Human Resources Committee on March 9th, 2021

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

Thank you.

I was going to ask Mr. Yussuff if he liked yes-or-no questions, but that in itself is a yes-or-no question, so I'll move on from that.

We had a witness who effectively said that we're in the process of trying to build a system for the next decade based on economic models from the last century. If you look at the testimony around the strength of the EI computer system, it may be even older than that.

I guess the question is this. What advice do you have for us on how we pivot to the next 10 years, instead of the last 10 minutes, last 10 years or last century, in terms of making sure EI works for a modern work environment where, quite clearly, nine to five from Monday to Friday and two weeks off in the summer is no longer the regular pattern for virtually every Canadian worker?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I think the EI system, if it's properly designed, can serve the needs of Canadians in a variety of ways. I think the reality is that today we need to also seriously examine how the system operates and, more importantly, how fair it is to the people who it has been designed to serve in the first place, that is, workers who lose their jobs and, more often, workers who may require re-skilling because their job is also changing at the same time.

It also recognizes that there are many different groups of workers within the economy. How do we ensure that it's fair for all those workers at the same time? There's some complexity in it, but at the same time, it is not beyond our capacity to take all of that and of course design a system that's going to serve us for the next century.

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

You recognize that there are regional differences in terms of cost of living, in terms of cost of transportation for people in the resources sector, say, but at the same time, there's the cost of housing in large urban centres. Do you still support a regional approach and a breakdown of regional approaches to the way in which payments are made to workers? Should that be modelled around their cost of living or should it be one size fits all for all Canadians?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Well, I think one thing we would differentiate is to say that we need to have a common entrance requirement that allows us some fairness across the system. Yes, we recognize there are some sectors of this country where we're always going to have a part of the economy that is very different from the mainstream, but at the same time, I think what we have seen in this pandemic is that had the government not taken the steps to treat Canadians in a fair and equitable way, we would have had a very disproportionate number of people who would be struggling right now.

I think that in that regard we need to have a common entrance requirement. More importantly, we need to try to put some floor under the EI system so all Canadians can be assured that if they're paying into the system, they know going to be treated fairly, recognizing, of course, that we're hoping we can build an economy that's resilient for all Canadians, regardless of where you may work, but equally, we can improve your skills over time to ensure you're always going to be part of the economy.

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

I'm interested in the skills piece. Miles Corak is a professor originally from Ottawa, but now teaching in the States, who talked about the concept of having an EI account as opposed to a wage supplement. In other words, you could draw from it when you need it, and you could replenish it as part of your contribution. Do you support that kind of an approach as a reform or do you think the existing system simply needs to be tinkered with?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Well, I think workers should be given the opportunity to get training, and on a continuous basis, because—

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

Through EI.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Through EI, yes, not just because I lose my job, but because at the end of the day, the more equipped with skills I am, the better off I am in the job market. We always want workers to have skills that are adaptable to a changing economy. It's critical for us to recognize that the skills piece is an integral and important part of it, but equally, we need to find ways for how we can make sure workers can access it.

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

Do we need to move away from why you choose to access EI into how you access EI? On top of that, do we also need to build a system that...? I mean, we had a previous government that every time you talked about a CPP supplement from either the employer or the wage earner...that it was a tax, when in fact it's an insurance premium.

Do we need to move away from this notion that this kind of support is a tax and instead look at it as an account you pay into and an account you pull out of when you need the support that you in fact provided for yourself by working?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I think all Canadians would recognize right now, especially all who have benefited from all of the programs the government brought in to make sure they had income, that we need the social safety net and we need it to be strong. Ultimately, we have to pay for it. Workers and employers have been the ones basically funding the system. We need to ensure there's an equitable balance in regard to how those two match.

Of course the federal government can play an important role. Equally, though, on the other side, it is a program that's there to support workers with income when they lose their job. It's also a program that's there to support workers with income when they're going back to get training at the same time.

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

That improves workplace performance.

[Hassan Yussuff]

It also improves the economy. The more equipped I am in my skills, the more the economy will have workers who are here to support the industries and the jobs in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Yussuff, Mr. Roberts and Mr. MacKenzie, thank you so much for being with us. Thank you for helping us with this study, and thanks for your patience. As you can tell, we're in a highly charged environment here. Certainly, the measured way in which you handled yourselves was greatly appreciated.

Again, thank you. We appreciated your being with us.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Thank you kindly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We will suspend the meeting while we bring in our next panel of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call the meeting back to order.

Today, the committee is meeting as part of its study on the review of the employment insurance program.

I'd like to make a few comments for the new witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are ready to speak, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself.

Interpretation in this video conference is provided. At the bottom of your screen, you have the choice of “floor”, “English” or “French”.

Please speak slowly and clearly. When you are done speaking, please put your mic on mute.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses as we continue our discussion. They will have five minutes for opening remarks, which will be followed by questions.

Please welcome Mr. Denis Bolduc, secretary general of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

From the Prince Edward Island Federation of Labour, we have Carl Pursey, president.

We will start with Mr. Bolduc.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Bolduc. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Denis Bolduc, General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for welcoming me today to talk about employment insurance.

From the outset, I must tell you that the FTQ is counting heavily on the current government to carry out a complete and comprehensive reform of employment insurance. For several years now, we have been calling for an in-depth review of the program. I can also tell you that the Quebec labour movement is on the same page. The four central labour bodies in Quebec, the FTQ, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, or CSQ, and the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, or CSD, are all singing from the same songbook, and are all singing in harmony. I don't want to speak for them, but I can tell you that we are in complete agreement on the changes that should be made to the current program.

Essentially, we are looking to safeguard human dignity. In that sense, the program should be seen and treated as a social good.

Yesterday was International Women's Day. I would be remiss if I did not bring that up. Women took part in demonstrations and activities across the country. It was all over the media.

Yet the Institut de la statistique du Québec has reminded us of the significant gap that still exists between the average salaries of a woman and a man. For positions that require a university education, we're talking about a gap of $3 per hour. I know that you are sensitive to the status of women, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. We are too. It is one of the factors that has guided our thinking on the changes we want to see made to employment insurance.

In addition to being paid less, women are underrepresented in non-standard jobs. I'm thinking in particular of seasonal jobs in tourism, hotels, restaurants and so on. Those who work in non-standard jobs, including women, should not be penalized for doing so. They should be able to qualify for an adequate length of time and an adequate level of income replacement. For that, we need non-discriminatory access to EI benefits.

The health crisis has clearly demonstrated the importance of income support programs. They are essential in the event of bad luck or job loss. The pandemic has also underscored the inconsistency of the employment insurance program in its current form. It has highlighted the urgent need to accelerate the process that will lead to real reform.

In the past year, the government has had to put in place emergency income support programs. Access to emergency measures was streamlined because, overnight, a lot of people found themselves in a precarious situation. It was not perfect, that's true. However, help was made available on an urgent basis, and that was very necessary. It also showed us that the pathways to the program need to be simplified. Someone who is unfamiliar with the employment insurance program, or has never used it, must be able to apply easily. Processing times must be faster and shorter.

Since 1990, so for 30 years, the government has not contributed to the employment insurance fund. The program is financed by the contributions from workers and from employers. We tend to forget this, but it is the reality. That is the main reason why you must pay close attention to what the workers we represent want and are asking for. We need a comprehensive program reform for the workers. They need to know that the program in place meets their needs and properly covers everyone who pays into it.

As I appear before you today, I want to take the opportunity to mention that, in the eyes of the FTQ, it's essential that the current emergency support programs be extended, particularly for the unemployed. That is our message today.

The proposed changes would increase the maximum number of weeks of benefits that eligible workers would be entitled to from 26 to 50.

I know that, in order to take effect, the program must receive unanimous support from all parties in Parliament. The pandemic hurt. I know men and women who have yet to get their jobs back. They wonder if and when their employer will call them back to work. They need this support.

They need a clear message from Ottawa that parliamentarians understand their situation and are taking action to ensure their well-being, their self-worth and their dignity.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Bolduc.

Mr. Pursey, welcome to the committee. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Carl Pursey, President, Prince Edward Island Federation of Labour]

Thank you.

I'm Carl Pursey, president of the P.E.I. Federation of Labour. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members, for the opportunity to appear today on this important issue.

I think EI reform and a guaranteed livable income need to be studied separately as EI reform is long overdue, while the guaranteed livable income needs to be prepared properly for a long-lasting, successful implementation. In order to do this, we need to look at a rapid return to full employment for those who want to work, with no one being forced to work. These jobs should look like full-time positions, with benefits available and created by government and employers.

The barriers to employment will need to be addressed beforehand too, such as affordable child care programs, national pharmacare, and transportation systems to meet the needs of workers. These things must be addressed prior to the full program rollout. If we don't address these needs first, the program will not succeed.

Moving on to EI, a complete review of all aspects of the system is well overdue and must be completed immediately. EI needs to consider all workers who are currently not eligible, such as independent contractors, gig and migrant workers, and so on, with short-term and long-term plans to provide comprehensive and permanent reforms.

The zone issue needs to be fixed here in P.E.I., as well as in other areas of the country that have seasonal work. Small communities of 50 people are divided by the centre of the road, with one side in one zone and the other side in another. P.E.I. should only have one zone because of its size. As workers from different zones often commute to the same place to work, one worker is able to draw more money for a longer period of time while the other has to work more hours and qualify for less EI benefits and draws for a much shorter period of time.

There are other things we need to fix in EI. We need to ensure that all workers have access, with one qualifying rule of 360 hours or 12 weeks for all EI benefits, with a floor of a minimum of $500 per week or 70% of their wages, whichever is greater.

Workers should also be able to draw for up to 50 weeks with the combined benefits, to a maximum of 104 weeks. In this way, workers can qualify for unemployment benefits based on the same hours of work used to qualify for special benefits. EI sickness and quarantine benefit weeks must also be increased to 50 weeks.

We must also ensure justice and have a fair appeals process for all benefits. Working while on claim needs to be changed and not deducted dollar for dollar as this discourages workers wanting to work for short periods, causing employers problems and making it difficult for them to get employees to work a day or two at a time.

Workers who aren't happy with their employment situation and wish to better themselves by furthering their education should be able to do so and still qualify to receive benefits. This will also open up the position that they left for someone else to fulfill.

The clawback of separation moneys must end, as this is a benefit that workers have been paying into over many years of their employment. It should not be deducted from their unemployment. EI access during a labour dispute is also something we need look at. Workers need to have this access as it would level the playing field and they would not be looking at no pay during a lockout, which currently gives the employer the upper hand.

Training money spent also needs to be reviewed because some employers have been using it as a revolving door to terminate employees who have reached their Red Seal and hire new ones to receive more training funds. These firms are only accessing the funds to train apprentices. They have no intention of retaining fully trained or certified employees.

We also need to ensure labour is involved in meaningful social dialogue on LMDA spending at the provincial level. We need to establish multi-year core funding for unemployed work centres in the provinces.

We need to return to a fully tripartite board of referees model for first-level appeals. We should also ensure the protection of francophone rights for those living outside Quebec to receive services from the government in French. The EI commission must be given a mandate to proceed with a comprehensive review of the EI program, with a timeline to present the changes to government.

The federal government must extend COVID-19 income support until the end of the year or the official end of this pandemic.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Pursey.

We'll begin our round of questions with Mr. Vis.

You have six minutes, please.

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

I'd like to give my time to Mr. Tochor, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Tochor, go ahead for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

I just want to unpack some of your thoughts, Mr. Pursey, on what Canada would be like or what this new reality would be like. You wouldn't, in your words, be forced to work. So in your mind, people would be given the choice: either you work or you don't.

[Carl Pursey]

Well, no, there are lots of people who can't work. There are people with mental problems who can't work, who have issues that way, but there would be jobs there for anyone who's capable and wants to work them.

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

So if they're healthy-minded people, they should be working. They shouldn't be on payments—