Human Resources Committee on March 9th, 2021

[Hassan Yussuff]

It is that the people who are going to be impacted are people who need these benefits. These are people who live in their constituency, as they live across the country. These are Canadians, and fundamentally we should not hold them hostage.

I know you need to have a debate in Parliament. It's not for me to tell you how to do your job, but I would kindly ask members to consider the passage of this bill in a timely manner so workers have some certainty that they are going to continue to get their benefit so they can support their families and are able to do the things necessary to ensure that they can pay their bills and buy groceries at the end of the day.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Yussuff, thank you very much.

Chair, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to greet the witnesses and tell them it's a great pleasure to have them here.

My question is for the president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

Mr. Yussuff, thank you for accepting our invitation to testify.

Your organization represents 3.3 million workers. That's quite impressive. You have come to meet with us as part of a review of the employment insurance program. I will do my best to avoid talking about Bill C-24. The Bloc Québécois is going to support the bill because it's a temporary measure that will end on September 21, 2021. We are here to determine what kind of permanent measures to implement.

Am I wrong in thinking that your call for increasing to 50 the number of weeks of benefits for which people are eligible existed long before this whole emergency measures debate and that it's part of your vision for reform?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I don't think it's too late.

Obviously, the bill contains an extension of benefits for 50 weeks. This is a recognition, of course, of the hardship that workers are going through, through no fault of their own, because of the duration of this pandemic. More importantly, I think we need to have a very thorough examination of the duration of benefits that should be permanently enacted in regard to the reform that the members of the committee will recommend and consider.

We certainly are recommending that. We recognize that, more often than not, through no fault of their own, workers lose their jobs through a variety of different things happening in the economy, but equally, we need to ensure that workers are going to have income. More importantly, as we are going to retrain a lot of workers who might not be going back to their job, we need to ensure that we can provide the support for them so they can get training at the same time.

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

People often say that the employment insurance program discriminates against women.

What changes do you believe we should undertake to make it fairer?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Thank you very much for that question.

What the pandemic certainly has revealed to a large extent is that women are bearing the larger burden of this. One, of course, is the responsibility of family. Despite all of their efforts, women still bear the majority of that responsibility.

More importantly, of course, what we're seeing in how the pandemic is evolving is that women still remain unemployed. As we look to reform, we need to recognize that we should really look through a gender lens at how we are going to deal with issues that specifically affect women.

One of the recommendations we have made, and I think there's a commitment of the government to do this, is to extend the EI sick benefit far more often. Women are needing that benefit, and we know that the duration of it is far too short. A critical part of the reform is to ensure that we can extend that benefit especially when they're struggling with surgeries or cancer treatment. We need to ensure that they're going to continue to have support and not lose that while they're still struggling with their recovery when they're going through a sickness. That will be one of the issues.

Women traditionally work in what we would call the service sector. Quite often they're likely to have a shorter duration of work, shorter hours. Raising the maximum will be critical to ensure that they're going to get a benefit at the end of the year. It's also a way to ensure that the employer can look at the job market to make sure they can regain the women back into the workforce and improve the conditions in which they're working.

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

As I understand it, first we need a single 360-hour or 13-week entrance requirement. It would account for the fact that women have increasingly non-standard jobs. So, considering the number of hours they work per week is important.

Do you have any recommendations on governance related to the employment insurance program?

[Hassan Yussuff]

We certainly have been working to restore the EI appeal system. There's generally an agreement that workers should have a mechanism in which they can have an appeal system where they can present their stories before a tripartite structure. I think there's a commitment of the government to do that. The pandemic, obviously, interrupted that, but I think we need to bring that system back in.

Equally, we need to give the commissioners a role to oversee that system because they are there to help the government, to support the government in the governance structure. I think that will make the system far more democratic for workers, should they have their benefit denied, to have a process in which they can have that appeal within their community, and have a way to get those decisions either overturned or at least heard by a tripartite panel in the context of that benefit being denied.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Yussuff.

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Next we have Ms. Gazan, please, for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Yussuff.

Thank you so much for being on the panel today. One thing the NDP has been proposing is to extend sickness benefits. With COVID, we know that even with individuals who have contracted the virus we don't know the long-term health impacts that result from it, as an example.

You indicated that you support increasing the sickness benefit to 50 days. Why is this critical?

[Hassan Yussuff]

There are two different ways. First of all, right now the sick benefit for COVID is two weeks. Some workers might have already taken advantage of that. I think in Bill C-24 the government extended that again for additional time, should workers need that benefit.

I think we have two problems in this country overall, and I want to speak to that so at least there is an appreciation. In terms of the provinces, I think there are only two—or well, three—jurisdictions in the country that have some form of what are called sick days under employment standards legislation. In the federal system, we have sick days, a small number, three days, and we can make an argument for why it should be extended beyond that in the federal code.

The Province of Quebec has sick days in its employment standards legislation. P.E.I., to its credit, has one sick day for workers should they need it.

More jurisdictions in the country need to bring in sick days as a permanent requirement for workers in the provincial jurisdiction so that when workers get sick, they can actually take sick days off from their work and not lose pay. That's something that I think should happen at a provincial level.

However, for the protection of workers right now in the federal jurisdiction, there are COVID-related benefits that extend that benefit, and should they require it, they are going to have that. We're also making an argument that under the EI sick leave provision, the current 16 weeks should be extended to a longer period to ensure that if workers have symptoms that will keep them off work for a longer period, they are able to access EI, but should be able to access EI for a much longer period.

I think there is generally an understanding that the government was talking about doing this, but again, I'm hoping that in this reform we can see that happen sooner rather than later.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

My next question relates to Canadians living with episodic disability. We know that they account for half of Canadians of working age living with a disability. You recommended that ESDC undertake a review into how episodic disabilities fit into the EI sickness benefit framework, to identify mechanisms to increase access.

We know that effective disability support is a prerequisite for meaningful income support that enables Canadians living with disabilities to meet their most basic needs, yet this still doesn't occur in Canada. When we talk about people being left behind, I think we can all agree that disabled persons are one of the groups that were left behind before, but were just horribly left behind during the pandemic.

Your proposal addresses episodic disability and the potential to include this in the EI sickness benefit. Can you explain the benefit of taking your proposed approach and what happens to Canadians living with chronic disability?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Maybe I could turn to my colleague, Chris Roberts. The two of us have been working on this file.

Chris, if you don't mind, could you please answer that question?

[Chris Roberts, Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress]

Yes, sure.

It's a very timely issue, given what we're learning about the experience of individuals who've contracted COVID, that many of them are so-called “long-haulers”. They have a long and episodic set of symptoms that return and recur periodically over time.

For individuals with episodic disabilities, the EI sickness benefit, and really the EI system itself, isn't very well set up to deal with people who are sick for a few days, then are well enough to work for the next few days, and then are sick again.

I think there has to be a real searching evaluation of how the EI system deals with those individuals with episodic disabilities. There is not a simple answer to that, but I think there is growing appreciation that the weeks-based system of EI isn't really well set up to deal with those individuals.

I think a whole lot of other changes could be made to the EI sickness benefit that could help. Certainly with respect to EI benefits generally, if we drop the hours requirement, more individuals working with disabilities are going to have access to EI regular benefits and other benefits as well.

Also, I think we can examine the premium reduction program that incentivizes employers to offer short-term disability, and private insurance as well, to ensure that there's a good fit with an expanded EI sickness benefit.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have one follow-up question.

One of the motions that the NDP put forward, certainly for persons with disabilities, is a guaranteed livable basic income. This is something that has been widely supported by the disability community across the country, in addition to current and future government programs and supports. Do you think this is something that would benefit the disabled community?

I ask that because we know that, for example, although not EI in terms of people falling through the cracks, 70% of adults with cognitive disabilities live in poverty and might not even be able to work. Do you think expanding our social safety net, building on our EI benefits, would be helpful?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Give a very short answer, please. We're out of time.

[Hassan Yussuff]

This requires a longer answer, but I'm going to attempt to be very brief.

The debate on guaranteed income is one that we should all welcome. There's a need for us to have that debate, and more importantly, recognize how workers and people with disabilities are treated in the system.

Under the reformed system, I'm not sure whether that fits into this, but I do believe we need to have a broad debate. We would welcome our ability to be engaged in that process, to figure out how we can allow these people to do better than what they are doing right now in regard to the income we're giving them and how we're supporting them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Yussuff and Ms. Gazan.

Next is Ms. Falk, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank both of our witnesses for the testimony they have shared today and for the contributions they're making to this study.

I think we can all say it's important to our employment insurance program that it's not only viable but also responsive to the labour market and the needs of Canadians.

My first question is for Mr. Kenneth MacKenzie.

Given that much of your membership is self-employed, I am interested in your comments on how your membership fits into the existing employment insurance framework.

[Kenneth MacKenzie]

Currently, it's not an ideal fit, unless they opt in. That's the only scenario under which they can get any of the benefits, and those are just the special benefits.

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

Yes, for sure.

Do you have any insight in terms of how many of your self-employed members opt in to the EI program?

[Kenneth MacKenzie]

It's a very small number, because I think the numbers don't add up.

First of all, they usually have partners that help them deal with things like parental care. I don't know of any colleagues who have actually taken time off from work.

Just taking that money, the contributions that are required to be made for those special benefits is too much of a toll. It's hard to access for people who are, as I said, working so close to the bottom.

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

Is it fair to make the assumption that this would be their rationale for their hesitancy for not opting in, just taking that money, possibly not using the benefit, if needed?

[Kenneth MacKenzie]

Yes. If it were mandatory and if there were some guarantee around it, then I think there would be more people who'd feel confident in opting in to it. Obviously, if it's mandatory, they don't have to opt in, but if there was more guarantee around it....

This is like insurance in case any of these things happen. When they're signing up, nobody knows whether they're going to need that health insurance, and there are other avenues to get that kind of insurance.