Human Resources Committee on March 9th, 2021

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Pursey, for your work for the workers of P.E.I.

Thank you, Mr. Bolduc, for what you and the FTQ members are doing for workers in my constituency and across Quebec.

I would like to pick up where you left off. Yesterday, the FTQ issued a news release with the headline “FTQ calls for solidarity among federal opposition parties to endorse the extension of unemployment assistance programs”. Of course, I fully agree with that. The committee should study the bill.

Can you explain what would happen to unemployed men and women if they were denied benefits in the event that we are unable to pass the bill before the assistance measures expire?

[Denis Bolduc]

It's an issue we are very concerned about. In fact, I mentioned it in my opening remarks.

We are very concerned about the plight of workers, many workers, who have lost their jobs and still do not see when they will be able to get them back. In the aviation sector, for example, all flight attendants in Quebec who are members of the FTQ have lost their jobs, whether at Air Canada, Air Transat or another airline.

The same is true in the tourism sector, which has been greatly affected by the pandemic. Currently, the hotel occupancy rate is about 5% in Quebec. We need to be concerned about these workers.

Every day, workers share their fears with me. They see their employment insurance benefits ending in March, and they wonder what will happen to them. These workers' concerns need to be addressed in the program.

We support extending employment insurance benefits to 50 weeks. In fact, we hope that provision will become permanent. It is one of our requests. We have proposed up to a maximum of 52 weeks, but we would still be happy with 50 weeks.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It makes me happy to think that, if we are able to study the bill as soon as possible, that is, this week, we could ensure that benefits are not disrupted. It would help a lot of people. My colleague, Ms. Chabot, proposed this study, and I think it's a great idea.

What you mean by adequate income replacement? What threshold should we be aiming for, 55%, 60% or 65%?

Can you give me an idea of what you would like to see in the reform? What percentage do you feel should be used?

[Denis Bolduc]

First, it is very important that the program's eligibility criteria be changed. Thirty years ago, the employment insurance program covered eight out of 10 people. Now it's four out of 10. So half as many people are covered. When it switched to eligibility criteria based on the number of hours worked, entire categories of people were excluded. I am thinking of women, immigrants and young people. I would even say that the program has an unfavourable bias against them.

Under the current program, before the pandemic, for example, a woman who worked 20 hours a week—they often work at part-time jobs—had to accumulate 35 weeks of work before qualifying for the program, while a man who worked 40 hours a week needed only 17.5 weeks of work. Yet both had paid about the same amount into the program.

In our view, a hybrid eligibility standard should be adopted that will take into account both the number of hours worked and the number of weeks employed. We suggest that the requirement be set at 420 hours worked or 12 weeks of insurable employment. We suggest that the income replacement rate be set at 60%, but the maximum insurable income must also be increased. Basically, we are asking that it be aligned with the Quebec parental insurance plan. If I'm not mistaken, it is currently around $83,500.

Under the current program, some people end up having to deal with 20%, 25% or 30% in income replacement, because the maximum is not high enough and the replacement rate is too low. I mentioned aviation, but it's also the case in the oil industry. When a person has a certain lifestyle, is used to spending their money in certain ways, and then overnight, because of bad luck or misfortune, they find themselves with 20% of their income, they are in trouble.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Bolduc—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks also to the witnesses. It is very interesting to hear the solutions they are proposing for a reform in the future. I hope that the reform will happen sooner rather than later.

You are right to say that the program has not been completely overhauled for at least 15 years. The eligibility criteria were already problematic well before the pandemic.

Let me assure you right away, that I will be bringing the debate on Bill C-24 to a close. The Bloc Québécois will do nothing to slow down the implementation of this project. Otherwise, workers' benefits will be interrupted. We could have done things differently, but life being the way it is, we agree to moving forward diligently.

Mr. Bolduc, I heard both what you were saying and the criteria you mentioned. I want to make sure that I fully understand your comment about the eligibility criteria. Let me give you an example. In Montreal, you must accumulate between 420 and 700 hours of work, depending on the unemployment rate in the region. That applies to employment insurance in each of the 62 economic regions. In addition, unemployment rates even differ on the same island, Prince Edward Island, that is.

Your proposal is to establish a basic criterion of 420 hours of work, plus a hybrid eligibility standard. In your opinion, would that address the issue whereby some people are deemed ineligible for employment insurance benefits because of the unemployment rate?

[Denis Bolduc]

Yes, that's more or less it, I feel.

By establishing a hybrid eligibility standard of 420 hours worked, or 12 weeks of insurable employment, as well as basing it on which of the two is best for the recipients, I feel that we can indeed solve most of the problems.

In recent years, we have expended a huge amount of energy looking for a solution to the famous employment insurance black hole in the regions, particularly by establishing pilot projects.

The proposal would perhaps not solve everything, but I feel that it could be applied across the country and would solve many of the problems. It would probably mean that the need to have extension programs for workers would disappear. There would be many fewer of them and it would make things simpler and much easier.

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

Thank you.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill to increase special sickness benefits in the employment insurance program. It is another of our battles.

What is your position on the subject?

[Denis Bolduc]

To be consistent with regular benefits, which we set at a maximum duration of 51 weeks, we would ask that sickness benefits be also set at 51 weeks instead of 15 weeks. The 15-week criterion has been in place for years.

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

It has been like that since the start.

[Denis Bolduc]

It doesn't meet the needs of the increasing number of people who have to undergo lengthy treatments.

There is also additional concern about the healthcare system becoming unbalanced during the pandemic. Care that people need is being delayed. We hear specialists say that their health status will be affected and it will probably deteriorate. Logically, this will mean that some people will be away from work longer. It would be good to increase that component substantially.

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

I had another question for you on the benefit rates, but you have answered it.

Currently, the rate is fixed at 55%. Previously, it was 66% but then it went down to 55%.

In your opinion, the minimum should be 60%. Is that correct?

[Denis Bolduc]

Yes. Clearly, we would not object if we went back to the standard in the 1970s, which was 66%, two-thirds of the salary.

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

My last question is about the governance.

Would you have any proposals for us?

[Denis Bolduc]

First, we are in favour of maintaining the current division between employee and employer contributions. It would be good to re-establish a government contribution to the financing of the program, for example, to cover the costs of support measures or to actively fund measures.

In the light of the Supreme Court ruling, we feel that the fund should be managed separately from the general fund so that it is protected and so that we do not again go through what we experienced in the past. It would also be possible to look at a mechanism that would set an objective for the contributions to the fund in order to provide a stabilizing reserve. We feel that it would be reasonable to set that between $10 billion and $15 billion.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Bolduc and Ms. Chabot.

Next is Ms. Gazan, please, for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Monsieur Bolduc.

In response to the throne speech, your union described the gap between the unemployed and the benefit recipients as a scandal. I appreciated that because I have been criticizing the government for how it has allowed so many to fall through the cracks during the pandemic.

You also supported, for example, a national pharmacare program, and we know that Quebec already has a subsidized child care program. What reforms would you like to see to improve workers' access to EI benefits?

[Denis Bolduc]

We want people to feel secure when they are working. They are participating in a mutual insurance fund. So we want the number of insurable weeks and the benefits to be increased, and we want things to be easy.

The health crisis has shown that the employment insurance program needs to be very flexible and easy to access. As I said earlier in my presentation, someone who has never used the employment insurance program may find it quite complex. In addition, there are long processing delays. As I said previously, even the measures that were put into place were not perfect, they were quick and they were done urgently. We could perhaps draw inspiration from them. Of course, there would be a little more of a firewall. However, we could use them as a model so that access to employment insurance is quicker and more flexible.

I think that those are basically the important factors, as well as increasing the benefits, the number of weeks of benefits, and the insurable payments.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a very quick follow-up question.

Would you recommend that in addition to improvements to the EI reforms there also be included a provision for social programs such as child care, for example, and pharmacare, to ensure full employment and income security?

[Denis Bolduc]

Yes, the establishment of daycare services in Quebec was a way to improve, to facilitate, women's access to the labour market. I have often discussed it with colleagues from other provinces of Canada and it is clearly the envy of many outside Quebec. I encourage the federal government to establish a national daycare program similar to the one in Quebec.

In Quebec, we have a pharmacare program, but it is a hybrid one. So it's not optimal. We feel that a national, universal formula would be better than the current one in Quebec. That is something else we in the FTQ are fighting for.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much. Especially as someone who started her career as an early childhood educator, I also support a national child care plan.

My next question is for Mr. Pursey.

Like you, I've been a big supporter of a guaranteed livable basic income. One reason I support that is that I am from Manitoba where we had the Mincome study under the direction of well-known economist Evelyn Forget, and we know that the sky didn't fall.

You talked about restructuring the tax system and, for example, going after offshore tax havens and the ultra-wealthy to pay for it. I want to commend you for that. I certainly agree with you. I think it's time to stop propping up corporations that don't need assistance at all.

With the CERB being rolled out we saw almost a makeshift guaranteed livable basic income. We know that even during the pandemic, many groups were still left behind, and that when CERB was replaced by EI, only 40% qualified.

How would instituting a guaranteed livable basic income program in Canada help eradicate poverty?

[Carl Pursey]

I believe this is a great step that needs to be taken. It needs to be taken with a lot of care and a lot of study. First we have to get full employment and jobs for people. We don't have enough jobs for everybody out there now. We also have to see that people are paid enough for the jobs they are doing, and that they're meaningful jobs and this type of thing. When we get meaningful work out there, it will lift everybody up. They'll be paying taxes and paying back into the system as well. It's long overdue.

In order to make it work, as I said, we first have to remove the barriers. The barriers are a national pharmacare assistance plan and a national child care plan, so that people can go out to work and have money left over. I think this is why some of the other projects that have been tried haven't worked. The barriers were still there. If a woman going out to work has to pay a lot of money for child care, and then her basic income is taken back from her and she still has to pay a large amount, she won't have the money to do it. If you remove the barriers—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Can I follow up on that?