Evidence of meeting #49 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was unemployed.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Paul Thompson  Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Erin Weir  Economist, United Steelworkers
Ken Georgetti  President, Canadian Labour Congress
Rosalie Washington  As an Individual

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

But the Canada Summer Jobs Program has not yet been indexed, as we are asking, for students who earn the minimum wage. According to a recently published report, the summer job situation for young workers is a disaster. The eligibility conditions for employment insurance are extremely difficult for young workers and for women to meet. These clients could have been included on an emergency, targeted basis in this time of crisis.

You said that you consulted the forestry sector. Whom did you consult in Quebec?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

We often participate in round tables all over Canada with different business representatives. It is not just one meeting; we have a consultation process. Often, they are...

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

Who represented Quebec at the round table?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

I am sorry, but we do not have that information with us.

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

Could you get it for us? We would like to know who was consulted in Quebec.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

We could try to find out, but in many cases, the discussions were informal.

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

You must know Mr. Chevrette in Quebec. Was he consulted on Bill C-50?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

I do not have the names, but we will do some research.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

That's all the time we have.

I want to thank the minister and the staff for coming out today and taking time to talk with us on Bill C-50.

We're going to suspend for about five minutes so that we can switch the witnesses.

Once again, I want to thank you very much.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

If I could ask the members to come back to the table, we're going to get started again.

I want to welcome our witnesses here. We have Erin Weir from the United Steelworkers. Erin, welcome today. Good to see you. Ken Georgetti is from CLC. It's good to see you again, sir. And Rosalie Washington is appearing as an individual.

What we're going to do is give you each some time to have some opening remarks, and then we'll get right to questions as quickly as possible.

I'm going to start over here with you, Erin, if that's possible, and we'll work our way to your right.

4:35 p.m.

Erin Weir Economist, United Steelworkers

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll begin with my conclusion now. Parliament should pass Bill C-50 to provide additional weeks of employment insurance benefits to thousands of long-tenured workers who will otherwise run out of benefits.

Having said that, I'd like to elaborate further on the strengths and weaknesses of this bill as well as needed employment insurance reforms beyond this proposal.

The main strength of the bill is that it would provide a projected billion dollars of further EI benefits to Canadian workers laid off through no fault of their own. We in the labour movement strongly believe that much more is needed, but I recognize that a billion dollars is quite significant.

As one reference point, I know that the parliamentary budget officer estimates that temporarily enacting a national entrance requirement of 360 hours would cost approximately a billion dollars.

So Bill C-50 is roughly comparable to that proposal in terms of the total amount of additional assistance provided.

Another positive aspect of the bill is that it's the first time since the January budget that the government has recognized the need to improve employment insurance in response to the rapid deterioration of Canada's labour market. Since this bill was introduced there have been murmurs of providing EI benefits for parental purposes to self-employed workers; therefore, I am cautiously optimistic that this bill could foreshadow further important improvements to employment insurance.

Conversely, I hope the government will not take the passage of this bill as an indication that the employment insurance file is closed.

A major limitation of Bill C-50 is the fact that the proposed benefit extension would apply only to claims established since January 4. As members of this committee will know, employment insurance claims ordinarily expire after 52 weeks. Many claims established in late 2008 have not yet expired, and I see no reason to exclude these remaining claims from the proposed benefit extension.

In order to shed more light on this difficulty, I looked at the number of claims accepted in each Canadian province before and after January 4. I would draw your attention to this statistical table that I have circulated. I should emphasize that this is not restricted to long-tenured workers, but I believe it nevertheless provides an indication of the proportion of claims likely to be excluded from the benefit extension.

Nationally, for every three claims established during the period covered by the benefit extension, there was one claim established in the period that will be excluded from the extension. However, I would also note that there are some important regional variations. For example in Canada's island provinces, for every three claims established during the period covered by the bill, there were two claims established in the period excluded from the bill.

Once again, it's just not apparent what the reasoning is for excluding these claims established near the end of 2008 that have not yet expired. That said, it is worth noting that proportionally more of those claims established in 2008 would already have been exhausted and could not have been eligible for a benefit extension in any case.

The second major weakness with the bill is the exclusion of workers who have used 36 or more weeks of EI benefits over the five years preceding their current claim. This provision is reminiscent of the federal government's attempt to impose experience rating on the EI program during the 1990s. Forestry and other hard-hit sectors suffered frequent layoffs even before the current economic crisis. Over the past five years Canadian employers have eliminated half a million manufacturing jobs; therefore, many individuals, through no fault of their own, have already had to use 36 or more weeks of EI benefits.

A point I would emphasize is that individuals who quit their jobs voluntarily or are fired with cause are already denied EI benefits. However, previous involuntary layoffs have caused some long-tenured workers to use 36 or more benefit weeks. If such workers have had the misfortune of being laid off again, why are they any less deserving of extended EI benefits? Once again, I see no good reason for this exclusion from the bill.

Beyond these specific limitations, though, there are many areas of EI reform that this bill simply doesn't touch. Fewer than half of officially unemployed Canadian workers receive EI benefits at all. This fraction should be raised, and it could be raised by making more benefits accessible through a lower entrance requirement for employment insurance.

I recognize that the government has not been particularly keen on that particular reform proposal, so I'm going to identify four other options that could enhance EI.

The first would be to end the clawback of severance benefits against EI benefits. I think this proposal is especially relevant, because it was also recommended by the task force on older workers that inspired Bill C-50.

Second, the government could extend the duration of benefits for a broader range of workers who meet the qualifications for EI but who may not meet the criteria set out in this particular bill.

Third, the government should increase the level of EI benefits. Currently EI replaces just over half of previous insurable earnings--55%, to be precise--but that is capped at only $450 per week. Clearly it makes sense to increase the level of EI benefits.

Fourth, and finally, the two-week waiting period to receive EI benefits should be removed. I would draw your attention to this letter that I've circulated, which notes that, simply to conform with International Labour Organization standards, Canada should be maintaining a waiting period, if any, of no longer than one week.

In closing, I would say that Bill C-50 is an important step forward, but many further steps are urgently needed.

Thanks very much for your time.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thanks, Erin, and thanks for keeping within the timeframe.

To the witnesses, I realize that this was an awfully quick turnaround. We really appreciate you clearing your schedules to be with us today. I just want to say thank you on behalf of the committee.

Ken, the floor is yours, sir. You have seven minutes.

October 8th, 2009 / 4:40 p.m.

Ken Georgetti President, Canadian Labour Congress

Thank you very much.

On behalf of the 3.2 million members of our Canadian Labour Congress, I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-50.

Members of the committee, I am not here today to provide you with our thoughts on the technical aspects of Bill C-50 or whether there should be amendments to improve the bill.

I am here with only one message: pass Bill C-50 quickly so that people like Rosalie Washington, who is here with me today, can get the help they need now. They deserve no less from you and your colleagues in the House of Commons.

But once you've finished that, get back to work and help the other equally deserving unemployed people in this country who are struggling daily and don't qualify for this help. People have run out of or are running out of benefits and have no prospects for work. There are no jobs out there. That's why there was a decline in the number of people receiving EI benefits in August--the benefits are running out.

We spoke to workers in seven communities across Canada this past summer. What we found was a picture of increasing despair and crisis. The people I'm describing to you are real and so are their experiences.

I'm thinking of people like Tom, from New Brunswick. He wrote me earlier this year, looking for help. He was laid off from his job on October 31, 2008. He did everything right. He took a part-time job thinking he'd quickly find another full-time job, but that didn't happen, and eventually he was laid off from that part-time job too. When he applied for EI, he learned that he was 60 hours short of the hours needed to qualify in that area.

Another young man from northern Ontario wrote to me about being deeply in debt because he couldn't find full-time work and he resorted to using his credit cards to buy the necessities like food. He said, “When I needed it most I was denied EI benefits, forcing me to seek low-paying jobs to compensate for what was required, and now my own credit has been destroyed.”

I am thinking of people like Tammy, from Oshawa, a single mother of three who worked midnights in a paint shop. “Bankruptcy is the next thing that's in order for me,” Tammy said, when the CLC spoke to her.

Are these people living beyond their means? Of course not.

Said a woman named Shannon, from Simcoe, “Have I lived beyond my means?” “No,” she said, “I've just simply lived.”

In the Miramichi region of New Brunswick, 3,100 people were thrown out of work between August 2008 and August 2009, which was a 30% decrease in the employment rate in that area. Food banks in the Miramichi are seeing a rapid rise in the need for their services. The number of residents in that area declaring bankruptcy is increasing. Many will be forced onto social assistance after their EI runs out.

For many years, our congress has sounded the alarm about the crisis that was unfolding in our manufacturing and forestry industries. Long before this financial tsunami hit full force last September, communities across this country were being devastated by an industrial crisis that had been years in the making.

At one time, the Miramichi had one of the largest pulp and paper mills in Canada, which employed over 1,000 people. Today the largest employer in that region is the hospital.

Unemployed workers in Sault Ste. Marie are facing delays in getting EI benefits. Here's what one steelworker told us. Listen to this:

We're talking about people here who can't eat, can't pay bills. It's totally unacceptable that the people have been laid off work for three months and have received so far nothing because the employer forgot to tick a box.

In Campbell River, British Columbia, the Elk Falls pulp mill shut down its kraft production in July 2008 and with it went 440 jobs. A high Canadian dollar and U.S. subsidies were cited as reasons.

The regional disparity in hours of work needed for EI is stark. Mitch, on layoff in Campbell River, said to us:

I think they need to be more fair in all the regions. Just a little north of here you don't need as many hours. They're working for the same company but they don't need the same hours we need. They get longer benefits and it doesn't take them as long.

Even in areas where the full force of this crisis is less visible, the effects are no less real. In Saskatchewan the resource revenues mask an uneasy truth. Aboriginal and first nations communities in the area say this to us:

Economic crisis? The recession? Our communities would welcome moving up from abject poverty and neglect to the status of a recession.

These are the faces of unemployed Canadians in Canada. These are the stories of people who are looking to parliamentarians for leadership and help.

The economic devastation is affecting communities in ways you cannot imagine. In Oshawa, Simcoe Hall Settlement House has watched the number of people coming through its food banks increase by 20% a month. A skilled tradesperson, a plumber, using the food bank said to us, “Never in a million years did I ever dream I'd be coming to a food bank to feed my family.”

Our congress has been on record many times before this committee on what's needed to fix EI so that it works for those it was designed and intended to help. A uniform 360 hours would be good. Longer benefits, of at least 50 weeks, in all regions so that fewer unemployed workers exhaust their claims, particularly in times of economic recession, higher weekly benefits based on the best 12 weeks of earnings before a layoff, and a replacement rate of 60% of insured earnings would be a good start.

The current EI program leaves far too many Canadians, especially women, lower-wage earners, and insecure workers, out in the cold. We're asking you to pass this bill quickly so that those people it is meant to help, long-tenured workers who have not accessed EI much in the past, get what they need now. But we're also saying you have unfinished business and there's more work to be done.

I want to remind members of this committee that since this financial meltdown brought our economy to a grind, the House of Commons has barely been in session to address the urgent needs of Canadians. In the four months following the start of the economic meltdown in September 2008, this Parliament sat for just two weeks. Parliament was dissolved on September 9, 2008, for an early and unnecessary election, and it didn't reconvene until November 18. That session was prorogued just two weeks later and did not come back until January 26 of this year.

I want to also remind the committee that workers and employers have paid over $55 billion more in premiums into the EI system during the last decade than were paid out in benefits. That's our insurance fund. The huge surplus was spent by successive governments on everything but unemployed Canadians. If the piggy bank had not been robbed, today there would be enough money for unemployed workers.

Workers paid those premiums in the belief that EI was their protection for a rainy day. That day is here. It's pouring out there, and people like Rosalie Washington aren't being helped. It's time for you to turn your attention to the job you were elected to do: protect citizens like her.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you very much, Ken.

I understand Rosalie doesn't have any prepared comments?

4:50 p.m.

A voice

Yes, she does.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Okay, go ahead, Rosalie. The floor is yours.

4:50 p.m.

Rosalie Washington As an Individual

I'm here today to speak about working for 20 years and suddenly having no job. The company closed and we're out of a job. We got a severance package, but we have to use our severance package before we get EI. I don't think that's fair. We have families, bills to pay, and we have mortgages. We have a lot of things to take care of. I don't think that's fair.

Passing Bill C-50 would be very helpful. It may not be exactly what we desire at the moment, but if we continue to work on that bill, we can go on to the next step. I'm asking you today to please pass Bill C-50, because it would be very helpful for us. I'm having a very rough time making it with EI payments that I get. It's not very much. I have three kids at home; I have a husband who works at minimum wage. I was the highest paid worker in my house. What do I do?

I'm afraid of what's going to happen in the next few months when there is no EI and I haven't found a job. I go to agencies and I register. I go online and to job sites. I've looked in the paper. I've done all I can do. I'm not giving up on looking for a job, because I can't live on EI. It doesn't pay the bills. I don't feel good on EI; I feel degraded, because I've always worked and contributed. Now it's time for help. I need help.

There are many more people out there who need help in the workplace, who have lost their jobs, who don't have enough. I'm asking you today to think about it very seriously and to please pass Bill C-50 so we can get help. Working for 20, 25, or 30 years and not having enough to take care of our families and pay our bills is not very nice. We desire jobs. We know right now that we can hardly find a job. I am willing to work at any job, as long as I can get a job. That's my point. I need a job because a job pays the bills. So please, please....

I have a 12-year-old, a 14-year-old, and an 18-year-old at home. What is going to happen to us? There are many more workers out there who have lost their jobs. Please.

Bill C-50 will help. It may not do exactly what we desire it to do, but we can work at that bill and make it better down the road.

Thank you.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you very much, Rosalie, for your story. I think you put a face on exactly what this bill is trying to deal with.

I'm going to start our first round with the Liberals and Mr. Savage. The floor is yours for seven minutes.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I think I'm going to go about three and a half or four and then pass to Madam Minna.

Thank you for coming. I want to ask if any of you, particularly the steelworkers or CLC, have done any analysis yourself of this bill. Mr. Weir, you mentioned the fact that the parliamentary budget officer indicated the cost of a 360-hour national standard was $1.2 billion, which is consistent with other economists' costs. The Prime Minister, as recently as yesterday, said it was a $4 billion cost, which is a total fabrication, proven to be an untruth but still being spouted by the government.

My concern is, how do we trust the numbers of the government? How do we know there will be $935 million in assistance, and how do we know there will be 180,000 to 190,000 people captured? Have you done any analysis of this bill, either yourselves or CLC, to see if those numbers are accurate?

4:55 p.m.

Economist, United Steelworkers

Erin Weir

Certainly I and my counterparts at other unions have tried to do that sort of analysis. One of the challenges is that the administrative data required is within HRSDC, and it hasn't been made public, for the most part. I appreciate that department officials have been before this committee, so perhaps they have shed some further light on the numbers, but essentially my best effort to shed some light on them through the available Statistics Canada data is included in the table I passed around, which provides at least some indication of the number of EI claims filed both before and after January 4.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Georgetti.

4:55 p.m.

President, Canadian Labour Congress

Ken Georgetti

I would have the same opinion based on the information we have. Erin's costing was in line with what we had. I think it would be a $1 billion cost to have a uniform 360 hours based on the calculation and the data we have available to us from HRSDC.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Ms. Washington, thank you for your testimony. I understand your view, but I also understand the view of a woman whom I met with in my riding earlier in the fall who has worked for 20 years. She doesn't qualify for any benefits whatsoever because she worked part time and she worked an average of 20 to 25 hours a week. When she lost her job--in my area you need 700 hours to qualify--she got nothing. She didn't get any EI whatsoever.

My concern about this legislation, that I would need to have cleared up, is that in my view it legislates a classification of workers, those who are deserving and those who are undeserving. We heard the minister today use terms like “those who deserve help”, “those who work hard”. People who work 20 hours a week work very hard. People who worked 40 hours a week and then were asked by their company a year ago to take reduced hours to keep the company going and then were laid off and found out they didn't qualify deserve help too.

I understand your view about passing it quickly. This committee has heard today that the minister acted on the recommendation of the Liberal Party and Mr. Godin from the other day that we should put a fixed date on this so that no matter how long this takes--and it shouldn't take very long--people will qualify as of the beginning of January. That's my problem. So many people aren't being helped, and the view of the government seems to be that they are not deserving. I think this is something that is very difficult for me to sanction. I wonder if you have a view on this.

4:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Rosalie Washington

People who work part time need to live too. It's not their fault they work part time. Sometimes there's not a full-time position so they work part time, and they have families, just like all of us.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

And they pay into EI.