Human Resources Committee on April 20th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Gazan, excuse me for one second.

Mrs. Dubé, could I ask you to move your microphone closer to your nose so the interpreters can hear better.

[Marie-Hélène Dubé]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You won't lose any time, Ms. Gazan.

Please go ahead.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

One of the reasons that I have been pushing for a guaranteed livable basic income is the argument that we can't assume that everybody is able to work. Those who cannot work shouldn't be destined to a life of poverty.

I really appreciate what you shared today.

I'm anglophone, so forgive me if I mispronounce your name, Mr. Céré.

Monsieur Céré, one of the things you spoke about in your brief was proposing adopting universal criteria for EI eligibility. You spoke a little bit about that today in committee.

Can you explain why the expansion of coverage is important? Very quickly, what recommendations would you add to some that you have already discussed?

[Pierre Céré]

In the past, until 1990 I would say, coverage under the employment insurance program was very good.

Until 1990, over 80% to 85% of workers were covered by the employment insurance system. If they lost their jobs, they could expect to receive unemployment insurance benefits, as they were called at the time. All the cutbacks from 1990 to 1996 were designed to put up barriers to employment insurance. I feel that was the objective of those governments. Accounting calculations were certainly done as well, because we can recall the accumulated surpluses that, infamously, were diverted. But that's another story.

They put up barriers to the program and made it much harder to get benefits. In 1996, when unemployment insurance became employment insurance, they took advantage of that to require many more hours of work to qualify for. They knew perfectly well where they were heading.

People who work part-time, 20% of the workforce, two-thirds of them women, were literally kicked out of the program. The numbers prove it.

Today, nearly 40% of people who apply for employment insurance are covered. We have a real problem that needs to be thought through. We believe a single eligibility requirement could fit the bill. It would take into account all the realities, which are diverse in the working world—I'm thinking in particular of seasonal, part-time, gig or contract jobs. The 420-hour criterion is excellent. Instead of using it as a temporary measure, we should make it permanent.

I will finish by saying that Canada is the only country in the world, of all the countries with an employment insurance program, where the eligibility requirement is based on place of residence. The eligibility requirement changes depending on where you live. We need to stop that and simplify the program to ensure that it protects those who pay into it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I agree with you. I don't think we've ever recovered from the austerity of the 1990s. It has dunked people deeper and deeper into poverty.

You spoke about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thanks, Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay. Hopefully I'll have a chance next round.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Céré, I am an employer and I've had about 30 employees for what will soon be 30 years. Obviously, employers and employees share the cost of employment insurance. The government itself does not directly contribute to the cost; it's split between employers and employees.

Of course, as you said, society has evolved over the last 40 years. You have been fighting this battle for 40 years. I understand that COVID-19 was a game changer, that some things were adjusted temporarily, and that you are hoping these measures will become permanent and not be only temporary.

Has your team or the government assessed the cost to employers and employees if the basic requirement of 420 hours of work were to be applied across Canada, and include everyone, for example, the 15% of workers who are self-employed and not currently included, as well as contract, temporary and seasonal workers?

Please excuse my ignorance in this regard.

[Pierre Céré]

It's not ignorance, Mr. Généreux.

I would say that if you go digging through your committee's archives, you will find plenty of studies and numbers.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

The studies are—

[Pierre Céré]

I'll give you an example.

Right now, the premium rate is one of the lowest it's been in 40 years, at $1.58. In 2008-2009, during the last economic crisis, I clearly remember being on the radio with economists, right-wing economists, I must admit, from the Montreal Economic Institute. We were discussing the proposal by the Liberal leader at the time, Mr. Ignatieff, which was to establish a single eligibility requirement for employment insurance with 360 hours of work, to get through the crisis.

One economist was telling me that we couldn't do that, that it would cost too much, that it would change the premium rate, and so on.

I then asked the price of milk question, “Ma'am, do you know the current premium rate?”

She replied that it was $2.00 for workers. I told her it wasn't, and that I had the numbers in front of me. I had all the premium rates dating back to 1972 in front of me. The rate was $1.73 at the time. I said, “Ma'am, if you think that at $2.00 we're not doing so badly, but we shouldn't raise it, the 26-cent difference solves all the problems”.

The question of sickness benefits was raised several times earlier. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that increasing the number of weeks of sickness benefits from 15 to 50 translates into a 6-cent increase in the workers' premium. In this case, that would be an increase from $1.58 to $1.64. Are people going to go jump off a bridge?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Certainly not.

But I will ask my question again. Do we have any evidence available?

Entrepreneurs have been struggling to find workers since the COVID-19 pandemic began. In my constituency, 500 to 600 jobs that pay from $15 to $25 an hour are vacant.

Several employees used the CERB after losing their jobs last summer and continued to receive benefits until the CERB ended. In some cases, they were eligible for employment insurance. So those workers didn't necessarily return to work even if they had the opportunity to do so.

That comes at a cost. I'm thinking of a business in my constituency whose owners are unable to find workers right now, even though they are offering $18 an hour. They are even considering relocating their business to the United States. It must be said that we also have an immigration issue.

Income replacement benefits come at a cost.

[Pierre Céré]

Yes, of course, and the cost has been massive since the beginning of the crisis.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Absolutely.

[Pierre Céré]

Since March 15, 2020, $200 billion has been spent on income replacement benefits. That's the equivalent of more than 10 years of the employment insurance budget. However, millions of people have received assistance.

Let's remember for the rest of our lives that, in 2020 alone, 9 million people lost their jobs at some point. That's 45% of the population.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I'm not saying it wasn't necessary.

I'm going to play devil's advocate: Canadians have managed to save $100 billion since the pandemic began. So there's a lot of money in the economy.

[Pierre Céré]

That doesn't come from the CERB, Mr. Généreux. The CERB is the equivalent of minimum wage. If you multiply the minimum wage by 40 hours, you will get more than the CERB benefit.

The CERB gets blamed for everything. The reason people saved money was because they couldn't travel, consume arts and entertainment, or go to restaurants. I spent less money myself during the pandemic.

People paid their bills with the CERB. That money went right back into the local economy.

You're an entrepreneur. Unemployed people who bought consumer goods from your business did so with CERB or EI money. That money goes right back into the local economy. It's important to understand that.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I completely agree with you.

Has my time run out already, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes, Mr. Généreux.

[Pierre Céré]

I would like to have continued our conversation, Mr. Généreux. We will have to do it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux and Mr. Céré.

Now we'll go to Mr. Dong, please, for five minutes.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank both witnesses for coming to the committee today.

Monsieur Céré, I will allow you to continue that discussion. I very much agree with what you just said. I've been in constant communication with my friends across the world, from some of the regions that have experienced terrible outbreaks during this wave. They are telling me that part of the reason is that workers don't have financial support from their government. They don't have coverage. They don't have a choice but to go to work and provide for their families.

Earlier on, last March, the government made a very clear, and I think a very decisive decision to make sure that personal financial support was in place. We can see, and I agree with you, that almost nine million Canadians who lost their jobs due to COVID have had substantial coverage in terms of income. Had that not been in place, we'd probably have ended up in a much worse situation, especially during the first wave.

We heard a lot of concerns about that, a lot of debate about that, the cost of it, that people may game the system. Everything had to happen very quickly, in a matter of weeks. We heard that during the debate. Sometimes I'm unclear, even now, where the honourable Conservative members stand on these issues. We hear conflicting comments on these. One thing I learned in the last year is to always go by their votes. I do appreciate that, at the end of the day, all parties worked together and got those supports through very quickly, prior to last summer, which was fantastic.

One thing that we noticed in the transition from the CERB to CRB is that the system was intended to be very flexible, to be inclusive of those who normally wouldn't qualify under the previous EI system. I want to get your thoughts and your feedback, and perhaps through you, from your membership, on how these flexibilities benefited them, or more importantly, benefited the workforce of our country.

[Pierre Céré]

Is your question for me, Mr. Dong?