Human Resources Committee on Oct. 16th, 2018

[Rutha Astravas]

For EI sickness benefits, we do not collect data or ask the claimant the reason that precipitated their claim, so we don't have any data on how many of those claims are a result of bereavement or of losing their child. We simply know what their return-to-work date would be on their medical certificate.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you for that.

Do you know what proportion of individuals claiming sickness benefits for grief or bereavement normally exhaust the 15-week period?

[Rutha Astravas]

As I mentioned earlier, we don't collect data on the reason, but I can comment that the average duration of EI sickness benefits in 2016-17, the last fiscal year, was 10 weeks. However, we also know that approximately 37% of all EI sickness claimants do exhaust, or in other words use up, all 15 weeks of benefits available to them.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

What information or research do we have on differences between how bereaved parents of young children may use EI sick benefits and how other beneficiaries do?

[Rutha Astravas]

We unfortunately don't have that information specifically for that subgroup. These are all very important questions. We are always looking to learn more about trends and reasons for EI sickness claims, so we note your comment and your question.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you.

Has ESDC considered the benefits, costs and risks of other program approaches for those returning to work after claiming EI sickness benefits after the loss of a loved one, such as partial hours? I know of an instance in my office when we helped initiate this, but have you considered access to therapy or to reduced benefits over a longer period?

[Andrew Brown]

Let me echo what Rutha was saying there. We don't have a breakdown with respect to the reasons people are accessing sickness benefits. I can't speak to the situation of their using sickness benefits as a result of a grieving situation that renders them unable to work.

What I can tell you is that we certainly see that people make a progressive return to work in some cases. Changes were made to the Employment Insurance Act earlier this year. These are provisions known as the “working while on claim” provisions. They've been extended to the EI sickness benefit to help claimants who wish to stage their return to work.

Previously, suppose a person who had up to 15 weeks under EI sickness benefits had used 10 weeks of benefits already, so they still had five weeks remaining. Suppose that over that five-week period they worked part time; if they earned $300 a week, we would reduce their EI benefits by $300 a week. In other words, it was dollar for dollar under the old rules. Under the new rules that came in with changes to the EI Act in August of this year, they benefit from these working-while-on-claim provisions, which means that the EI benefit is adjusted by 50 cents on the dollar. If they earned $300 a week, their EI benefit is reduced by only $150 per week. The intent here is to not penalize people if they attempt a progressive return to work. This is something that has been introduced into the program to provide some more flexibility in terms of sickness benefits.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Do you feel it's working?

[Andrew Brown]

It would be too early for me to say whether it is working. We know that in the past, though, many people receiving sickness benefits.... There were about 379,000 people who claimed EI sickness benefits in that same year of 2016-17—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

How many?

[Andrew Brown]

About 379,000 workers claimed EI sickness benefits. Among them, roughly 60,000 did some work while they were receiving EI sickness benefits. That's a group that we expect would benefit from these provisions of working while on claim, but we don't know what component of that group may have been in a bereavement situation.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you for your answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Madam Sansoucy is next.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

When the sponsor of the motion, our colleague Mr. Richards, met with me to discuss it, it was clear to me that we needed to look into the subject.

I am very pleased that the study we are doing is allows us to see how we can help bereaved parents. As you pointed out, this is one of the worst situations someone can go through in a lifetime.

In fact, when we were preparing this study, people from Les Amis du crépuscule, which provides services in the Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot riding, particularly to help bereaved people, told us that bereaved parents use their services because it's a very difficult situation to get through.

I will talk about how we can help parents who find themselves in this situation.

Since the early 1990s, the government has no longer contributed to the employment insurance fund, which now consists of contributions from employers and employees.

You explained it well in your presentation: there is now a series of special benefits that meet the needs of workers. However, you also pointed out that, because of the number of hours of work that must be accumulated, only four in ten Canadians have access to employment insurance today.

Jobs are becoming more and more atypical. They are sometimes part-time, sometimes on-call. Most of these jobs are held by women. Six in ten workers do not qualify for employment insurance, and there are probably bereaved parents among them.

In this context, what program should be put in place? What reflection should this committee do to find the best way to help bereaved parents when they need it?

[Andrew Brown]

If I simplify the context of the question a little bit, I would say that there are two important aspects to consider. First, there is access to the employment insurance system. Then, it is necessary to see if the regime contains measures that can meet the needs of families in these difficult and tragic circumstances.

In recent years, several changes have been made to improve access to the EI program, particularly with respect to the provisions for new and re-entering workers.

the new entrant and re-entrant provisions. These were changes that were made to facilitate access to the program for people who were newly entering the workforce or re-entering the workforce, which often has an impact upon younger Canadians as well as newcomers to Canada.

It's true, as you indicate, that there are many people who are not able to access the program due to not meeting the hours requirement. There certainly are stakeholders who push for reducing the hours requirement, and I would point out that this is something that we expect would assist more people to qualify for employment insurance, but it wouldn't help all people to qualify.

One of the other reasons is that, as you mentioned, there are many people working in non-standard work,

People whose earnings aren't insurable and who don't contribute to EI don't receive support when they need it.

Those are some challenges for the program, I would say, in looking at how we can continue to improve access.

I think it's important to mention that there are different ways to measure access to the program. You've referred to only about 40% qualifying for employment insurance. I would just point out that this refers to the number when we count all the people who are currently unemployed in Canada, regardless of whether they have been working recently or not, specifically in the last year. We also report a figure known as the EI coverage rate, which is about 80% of people who have worked in the last year in insurable employment.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

This is what workers tell me every week. They think that because they pay into employment insurance, they will all have access to benefits if they need them.

With this in mind, have you, in your respective branches, ever considered the possibility of setting up a government program that wouldn't be funded from the employment insurance program, but that would provide these special benefits to bereaved parents to help them, whether they qualify for EI or not?

At the start of your presentation, you spoke about the primary purpose of the employment insurance program, which is to deal with work situations, while, as you said, special benefits reconcile work and personal responsibilities.

To manage these situations that affect people's personal lives and their experiences outside of work, shouldn't there be government programs dedicated to these people and shouldn't we let the employment insurance program focus on its primary mission, which is to help people who find themselves unemployed after losing their jobs? Because they contribute to the employment insurance fund every week, these people think that this social safety net will be there for them when they lose their jobs.

There are more and more people in the labour market, both members of the couple are in the labour market. So we have other responsibilities: we have to face these new realities of the labour market. Shouldn't there be government programs dedicated to special benefits?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm really sorry, but you're way over your time on that one. Maybe we can come back to that question. You're a minute and a half over, I'm afraid. We will come back. I promise that you'll get another opportunity.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

That's kind of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Go ahead, Gordie.

[Gordie Hogg, South Surrey—White Rock, Lib.]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Sansoucy. I was thinking along those same lines in terms of the issues.

It seems to me from your submissions that you've outlined an EI system that's been there, as Ms. Sansoucy said, to respond to those needs of people who have been employed, and that as circumstances have come along, you've seen different variables and there have been some adaptations.

Is that a fair portrayal of how you've evolved, in terms of a more compassionate response to some of these issues, in that you've taken a system that was basically there for professional work and have adapted it along the way? Is that a fair interpretation?

[Andrew Brown]

I think it's absolutely fair to say that there has been adaptation, and I would describe that adaptation as significant over the years in terms of the EI program today versus where it was when it began over 75 years ago. If you take a look simply at the benefits that are now paid through the program, there was roughly $13 billion paid in what we call EI regular benefits with respect to job loss in 2016-17. More than $5 billion was paid in EI special benefits at the same time.

That component, which is being paid out in terms of maternity, parental, sickness and caregiving benefits, continues to grow in importance. I think it recognizes that there's a growing importance for workers to be able to take time away from their jobs for what may be family responsibilities. The leave that accompanies the EI benefits is also important for holding their jobs so that they have something to return to.

I think there is also some logic to having the benefits within the EI program in terms of a support to the labour market, but certainly arguments have been made and could be made for removing them from the program.

[Gordie Hogg]

In your last few comments, you're starting to allude to some principles and values that have driven some of those changes. Are there some principles or values reflected in your practices, in the legislation or in the policies that come out which become the foundation?

I think that as a society we want to see ourselves as a compassionate, caring society and we want to be able to respond to the demands of those people who are under perhaps severe post-traumatic stress disorder and the challenges that come with that. Are there some values or principles that are reflected in any of that, or is it something that is operationally driven?

[Andrew Brown]

The EI program at its heart is a labour market program, so it is seeking to ensure an efficient labour market. Where it began, when it took a look at job loss, was with the idea that when people lose their jobs, they would have some kind of income support while at the same time there would be an obligation on people to look for work and to try to find new work. Over time, there have been elements of the program to support those workers as well.

There is an important provincial-territorial element that provides employment supports to help with finding jobs, with ensuring that workers know what they need to do to look for and find jobs. There is an element that is about supporting workers to get back to work.

On the special benefits side, while it does not require people to report that they're looking for work, it has the element of encouraging people to return to work after taking time away to welcome a new child to their family, for example, or to recover from an illness.

[Gordie Hogg]

If we look around the world, what type of responses do other jurisdictions have to these types of challenges that we're looking at in this study? Are there any best practices out there that we're aware of to which we could refer? Are there any references to legislative practices policy-wise, or principles and values that are reflected in ways that might provide a foundation for the study we're involved in now?

[Rutha Astravas]

In terms of what is offered by other countries, we quite frequently look at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It publishes annual reports on different types of employment, family benefits and leaves. All OECD countries offer some kind of maternal or parental leave, but only a few countries, European countries, offer a compassionate-type leave for the care of a family member or for bereavement, and those do tend to vary in duration and in terms of whether it is paid or unpaid leave. I can't comment more specifically, but the OECD does track that on an annual basis.