Human Resources Committee on April 20th, 2021

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

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but the number of people who literally had no coverage at all was alarming. Obviously, we made changes, as you know, through COVID with respect to eligibility, the CERB and other benefits, to make sure they were covered, because we learned, as we went on, that they deserved coverage.

In your presentation, you speak about a pilot project that you proposed or would like to see happen. Could you elaborate on that a bit more?

[Dr. David Gray]

That's been a practice of ESDC for decades and decades now. Just about any reforms, even small ones, are tested by pilot projects only in certain EI administrative regions. That's a very sound practice, as long as a representative set of areas are chosen. Don't just take the high unemployment ones. Don't just take the low unemployment ones. Yes, you have to try that out, because it's easier said than done to devise an efficient scheme that's going to be solvent and that's not going to drain resources away from other unemployed workers, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Gray and Mr. Long.

Ms. Chabot, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My sincere thanks to our witnesses for joining us today.

Ms. Rose-Lizée, I am sorry that we are not able to hear from you.

Ms. Brown and Mr. Gray, thank you also for joining us.

My questions will go to the representatives from the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail.

Ladies, I first want to acknowledge the work that you are doing to eliminate discrimination against women in the employment insurance program and to make sure that they have a social safety net. You gave two major examples. We know that the employment insurance program is complex and that not everyone is really familiar with how it works. When you talk about the 50-week limit for benefits that comes into play when you combine two types of benefits, I assume that you are actually talking about regular benefits and special benefits.

There is parental leave, but let's take the example of maternity leave. Correct me if I am wrong. Maternity leave can be up to 50 weeks. As I understand it, those weeks during which women are on maternity leave are not insurable weeks that allow them to be eligible for other benefits, like regular benefits. During the crisis, some women found that they no longer had a job when their maternity leave ended. Without the temporary measures, they would have fallen between the cracks.

Can you give me some solutions for that problem?

[Kimmyanne Brown]

Yes, that's exactly right. It's a good example.

Section 12 of the Employment Insurance Act sets a limit of 50 weeks for the benefits that a person can receive when regular benefits and special benefits are combined.

We deal a lot with cases where women in Quebec receive benefits from the Québec Parental Insurance Plan. It very frequently happens that, during or at the end of a woman's maternity leave, she learns that her position has been eliminated. In theory, the employment insurance program should guarantee that the woman is eligible for protection, especially because she has paid into it. But that woman cannot receive benefits. She must therefore find a job during her maternity leave. I believe everyone would agree that requiring that a woman do that makes no sense, because she has to look after her baby. That, of course, is why the maternity leave exists.

That is why we consider it discriminatory. It is currently being challenged.

That example is the easiest to understand: when a woman on maternity leave learns that her job has been eliminated, she is not eligible for employment insurance benefits, even though she has paid into it.

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

Can you suggest a solution that would put the program right?

[Kimmyanne Brown]

In my opinion, the ideal solution is simply to abolish the 50-week limit for benefits. That would allow women to have access to the benefits to which they are perfectly entitled.

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

Thank you.

Women and young people were more particularly affected by the pandemic. That is what the figures show in terms of job losses. Currently, the eligibility requirement for employment insurance is based on the number of hours, and it varies. Let us not forget that this single criterion of 420 hours is a temporary measure. Usually, it varies from 420 hours to 700 hours depending on the region.

So what you are saying is that a man who works full time, 40 hours a week, will be eligible for benefits more quickly than a person who works 15 hours per week. Is that correct?

[Kimmyanne Brown]

Yes, that's basically it.

In addition, the woman is then going to receive less money. That contributes to putting women in a precarious situation.

If we adopt a hybrid eligibility requirement, based either on hours worked or weeks worked, that kind of discrimination would not occur. The woman would receive the benefits she needs.

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

Should there be a minimum number of hours or should we consider the number of weeks?

[Kimmyanne Brown]

Actually, our third recommendation is that the minimum requirement be either 420 hours or 12 weeks of work, and at least 35 weeks of regular benefits.

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

Do you have any proposals on the income replacement rate, that is, the amount of the benefit?

[Kimmyanne Brown]

Honestly, I do not know which recommendation that is.

I have to be very honest: Ms. Rose-Lizée and I divided up the points in the presentation to make it equal for us both. That's why your question catches me unawares.

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

I don't want to put you on the spot, Ms. Brown.

In my opinion, your entire brief is more than thorough. Thank you for this contribution to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Next, we're going to Ms. Gazan, please, for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I noticed Mr. Gray's hand is up.

[Dr. David Gray]

I just want to make a brief comment.

I completely agree with the proposal to offer a choice between the number of hours and the number of weeks worked in the past in order to determine eligibility for employment insurance.

The 1996 reform was a good one, but it was really designed to benefit seasonal workers, not part-time workers.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I thought that was a point of order.

Is my time starting now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead. Sure.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Perfect.

I'd like to thank, first of all, the witnesses for being here.

My first question is for the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail.

My question is about child care. Yesterday the federal government announced a national child care program, something, I might add, that has been promised for over 28 years, but a welcomed announcement. I can't tell you how frustrating it is for me. We talk about EI reforms which are great, but I think we also have to acknowledge that EI was a system set up for white working males back during the Great Depression. Now we see women and we see the impact of the pandemic particularly on them, and particularly on BIPOC women in terms of health care sectors that are getting hit hard with COVID on the front lines.

The national child care program, of course, as you know, was inspired by the Quebec program. Can you talk to the committee about the strength of Quebec's affordable child care program, how it's critical, and how it will benefit workers, particularly women?

[Kimmyanne Brown]

That is not really the objective of the brief. However, for CFIAT—and congratulations to Ms. Gazan for saying the full name correctly—it is clear that very affordable daycare places are needed in order to allow women to enter the workforce. As for the experience in Quebec, since that is where I live, it is clear that it does allow women to get back into the workforce. Currently, in Quebec, we have a lack of daycare places, but that is a different discussion.

In a word, the national program will have impacts on the employment insurance program. That is why it's urgent to review it, because more women will be coming into the workforce as a result of the future national program. The criteria for eligibility to the employment insurance program will have to be reviewed because, as you so rightly said, the reform in the 1990s was really done so that the program would benefit a certain category of workers, largely made up of men. We now recognize that, not only was the program not designed for women, but also that it discriminates against them.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much for your comments. I agree entirely.

Your organization also proposed increasing the replacement rate to 60%, which was the rate used before the 1990s. Why do you propose this increase, and how do you see it more specifically impacting women?

[Kimmyanne Brown]

Our recommendation 7 will have a direct effect on women accessing the workforce. Employment insurance calls itself a social insurance program, not an assistance program, so it must ensure that income continues when an event interrupts a person's ability to earn a salary for the reasons set out in the act. Increasing the income replacement rate to 60% would address those problems.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I would probably note, and I wonder if you agree, that we've witnessed this during COVID. As a result of kids having to stay home, that responsibility is more often placed on the female caregivers. It's certainly being proven right now in the midst of a pandemic.

My next question is for Mr. Gray.

Why do you believe that the entitlement to an EI regular benefit should be determined by changes in the provincial employment rate rather than the unemployment rate in these different EI economic regions?

[Dr. David Gray]

It's a more accurate indicator of shock, of something bad happening in the labour market: the reduction in employment, a drop in labour demand, the availability of jobs and the availability of job openings, vacancies.