Human Resources Committee on March 11th, 2021

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

Chair, I was paused at three minutes and nine seconds, so I'm going to continue from there.

Minister, I think that ultimately we do need a plan to get people back to work in some fashion. I'm really hoping that your government unveils, in the budget or something, some sort of strategic plan to unleash the powerful workforce of 20 million that we have in Canada and really bring back jobs, facilitate that and have government get out of the way so we can get those jobs back.

I don't think any party would like to see people permanently on EI because there are no job opportunities.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

No.

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

I appreciate your saying that. It helps the confidence level, I think, to hear that you also don't want up to a million Canadians on EI forever.

Some of my concern with the ability to get a new—and haphazard may not be the word—EI system ready for September is the CRB-EI issue. I talked to you about it during the bill briefing, and I've asked several questions about the folks who can't get on the CRB because they have an open EI claim.

The CRA official who came here mentioned that there was this phone number at ESDC that they could call, and I know that your officials confirmed that there isn't one, which I appreciate, but that there is a task force you're working on.

As you know, there are a number of heartbreaking stories of single moms and parents with newborn babies who are really stuck. They can't get on the CRB because they're stuck in the EI system. Do you have anything new to add to that?

The CRA guy mentioned that it's only a couple of thousand people out of the millions who have been successful, but still, that's a couple of thousand Canadians who are not able to get any of these supports.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

As you have rightfully said, the challenge here is wanting to make sure that we don't have somebody on two different benefits at the same time.

Even if someone has exhausted the EI benefits, they remain with an open claim for quite a significant amount of time, which then prohibits them from accessing the recovery benefits, because the system flags them as having an open EI claim even though they've exhausted their benefits.

I would guess that it would be Cliff or Elisha who could give us the best update on this.

I'll let one of you gentlemen help here.

[Cliff C. Groen, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Benefits and Integrated Services Branch, Service Canada, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thanks, Minister.

We certainly are aware of that situation and, as the member indicated, we are working closely with CRA.

We have implemented a new approach in those types of cases. Because we do need to ensure that people do not receive both benefits at the same time, there's an ongoing data match with us and CRA. We have implemented an escalation process in which, when CRA is contacted by a client where there is an inability to apply for the benefit, there's an escalation process between our two organizations to be able to quickly dig into that particular issue, confirm whether or not they are no longer entitled to EI and then quickly, on the CRA side, be able to release that so the person can proceed.

If you are aware of any specific clients who have that issue, by all means, we will be glad to look into it.

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

There are many.

Chair, I know we are over time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You are well past.

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

I'll just say that we will connect with you, Mr. Groen, and with the minister's office on that, because we have several. Thank you.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Mr. Housefather, you have five minutes, please.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was really impressed by Ms. Dancho's ability to know exactly where she was in terms of time. That is very impressive.

Minister, it's great to have you here and the officials. Thank you so much for testifying today.

Minister, you talked about the importance of getting this legislation through committee and through the House this week. Can you tell us how many people's benefits would be disrupted if we were not able to do that?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I sure can. Let me just grab it so I get it correct.

Immediately at the end of March, it will be tens of thousands. Again, Elisha and Cliff can give the precise numbers, but the number I can give you is that 676,000 people are expected to benefit from these additional weeks of benefits.

Cliff or Elisha, can you give him the reverse number? Mine was the positive number. How many people will start going off benefits in that wave that will happen?

[Cliff C. Groen]

Sure, Minister.

As of the beginning of April, it would be over 40,000 individuals who would lose their benefits. By the beginning of May, it would be more than 200,000. Then, by the end of June, it would be 600,000 Canadians.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

A substantial number of people would be directly impacted if we didn't do this.

Minister, you talked about a “surgical” bill. I think everyone in the committee, from all parties, is sympathetic to the idea of extending sickness benefits. We all care about people who are sick and on EI and run out of benefits. You've obviously made the determination that, due to technical reasons, combining these two actions in this one bill would be problematic.

Could you or the officials explain what technical issues prevent both changes from being made at the same time?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I will defer to the officials on the technical issues. I think I did the best I could.

Go ahead.

[Graham Flack]

Let me start, and then I'll throw it over to Cliff.

Just to give members a sense of this, we've been working since December, anticipating that the committee may decide to extend the number of weeks of benefits. Given the nature of the COBOL-based system we have, it will take a full four months for us to be able to implement an extension in the number of weeks. For something like the sickness benefit that Mr. Blaikie mentioned, to extend the maximum number of weeks is actually a major system change. It's not like the one we're doing right now. It changes the fundamental system logic. A change like that takes a minimum of nine months to do.

The challenge is that with a COBOL-based system, simultaneously processing major changes massively increases the risk that we cause irreparable damage to the system. Part of the issue is that were Parliament to make a decision around a particular change, that would preclude us from being able to do other changes. For example, if there was a decision to extend the sickness benefit beyond the current maximum number of weeks, that would preclude us from being able to do other changes to the system for September. It's a function of the limitations of a system whose code is almost as old as me.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

If I have understood correctly, Mr. Flack and Madam Minister, you are saying that people could be penalized. If we were to decide today to try and do more than what is proposed in Bill C-24, approximately 40,000 people could lose their benefits in the week following the changes, and this number could be much higher if the passage of the bill were to be delayed until April or May.

We can't make these changes simultaneously because we're not sure we can do so without harming a lot of people.

Is that correct?

[Graham Flack]

In December, we had already done the work required to add the extra weeks of benefits to the bilI. With your approval, we'd be able to implement it by March 19

However, for any additional changes, a choice would have to be made between the measures earmarked for the month of September and others that the committee members would like to see. As our system is rather old and limited, it's impossible to simply make a list of desired changes and implement them all at the same time.

I know that you're discussing the future of employment insurance. It's useful for our people to explain these limitations to help you with measures and policies for the future, and also to keep you informed about could be done and how long it would take.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Flack and Mr. Housefather.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's be clear, Minister. We are very much aware of the scope of the bill under discussion and about the fact that it's urgent to take action. You already know that we support the bill, because I said so in the House. However, from my questions and questions from others, you have no doubt understood our concerns about predictability.

I also find that the pandemic is taking the blame for a lot of things. You say that we need to monitor the employment market, but that we already know that our economy will not have recovered fully in September. Some employment market sectors will still be in trouble, and the recovery will be slow. We can anticipate that now, and it was predictable when Bill C-4 was introduced after prorogation.

What worries us is taking ad hoc temporary measures. Were not challenging the fact that they are necessary, but one day we will have to have something both permanent and predictable for our regular system and for the special sickness benefits.

What's your timeline for us to get there?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I fully agree that it's urgent to make immediate changes and on the issue of temporary measures. We also need a modern system that will enable us to make changes without having to deal with technical problems like the ones we were just speaking about. Take the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for example. We had to make decisions on a month-to-month basis. We didn't have a lot of latitude. We didn't know what the pandemic had in store for us.

As for Canada recovery benefits, I wanted more latitude for Canadians for a year. That's why we passed an act last September allowing the introduction of a number of temporary recovery measures.

This was to create predictability and certainty for Canadians. We also built in, and we all agreed about the necessity to build in, additional weeks. We then had to make sure there was equity within the EI system. We had to make sure nobody got less than 26 weeks, because that's what somebody on the recovery benefit was going to get. We had to make sure nobody on EI got less than $500, because that's what somebody on the recovery benefit was going to get.

Now that we've decided people need more support, more weeks, we need to make sure there's equity between these two systems, in particular given that Canadians pay into the system of EI and not into the recovery benefit system. For me, this runway of a year was a lot easier to manage in terms of predictability and certainty for Canadians. We weren't telling them the week before that this was going to change or this was coming up. I think we've managed it well. I think Canadians were happy when they found out that we intended to add benefits on. I don't feel as though, and they didn't tell me, they were rushed. They may have shared that with you all.

Again, I appreciate your support, because we have to get this through today.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead, please, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to tell you why I don't accept the answer on the EI sickness benefit. The fact of the matter is that these people's benefits have already run out. This is not a new issue. It's something that has been raised many times before, and the job search requirement in the CRB excluded sick Canadians who were having ongoing problems with a chronic condition, whether cancer, long COVID or something else. That was something that the NDP raised with you, Minister, at the time in terms of the effect of that job search requirement.

What I can't accept is that the Canadian government, in this time of crisis, would throw up its hands and say, “Well, the 15-week benefit for people who are chronically ill in one way or another during the pandemic has expired and there's nothing we can do about it.” That's effectively the position we're in. There are already people who are not getting the financial assistance they need. I don't think it's acceptable for the government to quit on them, which is what's happening. They already can't pay their bills.

If the people on EI regular benefits deserve a solution by the end of the month—and they do—so too do the people with EI sickness benefits, which were far less to begin with. They deserve a similar solution. I'm not hearing any solutions from you. I'm just hearing about why you can't move ahead, rather than what you propose to do for these people who already don't have income support.

When it comes to issues about the CERB, the other thing that I think is missing from this bill, if legislation is required, is anything to do with a low-income CERB repayment amnesty.

One of the issues across the country but especially here in Manitoba is the situation of kids who are coming out of foster care during the pandemic. They were told, in some cases, by government authorities at various levels that they should apply for CERB instead of social assistance, which is what they might normally have done if they didn't have a job. Finding employment in the current circumstances is very difficult. They did that, in good faith, thinking they were eligible. These are some of the people who are now being asked to repay the CERB.

Has your department quantified how much money you actually think you're going to get back from any of these people? What is the number?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I'll defer the quantum to officials for accuracy, but I can assure you that we remain committed to not putting people in a position of having to repay when they don't have the money to pay. That's why we have given people an interest-free year to pay any taxes they owe. We haven't asked people to repay.

What we're trying to do is to get as many people as possible to meet the eligibility criteria. We are working with them, getting their taxes filed and figuring out how we can put them in the best position to not have to repay. If they do have to repay, no one is required to do it at the time. We'll work with them to have very flexible payments. I understand those will necessarily have to be low amounts. There won't be penalties. There won't be interest for anybody who erred in good faith, but I can—

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

That debt hanging over their head is not—