Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 14 - Evidence - June 4, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 4, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. to study the subject matter of Bill C- 31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, this evening we continue our study on the subject matter of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
[English]
As honourable senators are aware, there were five other committees, in addition to the National Finance Committee, reviewing the subject matter of Bill C-31. These committees have now all reported their findings to the Senate.
We've already heard from the chair and deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Tonight we will hear from the chair and deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. We're very pleased to welcome Senator Ogilvie, who is the chair and Senator Eggleton, who is the deputy chair. They will be discussing the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 6, Divisions 11, 17, 20, 27 and 30, beginning at page 140 of the bill.
I would ask our honourable colleagues to give us a bit of an overview so that we can then have a formal discussion. Senator Ogilvie, Senator Eggleton, will you provide us with an overview? Thank you very much for being here.
Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, as an individual: We are pleased to be here, and if that is how you wish to proceed then we are pleased to respond.
You all have a copy of our report, I assume, so perhaps I will highlight some of the key aspects of the elements of the divisions and then Senator Eggleton and I will discuss the observations, which are probably as much of interest to you as the primary parts of the bill. Of course, we will respond to any question that you may have.
The divisions begin with Division 11 and this is part of the Museums Act. For your information, this essentially transfers the responsibility for the administration of the programs known as the Virtual Museum of Canada and the online works of reference from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Canadian Museum of History, and it transfers with that the funding capacity that is associated with those programs. As you can see, our committee supported those changes.
Mr. Chair, would you like me to briefly comment on the observations at this point? I know Senator Eggleton will want to respond to your questions on observations. Would you like me to leave the observations until I go through each division or how would you like me to proceed?
The Deputy Chair: What would the committee members like?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do we have the observations?
Senator Ogilvie: They are all in the report you were provided. Perhaps we could do a joint presentation for you. Another option would be that I will do what I have just done and then turn to my colleague to deal with the observations. How would that be?
The Deputy Chair: That would be great. Is everyone agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Ogilvie: We have a resolution. I have summarized the change in the act and I will now turn to my colleague.
Hon. Art Eggleton, P.C., Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, as an individual: In regard to Division 11, the Museums Act change, it was supported by the committee. However, members of the committee, as you can see at the top of page 2, were recognizing that the Museum of History was getting into new areas.
These programs were previously under the jurisdiction of the department, the Minister of Heritage and are being transferred now. The Virtual Museum really means that there are things such as art galleries, art exhibition centres, botanical gardens, zoological gardens, aquariums. It's a whole lot of things that have generally not been under the jurisdiction of the Museum of History. So there was a concern by some members, in getting into this whole area of a virtual museum, that we not forget minority groups and women. Getting into all these new areas was an area of concern so that was the reason for an observation to that effect.
Senator Buth: Was there any indication that the Museum of History would not be including minority groups and women in the new museum?
Senator Eggleton: It was to add some emphasis. There were one or two members of the committee who felt that kind of emphasis should have been added.
Senator Ogilvie: Actually, it related to the access of getting funding under the programs that the museum offers. Under the definitions in the Museum Act, they are to this point required to deal with defined organizations in terms of organizations in the country that have the opportunity to apply for them, universities for example and community groups. The request from one member of the committee was that they identify a way in which women's groups and minority organizations could be identified as organizations that could be invited to apply for funding within the programs of the museum.
Senator Callbeck: You say it's transferring the administration from the Minister of Heritage to the Canadian Museum of History. Is that just for certain programs that go all across the country or is it for programs here or what?
Senator Eggleton: It's for the Virtual Museum of Canada, which has been operated by the Department of Heritage, and so that now transfers over, as well as the Online Works of Reference. The funding and responsibility for these programs are being transferred from the department to the Canadian Museum of History for administration, yes, and the consideration also of recommending grants with respect to the funding that has been provided.
Senator Callbeck: Funding that has been provided for what?
Senator Eggleton: For the Virtual Museum, ongoing funding of $4.2 million per year, and $1.2 million per year for the Online Works of Reference.
Senator Callbeck: So this is not going to affect all the programs in the Heritage department for museums across the country?
Senator Eggleton: No.
Senator Ogilvie: In fact, I think the directors were very happy to be receiving this. It puts the management in an organization that actually is dealing directly with the issues as opposed to the minister.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you.
Senator Ogilvie: That would take us to Division 17. The changes here are involved with maximizing the benefit availability to employees covered under the Employment Insurance Act and other acts. Let's take for example an individual who would be receiving EI benefits and a situation occurs in which they may have a critically ill child or there is a compassionate care issue within their family. It allows the employee to interrupt their EI benefits and to go on sickness or compassionate care benefits for the period of time allowed and at the end of that to return to EI benefits and receive the full EI eligibility.
In other words these changes to the acts are maximizing the opportunities for employees, or I should say it is allowing the employee to maximize their benefit opportunities by combining those programs that are available, such as I just indicated, and we were fully supportive of this. This is clearly an overwhelming benefit to employees.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: In fact, the entire clause refers to section 206.3(6). You will understand that we, in the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, cannot check all the sections in the acts that are being amended, because that would take an eternity. When we see the amendments, we do not see what is being changed compared to the previous situation; in this case, you have explained it. However, for section 246, and I quote: "section 209.4 of the Act is amended by adding. . ." you are assuring us that the section does in fact say:
[English]
"Prescribing the maximum number of periods of leave of absence that an employee may take under section 206.3 to 206.5." It will be a better deal after the law is passed? It's better than before?
Senator Ogilvie: Absolutely. The previous situation did not allow them to combine benefits and maintain the full limit of benefit under each category. So for example, if an individual were under EI benefits, the possibility of switching over to a compassionate care benefit or a benefit relating to a critically ill child was not available. They can switch to those benefits which are in their plan, use those, and then go back and recommence their EI to its full benefit. From our interpretation, there is no question but that this is a significant benefit to employees.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: But both of them are administered by the same organization?
Senator Ogilvie: That's correct, but they have to be allowed under law to do this change.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Technically speaking, it won't be a nightmare. They don't have to knock on many doors. It would be the same door. Temporarily they would be under one program and then after that back to the other program, but the people will be aware. We know it is difficult to have access to EI today. That is why I'm asking. I hope that, technically speaking, in the administration that this will be well introduced in the system so that people who are already suffering just to get EI — it's already difficult. We know that more than 50 per cent are refused, so I'm just asking you, it looks very generous, but if you don't have access to one, because I was wondering is it automatic that if they have EI they can have the other one, but if they have the other one not necessarily EI?
Senator Ogilvie: These are all well spelled out. They are totally compatible and my experience, having been involved in organizations that have multiple benefits, employees are well aware of benefit opportunities, and this represents a significant enhancement to them to be able to mix and match to their personal benefit.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What I was looking at was not about the employee knowing their benefit. I think very often they do. It's for the people who are doing the administration of the program.
Senator Ogilvie: I can't speak for them. I can only speak for the change in the act.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I had a question about benefits. People will be able to combine EI benefits for employees, for those who are employed. Are the provisions the same for the unemployed? In other words, can an unemployed individual on EI, without a job and who has to take care of an ill person for a certain period of time, interrupt the EI benefit period, receive compassionate care benefits and then go back on EI? In other words, this is an improvement in benefits for employees who would use that type of leave. My understanding is that, for those employees, when they receive compassionate care benefits, they could take an extended period, and so could the unemployed.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: There are two situations with someone who is unemployed. They may be simply unemployed and have no benefits whatsoever, and this does not apply to those. This applies to individuals who are receiving Employment Insurance benefits.
Senator Bellemare: For unemployment, period of time.
Senator Ogilvie: The Employment Insurance benefits are clearly defined. They are based on how long you have been working, and you become eligible for a certain number of benefits. Let's say it's 20 weeks, and the point is that if during that 20 weeks you have a child who becomes critically ill, you can interrupt your 20 weeks, take whatever eligibility you had for dealing with that and receive the benefit, and at the end of that period of time, suppose it was after 10 weeks, you can then re-enter the Employment Insurance benefit and receive the remaining 10 weeks, so you might have had a total of 35 weeks altogether, whereas under Employment Insurance you might only have had 20.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: It is therefore an improvement for EI claimants who have lost their jobs.
However, if an employee has a critically ill child and could benefit from a compassionate care leave, could the employee tell the employer that they are taking compassionate care leave and then ask for an extension, because the child is still ill, and then use the benefits accumulated under employment insurance?
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Indeed. The reason that this benefit for dealing with a critically ill child or a compassionate leave benefit exists is because when the individual was employed that was part of their benefits. So the employee has access to those benefits even if they are still employed. That's how they come to exist.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: So anyone who contributes to EI, whether they are working or unemployed, can benefit from this provision?
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: I'm going to stick to the act and what it says here, and I have explained it as best I can.
Division 20 deals with a number of issues related to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It deals with issues around temporary foreign workers, it deals with express entry issues and it deals with the immigrant investor and entrepreneur programs. These are the principal elements that are dealt with in Division 20.
Division 20 would introduce, as we've indicated in our summary, the possibility of imposing administrative monetary penalties on employers of temporary foreign workers who are non-compliant with the program requirements and will terminate the pending entrepreneur and investor immigration applications and would amend the anticipated expression of interest system for managing economic class immigration applications.
Basically it's imposing higher administrative regulations over the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. One of the important things it's doing is terminating the existing immigrant investor program with which, according to the testimony, there were very significant problems. The overall evaluation, as you may have seen in the documents you received, was that this was not a net benefit to Canada.
What it's doing is changing the direct — it isn't referred to in this way in the act — economic immigrants; that is, people who apply to enter Canada as immigrants. The existing program has a huge backlog. What they are now doing is changing the way in which that will operate to a system in which, on an annual basis, Canada will identify the skills and trades needs it believes it has. Let's say that might mean a total of 60,000 people spread across various trades and so on. It will then make that known to potential immigrants around the world that Canada is looking to take in approximately 60,000 immigrants in a given year.
Let's say 200,000 people apply. They will be ranked from highest to lowest out of the 200,000, and the top 60,000 will be invited to continue. They will then be invited to provide additional information relative to them being accepted on the initial scheme, and employers across the country will be made aware of those in that pool.
Employers will then have the opportunity to want to interact with specific individuals in that particular group, and the process will go through normal activity. By the end of a year it would be completed with the 60,000 people.
At the end of the year they all fall off the list and they start again. The next year there will be a new call for immigrants and it will move forward.
That is one of the key elements of this particular program. One of the things that Canada is doing is changing the economic class immigration to what they're calling an express entry program. This will be a fully automated process now to deal with these applications and will operate roughly in the manner I just described. Instead of having people on a list for 10 years, you'll get an answer and you'll either get accepted or you won't. That doesn't preclude you applying another year, but you don't go on a list that just continues to build. These are among the most significant changes.
Senator Eggleton, did I miss anything, from your point of view?
Senator Eggleton: This division got the most extensive discussion and the greatest number of hearings, starting with the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. That is a program in turmoil, as the minister recognized in April when he suspended the accelerated labour market opinion initiative and removal of the wage flexibility policy.
It's a program that has more than doubled since 2005. It's been around for a number of years but has really accelerated in the last few years. In 2005, interestingly, the top five were non-live-in caregivers — because there are a lot of those, too — occupations for musicians, singers, actors, comedians, producers, directors and related occupations, specialist physicians, other technical occupations in broadcasting and motion pictures.
By 2008 the top five had shifted: number one, food counter attendant and kitchen helpers, then cooks, then construction trade helpers and labourers, light-duty cleaners, and then musicians and singers which were previously at the top. This program has changed dramatically.
The committee was also cognizant of balancing the interests of Canadians and immigrants who are looking for work, making sure people who are either Canadian citizens or landed immigrants in this country have an opportunity to get jobs before we go out to get temporary foreign workers. Given that a lot of these positions can go on and on for some period of time, there is concern about what is being done to train Canadians to be able to take those positions.
In our observations we said that the labour market opinion process should be revamped to ensure that temporary foreign workers are complements to the existing workforce as opposed to replacements for the workforce. Pointed questions should be asked about employer wages, working conditions and measures taken by employers to make their jobs more attractive to people in Canada. Employers, we felt, should also provide details on the people who have applied and why they're not qualified. They are saying they can't get qualified or willing Canadians. We think more of that needs to be reported, explained and justified to help achieve the desired balance of interests.
We've also suggested enhancing enforcement and monitoring measures for employers that abuse the Temporary Foreign Worker Program should be carried out.
We go on also to talk about the need for transparency and accountability. We believe there should be more frequent and detailed public reporting on labour market opinions. The labour market opinions, or LMOs, are an area where this can be best controlled. That has not worked out well, as indicated by the minister's suspension of the accelerated program.
We further recommended that the government make public detailed information on the use of temporary foreign workers in various departments. We learned during the process of our examination of this that there are departments of the government that use the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, so we thought we'd ask them why they're doing that. The head of at least one of the employee associations felt that was not necessary. We think that all needs to be further explained. So those are the temporary foreign worker observations.
On to the question of the new program, express entry, which means people applying online. It's intended to speed things up. It has a lot of promise. The committee supports the development of the idea, but it says it would like to see the implementation details for express entry. They're still being finalized. They want to get it into effect at the beginning of next year, but we think we should be looking more at that, as well as the Immigrant Investor Venture Capital Fund pilot project. This is somewhat of a replacement for the two that had been cancelled, the Immigrant Investor Program and the Entrepreneur Program. They're being cancelled. There are a lot of people on those waiting lists, but they're being cancelled. This is at least part of the answer, apparently, but, again, we got no details on that. We'd like to see that in detail. So we've said that your committee recommends that, once instruments related to these two initiatives are published, they be brought before both houses of Parliament. Those are our observations.
Senator Buth: Thank you. I really appreciate the observations that you've provided here. It sounds like what we've faced in a lot of different areas, that the devil is in the details and that there may be additional legislation or changes to legislation that your committee discussed and might recommend.
Your comment is that your committee generally supports the changes proposed in Division 20; however, it wishes to append the following observations. So I would like to know, does your committee support the changes in Division 20? Are there any issues with the changes that have been outlined in Division 20, other than the devil's in the details and that perhaps there is more that needs to be done?
Senator Eggleton: I wasn't going to use that phrase "the devil's in the details," but, since you've used it, yes. In principle, we think it's moving in the right direction. There is still more that needs to be done, though, on the temporary foreign workers, the LMOs. Certainly, the express entry and the Immigrant Investor Venture Capital Fund sound very promising. We support them in principle, but we want to see the details.
Senator Buth: That's very helpful because, clearly, this is an issue that has been front and centre, and the minister is working on this and trying to do what needs to be done in terms of improvement of the program. If you found Division 20 to be essentially acceptable, that's really what I wanted to hear. Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: But we want the observations to be taken really seriously because there is a lot of turmoil in immigration programs these days.
Senator Buth: I understand that. We will do that when we do clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Does the committee want the observations that you have made to be included directly in the clause-by-clause consideration? That is not the way to do it. The observations are part of the report of the Social Affairs Committee and are not incorporated in our report.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: We can add the observations at the end of the bill. The bill will be tabled with all the clauses, but the observations will be attached at the end. We can actually have the observations, but they would be a supplement to the entire bill. That is not done clause by clause.
Senator Bellemare: That is not done clause by clause.
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: Our task is not to write your report. Our task is to inform you with regard to our evaluation of the issues that were handed to us. We have submitted our report to the Senate. All senators have access to it. We wouldn't, in any way, intend to try to instruct you as to how you should proceed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senator. Moving on to Division 27, are we okay?
Senator Ogilvie: Division 27 is a division that deals with amending the Old Age Security Act. It is a change that brings the Old Age Security Act into alignment with one specific, defined situation with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations were changed by Parliament from a sponsorship period of 10 years to one of 20 years. That is the change that had occurred. As a consequence of that, the Old Age Security Act needs a change in language with regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement in the Old Age Security system. As you know, that's the additional benefit related to economic circumstance. It's a relatively small amount per year, but it is a specific, separate benefit that occurs with regard to that situation.
There are two categories — parents and grandparents. We're not talking about children and other relatives. We're talking specifically about parents and grandparents who come into Canada, sponsored by their children who have already been accepted in Canada and who guarantee that they will take full responsibility for the support of their parents and grandparents for the time that they are in the sponsored category, which is now 20 years.
So what this does is say that the Guaranteed Income Supplement is not available to them until the end of the sponsorship period, which is 20 years. That's what this does.
Senator Eggleton: The committee did support this, but you notice the words "on division." So there was some concern, and, as it says here, some members of the committee expressed concern over sponsored parents and grandparents who find themselves in difficulties due to abusive situations or their sponsor's financial circumstances. We're talking about 20 years now, instead of 10, to qualify. They have to get the OAS, first of all, to get the GIS, but they would only get a partial one. You have to be in the country 40 years to get a full one, but, after 10 years, you can start to get a partial one. Actually, there are some circumstances in which you can get it less, which is another concern that I have.
The 10 to 20 has been done by the minister. We can agree or disagree with it, but it's been done. The only reviews that can occur if the sponsor falls on hard times are if the sponsor dies or is convicted of criminal activity or declares bankruptcy, those kinds of provisions. There is no provision that says well, okay, what if the sponsor runs into financial difficulty? You're talking about 20 years now. There is more of a chance that things can happen within that period of time.
Some members are concerned that there should be some consideration, some review, if a person falls on financial hard times, short of bankruptcy and short of going to prison and that kind of stuff.
The other thing that some were concerned about was elder abuse. There is elder abuse in the immigrant communities and all communities in this country. It sort of forces the person who is being abused to stay in that circumstance if they have no other financial ability to support themselves. You're talking about people who come into Canada at — I think the average age is about 64 — 60 and up, a lot of them. You're looking at a possibility that they could find themselves in an abusive situation. How do they get out of that? There is no way to review that, and some members of the committee felt that there should be some opportunity to review those kinds of situations and that these things should be easily accessible because you're talking about a lot of people whose mother tongue won't be English, who are not that familiar with the country and who are trying to get out of the situation they're in. We should make it quite accessible for them to be able to appeal their situation in some way.
The other thing is this question of the term of sponsorship. The Government of Canada — this goes back a lot of years — has a program of social support agreements with different countries, but not all countries, and not the countries where a lot of the immigration comes from nowadays. On that basis, they're able to start even before the 10 years to pay out some pension funds, because if that person has contributed in the country they came from, they can actually start earlier. But the problem, of course, is that those agreements aren't with every country and not from the countries people are coming from nowadays.
Those are concerns, as I say, from some members and while supported by the committee, it was "on division."
Senator Ogilvie: I'll just add that Senator Eggleton has made it clear there was support, as he has described, and the question of "on division" was clear. There was a division. There were those for whom this was not a concern with regard to this program specifically.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have one question, but you might not be able to answer because you are not from the department. For the Guaranteed Income Supplement, there is an income test, whereas the provinces administer welfare based on needs tests. The federal reform does not affect the welfare reform, which assists people in need. Have there been comments about that in your study?
[English]
Senator Ogilvie: I certainly don't have a comment. I'm going to stick to the changes in the legislation before us, but Senator Eggleton may wish to comment.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Officials have said that persons in need have access to other programs such as the provincial welfare program. Have you already talked about that?
[English]
Senator Eggleton: We didn't get into that, but some programs are triggered by other things. As I mentioned, you can't get the GIS unless you get the OAS. I don't know if provincial programs are like that, and of course they vary from province to province.
We're talking about people in a hardship case. How do we review those people in a hardship case, short of the very limited categories that exist now? That was the point we were trying to make.
The Deputy Chair: Moving on to Division 30.
Senator Ogilvie: Division 30 is one that the committee strongly supported and essentially this is a continuation of the examples introduced by the government with regard to recognizing the importance of trades and apprenticeship programs within the Canadian economy.
Speaking personally, as I have on many occasions, I believe this is an area of our post-secondary education that has been severely underappreciated in this country — the value of skilled trades and apprenticeship development — and Canada has suffered as a result of it. This change gives a very clear recognition to the importance of apprenticeship and trades programs, and introduces interest-free loans for apprentices in trades programs for the time that they are in the program. I'll leave it to Senator Eggleton to comment on the observation and then I'd like to add a comment as well.
Senator Eggleton: I'm sorry; I can only read the observation because unfortunately I missed this particular session of our committee.
As it says here, "The committee urges that the administration of the new loans program be flexible and responsive to the unique nature of apprenticeship programs and that the application process be streamlined such that the release of funds can be completed in a timely manner." And, finally, "Your committee would like reassurance that the apprenticeship loans program will be subject to reporting requirements similar to those of the Canada Student Loans Program."
Senator Ogilvie: Perhaps I could give you a little clarification as to how those concerns arose.
Apprenticeship programs are different than we think of in normal education programs. In university, they go from September to the end of April on a regular basis and they come out with a degree. Apprenticeship programs are much more challenging to administer overall. They often involve a situation where an individual is in an apprenticeship program and the employer has a seasonal circumstance wherein they can't handle the number of apprentices they've got. They are essentially laid off, if you like, and then brought back at a later time.
One of the issues of flexibility within a loans program such as this is to recognize that there will be interruptions in the ongoing apprenticeship and trade development program.
Second, these are individuals often without access to financial support that may be available to those going into universities. The timeliness factor here is an encouragement in that these funds will recognize that apprentices are often already married, they've got responsibilities and so on. They need that benefit soon, and you can't wait months to have a decision about the funding of the individual within the apprenticeship program.
So the committee was strongly in support of this, believed that even the creation of this will give a recognition value to apprenticeship and trades programs that will encourage people to recognize that these are valued by Canada, giving a high degree of credibility in that regard. We urge that those administering programs, often very guarded with making decisions in these areas, will come to recognize that flexibility with regard to time is really important in apprenticeship and trades programs.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: First of all, I was president of a school board where we had these apprenticeship programs for the secondary level, and I know of the system in Quebec going to another level. I was just wondering, do we have to qualify the institution or organization that will provide this training? There are some private sector schools as well. There are not just government schools when you talk about apprenticeship.
Senator Ogilvie: Absolutely. In fact, the apprenticeship program is a defined program and the institutions, indeed largely in an apprenticeship program, is an employer that has to be recognized as being capable of having apprentices within their program. All of those definitions are covered within the existing definition of the apprenticeship program. I'm not aware of any restrictions on organizations that can qualify within that, as long as they meet the requirements of an actual apprenticeship and trades program.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Would it be complementary, for instance, when people are on Employment Insurance and they need to get some new skills. Would they be informed that this kind of support is available? The first clientele I would see are those on EI and who have very little knowledge of any kind of a trade. This is a very important thing for them. That's why I'm asking.
Very often with these training and education programs, yes, there are employers and I'm aware of that, but there are many trade schools. So I would just say there would be no priority. Everybody who applies, like students in university, would be eligible if they qualify financially.
Senator Ogilvie: That's correct. The trade program is recognized and the apprenticeship program is recognized and they all qualify.
To the point you were making with regard to people entering these programs that have been laid off from some other employment circumstance, if they qualify for admission to the trade program or to an apprenticeship program, then obviously they qualify, but they have to be accepted into a program.
Finally, I would like to note as an aside that there have been significant changes occurring across the country with the trade unions to make it possible to accept more apprentices within the programs.
In this particular area, I can't speak for how it will be administered, but my suspicion would be this will be heavily advertised because the desire here is that Canada needs skilled tradespeople. We are not in a surplus situation at all. I would expect this is a program that will be rolled out with considerable fanfare and enthusiasm.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do I understand there is no limit in the budget, that everyone who qualifies will have access? Did you hear that the minister said there was a limit to how many people could apply?
Senator Ogilvie: As you know, all federal programs are totally limitless in terms of how much money the government is willing to spend. It's my understanding that there was a figure bandied around in one of the documents of approximately $100 million, but I'm not going to tell you that I know that's the exact amount of money. It is my understanding that this is considered to be an important program to Canada.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You understand it is important to know how much money is available because this will encourage labour unions and others to go in that direction.
Senator Ogilvie: We'll leave that to the Finance Committee to clarify.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have no problem. We had that in Quebec and it was working very well. I agree with you we have shortages, and we have missed the boat for a number of years by not giving the credit and also giving a bad reputation. People bragging about their daughter becoming a plumber, I never hear that when I sit with my friends. But if they go to university, it's more sophisticated. As far as I'm concerned, I would like my grandchildren to be plumbers and electricians.
Senator Ogilvie: Absolutely. The important thing is that there has not been a national financial program of support for young people to enter these particular programs. This is a tremendously important thing, and I agree that the recognition factor is not here in Canada yet. In Europe it's exactly the opposite. This is an important step.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It was working well in the 1970s, so I can tell you it existed before. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I think we've exhausted all the questions from our senators. On behalf of our group, we would like to thank Senator Ogilvie and Senator Eggleton for their thorough analysis of these particular sessions.
On that note, ladies and gentlemen, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)