Human Resources Committee on March 9th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Welcome. Thank you, everybody, for being here today. Thank you to our witnesses for joining us.

We apologize for the delay. We had a vote this afternoon as well as some very incredible special circumstances that I am more than happy to have been delayed by.

We need to move on, so I'm going to be incredibly brief in my opening. I simply want to once again thank our witnesses for coming today. I'm really looking forward to getting started with this study.

Without further ado, I can offer you, I believe, five to seven minutes for your opening remarks.

Ms. Donnelly, you have the floor.

[Mary-Lou Donnelly, Commissioner for Workers, Canada Employment Insurance Commission, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon everyone. I am pleased to be here today.

I am so happy to see that the committee is studying the employment insurance program. It's something that certainly my colleague Nancy Amyot and I have been working towards for a very long time to see changes so that the program serves the Canadians whom it is supposed to serve.

As I said, I have with me here my policy advisor, Nancy Amyot. As the commissioner of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission representing workers all across the country, both unionized and non-unionized, it is my role, my responsibility, to bring forth the views of my stakeholders to government and the concerns of workers as government develops policies and delivers programs related to employment insurance and the labour market. It is in that context that I am here today.

Much has changed in the Canadian labour market over the past number of years and it is our responsibility to ensure that the employment insurance program remains relevant to the realities of workers and employers.

I have the opportunity in my role as commissioner to meet with my stakeholders regularly across the country and I hear their concerns on a variety of issues pertaining to EI, and I can assure you that workers, unions, and advocacy groups are all very pleased to be consulted on any changes or anything related to EI.

It's important to note, and I believe that the committee members do understand this but it doesn't hurt to repeat it, that the monies that fund all EI programs come not from taxpayers but from the EI premium rate payers, not from government revenues at all, and only from those workers and employers. Because it's not taxpayers' money, it is the EI premium payers' money, it is crucial that the people paying into this fund have a say in how these funds are rolled out and managed.

In my former life, I was an educator and a teacher-union leader in both Nova Scotia and with the Canadian Teachers' Federation. As president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, I referred to all of our stakeholders as partners, even right down to the students. I believe that all of us should be working together toward the EI changes and that we should be partners and that we need to listen to each other, so I am really hopeful that these consultations will do just that, that you will take into consideration everybody's opinions and that you will make the best decisions for the EI program that you possibly can.

I want to refer to a report that was released just this past Monday in Geneva by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that examines a nation's progress on ensuring a dignified quality of life for its citizens, including issues around employment insurance. In that study, it stated that Canadians have trouble accessing EI and that the 2012 EI reforms, which reduced access and duration of claims, need to be cancelled.

I think they could have just asked me. They didn't have to go and do a study. We've been working with that for a long time.

It's obvious that in this government there is a will to make changes, and therefore, I believe we should do it right while we can, while we have that opportunity.

One of the things I hear from my stakeholders are the challenges associated with the EI sickness benefits. Currently this benefit has a 15-week duration. We've heard from many groups, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, as well as individuals and advocacy groups, that 15 weeks is just not enough when people are in dire need with their health, especially when dealing with very challenging long-term illnesses or episodic illnesses.

In fact, with the provision of the 26 weeks of the compassionate care benefit as of January of this year—which is a wonderful change—a caregiver can now have 11 weeks more of EI benefits than the person for whom they are providing the care. I think this is one of the things that absolutely needs to be looked at.

I'd like to reinforce that EI premiums are paid for by employers and employees. Employee groups are very much aware that EI funds have been used for other purposes, certainly over the past 20 years, and I cannot underscore enough the importance of keeping EI funds for EI programs, ensuring contributions are used for the purpose they were originally intended.

We fully support the enhancement and increased accessibility of regular benefits, but in order to enhance our programs we need a sustainable EI fund, one that is fluid in good times as well as in more challenging times. Perhaps it is time for a true consultation on the EI premium rate, with particular attention given to the EI premium ratepayers.

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission is currently celebrating its 75th anniversary. In September 1940, Joseph Sirois was named chairman of the new unemployment insurance commission. Just as the economic crisis of 1929 put added pressure on the Canadian government to adapt to new social and economic realities, so too did the economic crisis 80 years later in 2009, and certainly so does the current economic crisis situation in which we find ourselves. Let us ensure that Canada's employment insurance system addresses the needs of the Canadians it is meant to assist.

I've provided you a summary of the position of labour regarding the proposed changes. Unfortunately, because of time constraints we were not able to have the longer version translated, which explains our position a little bit more, but my understanding is that it will be translated and forwarded to you. Hopefully we can work from the summary, and I'll certainly be willing to answer any questions or expand upon anything in which you are interested.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much. Thank you for keeping that comment brief as well.

We're going right into questions. I believe Mr. Zimmer is up.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you for coming today.

I see that you have extensive labour experience. Which teachers' federation was it in?

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

It was in the Nova Scotia Teachers Union and the Canadian Teachers' Federation.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I would ask some questions about the eligibility requirement. You list nine recommendations or proposals or positions on the EI proposals. What hour threshold would you recommend? We've heard recommendations from other parties who would say 360 hours. We certainly don't want to decrease it so much that people want to stay home and not go to work. What is the balance, for you?

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

First of all, I'd like to start by saying that 99% of people who are on EI regular benefits do not want to be on EI. Special benefits, absolutely, but in the case of regular benefits, they don't want to be there. There's a very small percentage of people, I believe—and I hear from EI recipients every single day—who don't want to be working or looking for work.

The 910-hour threshold was so difficult. Part-time people could never meet that threshold of 910 hours. It was too unrealistic. Not enough people who were paying into the fund were able to access it.

You're right, Mr. Zimmer. The Canadian Labour Congress is one of my biggest stakeholders, of course, and their position is that 360 hours be used as a threshold. In calculating that, what they have done is look at part-time workers. They've based it on a formula of work, so that those people, when they were laid off—and we know that part-time workers are our most vulnerable workers and those are the ones who are going to be laid off, mostly, before a full-time worker.... Those are the ones who really need to be able to access EI when they're looking for a job.

That is their recommendation. Many of my stakeholders support it. I have not put a number on it. I think that 360 is very reasonable. Right now the variable entrance requirement is anywhere from 420 to 700 hours. That's separate from the 910 hours. The 420-hour threshold is very difficult for many people.

I think this is an opportunity to look at the economic regions that we have developed across the country. In 2014, when the economic regions were changed yet again and four more were added to the territories and Prince Edward Island was split up into two different economic regions, it was very difficult on all of those residents, both in the north, and I'm still hearing from them, and in Prince Edward Island.

The fact is that if you lose your job, you lose your job. You have to be looking for work, and it doesn't make it any easier once you've lost your job. It may take you only two weeks, if you're living in a region that doesn't have as high an unemployment rate, to find a job, but in that interim, within those two weeks, you have a little bit of income.

I think this is an opportunity for us to look at those economic regions to see what we can do and to make it uniform across the country, rather than have so many differences in so many places.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

It sounds to me as if you support the 360-hour threshold.

How do you square the circle to different communities that we have seen with high rates of unemployment? There is one example that I have used often. A fish plant owner—there was 12.9% unemployment at the particular time this was being quoted—is still looking for 20 temporary foreign workers because he cannot find a sustainable workforce to work in his plant. I understand you are saying, essentially, that people want to get back to work, and I certainly agree. I've been there, and I've seen that myself. How do you not establish chronic issues with temporary foreign workers being needed where there are high rates of unemployment? How do you square that circle?

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

The whole temporary foreign worker issue is related to EI. I understand that. It is not as simple as “you finish one job and there is a job there that you can do”. It's not that simple. I think that if you spoke to the people who live in these communities, you would get a better understanding of that. I know that there is a difficulty there. I know that there are probably some instances where people could go into working in those jobs. It is very difficult. Some of those conditions are very difficult. They are taken away from their families. It's too far away. It's not the type of job they have been trained for or that they are looking for. I think there are a lot of factors that come into play there, and it's not so easy just to say, “There's a job. Take that job.”

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

That's fine, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Mr. Robillard, go ahead.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Ms. Donnelly, what are the main causes of unemployment among the people you represent?

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

They are losing their jobs. There is no work for them. There are no jobs.

Is that what you're asking?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

What causes someone to be unemployed?

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

There are no jobs. That is the reality of our economy right now. There are no more jobs.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Are there specific differences between the various regions and provinces? Are we talking specifically about Quebec, Atlantic Canada, the western provinces, and northern Canada?

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

Of course there are differences. Canada is a very large country, and the situation in the Maritimes and the province of Quebec, where there are a lot of seasonal workers, is very different than the situation in western Canada, for instance. It is very difficult to compare all the regions against one another.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You still have a few minutes. Would you like to share your time or should we move on?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I could share my time—

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We are moving on, then.

Ms. Ashton, go ahead.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you very much for your presentations. I apologize that I wasn't able to be here. We are dealing with a state of emergency due to the high rate of suicides in a first nation in my constituency. I was just on the phone dealing with that.

Thank you for joining us here today. Obviously, our interest here is in getting to understand the situation that unemployed workers and people who would like to access EI are facing. In many cases, we are seeing that they are increasingly unable to. We have an accessibility rate of 40% right now, which, if we were in school, would be a big-time fail.

I apologize if I am referring to something that you may have already covered. One of the big issues that we want to hear more about is the need to protect the EI fund, which is paid for by workers and employers. I am wondering what your thoughts are about the importance of that so that it is there for workers when they need it.

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

One of our top priorities in my past four and a half years in working at the commission is to advocate for the protection of that fund. We've seen $57 billion over the last, I don't know, 20 years—I'm not sure—disappear into general revenues instead of going into the EI fund.

The purpose of EI in the very beginning, in 1940, under Joseph Sirois, was to act as a buffer between jobs, which today is what we know as regular benefits. Since then, the whole EI program has really evolved. We have special benefits and they are wonderful. We have training benefits—EI part II—and that too is wonderful. I hear from people every day who have had the opportunity to take advantage of all of those programs.

That said, the EI fund has had to increase. If we want to enhance and increase those programs.... A lot of those special benefit programs are being increased while the regular benefit program is not being increased, so we would like to see regular benefits also increased. In order to do that, you need to have a sustainable fund. You need to have a sustainable fund with a premium rate that is going to keep that fund very healthy in good times and in bad, as I said in the opening remarks. The parliamentary budget officer also recommends that there be some money in the fund for those difficult times.

The most important thing is to have the money there so that we can enhance those programs, because right know, as you said, Ms. Ashton, only 40% of workers are able to access EI regular benefits. When we see that, we look at it and say that there's something wrong there, because people are paying into that account.

We need to have a reasonable premium rate for employees and employers to pay, and we need to have a separate fund that is guarded for EI programs and that funds only EI programs.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Ms. Donnelly.

I'm not sure, Ms. Amyot, if you have any thoughts to add. No? You're fine? Okay.

You mentioned special benefits, Ms. Donnelly, and of course we've also heard much talk about the need for people with illness to be better recognized when accessing the EI fund. There is compassionate leave, of course, but that doesn't cover the actual person who's ill. I'm wondering if your organization has spoken out on the need to go ahead with this.

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

We have, actually, and one of the things I hear pretty consistently from my stakeholders is that 15 weeks is not enough for EI sickness benefits. As I referenced earlier, a caregiver can now have 26 weeks while the person whom they are looking after only has 15 weeks, so there's a kind of disconnect there. Perhaps that was an unintended consequence when that change was made, because the 26 weeks over the 52 weeks was very well received by people who needed to have that.

I think we really have to look at sickness benefits. I've heard as well from multiple organizations such as, for example, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Canadian Diabetes Association, where there are episodic illnesses. People don't need that time all at once, but they may need more time throughout the year than the 15 weeks, or throughout a two-year period or whatever it may be, because they do want to go back to work, and they should be going back to work. That often helps them in their illness in many ways, so that's one area that has to be looked at.

I think there's an opportunity here to look at the overall sickness benefits and all of the benefits that are related to sickness benefits, including PCIC, which is for the parents of critically ill children. That also comes into play there. There are also the CCB or the compassionate care benefit, regular benefits, and the sickness benefits.

As I said, I think there's a real opportunity to look at that and to make it work for everybody.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

I'm wondering if you also feel that questions around eligibility should be reconsidered, given the fact that many people are being considered ineligible. Obviously, this varies across different regions.