Human Resources Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Ms. Jackson, do you want to answer that?

[Karen Jackson]

The allowable earnings provision in the “working while on claim” situation was changed, but it's still there. What the pilot, as of October, put in place was this: from the beginning of a claim, for every dollar earned, there's 50¢ that can be kept, without having an impact on the claim.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

That's 50% of total allowable earnings. The previous pilot project was based on the amount of EI you were receiving. You were allowed to receive up to 40% of the amount you were making. If you were making maximum EI, you could make $195 without losing a nickel. That's the truth.

But now people are working, and it's the ones on the bottom end who are being hurt. I'm not saying this for any political gain; I'm trying to inform. Maybe your officials aren't getting it, but people are being hurt. They're asking to be paid under the table because of the change. They go out and work an eight-hour shift at 10 bucks an hour. Now they're losing $40 of that, and if you have to look after a babysitter and drive to a workplace, so much the worse. It's because of the allowable earnings provision. There must have been some kind of motivation to drop this provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. Cuzner. Your time is up.

Minister, you'll want to respond, so go ahead.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under the old system, people were allowed to earn the maximum, $75 a week, or 40% of their—

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

No, not 40%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Let the minister finish.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

It was one or the other. There was a max on it. We saw that there was a definite demotivation, discouragement, within the system for people to work beyond roughly one day. If they were at minimum wage, $10 an hour for a seven-and-a-half-hour day, that's $75. If they worked day two or day three, everything got clawed back. That was a disincentive, a major disincentive. We heard that from so many people, workers and employers alike. People were telling employers they couldn't come to work because of the EI cost.

Our goal was to make sure that whenever people work, they're better off than when they don't. Now, with the new system, people who are on claim get to keep 50% of every dollar they earn, right up through day four to the max.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'm seeing the officials shaking their heads, and they're not getting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Perhaps you could conclude your comments, and your time is up, Mr. Cuzner.

Conclude your comments, Minister, and then we'll move on to the next questioner.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

We recognized that some people were having difficulty transitioning to this new program, so we brought in provisional measures that would allow people who were on this program last year to opt in or out of the new program, whichever was in their better interests.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll now move to Mr. Butt.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for joining the committee today. We certainly appreciate your being here.

Prior to being a member of Parliament, I spent a lot of time in both the housing and the not-for-profit sectors. Minister Finley, I was just delighted to hear a couple of weeks ago the announcement on social financing. I'd like to get a little more detail on how this innovative approach will help us in dealing with the challenges of poverty, housing, homelessness, and other issues that we're all trying to come to grips with in our communities. Can you provide the committee with some greater detail on what we're hoping to achieve through this strategy?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Social financing is a new concept. It's being looked at around the world. Governments recognize that they can't solve all the problems all by themselves, and that they shouldn't have to. Quite frankly, there are a lot of people out there—individuals, organizations, not-for-profits, corporations—with excellent ideas. They are committed to providing funding to solve these social challenges, whether it be affordable housing, illiteracy, or recidivism. There is such a long list of social challenges.

We do not have a monopoly on good ideas, as a government. We want to tap into other people and say, “Hey, if we keep doing things the same old way we've always done them, we cannot expect better results. It's not reasonable, so let's try new things.” Let's hear what other people have in the way of innovative ideas to address these challenges, and let's reward them if they get results. We're taking existing funding and asking how we can leverage it better to help more Canadians get better results. I'm really quite excited about it.

A couple of weeks ago I launched the call for concepts. We're asking people to submit their ideas, very high-level, before the end of December, so that we can say, “All right, what are the things out there that we could be doing better to get us better results?”

A simple example of that would be something like the pathways to education program. That was a program that was not government-funded for many years. They were getting good results. We partnered with them. Now they're getting more of those better results right across the country, and that's good for all of us.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, and I appreciate that.

A couple of weeks ago in my riding on a Saturday morning, I held an employment skills development workshop for my constituents. Service Canada came out. We had a number of other organizations that are doing some very good work on the ground. The feedback I got from the residents who came was that they actually didn't realize there were so many support services there to help unemployed people find work--both programs that the provinces deliver as well as what we're delivering federally.

Are we continuing to look at better ways to make sure that the unemployed know about the support services there? As you say, it's not just ones that we deliver directly as the federal government, but the ones in which we're partnering at a number of newcomer service agencies. My riding is quite multicultural, and they provide support services right from basic English language training to job preparation and preparing them for the job interview.

What are we doing or what are the plans to make sure that...? Other than the MP taking some action to do that, what else are we doing to make sure that if someone is unemployed and looking for work, looking to improve their skills, they know what's available? What are we looking at on a go-forward basis to make sure our residents know about the great support services that are out there and available?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

You raise a really good point. As I said in my opening comments, one of the single biggest challenges to our future economic growth is going to be the availability of the skills that employers need, so a key focus of our government is to provide access to training, going back to school, and to help support people and families when they do that.

We brought in a number of programs, such as the labour market agreements with the provinces, for example. Those are for people who aren't eligible for EI to help them get counselling to identify a career that might be good for them, or get access to training that might be appropriate. There's funding for them if they're ready to start a new business.

We've partnered with all the provinces and territories for the labour market development agreements. We provide funding and they provide access to training and career guidance, helping to make people aware of just what supports are available.

We brought in the targeted initiative for older workers to help those 55 and over switch careers once they've lost their job through mass layoffs, as we've seen in so many cases, particularly in smaller communities. Now we're helping young people get through the barriers they have to employment.

There's a broad range of things we're doing. We're letting people know. We have advertisements or commercials on television to make people aware, and we have our websites. We work with our partners in the provinces so that they can help people who are at the front line looking for these supports and make sure that people know about them. Of course, there are also 600 Service Canada outlets right across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Butt. Your time is up.

We'll now move to Mr. Cleary for another round.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Finley, I have some questions, and my questions are actually a follow-up to some questions that Mr. Cuzner asked.

We know that there's a problem everywhere with employment insurance in terms of turnaround time and in terms of delays, which is a major problem, obviously, for people who need employment insurance. They have no other income. Your officials said that by mid-November their stat is that 80% of claims were processed within 28 days. I know that's better than it was—80% of claims were processed within 28 days.

That sounds good. Again, it's better than it was, but your officials also acknowledged that the benchmark has been changed from 21 days to 28 days. The benchmark has been increased. Your officials were asked point blank when that change was made in the benchmark, but they couldn't say when.

My question is this: why was the benchmark changed? Was it changed because you didn't have the personnel in your department to handle the claims? Is that why? Can you expand on that?

[Karen Jackson]

I can explain a bit here about how this works at the beginning of someone's claim.

First of all, when someone applies for EI, there's a two-week waiting period, so that gives you 14 days. Then, as part of the rules of the program, there are biweekly reports required from claimants. They need to inform us that they continue to be unemployed and that they are looking for work. If you think about 14 days plus seven days, that gets you to 21 days, but you've got biweekly reports, which would take you to 28 days, so I suspect that there was something in the way we were managing and delivering the program, dealing with those timeframes, that did result in the change to the 28 days.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I find it hard to believe that with all the horsepower here, as Mr. Cuzner noted, that you can't say why or when exactly the benchmark was changed.

I want to move on to another question. I only have another minute.

Ms. Finley, you backtracked, and thank you very much for doing that, on some changes to the working while on claim regulation. I'm wondering whether or not you're considering backtracking on any other changes that you've made to the employment insurance system, changes that impact seasonal workers as badly as they do in Atlantic Canada in particular.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I've been very clear when I've been in Atlantic Canada, and indeed everywhere else. Our goal is to help these people get as much work as possible. They'll be better off for it, and their families will be better off. That's why we're bringing in the connecting Canadians with available jobs assistance. It's so they can find work.

If they're seasonal workers and there is indeed no work available for them in the off season, EI will continue to be there for them, just as it always has. However, with the right to EI comes a responsibility, and this has been there for generations: the individual has a responsibility to demonstrate that they are actively looking for work and that if reasonable work is offered, they will accept it.

Again, on the basis that we want to make sure that when people work, they're better off than when they don't, we're helping them to find work. We know that even in areas of very high unemployment, there are skills and labour shortages. The communities where those shortages exist are going to be better off if people are working. We want to make sure that the EI system doesn't discourage people from working but helps them to get the jobs that are going to make them and their families better off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Monsieur Lapointe, you don't have much time. Go ahead.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Very well.

There are two things I'd like you to comment on.

First of all, I want to pick up on what Mr. Cuzner was saying. The old calculation for low income workers was more beneficial, and everyone has told us so. Under the new calculation, people are losing $20, $30 or $40 a week.

One answer touched on the matter of the three days. But in the tourism industry out east, in the winter people don't have three days. They might come in on Saturday to clean a hotel, and that's it. So you can't count on that; it hurts people.

Can you finally admit that is true, that 100,000 Canadians aren't lying when they say they're losing money under the new system? Back home, people who ask to go back to the old calculation are no longer served at the Service Canada office. They are given a form they have to fill out by hand and they have to use the telephone system. They need 20 to 30 hours a week to justify going back to the old system, at 40%.

So how do you explain the fact that these people are being treated like second-class citizens, all because they've opted for the old calculation?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

That is precisely the reason that we introduced transitional measures. If some people prefer the old system—

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Monsieur Lapointe, your time is up, but I will allow the minister to finish answering the question.