I wonder if we can now go to the will of the committee with respect to future business. It seems to me that we have consensus that a motion regarding seniors ought to be passed, whether it's one that looks like what Mr. Vaughan presented or the original version from Mrs. Falk. We have had some discussion around the fact that we have identified an EI study as the next item.

Are we ready to enter into a discussion as to whether we in fact go forward with the EI study as the next option, or whether it should be the seniors study—whatever the scope of it might be—that is next? I'd like to get us to the point where we know what we're going to be doing on February 18.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

Just before that kicks off, I've sent a draft to MP Falk.

It's in English. My sincere apologies to Ms. Chabot.

I sent a draft in English. I wouldn't even pretend to draft it in French.

Sean, you have it as well. Perhaps you can get it to the clerk.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Madam Clerk, would it be possible to translate the motion today or will that take a little more time?

February 2nd, 2021 / 4 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Danielle Widmer

It depends on the changes. I don't know all the changes in detail. I feel that it will take a little time.

I'll take a look when I receive it.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Okay. I will send it right away.

I recognize Mrs. Falk.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Thank you, Chair.

In response to your question about priority of study, I believe Ms. Chabot's study would be five meetings. Is that correct?

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

The motion called for a minimum of five meetings, yes.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

I would support doing her EI study for the next five meetings if it meant that we did the seniors study soon after, making sure that we're doing what we need to do for seniors. I want to make sure that's on the schedule and not to have a meeting like this in between the two studies.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Okay.

That being the case, I think we have consensus on what we're going to be doing on the 18th. Mr. Kent, I believe, was the only one who expressed some reservations—okay, he's all right with it.

I take it as a consensus that the next study to be considered is the study on EI proposed by Madame Chabot and identified as a priority by the subcommittee.

Thank you, colleagues.

I see the analyst has her hand up. Go ahead.

4 p.m.

Elizabeth Cahill Committee Researcher

A five-meeting study on EI is the next priority to start on February 18. That is my understanding. I would just add that a five-meeting study on EI, given the scope and the breadth of EI, is very, very large. I'm just wondering if the committee has any advice for us in terms of when we're preparing background materials if there is a specific focus, like coverage or special benefits.

I'm just throwing out ideas. It's not to make your lives more complicated, but it would just help us to prepare for this study.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Which will help make us more effective....

There are a couple of things. We should have some comments in response to that inquiry in terms of any themes of interest within the employment insurance system that we would want to examine and have a little bit of background information on. We should also, colleagues, talk about a deadline for witness lists and briefs, and the like.

I recognize Mr. Vis on these points.

Go ahead.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you to the analyst for that very important question.

I believe that the Department of Employment and Social Development did a report about the capacity of the employment insurance mainframe to actually handle various technological updates and be able to respond to people accordingly. I think it was in 2017, and we discussed it at committee over a year ago. I think one aspect of the study, if it's so comprehensive, is the capacity of Employment and Social Development Canada to actually run the EI program—or is this going to have to be done, moving forward, through the Canada Revenue Agency? The role of government and administering the program would be one area I would like to focus on.

The second area I would like to focus on is how the employment insurance system responds to the needs of seniors, actually. I mentioned to the minister at committee that my mother-in-law has English as her fourth language. She worked her entire life paying into the system, and trying to actually navigate the system was very challenging. What can we look at to ensure that employment insurance application processes meet the needs of Canadians who do not have English or French as their first language? I think that's a timely thing to look at, in addition to what we need to review in respect of qualifying periods and regional discrepancies that are embedded in the system as well.

Thank you so much.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

I'm particularly interested in that last one, the EI zones, for what it's worth.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, I want to tell you that we really tried to make the motion concrete. Employment insurance is truly a huge subject. We want to limit ourselves to a given number of meetings. The idea is to gather testimony from people working in the trenches, from employers, employees or organizations for the unemployed, in order to determine the weak points in our employment insurance system and how they can be corrected.

As our motion states, we first want to hear from the Minister so that she can tell us what the issues are. We know that it is part of her mandate. We must take a broad view. There have been temporary measures. I feel that questions about eligibility need to be asked. Whatever the case, we must determine how our employment insurance program could meet the needs. That is our objective.

Our goal is not to have longer meetings. Also, unless it's problem with the interpretation, I'd like to respectfully point out that the employment insurance program does not concern seniors in any way. It affects workers. That does not mean I am saying that no seniors can keep working.

You know what we are talking about when we bring up the employment insurance program. Before the pandemic, it scarcely covered 40% of Canadian workers. The holes in it had to be filled up with programs like the CERB, for example. Everyone agrees that the employment insurance program must be modernized. It is important to study issues such as eligibility. That's what we need to focus on.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Ms. Gazan, please go ahead.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Understanding that employment insurance is one guaranteed income program among many guaranteed income programs that are provided, I would argue that as a result of the pandemic we've seen gaps in guaranteed income programs, whether it's rates of EI, who qualifies for EI, who doesn't qualify for EI, and the consequences of that. I would recommend that part of the study be focused on a guaranteed livable basic income.

I know there's been some research that has already been put out by the Senate on the cost savings that would have been available had they put in place, for example, a guaranteed livable basic income, rather than the high administrative costs that were part of the CERB rollout.

Although people say seniors are different, I would argue that because seniors also receive a guaranteed livable income, we need to have a more holistic study of what that looks like going forward, rather than just studying a system that clearly is not working and not looking at alternatives

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Mr. Long, please go ahead.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Thank you, Chair.

There's an idea that I wanted to comment on. With respect to MP Chabot's study, we could theme the meetings: One day would be regular benefits; the next day we could study sickness, and the next day maternity leave. We could kind of theme each of the meetings. I think that would be more productive.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sean Casey

Madame Chabot, go ahead.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

The witnesses will perhaps want to deal with the question more globally. I feel they will have a broader view of the issue. They will probably want to deal simultaneously with matters like eligibility, the income replacement rates, the number of hours needed to be eligibility for special benefits, and the employment insurance black hole. I don't think that, by slicing the problem up, we will be able to limit witnesses who want to address the issue globally, because it is all one and the same.

Ms. Gazan, with all respect, I feel that the New Democratic Party's often-stated position on a basic minimum income, a guaranteed income, or whatever form it takes, is a debate in itself. We can't get into an overall debate of that nature; it goes far beyond the employment insurance program, which was established for workers who lose their jobs. It's not intended to replace a series of social programs that exist in the provinces and in Canada. It is an altogether different debate. If you want to get into it, in my opinion, we would have to do so outside the framework of this study.