Human Resources Committee on Feb. 18th, 2021

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

I recognize that there are probably a lot of challenges. What hurdles would we have to get over in order to fully transition to a system where gig workers and self-employed individuals have full access to the EI benefits regime?

[Andrew Brown]

This is where I think, then, you'd need to think about, first off, whether this is something voluntary or mandatory. If you think about employed workers, they don't have an option. They are required to pay in.

The second thing is, really, to think about how you would assess their incomes. The thing is that someone who is a paid worker is receiving a regular paycheque, whether that's weekly or biweekly. There's a clear record of what they're receiving. The challenge, then, with self-employed and gig workers is that this may not be the case. The timing of their incomes can also vary. Sometimes they could be working consistently yet only receive a paycheque—I guess I should I say “income” or “revenue”—once a month or once every, let's say, four months.

Think about a real estate agent, for example. If you get a number of sales, you might get quite a bit of income at once. If you don't, there could be several months between receiving revenue. There's a great diversity among self-employed workers and gig workers. That's where some of the challenge comes from.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks for that answer.

I want to address the EI seasonal pilot project and ask you a question about that as well.

What was that pilot project's objective, and how does it help address the so-called black hole, where those seasonal workers' benefits run out before they're back to work?

[Andrew Brown]

As people probably know, the trou noir refers to, just as you said there, people who are on seasonal employment and qualify for EI benefits but their benefits run out before their seasonal employment returns. I think the quite low unemployment rates that we had for a number of years exacerbated that, because in times of lower unemployment, the number of weeks of benefits available is also lower.

The purpose of the pilot was really to test another way to target additional supports to seasonal workers and it was targeted in two ways. One was that the regions that had a higher proportion of seasonal workers, as well as the regions that had a higher unemployment rate across the country, those two elements, helped identify the 13 regions for the pilot. The second way was that we were trialling how we would define seasonal workers and we were looking at their pattern of employment over the last five years to determine who seemed to be making seasonal EI claims, hence meeting our definition.

Those are the things we wanted to test in terms of the ability to target this better than some of the pilots we've had in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Colleagues, that completes two rounds of questions. We have some committee business that we need to get to and we've had something referred to us, but before I dismiss the witnesses, I'm going to exercise the chair's prerogative and pose one question, probably for Mr. Brown.

I'm from Prince Edward Island where there are two of the 62 EI zones in Canada. What is the process for the review and revision of those EI zones, and does it include public input?

[Andrew Brown]

There would be an opportunity for some public input whenever a change is made, because regulations need to be pre-published before zones can be changed. However, the process for reviewing the EI zones or boundaries is actually led by the EI commission.

The last review was completed at the end of 2018. There were no changes taken forward subsequent to that. There was a new review launched. We're required to review those boundaries every five years, partly because, of course, they are used to administer the program. Once those results are presented to the commission, they might or might not make recommendations to the minister in terms of changes to the boundaries.

When we review those boundaries, we're looking at whether each of the regions is as homogeneous as possible in terms of labour market conditions and the unemployment rate. Those are the two things that we are chiefly looking at and we're trying to find the boundaries that provide labour market regions that are as consistent as possible, also keeping in mind that we need to be able to administer it, so we probably don't want to create too many different regions.

We are at 62 regions right now. There's a review in place. If there's a proposal to make any changes, that would be subject to a public regulatory review process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown, Mr. Long and Mr. MacPhee. You've set the table for the beginning of our work on this study in a very comprehensive way. We greatly appreciate what you do on a day-to-day basis and your being with us here this afternoon. Thank you so much. You are welcome to stay, but you're free to leave.

Colleagues, please hold tight. We have a few things to work through in terms of committee business.

[Benoît Long]

Thank you.

[Andrew Brown]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have probably five items that I'm hoping we're going to be able to get through. First, you will have received a news release regarding this study that we need you to approve so that we can hit send. Second, a couple of budgets need to be approved. Third, we've had a matter referred to us by the House, a private member's bill, C-220. We need to talk about that. Also, the supplementary estimates (C) have been reported to us. Those are the things I'd like to get through.

We can perhaps start with the news release. I trust you have seen the draft release. By way of background, colleagues, the fact that we are doing an examination of the EI system has prompted some interest from various groups. The clerk of the committee has been contacted. We thought it a good idea to make a public statement so that there is information out there. If people wish to submit briefs, as you can see on the press release, there's a clear public invitation there to do so.

Are there any thoughts or comments on the news release? Are folks comfortable with our doing this? It's generally something we do at the end of a study as opposed to the beginning.

The floor is open. Please use the “raise hand” function.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have read the news release, and I think it's a good idea. It announces the work and it is generating interest, as you said.

We had a list of witnesses to submit, and I think everyone submitted theirs in a timely manner. However, other people may want to come forward and send us a brief, and it's good to give them the opportunity to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Vaughan, please.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

In reviewing the witness submissions within our own caucus, it's a broad topic in terms of the way that employment has changed but clearly the system hasn't, and the computer system hasn't either. There are two challenges. EI was built for an employment structure from a generation ago, and it hasn't evolved as work patterns have changed. You can hear it as each of us describes the regional footprints of employment in our ridings. For me it's tech workers and highly paid jobs, but all on contracts that disappear when you have a bike accident. I think we need to cast the net wide, not necessarily for witnesses—I think that's where the fine tuning comes in—but in terms of the information that's out there. It would be helpful.

The one thing I would stress though is that the previous Parliament did the same study in a broad way. I believe Madame Chabot has tried to scope this a little to get at seasonal workers, in particular, but also some of the challenges that are unique to a particular resource-based dynamic as opposed to just the new ways people work. I think we need to cast that net wide. It will mean a lot of reading for us. Since we have a couple of meetings to sift through those reports, I'd say get the report out there and maybe hold off defining the witness list until we see exactly which direction we want to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Vaughan.

Ms. Gazan, go ahead please.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a couple of points, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Long brought up how archaic the technology of the EI system is, but he also mentioned OAS, other income guarantees. I know I'm belabouring this point, but I think if we're going to be looking at income programs, certainly income programs for the gig economy—we know they've been really affected during COVID—I'm hoping this committee considers having at least one witness who can present testimony on a guaranteed livable basic income. It's a concept that's accepted across party lines. I think it warrants some attention, and I think it's also particularly popular for Canadians, including 60% of Albertans.

I'm hoping that we do spend some time looking at it. I think we'll be in the pandemic for another year. A lot of people are going to run out of EI. How are we going to support Canadians? I think it is a critical discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Colleagues, I want to bring you back to the question that I'm hoping we're going to be able to resolve, and that is whether to issue this press release in its present form, to not issue it or to amend it. Can we focus on the press release?

On the time for the breadth of the study, we can deal with that, but could we just deal with the question of the press release for now?

Ms. Chabot, was that the point you wanted to raise?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

With all due respect to my colleague Ms. Gazan, I would say, at the risk of repeating myself, that these are two different things, in my opinion.

I understand what she means. However, the motion is about employment insurance reform. We want to equip ourselves as best we can, either with witnesses—and each party can invite those it wishes to hear—or with briefs. I agree with Mr. Vaughan that this will be helpful to us, given how big the issue is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Conservatives have no problem with sending the news release.

I just want to confirm that this meeting is in public and not in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It is. There was no motion to go in camera. We're in public.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

It is in public. Okay. I just wanted to confirm. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any other interventions with respect to the news release? Do we have consensus to publish the news release as drafted?

I see thumbs-up all around. We'll take that as being adopted by consensus.

On the second item, you will have received two study budgets prepared by the clerk and circulated for approval. One is in connection with the study that we have currently undertaken. It's a study budget of $3,750. Let's deal with that one first. This, as you know, colleagues, is primarily for the provision of headsets and the like, because nobody is travelling these days. The floor is open with respect to the approval of the budget of $3,750 for the EI program study. Are there any interventions, questions or comments?

Can we take the budget for this study as approved by consensus? I see consensus. It is adopted.

You have a second budget before you with respect to the rapid housing initiative study. It's the same narrative. Are there any interventions, questions or comments with respect to the budget of $2,500 for the examination of the rapid housing initiative?

Go ahead, please, Mrs. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I have one question. You mentioned that most of the cost is for headsets. Does that mean that headsets are getting sent out to witnesses? If so, how come they aren't using them when it comes time for a committee and we have interpretation problems?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'll take a run at your question, Ms. Falk, and then I'm going to pass it over to the clerk to fill in whatever I haven't comprehensively answered.

My understanding is that some of the challenges we have with respect to getting headsets to witnesses revolves around the amount of notice we give them before shipping a headset. Sometimes it can be laid at the feet of the witnesses. Sometimes it's just the logistics associated with not giving enough notice to make it happen.

Madam Clerk, do you care to correct or supplement what I've just said?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Danielle Widmer]

You were perfect with that response.

It's really a matter of the transportation of the headsets. It takes approximately three days. For places like Iqaluit, it takes up to eight business days. These are business days. Planning ahead is essential in terms of invitations and getting the confirmation organized so that we can send the headsets as soon as possible.