Human Resources Committee on Feb. 18th, 2021

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

Going back to my concerns about telephone services and the frontline interaction that Canadians have with Service Canada on these matters, when can we expect reasonable improvements for Canadians in the live call agent response times?

[Benoît Long]

That's a more complicated question. Obviously, more funding has added capacity, and it has helped us in being able to deal with some of the surge issues, but there's no question that these are historic levels of claims and recipients. I think we should expect it to be many months yet before we get to normal results, assuming, of course, that we don't go through multiple new waves of COVID.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

Thank you, Mr. Long.

We're going to go to Mr. Dong, please, for five minutes.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for coming to committee and answering some very important questions today.

Thank you very much and, through you, thank you to all the public servants at ESDC. I understand and appreciate the challenges and the effort you're making to meet these challenges under these extraordinary circumstances.

First, on behalf of my constituents in Don Valley North, I also want to echo the concern brought forward earlier. On the call centres and the response to individuals, it seems to be that there's a long wait on the call. Sometimes it's just a simple correction of a mistake when people are using the automated system, so any improving you can do on that front would be greatly appreciated. I just want to share that.

I want to talk first about the parental and maternity leave and benefits. We know that the government has improved these benefits in a few ways, first of all by covering 12 weeks prior to the birth for expecting moms and also by allowing parents to choose between the standard parental benefit and the extended parental benefit for 18 months and to share the parental benefit.

With these changes, what kind of impact has there been on young families and parents? Can you share some observations about the feedback you've had on these programs?

[Andrew Brown]

Thanks for the question, Mr. Dong.

On the changes to maternity and parental benefits, I think you really hit upon those there. There was the first set in 2017, which allowed parents to choose between either standard or extended parental benefits. That gave them the possibility, along with maternity benefits, to receive benefits over a longer period of time, for up to 18 months rather than 12 months.

What we've seen is that about 15% of families have been choosing the extended duration configuration. We can infer from this that they have found it is preferential for their own circumstances. We don't know the exact reasons for that. We are planning to do some evaluation work to better understand why they're selecting that, but we do believe that in some provinces it helps them in terms of some of the child care responsibilities as well, and that might be the reason they're opting for the longer period.

I should note on that one that there has also been some negative feedback around one aspect, which is that over the longer period of 18 months, people receive a lower benefit rate, of course. Some questions have been raised as to whether it's sufficient. What people receive is effectively the same amount of benefits, but over a longer period of time.

The second thing, just very quickly, is in terms of the new parental sharing benefit that was introduced in 2019 and made available to a second parent some five weeks of benefits that were reserved. In many cases, of course, as we still traditionally see, women and mothers are taking the majority of parental benefits, so this often means that it's for a father, and we have started to see an uptake in terms of the parental benefit by fathers. This is one of the things that we're really keen to keep watching in coming years to see if that grows further.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Do you have any advice on how these programs can be improved, because we've heard some reports that, with the COVID years, we're expecting a significant increase in childbirth in the coming years?

[Andrew Brown]

There are things to watch out for here. We pay attention to what the academics are talking about in terms of these programs, as well as supports to families and maintaining a connection to work after that period of leave. They've often pushed for a higher replacement rate in that area. The other thing that they have pushed for is easier access in the case of maternity and parental benefits.

One thing that's important to keep in mind right now, in this temporary EI that we're working through, is that the access requirements are much lower at the moment, in order to help people to access the program. As was raised earlier, those temporary measures will be expiring at the end of September.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

This program is very important for gender equality so keep up the good work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Dong.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Last spring, at the height of the crisis, the Honourable Minister Duclos, President of the Treasury Board, said that reform of the employment insurance program was long overdue. Now we have an opportunity to do it. In fact, we will be doing a great deal of work and closely studying this reform until September.

Mr. Brown, are you currently thinking about or working to improve any particular factors ?

All the IT and innovation issues are involved, but I'm actually talking about issues related to the current programs.

[Andrew Brown]

Again, thank you for the question, Madame Chabot.

I would say that we're looking at a number of things. One thing is that, in our minister's mandate letter, there is quite a list of different commitments that the government has made. We've heard already about the proposal to extend the sickness benefit from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. We're also looking at how we might make progress on the other items in that mandate letter, things that would look at the supports that are provided to workers in seasonal employment and issues that we've heard there about consistent access to benefits. As I mentioned before, one of the things is certainly that 40% and looking at access to the program.

We're trying to look very broadly. Of course, it'll be the government that will need to decide how to take things forward, but I would say that we are really trying to look at what can be put in place in terms of supports for workers. We're also thinking about the connection to what's often called “part two” of the program. These are the labour market transfer agreements with provinces and territories.

These agreements therefore support training. The other measures help workers return to work. So we have not only the income support aspect, but also the support to facilitate returning to work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Next we have Ms. Gazan, please, for two and a half minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next question is in regard to gig workers. We know that gig workers have been gutted by COVID. I represent a riding where we have a very dynamic and talented arts community that has just been gutted as a result of COVID. We know that, even during the pandemic, and knowing all of this [Technical difficulty—Editor] left behind, even from being included in programs, and I know there have been some exceptions made. It's not good enough. I'm wondering if the ESDC will be taking any steps to expand benefits for gig workers.

[Andrew Brown]

Thanks for that question as well, Ms. Gazan.

We are absolutely looking at what can be done for gig workers in the future. This is part of the commitment to take a look at EI for the 21st century and to think about how to provide support to self-employed workers and gig workers. Specifically, we're also trying to understand what has worked or not worked in terms of CERB and the Canada recovery benefit. This was, as you know, really the first time that we've tried to provide support to a different group of workers, people other than those who are receiving a regular paycheque. It's certainly a challenging area.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes. I say this—I have limited time here—because although you're researching it, people need help now. We've been in the pandemic for a year. We've had a year to review programs to ensure that gig workers have what they need to survive. That's clearly not happening.

I'm very concerned with your response, because we need immediate action. Are there any plans for immediate action to protect people working in the gig economy?

[Andrew Brown]

Again, I'm able to speak to the sorts of income supports that are available. Somebody who's a gig worker who has met the $5,000 requirement in terms of income in 2019 or 2020 would be able to access the Canada recovery benefits. In terms of what's happening as they're continuing to work, that's not an area I'd be able to comment on.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's also concerning, let me add, because there have been all sorts of issues around what that $5,000 meant and who qualified or not. I'm glad the government is now loosening the strings on making people pay that back, but moving forward, what will that look like? It's just been very unclear. I know it has caused a lot of stress for many people in my riding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

Mr. Tochor, you have five minutes, please.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I share some of the concerns of MP Gazan about people's lives being at stake here. They're looking for EI benefits that they have earned and have paid for. I'm a little concerned with the direction we're going, doing another study on this, or working on a study, without going back to the last larger study on EI back in June 2016 of the 42 Parliament, entitled “Exploring the Impact of Recent Changes to Employment Insurance and Ways to Improve Access to the Program”. That's the study I'd like to talk about.

The number one recommendation—I think it's very fitting that we talk about the first recommendation, which is going to be important during a pandemic—is as follows:

The Committee recommends that the federal government review the eligibility requirement for “valid job separation” to allow employment insurance claimants who find a new job during the benefits period to retain their EI benefits should the employment not be suitable.

In the context, I'm worried about the families and individuals out there who may have lost a job, unfortunately, because of the restrictions out there, or who claim EI, find another job, but then are out of work when maybe another lockdown occurs in their province. I'd like to hear an update on the number one recommendation from that report.

Has the EI program added to the flexibility so that these workers don't fall through the cracks?

[Andrew Brown]

Since the last report, there were some adjustments in terms of the job search requirements while people were receiving EI. That was actually to return to an earlier set of rules prior to some measures that were taken in 2013, referred to often as “connecting Canadians with available jobs”. There were some adjustments there.

In terms of that specific requirement to make adjustments to what are considered valid job separations, that has not changed. It is true that in a layoff, let's call it, if someone receiving EI regular benefits then finds a new job, takes that new job and then quits that job, they would no longer be eligible for EI benefits. I believe that's the sort of situation this is raising. If that person is laid off, they still are eligible. That's a different sort of situation. Valid job separation is always referring to the nature of the way in which they leave that employment, so—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

It's no fault on you, but it's been five years. The number one recommendation out of this report hasn't been acted upon. Now we find ourselves in a pandemic. There have been questions for the Liberal minister over the years on why that recommendation hasn't been fulfilled. There are people falling through the cracks because the recommendation of a study wasn't followed. I'm a little disappointed in that, but once again, that's not on you guys, per se, it's more on, I believe, the policy coming out of the government.

Changing gears a little bit on the people who have fallen through the cracks and the families who've had difficulties during this pandemic, after the initial rush in March of people applying for EI, I understand that the government deployed something like 3,000 Service Canada employees to help get through the call volume. To quote a CBC article from May 7, “Clearly that hasn't been enough”.

Was that a failure of simply assigning insufficient resources, or were there technical limitations that kept Service Canada from assigning sufficient staff?

[Benoît Long]

I can start, and then perhaps Michael can come in.

l would say, first, that the department responded extraordinarily quickly. We had a few hundred people who could work remotely in the first week of the pandemic. Within about six weeks, we had 28,000 online, working from home. I think what you are seeing is a department that was quickly able to deploy both technology and equipment to its employees. To put 3,000 people quickly into that mode was quite rapid for us. We had never done that before.

Of course, it's not enough, but it's really because of the historical demand and the wave that hit the department. We don't believe that there was anything more...than what we actually did accomplish.

The challenge is how to sustain this. We have people working from home in every part of the country. In the context of call centres, we have to train people. They have to be able to answer questions. People would get extremely aggravated if they were calling and the people they were reaching could not answer their questions. Not everyone is an EI agent nor is everyone a pension agent. I don't mean to say that we have done enough. Certainly, we did our very best, and we also acted quite quickly.

The technology, itself, was deployed relatively rapidly because investments in that specific technology had been made a year or two before. Without modern technology and telephony, we would have been completely unable to respond to this pandemic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Long and Mr. Tochor.

Finally, we will go to Mr. Turnbull, please, for five minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here. I want to echo the comments of my colleague, Mr. Dong, in terms of thanking you for your hard work. I really appreciate all of the work that you must be putting in at a time when Canadians really need you, so thank you for that.

I want to go back to the conversation about the gig workers and the self-employed. Those individuals surely have challenges accessing EI. I'd like to ask you a very open-ended question. My understanding is that self-employed workers do not pay EI premiums unless they opt in to the EI program. Is that right, Mr. Long?

[Andrew Brown]

I will jump in there, Benoît.

With respect to self-employed workers, they may opt in to the EI program to obtain access to special benefits but not to job loss benefits. They are not eligible for those at all.

In terms of opting in to obtain access to special benefits, like maternity and parental sickness benefits, it's a very small proportion of workers who do. About 25,000 self-employed workers have opted in out of about, perhaps, two million to three million self-employed workers across the country. What we've seen is that, given the choice, people prefer not to pay into that insurance scheme, which could be for a number of reasons.

The group, incidentally, that tends to opt in are younger women, and they're opting in because it's the only way they can obtain access to maternity and parental benefits.