Human Resources Committee on March 11th, 2021

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Chabot.

It worries me too. On September 25, we should have a system in place for all workers because, to put it bluntly, the economic crisis won't be over. We know that. Will there be a third wave? We don't know and we also don't know much about the situation awaiting us or what the unemployment rate will be. One thing is certain, and that is that we will still be in a difficult economic situation here in Canada. However, we will continue to be there for workers and to invest in their training.

Some of the changes to make our employment insurance system more flexible were welcomed by many partners and unions. They don't want to return to the system in place before the pandemic. We're working closely with employers and workers to determine which of the temporary changes to make things more flexible should be left in place. They might be only temporary or they could become permanent. The outcome will depend on several factors, of course.

In September 2021, we wanted to introduce a better system than the one we had in March 2020. That will be the legacy of this pandemic for workers.

Graham or Andrew, do you have anything to add?

[Graham Flack, Deputy Minister, Employment and Social Development, Department of Employment and Social Development]

I'd like to add a comment, Minister.

Making policy changes gives us hope, but the limitations of the system also need to be factored in.

As Ms. Young mentioned, the regulatory process that established the employment insurance system we have today is now 49 years old, I believe. It will take more than a year, probably a year and a half, to make some of the major changes. One of the limitations of the system is that it isn't flexible enough to allow permanent major changes to be made quickly by September. That's why the minister had to fall back on an assortment of temporary changes and to look into what could be done to make the system more flexible.

The committee is studying the future of employment insurance. It will have to consider the possibility that technical changes could endanger the system and take the time required to make the changes safely so as not to destroy it.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Graham, is it fair to say that not only will it be a matter of what we do but the sequencing of what we do will matter in terms of how we impact the systems?

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

It's this pace of change that worries me. I know that there are formalities to comply with and that the system's functionalities need to be taken into account.

My greatest worry is that the status quo could remain, and require us to work with the current system when it kicks back in on September 25. Barely 38% of women, certain immigrants for example, would be covered because they often perform atypical jobs. There is also the fact that employment insurance special benefits and sickness benefits will be inadequate and fail to meet needs. It's important to adopt permanent measures, and we should address this problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

There are only 10 minutes left.

Were going to suspend the meeting to vote.

Ms. Chabot, you will get another turn, but there are 10 minutes before we vote.

Madam Minister, and to your officials, please ensure that you're back after the vote.

The same goes for you, colleagues. Once we vote, let's get back and we'll be able to continue at that time.

The committee stands suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We are now back in session.

We have now been joined by Cliff Groen, senior assistant deputy minister, benefits and integrated services branch with Service Canada; and Elisha Ram, associate assistant deputy minister, skills and employment branch. We have Andrew Brown, who was with us before we suspended and is back. He's the assistant deputy minister, policy, dispute resolution and international affairs. We also have Michael MacPhee, director general, employment insurance benefits processing, benefit and integrated services branch, Service Canada. Also, the witnesses who were with us and were introduced prior to the suspension are back.

We're in session and ready to resume with questions, beginning with Mr. Blaikie, please, for six minutes.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Madam Minister, you said the other day in the House debate that this bill was meant to address some urgent and simple needs in respect of the employment insurance system.

I'm wondering if you can explain to people who are suffering from long COVID, cancer and other kinds of conditions and who have run out of their EI sickness benefits, why their situation isn't urgent in your opinion and the opinion of your government.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I think that's an unfair characteristic of our compassion for people who are sick or injured and ill.

As I've said, this particular piece of legislation is very straightforward, time limited, surgical, as I've described it. It's related to COVID, to extend EI regular benefits and to address international non-essential travellers' eligibility. There are very important conversations to be had around EI sickness benefits, which will be had in the context of the broader EI modernization conversation.

Sick leave has been a core public health measure for us since the beginning. You could get CERB if you were ill or self-isolating or quarantined from COVID. We created a specific sickness benefit—recovery sickness benefit—and we are doubling the weeks. People who have COVID can access up to four weeks now of sickness benefits.

The first thing we did in COVID was to waive the one-week period in the EI sickness benefit and say that you don't need a note to claim these benefits. They're not mutually exclusive.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

People's 15 weeks of sickness benefit have run out now, and in some cases they are still sick because there have been delays in their treatment as a result of the effects of the pandemic, even though they're not necessarily sick with COVID.

In other cases, people are getting sick with what's becoming known as “long COVID”, something that in other countries there's been more action on. It's not something we've seen a lot of targeted action on here in Canada to the extent that we've seen in other places, and because their condition is new, they're falling through the cracks. They're falling through the cracks in respect to government support, and they're also falling through the cracks in respect of private insurers who aren't recognizing the condition and they've run out of financial support. It is urgent and it is related to the pandemic, yet it's not happening.

The other criterion you mentioned in the House the other day—and you just mentioned it again—was that you wanted to have surgical, simple legislative reforms. To change the sickness benefit from 15 to 50 weeks, all you have to do is change a two-digit number in the act.

Could you provide an example of a more simple legislative change?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

A legislative change, with all due respect, has to be deliverable, and one of the things I've tried to explain as best I could is how precarious our EI systems are. Moving forward with the one commitment to change the number of weeks for EI regular benefits means that we can guarantee its delivery without compromising our systems.

Doing these changes successively, not at the same time, to give us the time to work towards a broader modernization where we understand exactly where sickness benefits fit in, and committing to increasing the weeks of sickness benefits, feels like the more prudent course of action, so that we don't in any way jeopardize, biweekly, the payment of regular benefits too.

I'm happy to have someone explain the technical side of it. That's the best I can do.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

With all due respect, Minister, it has been over a year since the House of Commons passed a motion calling for an extension of the EI sickness benefits. Your government committed to an extension of the EI sickness benefits in the last election.

How much more time do you need? It's starting to have a serious impact on people in the pandemic context who have experienced delays in medical treatment as a result of the pandemic and who are suffering from a new condition as a result of the pandemic.

How much more time do you need? Going back to when the House of Commons first passed this motion, before the pandemic struck, and which has since had a unanimous consent motion.... I take it you weren't in the House that day, when the House unanimously called on the government to extend the sickness benefit to 50 weeks.

How much more time do you need?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I can't give you the number of weeks or months it will take to make this particular change, but it will be part of the broader comprehensive changes we make to the system. We are not in a position to do this right now, but that doesn't mean we won't do it. We are as committed as ever to doing it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

How much correspondence have you received in opposition to extending the EI sickness benefit, and would you be willing to anonymize those letters and share them with the committee? I as an MP haven't received any correspondence from anyone. We have a unanimous decision of the House of Commons, and there have been petitions on this going back years. In fact one of the largest petitions in Canadian history is on the EI sickness benefit.

I'm wondering where the opposition to extending the EI sickness benefit is coming from. In whose interest are you acting when you rag the puck on this and fail to get it done?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

As I said, Mr. Blaikie, we are committed to doing this. This will be done. It has to be part of the broader conversation around EI. We are not in a position to do it right now, which doesn't mean we're not doing it. We have to focus on the bill before us today, which does two things, and we need it to do those two things so that EI recipients of regular benefits don't see any disruptions in their benefit in the coming weeks. That's my priority and that's what I'm focused on with this piece of law.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

With all due respect, Minister, I wish you would give the same consideration to people whose EI sickness benefits have already run out and who are in the very position that you're saying we need to, and I agree with you, avoid—having people whose regular benefits are going to run out at the end of the month and who will find themselves in a position where they don't have financial support.

We already know of people whose EI sickness benefit has run out because it's for only 15 weeks. They're in that position already and you don't seem to feel that it's a priority to respond to that very real need. I can't for the life of me figure out the difference between somebody who's on EI regular benefits and can't get back to work and needs financial support and somebody who's really sick, whose benefits have run out and who can't support themselves financially.

It seems to me that this change meets all of your criteria and that we are good to go. I'm going to be presenting an amendment to that effect later. I'm hoping, with the co-operation of members who have already voted for this extension in the House, that we'll be able to get it into the legislation and that you'll provide the royal recommendation it needs to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Next we're going to go to Ms. Dancho.

Go ahead, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I actually have a similar question to the one our Bloc colleague asked you previously. The sunset date for these benefits in Bill C-24 is, as you know, September 25, 2021—about seven months away.

It seemed to me you mentioned there's going to be a new EI system and that this will be the answer. The programs won't get cut off, but there's going to be a new more inclusive EI system. Is my understanding of your response correct?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

There won't be a brand new different EI system at the end of September, so I apologize if that's the impression I gave. What I'm trying to explain is that we need to make decisions about what the EI system will look like at the end of September. Absent that, it will revert to what the EI system looked like before the pandemic.

Right now, in order to determine which ones will remain or which ones will be made permanent or which ones might be modified again, we are looking at the flexibilities and changes that we put in. What I was trying to convey was that there are a couple of waves of conversation about the EI system that are happening at this time.

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

Right, so there will be some sort of amended system. Is it going to be like a transition?

My concern is that September 25 will be here before we know it, and as I've mentioned in the House and on several occasions, I don't feel that we've received any sort of strategic or coherent plan for how we're going to get all of these jobs that have been lost.... Almost a million—just over 800,000 jobs—have permanently gone, and the CFIB estimates that there may be three million jobs eliminated because up to 220,000 small businesses will, tragically, close or could close because of the pandemic.

My concern is that you're saying we might amend the EI system to make up for any differences, but I'm not quite confident that in that answer there's going to be a plan to roll folks off the CERB or CRB and the new EI extension and onto this new haphazard-sounding EI system. I'm just a bit concerned about that.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I apologize. I don't mean for it to sound haphazard. In fact, throughout this pandemic there have been dates on which our legislative authorities or temporary measures have expired. We had one last September. We have one this coming September. We have one in June around some of the other business measures.

Looking to that date as the date on which these temporary measures end, and in my case for EI, we're already turning our minds to what comes next for the exact reason you mentioned—so that workers don't see any kind of cliff or disruption of benefits. However, it is premature right now, because I don't know what the economy or what the labour market will look like—just like the conversation we had in the previous round—for me to even speculate as to what those changes might look like or where the economy is going to be in July or August.

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

I hope the goal is ultimately to get people back to work and to do whatever you can at the federal level to ensure—

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

Chair, on a point of order, is it my audio or is it the system audio that has reduced both conversations to a very faint echo?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think it's yours. I'm hearing them fine.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

We hear you fine.

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

Okay. I apologize. I'll try to see if there's a resolution.