Evidence of meeting #50 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parents.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ministers, thanks so much for being here today.
I believe the legislation is well intended, but there are a couple of things. I was going to pursue the question that Mr. Butt posed with regard to why one goes to 52 weeks with an extension to 104 weeks and the other is 37 weeks. The answer given was, “That's when the money runs out”. Is that the right justification for ending it at 37 weeks?
Minister Raitt, you're saying that you decided to go with the 37 weeks because that's when EI runs out. Is that the proper justification for finishing it at that?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Halton, ON
Well, the decision for how long the benefits would be available was made as a policy rationale, and it matches up with other kinds of programming we have. I think Minister Finley can speak to that.
The leave provisions are there to match up to what is available in terms of income support, but an employee can always have any kind of discussion or conversation with their employer for more unpaid leave, if that's what they'd like to have.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Yes.
This was done in consultation, in cooperation if you like, to make sure that the 35 weeks of EI benefits for the parents, plus the two-week waiting period, matched up with the labour code. We wanted to make sure that we were consistent in our application. It was estimated—again, after consultation—that this was an appropriate period of time.
If you take a look at our EI sickness benefits, which are up to 15 weeks, the majority of claimants actually use less than 10 weeks. Now, we know that there are people who go over, but to meet the needs of the majority, this was determined, after consultation, to be a reasonable level to provide the support while still maintaining fiscal responsibility.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
I also share the concern about doing one under the EI system and the other as an income support. When people receive EI benefits, some can receive up to $485 a week, and others—low wage earners—may be receiving $220 a week on EI.
Again, low wage earners might not be able to take the time off. If this were done through income support, then it would sort of level the field. Currently, under this system, you might not be able to afford to take the time off if the benefit for which you qualify is only a couple of hundred bucks a week.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
This is a fixed benefit. It's determined in the program how much the parents will receive. It's not a function of insurable earnings for parents of the murdered or missing. It's a fixed amount with the grant.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
On the other one, it is a function of that, but so are regular benefits. This is meant as a supplement to support Canadian families. That's what it is. And it's within rules that would be consistent with other income support circumstances.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
But by it not being an income support, Minister, by it being based solely on income and what they're eligible for through an EI benefit, it disparages against low wage earners. Somebody who is working in a minimum wage job might not be able to afford to take that time off. Because it's an EI benefit, or it's based on their EI benefit, they may not be able to take the time off to care for their child, as opposed to somebody who is in a higher income bracket, who is eligible for a higher EI benefit.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
As I said, it is an income support. It is consistent with other income supports that are provided through the EI program.
We've tried to make sure that this is fair. We believe that's the most rational way of doing it, because if that is the level that's determined already for EI regular benefits, then this should be consistent.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Tell me, what do you think will be the average benefit that will be received by an EI recipient? Do you have that kind of number?
9:35 a.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
We don't have that number, because the benefit is not in place—
9:35 a.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Yes. In our estimation, it would be around the average amount that people receive, which is about $350, $360 a week.
9:35 a.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Yes.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Are we fearful, with the other changes that have been made—for example, working while on claim—where those low wage earners, again, combined with receiving that low wage benefit, and combined with the clawback for those low wage earners under the working while on support claim...? Do you see where they would be further penalized or placed in greater hardship under this particular system not being an income support but rather being an EI benefit?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Quite frankly, this is an income support. It is consistent with what they would get on regular EI benefits. That seemed to be the most rational way to come up with a number, to ask how we would compare it.
The issue here is providing support where they otherwise may have to take leave without pay, or, indeed, as many parents have had to do in the past, quit their job entirely to deal with this family crisis.
What we're trying to do is to say, no, you don't have to quit your job and give up all of your income—because if they quit their job voluntarily, they would not be eligible for EI.
So what we're trying to do is to say, yes, we recognize the difficulty that your family is facing, and that you may not be able to work, but rather than quit your job and have zero income, here is something that you would get if you were on EI, a comparable level, that will help you and your family cope in these difficult times.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Minister, this is going to impact 6,000 families, and you believe the staffing level you have now can accommodate the influx of applicants, so it isn't of any great concern.
You're here to speak on this, and it has received the unanimous support of the House. We're going to study this for five days with the unanimous support of the House.
Yet, there is something you indicated that a million and a half people will be impacted by, those other changes in EI. Would you be able to make some time—
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
—in your busy schedule to come back to talk to us about those changes?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Hold on. Your time is up.
Minister, if you wish to comment, you're certainly welcome to, and then we'll move on to the next questioner.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Which part of the question would you prefer, Mr. Cuzner? There were several in there.
These are changes to EI. I believe they're important changes. They fulfill a commitment that we made to Canadian families.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
But if you could make time in your busy schedule to come back to talk about the others, then I think that would be well appreciated.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Mr. Cuzner, your point has been made.
Do you wish to add anything further?
