Good morning.
Unifor appreciates the invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in view of its labour market development agreement study.
We want to point out the important role that LMDA funds have played in assisting unemployed workers train for and find new employment. A tracking study of laid-off workers conducted by a McMaster University researcher documented the improved outcomes for laid-off workers who had access to training programs.
Training programs will not be successful if people who need the assistance cannot access the program. To qualify for EI part II tuition and training benefits, the unemployed worker must qualify for benefits under EI part I. However, less than four in 10 unemployed Canadians are receiving EI benefits at any given moment. This shrinking number is, in part, a result of the increase in precarious contract, temporary, and part-time employment.
Improving access to EI part I benefits will increase unemployed workers' opportunity for retraining, and ultimately, for more stable and secure employment. We support increasing access to all EI benefits by reducing the qualifying hours to 360 hours in all regions of Canada.
Unifor wants to emphasize the related need to extend EI part I benefits when a worker is in an approved EI part II program. Since it is a burden on the LMDA budgets, provinces provide only a small living allowance, if they provide anything at all. As well, it's typically family-tested, as if the allowance were a form of social assistance. Unlike social assistance, EI is not financed from public taxes. It is a social insurance program funded by weekly payroll premiums paid by workers and their employers.
EI provides income replacement for individuals, so family-income testing is not appropriate. During layoffs and closures, Unifor, actually former CAW members, usually women, were assessed very low income allowances, as low as $35 and in some cases nothing at all, because of their spouse's income. During the 1980s, workers were able to get EI—it was UI at that time—income benefits for up to two years if they were in approved training.
The lack of basic skills also represents a barrier to retraining programs, and ultimately, to sustainable employment. The extent of the problem was evident when CAW initiated adjustment programs for tens of thousands who had lost their jobs during the mass layoffs and closures that followed the 2008 economic crisis. As a result of our experience, we fought hard to ensure that Ontario's second career program included extended upgrading and literacy supports so that such workers had the prerequisites for college-level programs. Ministry staff said that they were surprised by how widespread the need for literacy and upgrading was in Ontario. Studies of the Canadian labour market as a whole have drawn similar conclusions.
The federal government is spending less than half of the maximum set out by the EI Act on the LMDAs. LMDA funding should be increased not only to address literacy and basic skills needs but also to include more specialized training programs that will lead to permanent full-time employment with decent wages. An LMDA funding increase would be financed through EI premiums paid by employers and employee premiums and not through government general revenues. Due to the current surplus, it would not be necessary to increase the premiums.
The success of training programs rests on providing workers with the skills required by employers as well as generic skills that provide workers with greater mobility in the labour market. Better collaboration is needed between stakeholders to address the labour market issues such as unemployment, training, and the rise of precarious work. A permanent federal labour market partners forum should be established to contribute to the successful training initiatives and to identify other labour market measures that are needed as part of a new Canadian job strategy. This strategy should stimulate the creation and maintenance of good quality jobs and not be limited to those in construction and resource sectors.
Provinces or territories without a labour market forum should be required to establish a forum with one of its responsibilities being an annual review and advice on how the LMDA and LMA spending priorities are made. Newfoundland and Labrador has established its own labour market committee, and the Forum of Labour Market Ministers report “Building Skills Together” highlights the Quebec labour market council.
In summary, our recommendations are to increase access to all EI benefits by reducing qualifying hours to 360 hours in all regions of Canada. This will allow more unemployed workers the opportunity to acquire the skills they need to find new employment.
We recommend extending EI part I income benefits for the duration of approved training under EI part II. Unemployed workers should have the opportunity to access training programs and still be able to provide for their children, buy groceries, and pay their rent.
We recommend expanding and insuring that EI part II funds include basic skills and prerequisites to training programs, as well as more specialized programs that will lead to permanent full-time employment.
We recommend increasing the LMDA funding to provide for these expanded programs. LMDA benefits are funded through EI premiums paid by employees and employers and would have no effect on the government's budget.
We recommend establishing permanent federal, provincial, and territorial labour market partners forums, and these forums would bring together the stakeholders, which are employers, labour, government, and educators, to shape and guide the LMDA program and a Canadian job strategy towards improving our workforce's skills and the quality of their employment opportunities.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this consultation.