of programs for which people send forms to a centre that are either accepted or refused?
The Chair: Ms. Simard and Mr. Corbeil,
[English]
I have to suspend the hearings at this point because we have to go to vote. When we come back we'll go to the government side for questions.
.1033
.1105
The Chairman: I'll call the meeting to order. We haven't worked hard enough yet for a coffee break.
Mr. Easter, you may commence with questioning.
Mr. Easter (Malpèque): In the presentation, on page 4 in the English text under the topic ``Financial Impact of the Reform'' you talk about it being important to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Then on page 5 of the English text, in point number 6, you talk about the creation and retention of jobs in their communities.
Yesterday we heard from witnesses who were very strongly opposed to the regional breakdown in terms of access to employment insurance, or unemployment insurance. What's your view on that? Should there be different rates based on unemployment in the regions? Should it be based on the percentage of unemployment in the regions in terms of how quickly you can access it, how many weeks you require?
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: I don't think that we can, at least as spokes persons for our members, give an opinion on this concept of an unequal distribution of unemployment insurance benefits based on the regions of Canada.
In fact in any proactive measure or economic recovery measure, rather than trying to apply methods cooked up outside a community and that are hard to apply to the culture or the characteristics of the community, one must try as often as possible to work with the people involved in order to find solutions that apply to the problems that these people are dealing with. This is much more our opinion on this issue.
One of our characteristics is to be the spokesperson for large consensus of communities. Naturally there will be people who represent all interest groups and target groups and any measure that impoverishes unemployed people in a community with a high rate of unemployment will not be favourably accepted by our communities.
[English]
Mr. Corbeil: I think what you have to bear in mind in the kinds of localities we're talking about is the importance of employment or unemployment insurance, or whatever you want to call it, in the local economy. It is a mainstay not just of individuals but of the economy, and I think what we're saying here is when you're touching that you're touching the whole life of the economy.
I remember a couple of years back a major mill shut down in Fort Coulonge. Everybody obviously went on UI for approximately two years. That place would have died, literally died; you're talking about a ghost town.
I think everybody agrees that correctives have to be introduced into the system and that there are certain negative impacts of the system, as it stands, on our localities as well. But as I say, you're touching a major nerve. It's not an employer, it's not an industry, but you're affecting the whole region. You're affecting its population, its age structure; you're affecting everything.
.1110
Mr. Easter: It goes beyond the worker. I agree with you on that point.
We appreciate your support in terms of the self-employment. You mention in here it's a good program. You are aware as well, I hope, that there are other community development tools in the EI package, part two, the $300 million transition, the $800 million re-employment tools. I'd like to know your view on that.
The other point I would like to question you on is do you support the shift from weeks to hours? You talk about it on page 2. As well, you mentioned the gap, or what we've heard others call, in terms of the calculation base, using dead weeks. What's your position on that? Do you think the gap should be eliminated, and if so, do you have any suggestions as to how?
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: If we talk about the issue of dead weeks, this is something that is extremely important. If there were a major correction to be made... There are others as well, but this one is essential because this measure penalizes people that want to work but whose work is divided up differently.
So we propose a measure that would record the number of hours rather than the number of weeks worked in order to accommodate those who work more hours during certain periods, but in so doing we destroy the possible positive effect of this measure because of the whole issue of dead weeks as you call it. What incentive is gained on one hand is lost on the other. We hardly win anything at all.
With regard to recorded hours, I'm referring to a presentation made by the prefect of the Regional County Municipality of the Magdalen Islands, who said that this is a good measure that allows people whose seasonal work forces them to work long hours during certain periods, to count up hours rather than weeks worked. In fact, for the same number of hours worked, the people were managed differently, and this created a sort of obligation to manage false weeks, to lengthen seasons, to reorganize the work.
On the other hand, if a measure that could be positive is later offset with measures that penalize other workers, we are no further ahead in the end. In any case, this issue of recorded hours seems to me to be quite well received in the regions by people working in tourism and the fishing sector, at least seasonal workers, but the matter of dead weeks is an extremely important concern.
We focused less on other measures because we're not exactly sure at what level they are going to be managed nor what direction they will take. There is a large consensus to have them administered on a scale other than the global scale in terms of the reform.
There have been some positive elements to the benefits for employment services as well as some negative aspects with regard to the financial impact of the reform.
With regard to job creation joint efforts, the principles are positive; this could be a driving force that would probably require local and provincial investments and would be difficult to put a number to; it would also be difficult to figure out how it will be organized.
If we draw a parallel with certain measures regarding infrastructure programs, for example, we notice that it's difficult to manage re-entry programs and job creation programs in this fashion at a human resource level. This creates a number of major difficulties.
With regard to successful programs the investments must be as close as possible to the area, and the responsibilities must be divided up between the various people involved in the community.
Now we must avoid ending up with a mishmash of measures or unclear ground rules. We said in our first brief that it must be kept simple.
.1115
We must have the tools that will allow us to reorganize the economy or carry out positive re-entry. Why not recognize community employment as positive employment in the community and support it by giving people the ability to become recognized workers rather than recipients of programs?
Up until now, we mainly have had programs where, every six months, people want back to the unemployment rolls although they were competent and could do the job well. Groups or organizations therefore have to begin with a new project, a new program. We must avoid this type of dynamics. As I said to you earlier, the communities must keep the tools that will allow them to innovate, to create and to react positively through job creation.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Easter.
Ms Augustine, you have two short questions.
Ms Augustine: When I first went into your brief, your introduction was very positive and seemed to indicate clearly the need for reform and why we need this reform. But as I read it through, I found that you focused on so many negative aspects of the reform.
Do you agree with the overall objectives, that is, to reduce dependency, disincentives to work, correct inequities and anomalies such as the one you were presently addressing, the exclusion of part-time workers and multiple-job holders who over the course of a year may work as much as seasonal workers? It seems to me that's a very important question and a position on which we need to be clear as to where you stand.
My second question has to do with this: You say that the reduced benefit rate for frequent claimants, combined with the other reform measures, will increase welfare cases. At the same time, you do not mention anywhere, or there is no mention anywhere in your brief, about the family supplement. Are you aware of this top-up that is targeted to low-income claimants and that benefits will actually be higher for them?
I think those are two very important questions in terms of your position before this committee today.
[Translation]
Ms. Simard: With regard to the global objectives, when we carried out our first analysis of the reform project, we agreed on one thing: everyone is for virtue. Everyone feels the need to reevaluate the way the system works and to find more proactive solutions to the underemployment situation, like the one that exists at present in our economy.
We are dealing with an economy in which more and more workers are being excluded. On that matter, we agreed. However, we underlined the fact that it was surprising to see that, in a system that generates profits, we want to reduce dependency by tapping low income or the more vulnerable workers in economies that are already quite vulnerable.
We had hoped they would have proposed long-term proactive measures to remedy the problem in a new and more comprehensive way. In our brief today, we limited our comments specifically to the issue of seasonal work, because it is the element that is of greatest concern to our members, as a survey of them showed.
People are used to living with measures that more or less easy to administer, and live with, but measures which attack a very high percentage of local people can impoverish a significant number of people and might well have a devastating effect, causing an exodus of people, the impoverishment of families, or the development of a more defeatist mentality in our communities, when at present, we are using the tools available to us to overcome this mentality and restore hope to our communities.
.1120
That is our position.
It is very difficult for us to accept a reduction in benefits for repeat users and in family income supplement. Several of these measures will end up affecting and impoverishing the same category of workers. It is difficult for us to say which measure at the family level will, in certain cases, help offset this reduction. It is difficult for us to assess that, at least with the means that we have, but because several places in the same area are being picked at, it will end up having a significant impact on the overall economy of our regions. That is why we spoke to that aspect. We did not do a detailed assessment of each of the aspects of the reform.
[English]
The Chairman: Ms Simard, Mr. Corbeil, we obviously enjoyed your presentation. You raised some very important points, above and beyond the points that have been raised by other people, about the gap and the divisor.
You did clearly go back to the issue of self-employment assistance as a program you truly believe in. In the past couple of years 34,000 people participated in this program, creating 68,000 jobs. I have a very simple question: should this program be expanded?
Mr. Corbeil: It should be expanded. If you have valid projects coming up, definitely. I don't think anybody in the local context I'm familiar with.... Nobody who is coming up and saying ``I want to earn my living, and I feel I can do it on my own, and I'm willing to have a crack at it'' should be turned away, either on an individual basis, in the sense that you're telling somebody no, you're not good enough, go away, or on the social basis. You have to create a sense of the possible in these communities.
There's such a major shift in the job market. Again, I'm referring just to the Pontiac now. The jobs are not there in the sense of an employer paying you a salary on a 52-week or a 10-week.... There's a shift. These things are not happening. On the other hand, there are employment possibilities in the sense that there are possibilities for individuals, and we sometimes see groups of people, one, two, three.... I had a case where six people were doing wood measuring. These possibilities are there, and this is pretty well the only way they can be addressed.
I would like to stress again the terrifying nature of the move that is being made by people, going from the employment and the security net and so on and saying ``I'm going to do this on my own''. All it really does is provide a year of grace for that person. You're going out into the world and you're jumping off the end of the pier here, in economic terms. It does provide a period of grace.
I've been working with, as I said, 150 people who have started in the Pontiac. I imagine there are some, but I've seen very few people looking for a free ride.
It's not that good a deal, in any case. You're better off to stay home. The people who come up to request this grant really and truly are trying to have a go at it.
The other strength of the program, and we refer to it in here, is the management by a group of local citizens. Not much gets by a group in a small community like that. Not much gets by a group of citizens. I know they're my boss. I would defy any bureaucratic structure to have the same seriousness and the same absence of cynicism and daily preoccupation with managing these funds. They feel as if they're invested with a public mission and they are carrying it out with a great deal of competence.
.1125
That also has a reflection on the local management when you have these people saying.... It comes back to the question of competition. A lot of the people sitting on these boards are local business people. They understand this preoccupation with eliminating competition. They live it directly themselves. They are giving the orientation: they are not saying that one field is important while another is not.
There is an added dividend that you absolutely have to take into consideration, which is that it allows people to find work.
These are all old stories, but the example I give is of somebody who starts a bakery. He's doing his bread run and he comes in one week and says ``It's not working out. I'm chucking it in.'' The manager of the grocery store says ``Well, why don't you manage my bakery? I've seen you go; you're doing work. I'll offer you a job.''
The other factor is that it gives people an understanding of the job market. When they go back to work, they know what's going on in the boss's mind. That helps quite a bit as well.
I don't know exactly what the cost is, but I would certainly invite you. The Pontiac is an hour away. If you want to meet some of the folks, you could surely get it from them.
The Chairman: Thanks again for your presentation. It's duly noted. I'm sure that the members of Parliament here have benefited a great deal from your words, as they've come from not only a keen understanding of the legislation but also the human experiences you've just outlined.
The next presentation will be from the Fédération des femmes du Québec. The presentations will be made by Ruth Rose-Lizée, a member of the federation, and Michèle Ouimet.
Welcome. We look forward to hearing your presentation as we attempt to improve Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada.
[Translation]
Ms Michèle Ouimet (Member of the Board of Directors, Fédération des femmes du Québec): Good morning Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Michèle Ouimet and I'm a member of the Board of Directors of the Fédération des femmes du Québec. I will be reading the brief and Mrs. Ruth Rose-Lizée, who is also a member of the Fédération des femmes du Québec and an economics professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal, will intervene with some comments and will read part of the brief.
The Fédération des femmes du Québec is a democratic non- partisan advocacy group. It comprises 101 associations and more than 330 individual members.
.1130
Its objectives are to promote and defend the interests and the rights of women, and to play a critical role in dialogue and in defending these interests. It is representative of the plurality and the diversity of the women's movement, and more specifically economically disadvantaged women or women who are subjected to multiple types of discrimination, because they are namely members of visible minorities or ethnic communities, immigrants, natives, women with disabilities and lesbians.
We would like to thank Françoise-David, Mercédez Roberge, Ruth Rose and Thérèse Ste-Marie for their help in preparing this brief.
Real employment insurance favourable to women: In describing what will become the Canadian employment system, the federal government assures us that the new system will be favourable to part-time workers and will include new resources to make it easier to rejoin to the workforce. Nothing is farther from the truth. The new provisions contained in Bill C-111 will instead disadvantage women working part-time, as this primarily concerns women, housewives who want to return to work, young people and seasonal workers. In its brief, the Fédération des femmes du Québec will focus primarily on the situation of women, leaving others to deal with the problems of other workers.
Who does the government really want to help? The government of Canada claims that its reform will be beneficial to all Canadians. What a hoax! In fact, what the government wants to do is reduce its deficit by dipping into the unemployment insurance fund, in which it has invested nothing since 1990. The accumulated surplus in this fund will reach $5 billion in 1995-1996 as a result of cutbacks made by the Conservatives and Liberals in UI benefits over several years.
While successive governments have been using premiums paid by employees and employers this way, the latter are not complaining, on the contrary. Employers know very well that stricter rules and decreased unemployment insurance benefits give them an advantage. Working men and women are increasingly captive of their jobs, under almost any conditions. When businesses conduct massive layoffs, like we see on a daily basis, they know very well that workers will be forced to accept a new lower paying job with fewer benefits. They no longer have the power necessary to offset these almighty businesses. The Canadian economy is moving dangerously in the direction of a return to wild capitalism, what the government calls adapting to a new labour market.
The government of Canada also claims that its reform is designed to counter the perverse effects of using the UI fund and attacks and punishes those people it calls repeat users for having collected benefits more than once in five years. This language leaves victims of unstable and seasonal work guilt ridden, and the analysis is completely faulty. Workers who live from one contract to the next or who have seasonal jobs because of the climate or the resources in their region are being punished. What an aberration? Is it the worker's fault if businesses have not diversified their activities, if they set up primarily in large centres or if they move towards subcontracting and on-call work? If this goes any further, we would have to suggest closing down the regions, like the ineffable president of the National Bank did last year.
Let's be clear: the pseudo-employment insurance reform will impoverish a number of Canadian workers without in any way promoting their entry of reentry into the workforce. Because to participate in the workforce, there must be employment opportunities. Where are they? Where is the job creation policy that the government and the provinces have promised? The federal government is laying off its own employees and cutting transfers to the provinces. In both cases, many women will be affected. In short, the federal government's announcements contain immense intellectual dishonesty and of all the people who will be affected under the new system, women will be hit particularly hard.
Mrs. Ruth Rose-Lizée (member, Fédération des femmes du Québec): Let's start with the context for Quebec and Canadian women in the workforce. In Quebec, 68% of the part-time jobs are held by women, and the same is true throughout Canada. In addition, women often hold temporary jobs, without any job security. The majority of women who work part-time are over 25 and many have taken a part-time job because it was the only job available. The most recent statistics that I've seen show that 40% of people working part-time do not do so willingly.
.1135
Taking the situation into account, will the measures proposed in the Employment insurance reform help women? The Canadian government claims they will, because from now on each hour will count in determining benefits. It is true that at present, only people working at least 15 hours a week for the same employer qualify for unemployment insurance. From now on, this rule will be abolished and for people who hold two part-time jobs, the hours will be added together. This may be interesting, but several other measures which are particularly harmful for women will wipe out the beneficial effect of the new provisions.
At present, to qualify for benefits, a person must have worked from 12 to 20 weeks, depending on the regional unemployment rate, during the year preceding the claim. However, newcomers, that is people who did not work at least 14 weeks during the year preceding the claim, will have to work 20 weeks. A week of work must include at least 15 hours or earnings equal to 20% of the maximum insurable earnings. According to the bill, to qualify for benefits, a person would have to have worked between 420 and 700 hours during the year preceding the claim, or 12 to 20 35 hour weeks. For people who work 15 hours a week that represents 28 to 47 weeks, which is a significant increase with respect to current requirements.
What's particularly harmful in the case of women if that, in any event, their benefits are solely based on the 15 hours a week of work in the period preceding unemployment, whereas they have worked as many hours as those who, for example, have worked 40 hours a week and whose benefits would be based on 40 hours of work.
In the case of persons who are entering or re-entering the labour market after a long absence, who are much likely to be young people and women with children, the requirement will be 910 hours. That's an increase of six weeks compared to the 20 weeks currently required and, moreover, these will be 35-hour work weeks rather than the minimum 15-hour work weeks. Those who work 15 hours a week are eligible for benefits after working two years since 910 hours represent over 60 weeks of work. Women who work part-time in unstable or intermittent jobs will probably never be eligible, but they are still obliged to pay premiums as soon as they start working.
The refund of premiums for persons earning less than $2,000 per year, that is some 300 hours of work at minimum wage as set in the various provinces, will never correct this injustice. How can one claim that this measure will help part-time workers? We see no way to make a large number of women eligible for unemployment insurance when they already have been penalized by the fact that they take on a disproportionate part of domestic labour, child care and care for other family members. They already have a great deal of difficulty finding stable full-time jobs throughout the year. One can even wonder whether this provision isn't discriminatory under the Charter of rights and freedoms, since it is a systematic penalization of women, given that women are over-represented among part-time workers and this measure specifically targets part-time workers.
Moreover, fewer and fewer women will be eligible for maternity benefits. Whereas the current legislation requires 20 weeks of work with a minimum of 15 hours each, therefore 300 hours, the new legislation will require 700 hours of work. Canada is already far behind other industrialized nations concerning the generosity and duration of maternity leave. This new requirement, as well as the reduction in the maximum benefit period in which maternity weeks must be counted will further weaken our already inadequate maternity leave program.
Overall, the calculation of the amount of benefits will be based on earnings in the last 14 to 20 weeks (16 to 20 starting in 1997), which is two weeks more than the number of work-weeks required to become eligible in most regions. That means that if a person has had a period without earnings or with reduced earnings in the past 14 to 20 weeks because of illness, temporary layoff or reduction in work hours, the benefits will be reduced accordingly. Once again, seasonal workers and women working in sectors such as hotels, restaurants, clothing manufacturing, health care, etc. will bear the brunt.
.1140
The proposed reform reduces benefits from 55 to 50% for people who have claimed benefits more than once in five years. This will obviously have an impact on women since many of them have temporary jobs. There are more women than men in this situation.
Low income earners with dependent children will be able to take advantage of a benefit supplement if the family income is below $25,921. Until now, we do not know how this will work. We wonder whether the amount will be significant and what the actual criteria will be.
In fact, the only women who are likely to receive the benefit supplement are mothers who are heads of households. Even though we're happy for them, we do not feel that it is within the purview of an unemployment insurance fund to provide a family supplement to low income earners. Instead, this should be done through tax measures or more generous family support allowances.
Ms. Ouimet: Employment benefits: despite the federal government's claim that it is assisting women who want to reenter the labour force, it should be noted that employment assistance benefits will only be paid to women who received parental benefits or maternity benefits in the five year preceding the application. Women who stayed home for several years to raise their children will therefore be excluded from this form of assistance.
Moreover, we are somewhat sceptical about the effectiveness and relevance of the proposed measures. First of all, we feel that responsibility for labour force development should be entirely within Quebec's jurisdiction. In addition, some of the measures proposed could have perverse effects. For example, wage subsidies may simply become subsidies to businesses that will allow them to hire unemployed men and women without any intention of keeping them on the job.
Earning supplements paid temporarily give the message to workers that they must resign themselves to accepting poorly paid jobs compared to the ones they had before. Women in the home who recently could register in re-entry programs with financial support will probably be excluded from these programs.
We can also wonder what will happen to those community organizations that are involved with the job entry or re-entry. Many of them help a specifically female clientele and are worried about their future. Will they be able to continue to use their expertise to help that female clientele?
Finally, while this reform claims to provide more effective and personalized employment services, the federal government is closing employment centres and replacing them with automated wickets. This will certainly not help people in remote regions who are already poorly served by the government.
In conclusion, contrary to what the federal government is suggesting, its unemployment insurance reform, which is misleadingly called «employment insurance», will not benefit women nor, for that matter, the rest of the Canadian public. The government will continue to absorb its deficit through employer and employee premiums and businesses will see their premiums lowered and will hire people under any kind of conditions.
The financial and insecurity of both male and female workers will be enormous. Some will be tempted to accumulate a large number of working hours in the weeks preceding their benefit claim without regard for their health and for the preservation of a decent quality of life.
Women who work part-time temporarily or intermittently, because of their family responsibilities, will be penalized even if they are called upon to contribute more to the funding of the system.
Since in the future it will the hours that count and not the number of weeks worked, the reduction in work time and job sharing will be less attractive to workers. This to tally repeats attempts at finding solutions to the rampant unemployment problem.
To sum up, in our opinion, the federal government has missed the mark despite all the representations made by women's groups last year. In order for women to escape the vicious circle of poverty, we need active job creation measures, we must encourage young girls to go into non-traditional occupations, we must relearn to value services that provide assistance to individuals and communities, we must give Quebec complete jurisdiction over labour force training programs, we must open thousands of daycare spaces, promote a reconciliation between the demands of family and work, etc. Such measures will contribute to reducing the unemployment rate, broadening the tax base and reducing unemployment insurance expenditures.
Therefore, the Fédération des femmes du Québec wants to do everything possible to stop this unemployment insurance reform and joins forces with the Coalition syndicale et communautaire that has been established in Quebec.
The provincial groups which signed this brief are: The Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail and l'R des centres de femmes du Québec.
.1145
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to express certainly our sincerest gratitude for your expressing your point of view on this issue, and particularly its impact on women.
Madam Lalonde.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: I would like to pay tribute to the Fédération des femmes du Québec, which - I say this for the record and for the information of my colleagues opposite - this summer organized a march that mobilized the entire province of Quebec. Its theme was ``Bread and Roses'', and it brought women from all parts of the province to the capital, Quebec City. There they presented a specific, concrete set of demands. Some of which have been met, and some of which have not.
So I see the federation as the very active, real conscience of the women of Quebec. Thank you for being here and thank you for your brief.
I will be asking one of you to provide me with more details about your conclusions. You say:
- In order for women to get out of the vicious circle of poverty, we need proactive job creation
measures...
Ms Rose-Lizée: At the moment, there are not enough jobs for people. In the last 20 years, a large percentage of the jobs created have been part-time, temporary jobs. There is a disproportionately high number of women in these types of jobs.
We've always been told that women needed training in order to get into the labour market. Women did get training, they are the majority among graduates. However, we look at their entry into the labour market, we find that they are still facing discrimination.
Women have university degrees, and yet for the first ten years they are in the labour market, they work only freelance or on contract and earn less than men.
At the lower end of the scale, the situation is even worse. The types of jobs available, even for college or high school graduates, are temporary office jobs.
Moreover, the proposed reform will penalize them: their unemployment insurance benefits will be lower. Hence, when women work, they earn less, and when they are unemployed, they get lower benefits. In any case, with this reform, women will get even less particularly because they will have more trouble qualifying for benefits.
We fear that there will be even more women on welfare. The provinces, including Quebec, unfortunately, are reacting and saying that it's people's own fault if they are unemployed or on welfare. But there are simply no jobs.
So there will be an even more significant job incomeless, and there is no way out of this situation. When a person has a temporary job, it becomes harder to find a full-time job. It's a vicious circle, and women suffer more than any other group.
Ms Lalonde: You quite rightly point out the conditions respecting pregnant women. I must say that this is a criticism that should be stressed more. Do you think these provisions could have serious consequences for pregnant women?
.1150
Ms Rose-Lizée: We just made a little progress in Canada since 1970 with the introduction of maternity benefits, and subsequently parental leave for new parents.
If we compare our situation to that of the European countries we are still vert far behind. Our population is no longer growing. If we want women to make the sacrifice of stopping work for a few months or years in order to raise children... This does after all impact on their careers in the longer term. If we want women to continue to make these sacrifices, at the very least, we must give them maternity benefits to cover the delivery and the first few weeks at home with their baby.
The new legislation will make it increasingly difficult for women to get these benefits. We must remember that in the case of maternity benefits or in cases where a woman has worked only 20 hours a week during the qualifying period, the benefits will be reduced accordingly. I fail to understand why women have to be further penalized as regards to eligibility. Why should the benefits paid to women on the basis of hours of work be lower than those paid to people in longer-term positions, particularly given the fact that 40 per cent of the time, women do not choose to be in this type of job?
Ms Lalonde: I saw an article in a European magazine that listed the parental benefits in a number of European countries. There are of course significant differences among them, but I would just like to point out that in Sweden, there is 18 months of leave for each parent. For the first 350 to 450 days, parents are paid 90 per cent of his or her salary. So we are very far behind. This is an important issue, particularly in Quebec, where we have a genuine, significant demographic problem.
Ms Rose-Lizée: The problem is not just in Quebec, but through out Canada.
Ms Lalonde: Yes, but it is worse in Quebec.
[English]
The Chairman: We can always count on Madame Lalonde for an international perspective.
Mrs. Lalonde: Why not?
The Chairman: Absolutely.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: It's important to know that.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes. Thank you.
Ms Augustine.
Ms Augustine: I want to begin by thanking you for the work you do as a federation and for your advocacy on behalf of Quebec women. Also, since you made reference to the social security reform and that exercise, I want to say to you that the government has listened to the concerns of women's groups right across this country and much of what we heard, much of what came through in the consultation, found its way into the reform of this system.
We could get into numbers as to the percentage of women in part-time work and their present involvement, etc., but I want to engage you in a discussion that would more or less focus on family income. You are aware, of course, that family income does not affect an individual's basic benefits and family income testing will not reduce an individual's benefit. I want to make sure we understand that. Family income is used to determine whether there should be an increase in the basic benefit.
The question I really want to pose is does this ensure that the funds available for the family supplement, which is the increase in the basic benefit, would be targeted to low-income families with children? We're talking large numbers here, 350,000, and about two-thirds of them are women. I want to know whether we're headed in the right direction with this reform.
.1155
Ms Rose-Lizée: If this were a hearing on family benefits we would be very happy to hear something like that. We don't understand why we're linking that to unemployment insurance in particular.
The concern we had in the first round of consultations was that women's benefits would be cut off because their husbands happened to be employed, or vice versa. We're very happy that particular proposal was dropped in the second round.
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to evaluate what this new proposal is going to mean, because it's left to the regulations and it's not specified how it's going to be calculated or how it's going to be paid.
We would be very much in favour of an increase in child benefits across the board. There are all kinds of low-income families. This is one of the areas in which I do research personally. The commitment to the federal government to child benefits has declined on the order of $3 billion a year over the last twenty years. So yes, we're in favour of better child benefits, and yes, we would like to see them targeted to some extent to low-income families, but we don't see why that's related to unemployment insurance.
Ms Augustine: Again, it's a focus on the mix of benefits and the mix of benefits, it seems to me, focuses on activities that have been, so far, successful for women. You seem to be objecting to those benefits. I just want to direct you into talking about some of the aspects of this reform where there might be benefits for women. Do you see any?
Ms Rose-Lizée: Suppose you take the case of a low-income woman who, with her benefits over the year, will have an income of $15,000 to $20,000. Yes, she will benefit from this additional benefit. But suppose because she was working part-time and she does qualify for benefits but she ends up on the provincial welfare program. She won't get the benefit. If you had an across-the-board benefit for low-income families, then it would be tagged to low income and not to unemployment insurance.
Ms Augustine: Before, there was no qualification there. She wouldn't qualify. She will now.
Ms Rose-Lizée: Except the qualification period for women.... One of the things that upset me most is that I participated in the consultations last year and the two conferences Mr. Axworthy held with the women's groups, and none of these proposals, particularly using hours to calculate admissibility, were even on the table. We weren't even consulted about them. Maybe we're being consulted now.
Ms Augustine: Are you not happy about the move from weeks to hours?
Ms Rose-Lizée: If it were just the move from weeks to hours, that might be interesting. What's a problem is that the number of hours required to be worked is more than doubled for women who work less than twenty hours. That's the problem.
In other words, before, to get maternity benefits, for example, you had to work a minimum of 300 hours. Now you have to work 700 hours.
Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): No, you don't.
Ms Augustine: No, no.
Ms Rose-Lizée: Yes. I'm sorry. That's the way the law is written.
You have to be a major attachment claimant, and a major attachment claimant must have 700 hours.
Ms Augustine: Maybe what is important is some understanding of this and what precisely the reforms indicate. It's important for us to be very specific about several areas of the reform: the number of hours, the attachment, the new entrants, the re-entrants. Several things in there, in my estimation and in the estimation of my colleagues, I'm sure, are beneficial to women.
Ms Rose-Lizée: I may call your attention to part I, clause 6. There's a definition of major attachment claimant, which ``means a claimant who qualifies to receive benefits and has 700 or more hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period''.
Under parental benefits, which is clause 23.... I'm not quite sure what it is, but I think in that clause it requires that you must be a major attachment claimant to receive any of the special benefits.
.1200
Ms Augustine: I think it's important to note that at present, with the family supplement, 160,000 claimants in low-income families with incomes below $26,000 would see a substantial increase in benefits.
Ms Rose-Lizée: We haven't seen any figures on how much of an amount this -
Ms Augustine: The whole calculation.
Ms Rose-Lizée: - child benefit would be. Have you figures on how much the child benefit could be?
Mr. Nault: Up to 3% -
Ms Augustine: It's 3%.
Mr. Nault: - this year; up to 10% in the year 2001.
Ms Augustine: It's increasing.
Ms Rose-Lizée: Again, it's one of the areas I analyse. I suspect the maximum level of benefit is for a very narrow range of income.
Ms Augustine: But, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that it seems to me there are several areas we have to discuss with this organization. It's a very important organization. It represents a large number of women and people who are advocates for women. I think it's important that we follow this with them and with our experts to ensure that the details and the particulars are well understood, because we would not want to have the impression given that women are disadvantaged by this reform.
Mr. Nault: Or the result.
Ms Augustine: Or the result of this reform; they're not disadvantaged.
Ms Rose-Lizée: I just want to point out that it indicates in section 22 that to claim maternity benefits you must be a major attachment claimant, which means 700 hours.
The Chairman: Excuse me. Does the parliamentary secretary...? Would you like to clarify this point?
Mr. Nault: Which one are you on now, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: We're on the point in reference to the work attachment.
Ms Augustine: The 700 hours.
The Chairman: It's the 700 hours to receive maternity benefits. Is that correct?
Ms Rose-Lizée: Any special benefits.
Mr. Nault: Under part II of the act itself, right?
Ms Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): Excuse me. Mr. Nault, the benefits that are being talked about now are unemployment benefits, as opposed to employment benefits. What the witness is talking about is our part II benefits.
The definition section that introduces the act distinguishes between ``benefits'' and ``employment benefits''. ``Benefits'' in the act are defined as unemployment benefits. ``Employment benefits'' are only part I benefits - i.e, the employment measures that other witnesses have been talking about this morning. But the major attachment issue relates to unemployment benefits in part I.
The Chairman: Madame Rose-Lizée is speaking about the employment benefits.
Ms Hurley: No, she's talking about the unemployment benefits.
The Chairman: Unemployment benefits, okay.
Ms Hurley: She's talking about the part I benefits.
The Chairman: We will make sure that the point is clear. I think there's obviously a difference of opinion that needs to be rectified. We'll do that in short order.
I'm going to go back to the Bloc Québécois because they only used seven minutes of their ten minutes last time. So we will go to Mr. Crête for the final question, or Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: The points you have just raised are extremely important. From the beginning, the government has tried to maintain that this bill was not harmful to women chiefly because it would provide more benefits for low income women. However, the government is hiding the fact that at the moment, any individual supporting a family is entitled to up 60% of his or her salary, to a maximum of $25,000. That means that under the legislation passed by the Liberals two years ago, at the moment women who work and then go on unemployment insurance are in a better position than they would be under the proposal, which is to base benefits on family income. So that is an important point.
.1205
You also highlight another point. Under the current legislation, women, more of whom work part-time, can qualify with 15 hours of work. Because of the way the weeks are counted, they do not face discrimination based on their rates. In the future, however, women working part-time will be affected.
Of course, they say that two part-time jobs will be counted, except that if a person has only one, which is frequently the case, the impact will be considerable. My question is this: What is the Fédération des femmes du Québec plan to do to draw attention to these serious problems affecting the daily lives of women in Quebec and in Canada?
Ms Rose-Lizée: Last year, we organized this sort of coalition of women made up of 13 or 15 provincial groups to study and follow up these issues. Three of them found the time to help draft the brief we just presented. We will be informing our people and making sure the media are well informed about what is at stake. We are also coordinating our efforts with our partners in the rest of Canada to ensure that this legislation does not discriminate against women.
As I was saying, there may be a basis for a court challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[English]
Ms Augustine: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
We're not making threats here. Rather, we are trying to make the best possible piece of legislation to benefit all women in Canada. We're at the point where this is a reform. We have consultation, which means that we're asking you to help us to make this better for all Canadians. If there are basic misunderstandings, then it's important for us to continue to keep engaged in this exercise for the benefit of all Canadians.
We've done a gender analysis of this. I'm not sure if at this point in time it is public, but I'm sure that if we engage with the minister and with the staff that supports this committee, then we could look at that gender analysis and make sure that we're well informed.
We want to work together to make it the best possible piece of legislation, not begin to threaten as to what we will do.
Ms Rose-Lizée: I haven't seen the gender analysis. I appreciate your concern with that question.
Could I ask the committee to ask for a legal opinion on the question of whether or not it is discriminatory? The specific issue that concerns me is the fact that if you do, for example, 20 weeks of work at 40 hours - in other words, 800 hours - you will then get benefits based on 40 hours of work. If you do 800 hours of work at 20 hours, you might need the same number of weeks to qualify but your benefits will be based on only 20 hours of work. While the benefits are based on the real income you have during the 16 to 20 weeks that you have before becoming unemployed, the qualification period is different. The number of weeks of qualification is very much greater for those who are in part-time work.
The Chairman: I think this concludes this part.
I'll take on the responsibility of making sure that you will receive a gender analysis of the legislation. I think that will be our starting point.
Of course you have raised some important issues and have instigated some debate, which is the healthy part of committee work. We look forward to improving the legislation, taking into consideration all the points raised by all presenters.
Thank you very much.
Ms Rose-Lizée: Thank you.
The Chairman: This meeting stands adjourned.