Evidence of meeting #53 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 families.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Maybe somebody could share with me how that benefit sort of stacks up. We make reference to the stacking. Maybe the parliamentary secretary would walk me through that.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I'm happy to do that.
I guess the primary intent with respect to the stacking is that.... In the past, an individual was seen as having an ability to have access to sick benefits or a maternal benefit—both were separate. What Ms. Kittmer was outlining was that she was not able to have her maternal benefits because she was having sick benefits. Now an individual in the future will be able to place them together sequentially. So it ends up being a longer period of time that the individual is eligible for a special benefit under employment insurance, albeit they're different special benefits.
Liberal
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Chris Charlton
Thank you very much, Mr. Cuzner.
Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. It's been a pleasure having you here this morning. Your testimony has really helped our work here very much. We appreciate you taking the time.
We're going to suspend for about five minutes to get ready for our next round of witnesses.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Chris Charlton
I'm going to call the meeting back to order.
I want to welcome Mr. Stephen Moreau and Ms. MacEwen. Thank you so much for being here to give us expert testimony on Bill C-44.
Ms. MacEwen, if you would like to go first, then, Mr. Moreau, I'll ask you to make your presentation, and then we'll do a round of questioning on both presentations at the same time.
Ms. MacEwen, you have the floor.
Angella MacEwen Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress
Thank you very much.
I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is the national voice of 3.3 million workers across Canada. They bring together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour—130 district labour councils whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canada economy, in all occupations and in all parts of Canada. I'll be focusing my comments on the EI portion of the bill.
EI is a critically important program for Canadian workers, especially in tough times like we face today. Introducing 35 weeks of benefits for parents of critically ill children is a welcome addition to employment insurance. This change recognizes that the current six weeks of compassionate care is insufficient in many cases. Critically ill family members often require substantial care, even if they are not terminally ill.
While it's not paid from EI funds, the grants of $350 per week for up to 35 weeks for the parents of murdered or missing children is also good news. However, we feel this grant shares some of the weaknesses of benefits administered through the EI system because it requires applicants to have earned a minimum level of income and to have taken time away from paid work. It should be recognized that parents of sick, missing, or murdered children face costs that go far beyond lost wages, so predicating a grant on labour market income in this situation, we believe, is problematic.
As for enhancements to employment insurance put forward in Bill C-44, we would like to note that our EI program already leaves too many Canadian workers, especially women and low-wage insecure workers, out in the cold. For most of the past 12 months, only four in ten or fewer than four in ten unemployed workers have been able to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. When adjusted for inflation, the maximum weekly benefit of $485 a week is much less than it was in 1996—about 20% less—and the average benefit now is only $371 per week.
This program is worse when we look at how it works for women workers. Cuts in the mid-1990s affecting who is eligible and the amount of benefits paid sharply reduced the supporting role of EI, especially for women. This matters because it is often women who take up the special caretaking benefits.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I ask the chair, since we are focused on Bill C-44 and are talking about critically ill children and murdered and missing children, that you request of our presenters that they stay within the scope of what we're discussing today. I'd appreciate her opinion with respect to this bill.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Chris Charlton
Thank you very much, Ms. Leitch.
The bill obviously impacts EI, so I'm going to give the witness some latitude.
You heard Ms. Leitch's concern, so please continue with your presentation.
Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress
Okay. To specify why I'm bringing this up, it is because the parents of critically ill children will need to qualify for EI, so they will fall under these same weaknesses. These are weaknesses in the EI system that will affect parents of critically ill children when they need to qualify for EI.
The EI program provides 35 weeks of parental benefits, nearly 90% of which are taken by women. Women currently make up 74% of beneficiaries for the six weeks of compassionate care. There are key EI program rules that exclude or unfairly penalize women, because they fail to take proper account of the different working patterns of women compared with men. The great majority of women do engage in paid work, but the hours they work cause them to be excluded from EI benefits, as do periods of time spent away from work caring for children, elders, or others.
One reason for the gender gap comes from the fact that to qualify for special benefits, a person must have worked in the previous year for at least 600 hours, and while women do have sufficient hours to qualify, their benefit levels are still on average $60 per week lower than men's. This is due partly to a persistent wage gap and the higher unpaid work burden that many women carry, thus reducing the number of hours they are available for paid work. On average, women work about 30 hours a week compared with men, who work over 35 hours.
Because they lack enough qualifying hours, only about half of part-time workers who lose their jobs actually qualify for unemployment benefits. Of women who are employed, 27% work part time, compared with only 12% of men.
We are also concerned that workers who access special benefits, such as parental care and leave to care for a critically ill child, are vulnerable to lay-off when they return to work. This bill stacks sickness benefits along with parental benefits, but they will still have to requalify for regular benefits if they have taken this special benefit and have returned to work and been laid off. They won't have access to EI. Allowing special benefits to be stackable with regular benefits would ensure that families who have required special benefits are not subject to financial insecurity through subsequent job loss.
The Canadian Labour Congress recommends a lower entrance requirement of 360 hours of work across the country so that more workers will qualify if they are laid off or require access to special benefits; longer benefits of up to 50 weeks; and higher weekly benefits across the country based on the best 12 weeks of earnings. In addition, a replacement rate of 60% of insured earnings would help women and their families. Reducing the entrance requirement would be particularly important in terms of helping to close the EI gender gap and ensuring that this legislation helps more Canadian families during their time of need.
Thank you.
NDP
Stephen Moreau Lawyer, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP
Thank you, and good morning, members of the committee. Greetings from Toronto, and for Ms. Leitch, greetings from Wasaga Beach, where I visited a cottage a few weeks ago.
I will be brief. I'm speaking very specifically about clauses 15 and 21, which are the clauses that deal with enhancing or clarifying the ability to provide a sickness benefit during a parental leave period. I'm only speaking to that smaller set of amendments in Bill C-44.
I should open by saying that although I'm going to speak a little more narrowly about those particular provisions, the fact that I don't touch on some of the points Ms. MacEwen makes shouldn't be taken to mean I don't agree with her. I think everything Ms. MacEwen said about the employment insurance system and some of its problematic aspects are entirely true.
In fact, the Federal Court of Appeal, in a case called Lazure, essentially echoed some of these comments that the witness made without necessarily finding a violation of what we call section 15 equality rights in the charter, but it did find that the act does disproportionately affect women in the workforce. Insofar as the committee is looking at that, what Witness MacEwen has to say is entirely accurate and should be paid special attention to.
As I said, I'm focusing specifically on clauses 15 and 21, the addition of the sickness benefit. In my view, this is a provision that on its face does call for the committee's support. I believe it is helpful to clarify in the Employment Insurance Act that an individual, and it's predominantly a woman, who falls ill during their parental leave should be entitled to claim a sickness leave benefit.
I approach this from a different perspective from most, if not all, of the witnesses who have presented to the committee. I am a lawyer, and more specifically I'm a lawyer to a number of individuals who have successfully made EI sickness leave claims during or toward the end of their parental leave. My specialty is employment insurance, and I have litigated quite a number of employment insurance cases. From my perspective, the main reason to support this bill is that through my work I've come to believe that the special benefits are of great assistance to working Canadians.
Once you start paying additional benefits to people for socially good reasons, such as caring for children, caring for relatives, taking maternity leave, or because of illness...paying people during temporary periods of unemployment does help with their return to the marketplace. It does serve the main purpose of employment insurance, which is to provide for a gradual return to the market. So I support any additional provisions that provide for additional benefits.
I want to stress, though, and you may have seen this in my brief, that while I support Bill C-44, and particularly again clauses 15 and 21 and those amendments as clarificatory provisions, the reality is that these provisions are not specifically necessary. Bill C-49 in 2002 already provided for those benefits, for the ability of individuals who fall sick during their parental leave to make a sickness claim during their parental leave. Those provisions and that interpretation of those provisions were upheld in the umpire award under the EI Act, which I provided as appendix A to my brief.
To some extent, while I support the bill as a means of clarification, I do not necessarily stand with the idea that the bill is, strictly speaking, necessary. That being said, the fact that historically the House and this committee have supported these kinds of provisions in the past is another reason why we should consider supporting Bill C-44 and in particular clauses 15 and 21.
I don't want to say anything more at this point, as I do want to leave plenty of time for questions, which I always think are helpful.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to present, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Chris Charlton
Thank you very much, Mr. Moreau.
We'll now move to rounds of questions at five minutes each, starting with Madame Boutin-Sweet.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Thank you, Sir, Madam.
Ms. MacEwen, you talked about employment insurance. To be eligible, parents of murdered or missing children have to have earned $6,500 over the course of the year, and not to have worked a certain number of hours. You mentioned that some people had a lower income. So those people will be at a disadvantage, even though their needs are that much greater because of their lower income.
For instance, a person who earns $10 an hour must put in 150 hours, while people who earn $20 an hour must put in half that number of hours.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Can you tell us what kind of amendments could be made to Bill C-44?
Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress
That's correct. Thank you for your question.
Requiring any level of income earned in the year before is really problematic. It's delivered outside the employment insurance system. It's not primarily about labour market attachment; it's primarily about supporting families during a time of need. Families need that support, whether they've worked and made $65,000 in the past year or not.
One thing you could do is base it on hours rather than money. That takes the wage inequality out of the equation. If you would base it on the number of hours worked, that would be an improvement. Eliminating the requirement for labour market attachment at all would be ideal in the case of missing and murdered children.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
By the way, I also wanted to say that I share your opinion. This money should not come from employment insurance, as there is not much money in that account as it is.
My next question is for Mr. Moreau.
In the document you sent us, it says that Bill C-44 will not allow a parent to go on sickness leave shortly after taking a maternity leave. In other words, if a maternity leave ends and, a week later, the person finds out they are sick, they will have to work 600 hours to be eligible for sickness leave. Did I understand that correctly?
Lawyer, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP
Yes, you understood correctly. That's exactly right.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Do you think that should also be changed? I feel that having to work 600 hours to be able to go on sickness leave when returning from maternity leave is too much.
Lawyer, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP
That's absolutely true. If the person works 20 or 30 hours a week, for instance, they will need from 20 to 30 weeks to accumulate the required hours.
Normally, after a pregnancy, a woman has her baby and takes care of it. The illness may come to light only after the person returns to work. Or they may realize only after returning to work that they have a health problem that prevents them from working.
That's something of an issue in law, in general. What can be done to change that? The decision-makers could consider the hours of work the woman has accumulated—we are usually talking about a woman—before her maternity leave began and decide that she needs 600 hours. That's one way to proceed. They could perhaps calculate the average hours worked over three years. That's another way to proceed. If the woman returns to work and stops receiving benefits between parental leave and sick leave, they may also say that this was in response to her employment insurance claim. There are ways to insert a sickness benefit claim after the return to work, if someone really wants to do that.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
I have a quick question for you.
Are you familiar with Bill C-362 introduced in Parliament by my colleague Ms. Charlton, who spoke to you earlier? In cases where individuals lose their job during or after a parental leave, the bill provides for the extension of the benefit period to a maximum of 121 weeks.
Lawyer, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP
I read it a few months ago, I think, but I have forgotten its exact content. I apologize for that.
However, that's an example of leave extension. The original leave, which is known to have been granted correctly, is basically slightly extended. That's one way to comply with the law without overriding employment insurance principles.
NDP
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today.
As you know, we're amending the Canada Labour Code to provide the 52 weeks of unpaid leave as well as the 35 weeks of benefits under the Employment Insurance Act for parents who are in these unfortunate situations.
Ms. MacEwen, you mentioned that you represent 3.3 million workers. Unfortunately, some of them would be going through some of these very situations we are talking about.
You mentioned 35 weeks. We can talk about coming up with an exact number, but 35 weeks would be an improvement over the previous compassionate care provisions. Can you speak to the situation some of your members are in and how accessing the 35 weeks of benefits would be beneficial in some of the scenarios workers you represent may be facing?
Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress
Absolutely. This is definitely an improvement, and it's an improvement in two ways over the six weeks. The first is that for the six weeks of compassionate care, you needed to have a note from your doctor saying that the family member was terminally ill and was expected to die within the next six months. Very often people are critically ill and require care, and in the case of cancer, for example, they would require lengthy care, more than six weeks, but they aren't necessarily terminally ill. So this would allow families to have this benefit without necessarily being in that dire a situation.
Also, the 35 weeks is much longer than the 6 weeks, obviously, so that gives you a good amount of time. We would look at that, monitor it over time, and see how it is helping our members. But I feel that 35 weeks is a really good start.