Human Resources Committee on May 4th, 2016

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

Absolutely. Thank you for that.

I would just say, as a person from my region, that I went on EI to get my skills training. I became a carpenter. I used it for that, but there was enough disincentive in the program—it just wasn't affordable, frankly—to basically send me back out into the workforce. I was grateful for that, because I'd rather be working in the first place.

I have another question for Paul, but please stop me if you need to, Mr. Chair.

Can you explain the way in which EI basically augments the skills training programs in Canada? I know that's a very big question. Does it still help kids coming out of high school to get the skills training that is necessary?

[Paul Thompson]

The biggest connection between employment insurance and skills training would be the labour market development agreements. Last year $2 billion, and that amount is being increased to roughly $2.1 billion, was transferred to provinces to provide active training supports for EI-eligible clients. That's probably the biggest direct contribution of the EI program to skills development.

With respect to your comment about young people, I would note that the new entrant and re-entrant requirement has made that population of young people, which is about 50%, eligible for both the EI regular benefits as well as the associated training under EI part II, the labour market development agreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Ruimy, please.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Wudrick, a lot of people do not want to work if they're getting paid. That's a quote you just made. In fact, everything you've said about how you view the employment system is kind of scary actually, in comparing it to car insurance. Most people aren't cars. People have families. They have kids. They have homes, so that's not really a good example to compare it with. You also mentioned that they should be able to go to where a job is.

I'll give you the example of myself. I was in a hostile work environment and I left the job. I went to EI and applied for it. They turned me down. They said I didn't qualify because I had left the job, so I made a claim under the criterion of a hostile work environment. Then they said that because the company was national, I could have moved anywhere. Why would I have to move, when one person responsible for the province is creating a hostile work environment?

These are high-paying jobs. I was in a high-paying job. Why would I have to leave the province? That does not make sense to me. I never did get the employment insurance. To me, that was concerning because I worked all my life. I never received EI, and here I was being pushed into a corner. That whole situation just doesn't work for me. I don't think it's a great analogy that you used. With employment insurance, we're talking about people with families. It's not as simple as that.

Mr. Thompson, the previous government implemented changes to EI that made for stricter job search responsibilities for unemployed workers. When these were implemented in 2012, how did it impact the claimants?

[Paul Thompson]

There are different types of impacts to take into account. There is some evidence—I think it was alluded to in the presentation by Statistics Canada—about the number of disqualifications. Those were quite modest in number, but there would be impacts beyond that in terms of the rules that are set for the obligations of claimants. We don't have a specific indication of the total impact, other than that a very modest number of disqualifications came out of those regulations.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Budget 2016 proposes to reverse these changes. Could you elaborate on what that picture would look like? Specifically, how will this affect EI claimants and the EI system in general? Are you able to comment on that?

[Paul Thompson]

I can comment factually that the plan is to reverse these provisions and would take the obligations to what existed prior to 2012. There are long-standing obligations for all EI recipients to look for and accept available work, and there is jurisprudence that has come into play to define exactly what that looks like in terms of its interpretation.

I would also note that the government has indicated its intention to strengthen employer supports—job seeker supports, for example—for EI beneficiaries, using tools such as our job bank and labour market information on available jobs.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Where we are today with the Internet...? I can remember back in the day that if I wanted a job, I took my resumé and went to see the hiring manager. If I made a great impression, I got hired. That's no longer the case in most cases. How do you think this plays out overall when it comes to employing people? Where do you see a change that needs to happen there?

[Paul Thompson]

You're right again. As was alluded to in the Statistics Canada presentation, job search strategies are changing. We're seeing dramatic take-up on our national job bank. For example, we have 650,000 job seekers currently registered to receive job alerts, so we're sending out over one million job alerts a week to people looking for employment, with some fairly positive indications on the success of that. Many of those alerts are leading to individuals finding jobs. That's just one indication, and we have further plans to develop these tools to provide even better supports in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Ms. Ashton.

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

I have a couple of quick questions for the officials, and then I was hoping to ask Mr. Lewis a question. I'm certainly hoping I get through all of them.

First of all, the Prime Minister mentioned that “cold, hard mathematics” was the reasoning behind the exclusion of Edmonton and southern Saskatchewan from the relief measures included in the budget, which is obviously cold comfort to the people who live in communities that have suffered major job losses.

I'm wondering if you could speak to what the rationale was behind the 2% bar, and what studies the government produced to come up with this threshold.

[Paul Thompson]

The criteria that were set for the provision of these extra weeks involved several elements. We took a base period before the commodities downturn, since the unemployment was clearly linked to the commodities downturn. We looked at a base period of three months prior to the commodity price drop. Then over that period, we looked at those regions in the country that have seen a significant drop, defined as 2% or greater, and one that was sustained, in that it continued and didn't show signs of recovery.

That set of criteria led to 12 regions qualifying for the extra benefits that met those criteria I mentioned. That was essentially the approach that was taken.

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

We've been told that the government will be looking at expanding the relief measures to Edmonton and southern Saskatchewan. Are you doing that right now? Obviously, people on the ground are keen to see the government step up.

[Paul Thompson]

We're continuing to monitor closely the situation in all parts of the country, including these and other regions. There's a labour force survey coming out later this week that will contribute to that analysis, but there's no policy decision taken as yet on the next steps.

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

We certainly hope that will be done as soon as possible.

Moving quickly to the Social Security Tribunal, it has seen its fair share of problems over the years in comparison with the fairly efficient system it was supposed to replace. Obviously, the Auditor General's report gave some very strong recommendations on this front. I'm wondering how his report is being interpreted within your department with regard, specifically, to changes that ought to be made to the tribunal.

[Paul Thompson]

I can start, and my colleague Benoît may want to jump in. The vast majority of the Auditor General's report focused on the CPP disability side of the program, so it's outside my area of responsibility.

I would just note that a key element of the change in the appeals model was the introduction on the EI side of a reconsideration phase, an administrative reconsideration of claims before the client needs to go to a formal appeal. That was the main change on the employment insurance side.

My colleague can add to any other of the service aspects.

[Benoît Long, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Processing and Payment Services Branch, Service Canada, Department of Employment and Social Development]

I would add that the reconsideration stage has reduced appeals by 85% at this stage. That means there are fewer appeals simply because we're calling claimants directly before we deny a claim, to make sure they understand, and in case there are changes in their cases. That's helped tremendously at that front end.

Clearly, we accepted all the recommendations of the Auditor General across his review, including some changes that have to be done on the pension side. Clearly, we have worked very closely with the SST to make sure that we will do as quickly as we can whatever we can to reduce the burden and the challenges and timelines that claimants face.

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

Great. Thank you.

Mr. Lewis, thank you for speaking on behalf of a labour force that is inherently precarious and for whom, as you rightly said, changes need to continue to be made to EI so that it can support people who work in the kind of work you represent.

You had some strong recommendations on a universal threshold of around 360 hours. You talked about the protection of the EI fund.

When speaking about the issue of the social safety net, do you hear your members talk about the need for support for dental care, and for pharmacare programs? Should we be moving more towards supporting the needs of folks in precarious work?

[John Lewis]

We used to say that we were an unusual, unique industry, but unfortunately the whole employment field is turning towards more temporary, precarious work. There are a number of areas to consider. We have multi-employer health plans that address some of those issues. We really looked at the construction industry and copied a lot of what they do.

One of our members may work for seven different employers in one week. Every day it's a different employer. If you look at the more traditional forms of providing benefits, they would never fit. They would never hit whatever eligibility requirement was necessary.

I think it takes a real rethinking of how we look at employment, how we look at careers, because no one stays with the same employer, and we have to relook at all of the social safety net and how it applies, and who's actually becoming eligible for these programs.

We've been creative. We didn't wait for legislation. We just did it ourselves, because we saw a gaping hole that needed to be filled, but I think EI is just one of many areas where we have to come to grips with the precarious work where our members literally have seven different employers in one week. That is not that unusual.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

First of all, on behalf of this committee, thank you, and my apologies to all of our panellists for how this went today in terms of the amount of time we had with you. The time we did have was very informative, and I thank you all very much for joining us today.

Thank you to all committee members, and also to all team members for filling in on all sides here today.

A big thank you to the people who, as always, make sure everything works well, and of course to all of the technicians and the translators.

We're off to vote, folks.

The meeting is adjourned.