Evidence of meeting #8 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was unions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
I don't think we need your paper because you are trying to explain everything here. What were your concerns regarding the regional system that does not work very well?
6:10 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
Go to New Brunswick and you'll see a province where there is a dividing line. South of the line it takes more than 610 hours to get 17 weeks worth of benefit, but if you're 100 yards north of the line, it's 300 hours for 52 weeks benefit. That doesn't seem right to me. Maybe it doesn't have to be homogeneous so that everybody gets the same benefit, but maybe there needs to be less deviation in regions and in areas.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Why we're here today is precisely because of what's been going in in our country. We know that we have some challenges, especially when I hear things about long wait times and social security tribunals. In my riding, one of the most frustrating aspects is the back and forth you go through in trying to get in touch with somebody. The phone is ringing and nobody is answering the phone. I hate to say this, but from what we understand, 650 jobs were cut from Service Canada previously, and 10 out of 12 call centres were closed.
Does anybody care to comment on how that would impact our system and some of the things that you're talking about?
6:15 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
Reasonably literate people can try to manage through a system. The system has to be available to them in order to work. If you can't get through by email, by voicemail, by the telephone, or by letter, then the system doesn't work.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you. I'm going to cut you off there. We have to grab some time as we go along for some business at the end.
Ms. Ashton.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thank you to all of our witnesses for coming in today.
I do want to first outline that many of you expressed a concern about our timeline and being told at the last minute that you had to come here. As a member of this committee, I do want to apologize to you. That's not the way it should have been. You should have a reasonable amount of time to be able to prepare, especially on an issue as important as this that affects so many Canadians.
I do have a few questions.
Mr. Marotte, many workers in the regions find themselves in trouble when their benefits run out a few weeks before their seasonal jobs start up again. That period is what they call the black hole.
What do you think the government should do to fix the problem?
6:15 p.m.
Inter-Provincial EI Working Group
Basically, it's an eligibility issue.
Take, for example, someone who works in the Gaspé region or out east. I don't like referring to people as “seasonal workers” because there is no such thing. They are people who work in a seasonal industry. The worker who fishes for a living in the Gaspé region would like to fish all year long, but unfortunately, in Canada, the weather gets cold and the water eventually freezes. Come October, the fisher has no choice but to put their boat away for the winter. They would probably prefer to fish year-round, but that's not an option. That person has worked hard in May, June, July, August, and September and accumulated many hours of work, but that often isn't enough to carry them through until the following season opens. Hence the importance of improving the eligibility criteria.
As those who represent unemployed workers' groups in Quebec, such as Mouvement Action-Chômage de Montréal, as well as many others across the country, we believe a standard should be introduced that would allow everyone to work and live throughout the year. If, for instance, someone works 35 weeks, they should qualify for at least 15 or so weeks of employment insurance benefits to carry them through to the next season.
I must confess that I am not at all objective. I ran for the NDP, and that's why I am telling you about it. Mouvement Action-Chômage de Montréal proposes that there be a single eligibility standard, under which 305 hours of work would allow someone to qualify for at least 35 weeks of benefits. That way, people would have enough to make it through the year. Whether a person loses their job in Edmonton, Saskatoon, Montreal, or Halifax, they still have to pay their rent, their electric bill and all their other monthly expenses. We no longer think the regional EI system is the right approach. It's not something that should remain in the legislation.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thank you very much.
I don't have too much time left.
As a committee we have to take your feedback and come up with recommendations. Obviously, a number of recommendations have been made outside of this committee, and I think it's important for us to hear about them. I'm wondering if I could get a quick comment on a few of these from Mr. Cohen, Ms. Guevara-Holguin, Ms. Ritchie, and Monsieur Marotte.
We've heard about the need to protect the EI fund, which did come up today. I'm wondering if, perhaps, you could speak to the importance of that.
We've heard about the need to move to a 360-hour minimum and what that would mean for many people across the country, including those who are increasingly in precarious work, including many women.
Also, perhaps you could speak about the importance of including excluded regions, such as parts of Alberta and southern Saskatchewan, which are currently excluded and which of course are suffering as a result of the downturn in the extractive sector.
Could you please share some quick thoughts on those three topics?
Perhaps we could start with you, Mr. Cohen and Ms. Guevara-Holguin.
6:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Community Unemployed Help Centre
In terms of protecting the fund, there is, with all due respect, that nasty matter of the $57 billion. We certainly want to ensure that nothing like that happens again. This was a fund that was paid into by workers and employers. The integrity of the fund needs to be maintained so that EI premiums are used for EI purposes. That's critically important. We have to ensure that remains in place.
Second, there should be consideration given to independent financing of the fund. There was an independent commission that no longer exists. There has to be some mechanism to ensure the integrity of the fund.
On the 300 hours, I know it's a position advanced by labour. Is that the magic number? I'm not sure, but I support the intent.
The intent is to create an equitable format. I think this speaks to the variable entrance requirement as well. There are far too many anomalies among the various regions in the country. I'm sure many of you have heard of situations, and we see them all the time, in which someone says, “I can qualify with 400 hours, and my neighbour across the street needs 600”. We have to develop a rational regional approach to this.
The intent of the variable entrance requirement is really to ensure some equity. Under the Employment Insurance Act, when they changed the format, workers basically required two to three times the number of hours to qualify for benefits. That was a problem, particularly for people in precarious work.
We had the lead case in the country. Kelly Lesiuk's case went to the Federal Court of Appeal. Women, who were disproportionately represented in part-time employment, failed to accumulate sufficient hours to qualify. There are some real issues around not only the hours but also the way we measure labour force attachment.
We certainly welcome and support the government proposals to eliminate the re-entrant or new entrant requirement. We think doing that would go a long way. In terms of program review, we really need to look at the issues of accessibility in order to ensure they're fair, reasonable, and just throughout the country.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
Co-chair, Inter-Provincial EI Working Group
I was just going to say that it might be worthwhile to think of targeting a higher benefit-to-unemployed rate. Currently it's at 40%. In my city, it's 21%. In Vancouver and Montreal, the largest cities in this country, the largest labour markets, it's below 30%. We used to have 70%. Maybe we need to figure out what needs to happen in the system to get those terribly low numbers back up for everybody, from coast to coast to coast.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you.
Monsieur Robillard, I'm going to cut into your time a little bit, I'm afraid. You have about three minutes.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
My question goes to Mr. Blakely.
I'll give you time, because I'll ask in French.
6:20 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
I follow very slowly in French.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I'll go slowly.
Do the claimants you represent have all the information they need to make the best decision for them when they find themselves unemployed? What resources do you give them?
6:20 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
I think the short answer to that is no. We try to give them all the information we can, but people make their decisions based on some or poor information.
I would say that the average person who is in the EI system doesn't really know what the system is about. They learn by experience, and that experience is usually bitter. A lot of our older long-term members use EI as essentially a short-term loan. They're going to make over $65,000 in a year. They will get EI for a while. They'll pay it back through the tax system. That's fine. They understand that. A significant number of other people trying to make employment decisions—i.e., do I keep this job, do I try to look for another one, can I look for a better one, can I get one with more hours—do not have a very good understanding of the system.
That is problematic. If there's blame there, the blame goes to everybody in the system.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
When the people you represent contact you about employment insurance, what do they say, generally speaking? Do they tell you they aren't happy with the system?
6:25 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
I would say that the most important thing with unemployment insurance, at least as it is presently structured, is that if you have a job, keep it—unless you think you will actually to get something else that's an absolute guarantee. Anyone who rolls the dice is in trouble, in my respectful view.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you very much, everybody. I really do appreciate all the effort from our panel on short notice. This committee definitely appreciates all of the work that goes into these committee meetings, and I want to thank you very much.
6:25 p.m.
Canadian Operating Officer, Canada's Building Trades Unions
You know what? We actually have a lot of people who are counting on you to do something here. So fail not.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
I understand. Absolutely. Thank you.
Committee, we have one piece of committee business to take care of. As you see, a motion has been distributed.
The chair recognizes Mr. Ruimy.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
I will read the motion, as follows:
That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills (a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider; (b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and (c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.