Human Resources Committee on April 20th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The website will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, October 28, 2020, the committee will resume its study of the review of the employment insurance program.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to being our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks, followed by a round of questions.

We have with us today Marie-Hélène Dubé, a criminologist and founder of the “15 weeks is not enough” campaign, as well as Pierre Céré, spokesperson for the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses.

For the benefit of our witnesses, I would like to make a few additional comments. Interpretation in this videoconference will work very much like a regular committee meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mic should be on mute.

We'll start with Mrs. Dubé for five minutes.

Mrs. Dubé, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Dubé, Criminologist and Founder, 15 Weeks is not Enough Campaign, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today. I appreciate it very much.

I'm the founder of the “15 weeks is not enough” campaign. I've faced cancer three times in five years. Each time, I came up against the 15-week limit of EI sickness benefits. So I understand the purpose of your study.

During the third recurrence of cancer, I decided to launch a petition to change the Employment Insurance Act, which hadn't been amended since 1971. Since then, 13 bills have been introduced and the petition has gathered 620,000 signatures. This petition is still very active and collects many signatures every week. It has given me a better understanding of the reality out there.

Of course, we can applaud a number of measures included in the budget presented yesterday. However, I would like to share with you my failure to understand the announcement of 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits. I'll explain my point of view.

In 2019, the Parliamentary Budget Officer did a study on the possibility of increasing the number of weeks of health insurance benefits to 50. That study showed that it would be economically viable.

The study also showed that 77% of people receiving the full 15 weeks of benefits would need a minimum of 41 weeks of benefits. When you offer 26 weeks of benefits, you're helping 23% of people. That's no small thing, but why implement a measure that isn't relevant today?

The request to increase the number of weeks of benefits to 50 isn't a whim. It's a recommendation made by experts. It has also been supported from the very beginning by health organizations, the Fondation québécoise du cancer, unions, groups working to protect the rights of unemployed workers, various other organizations and society in general. Public opinion is very much in favour of this amendment. This refusal is therefore difficult to understand.

There has been a lot of debate on this issue over the past few years, and the same arguments have been repeated often. Today, I'd like to bring your attention to two elements that I consider to be very important, but that we don't often hear about.

First, keeping the number of weeks of health insurance benefits at 15 or 26 weeks is very costly, since it creates a number of other expenses. The bill is high.

Families sometimes have to rely on social assistance programs of last resort because they weren't given a few weeks or a few months of EI benefits. Unfortunately, these people often remain in poverty for the next 20 years and are unable to get out of it. This is the well-documented phenomenon known as the intergenerational transmission of poverty, which can span three to seven generations. The impact of this phenomenon is major. One person starts out in a problematic situation, and thousands of people end up in the same situation. It's a temporary situation that has permanent consequences.

In the case of an intergenerational transmission of poverty over seven generations, a total of 1,015 families could be affected. A lot of people suffer the impact of a problem that could have been addressed in the first place.

Poverty reduction strategies never talk about illness. Instead, they talk about access to housing and education, among other things. However, we never talk about illness. Yet, according to the 2016 report on the burden of socio-economic inequalities, inequalities related to health problems create an economic burden of $6.2 billion. People who come up against the 15-week EI sickness benefit limit aren't the only ones represented in this statistic, but they are part of it. This is the first thing I wanted to make you aware of. We do not talk about them often enough.

Second, there is a loss of revenue. These families, these tens of thousands of people who have to resort to social assistance unexpectedly, no longer pay taxes. They can't go back to being active citizens, whereas when you are sick, you want to get well so you can go back to work. This situation generates a huge loss of revenue for the government.

That has to be factored into the calculations. Unfortunately, every time I appear before committees, I say things that are ignored in many cases, but I think they're important. Today, I wanted to make you aware of these things so that you can think about them and that a satisfactory option can be established. It's important not to forget the people who are still the most disadvantaged and affected. The people who won't be helped are the ones who will be the sickest. That's the sad thing about the 26-week limit. The plan should be improved.

I often say that I'm very proud to live in a country—in this case Canada—where people are now allowed to die with dignity. However, I find it paradoxical and sad that we have to take care of ourselves by living in mediocrity and survive in poverty in order to do so. It makes no sense to me.

I think you know that, aside from the United States, the conditions in G7 countries are really better than here. This is also the case in most countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. Our country is the only one that offers less than one year of benefits. I wish I could be proud to say that a program has been changed to reflect today's reality. You have an opportunity to make a difference and close these gaps.

This concludes my speech.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Céré, welcome to the committee. The floor is yours.

[Pierre Céré, Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses]

Hon. members, I would like to thank you for your invitation.

Please note that the document we have provided to you, which is in both official languages, has been modified slightly as a result of the budget. Actually, many things have happened. In particular, the most recent figures for various income replacement programs, such as the Canada economic recovery benefit, or CERB, have been updated.

First, I must say that we agree with the government who is set on reforming the employment insurance program, which was formalized earlier this year by the mandate given to Minister Qualtrough. We believe that the current situation must be improved to ensure workers are better protected against unemployment.

If the announcements in yesterday's budget can contribute to this direction, the measures announced will have to finally go beyond the temporary measures stage.

Two things have become apparent:

First, the health crisis, with its serious repercussions on the economy and the world of work has revealed the flaws of the employment insurance program. The program literally collapsed in the spring of 2020 before getting back on track at the end of September with more relaxed measures that were very much welcome. These conclusions were shared by the recent report of the International Monetary Fund, or IMF.

Second, if this social program crashed in this way last year, it was essentially because of the manifold cost-cutting measures that were imposed on it in the 1990s, specifically between 1990 and 1996, under two different but successive governments. The last 25 to 30 years have been lived under this leaden shroud. The EI program was literally put in a straitjacket to prevent it from playing its role. So what happened was what we saw last year.

Since 2001, with the aim of analyzing the employment insurance program, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has, according to our evaluation, 72 official meetings, during which 289 witnesses, probably more, were heard and dozens and dozens of briefs submitted. The committee has produced some 20 reports of its own on the matter.

I have personally appeared a dozen times, I think, before your committee and before the Standing Committee on Finance since 2001. We have discussed and examined everything there is to know on employment insurance. No stone has been left unturned. All solutions have been considered; all their costs calculated. We know the problems, and we are keenly aware of their solutions.

The Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses has launched an online platform in both official languages. We have provided the address to this committee. It's a clear and accurate platform based on studies and international comparisons. It's the result of numerous discussions and debates within our organization. It's a platform and a vision for EI that is based on long years of experience and knowledge that is both theoretical and practical.

We've carried out numerous public opinion campaigns so that things change. For example, last year, we ran a campaign on the social safety net. A few weeks ago, we ran another on a resolution that we named “Resolution EI-21”.

Our efforts have never stopped. However, I'm not here to defend our platform. I am here first and foremost to suggest a new blueprint for reparations and justice, an employment insurance program that belongs in this century, the 21st century, rather than in the past, and that reflects the modern realities of labour and the demands of the world of work.

In this sense, we are focused on two objectives: expanding the present coverage and improving the protection of workers.

The expansion of the coverage refers to many things. It is necessary to expand the coverage to areas of the world of work that are currently uncovered, such as self-employment, representing 15% of the workforce, or three million people. Doing so would also ensure a greater access to EI to those who are the least protected: part-time workers, representing 20% of the workforce, of which two-thirds are women, seasonal workers in specific regions of the country, and indigenous communities. This means that it is crucial to improve the eligibility conditions with universal criteria that would take these realities into account.

Expanding the coverage would also imply relaxing the serious sanctions linked to supposedly invalid reasons for ending employment. Currently, 25% of applicants who have worked and contributed to the plan in the last year have had their applications refused because of these sanctions.

Improving the protection of workers means reflecting on premium rates and how they are calculated, benefit periods, the duration of sickness benefits, and so on. It also means that the application process needs to be simplified through easy-to-follow regulations, as the program has become needlessly complex.

In our view, it is a matter of working towards these two goals with the conviction and the sincerity of people who know that absolute perfection does not exist. We deplore the fact that most of the measures announced in yesterday's budget are temporary in nature. That is not right.

I reiterate what I said at the start. No stone has been left unturned, all problems have been identified, and a plethora of solutions has already been suggested. I am left with only one thing to say. To quote a very famous slogan:

“Do it.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Céré.

We'll now open it up to questions, starting with the Conservatives.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Céré, I would add:

“Keep it simple, stupid.”

We want to make the solutions permanent, but we also need to make them as simple as possible.

My thanks to the committee for welcoming me today as a special guest. I feel there may be a little conflict of interest, since Marie-Hélène Dubé is from my riding.

Mrs. Dubé, thank you very much for joining us today.

As for the content of the budget unveiled yesterday, we already knew that the Liberal government was going to increase the number of weeks of benefits payable from 15 to 26 for people with serious illnesses. The government did not hide it, quite the contrary. It made the announcement a number of weeks ago, maybe months. It was in the budget and it is now a reality. If I understand correctly, the government will change the legislation so that people with serious illnesses will be eligible for 26 weeks of benefits.

I must mention that Ms. Chabot, who is with us, has introduced Bill C-265, which calls for 50 weeks of benefits.

At our 2018 convention in Saint-Hyacinthe, which you attended, Mrs. Dubé, we adopted a proposal from my association to increase the number of weeks of benefits payable to 52.

At the Conservative Party national convention, which took place in the last few weeks, we passed that same resolution to increase the number of weeks of benefits payable from 15 to 52.

Mrs. Dubé, you mentioned that you had cancer three times over a five-year period and that, each time, you were only eligible for 15 weeks of benefits. Without going into detail, if you had had 50 or 52 weeks of benefits, what would have changed in your life?

Clearly, I don't want to know the details of your personal finances, but I would like to know to what extent your burden would have been lighter if you had received 50 weeks of benefits instead of 15.

[Marie-Hélène Dubé]

Thank you for the question.

In my case, it would have made all the difference in the world in many ways. I should point out that I am a federal government employee. At the time, I was hired on renewable contracts and I had no benefits. The first time I received 15 weeks. I was seriously ill and it was an emergency situation. They didn't even know if I would survive. I went into a lot of debt.

The second time, I felt that the situation didn't make sense, so I went back to work far too soon. I didn't follow medical advice because I couldn't. So I got sick again very quickly. We can assume that, if I had had the time to take care of myself and my children, to take care of everything, it might have been different.

The third recurrence had serious consequences for me. I had not even worked enough hours to qualify for the 15 weeks of benefits a third time. So I had to delay surgery and work full time until the day before the surgery, when I had been told to rest two months prior to that. I didn't follow that order and suffered serious consequences and all kinds of debt as a result. In my misfortune, I was fortunate enough to own a house, which I had to remortgage heavily on three occasions. Had I not had that, I probably would have had to apply for social assistance until the end of time.

So 50 weeks of benefits could make all the difference. If we think we are saving money by reducing unemployment by a few months, let's also think about all the consequences for many years to come. We would be better off if this small gap were addressed. Actually, we know that illness is part of the life of one out of every two people and two out of every three people in the case of cancer. There are also mental health problems, depression, heart problems. A lot of people are ill, but the illness does not have to be fatal because people are able to take care of themselves. However, the system has not kept up, which is incomprehensible.

So it could have made a big difference for me and for the children. I would have had less stress.

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

In fact, according to the situation you have just described, Mrs. Dubé, apart from the direct financial repercussions of not having more than 15 weeks of benefits, people who are ill are forced to make decisions that are detrimental to their health.

I think that's the more serious problem. The situation becomes worse because of the stress related to finances or an ongoing lack of income. EI meets some of the needs, but does not make up for all of the income. This really puts a lot of pressure on people, which pushes them to make decisions that are detrimental to their health. This, of course, has a cost to society.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

There are 30 seconds left.

[Marie-Hélène Dubé]

Yes, there is a human cost. We have to think about the repercussions. People will have a lot of complications that they wouldn't otherwise have had, such as depression. Delaying treatment costs more because you are sicker. Society as a whole is becoming poorer. We think we are saving money, but it's completely the opposite.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

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

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to begin by welcoming the witnesses.

Mrs. Dubé, I commend you not only for your courage, but also for addressing a personal situation and trying to help society. We thank you for that.

Mr. Céré, I applaud your perseverance. The fact that you have been appearing before our committees regularly since 2011 to address the exact same issues is incredible. I think this is the first time since 1971, for 50 years, that the program's sickness benefits have been enhanced, with the addition of 11 weeks of benefits. It goes from 15 to 26 weeks. That is at least a step forward.

Mrs. Dubé, you said that this would only help 23% of those who have made a claim. I would say that the adjustment from 15 to 26 weeks of benefits will help 100% of people. It may not be enough for 73% of people, but with the increase in weeks, it will help everyone.

Mr. Céré, you issued a press release yesterday noting that the budget included significant progress. However, you issued another press release in which you said you are not satisfied because the measures regarding the universal standard are temporary. It's only a one-year increase, but there will be consultations later this year. But I understand that you are tired of consultations.

Do you have any views on coverage for self-employed and gig workers? We are consulting. There is no question that they should be covered by EI.

Could you give us some advice on who should be added and how many hours should be used as a basis for calculating eligibility?

[Pierre Céré]

Temporary measures have been introduced in response to the crisis. You know as well as I do that the employment insurance system failed to play its part last year. It was no joke; everything literally collapsed. Offices closed, phone lines didn't work and the Internet system crashed. Like a plane in mid-flight, the government had to create the Canada emergency response benefit (CERB) in a matter of days. It worked.

Mr. Housefather, we should never forget that, at some point last year, 9 million people lost their jobs. We are talking about 45% of the workforce. The government had to respond quickly, and did so by implementing the CERB, which ended at the end of September. The government then had time to think and implemented programs that were sustainable. Those who did not qualify for EI were directed to the Canada Revenue Agency and the CRB. Employed workers continued to be covered by the EI system, with some flexibility. This lasted for about one year. Then extensions and all sorts of adjustments were made.

It worked, but now we are moving towards a transition, a future recovery. So we have to think about the EI system in a different way than just in terms of temporary measures. For years, we have been playing yo-yo with pilot projects, temporary measures and things like that. My colleague and I are not stupid people. Yesterday, we studied the budget very carefully. We listened to the commentators, the journalists, the political observers and the civil society players and we all understood that the government would establish a new single eligibility requirement for all Canadians, a permanent 420-hour measure, starting this August.

This made the headlines. Why? Because this sort of budget or document often uses cryptic language. The word “cryptic” means you don't understand or you understand what you want to understand. Who knows? That being said, many people understood that a new 420-hour measure was being set up. They later understood, less than 24 hours after the budget was presented, that it was a temporary measure for one year. That was confirmed; we were told that the consultations had taken place.

Earlier, you said that I have been appearing before your committees since 2011, but really it has been since 2001. I have been involved with unemployed groups since 1979, for 42 years. We started our organization in 1979, during the downsizing, which we called the “Cullen measures” after the name of the minister. The 1990s were a terrible time. Both the Conservative government and the Jean Chrétien government were terrible for the EI system. It has been in a straitjacket for 30 years. Everyone has analyzed and reviewed it to death. That includes this committee.

You can see I am a little upset. Of course, I can calm down, rest assured. The fact remains that your own committee has produced dozens of reports and studies on the EI system. We know the solutions. So please implement them. Your government knows the solutions. Move slowly if you have to, block by block, but do so with a little more resolve. Let's be transparent and clear with the public. That's all I'm saying.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think my time is up, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You're right.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm sure Ms. Chabot is pleased that Mr. Céré said to proceed block by block.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think so too.

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

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

I will not answer Mr. Housefather, because I do not want to waste time.

Mr. Céré and Mrs. Dubé, good afternoon. Thank you for joining us.

Unlike others, I know you, and I want to applaud your extraordinary spirit in fighting for employment insurance in Quebec, which will of course have an impact on all Canadian workers.

I wouldn't say “just do it”, although I like the expression. I would say “go, go, go”. That's what I actually mean. For years, we have seen the EI system shrink rather than strengthen, hence the massive blow we have received in the current crisis.

Mrs. Dubé, you made some very compelling arguments in favour of the 50 weeks of benefits. One of them was the issue of equity. We are talking about workers who pay into EI for their entire lives. For 50 years, they have been discriminated against and they are not treated fairly when they lose their jobs.

Can you tell us more about that?

[Marie-Hélène Dubé]

Thank you for the question; it is a very good one.

We do need to think about that. Workers have been paying premiums for many years, and they all pay the same amount. However, as soon as a problem arises, it is no longer the same coverage. That doesn't happen with other types of insurance. It's like saying that, after a collision, your auto insurance company only pays for a portion of the costs by picking and choosing which ones they cover. It's as absurd as that. Although everyone pays the same premiums, some may be told that they will only be paid for 15 weeks and may even end up in poverty after that. It's really a question of fairness or discrimination.

Why shouldn't people who have paid the same contributions be entitled to the same coverage so that they can then resume their place as active citizens? This is a very important point. It's also a matter of trust.

Since 2009, I have collected 620,000 signatures, 500,000 of which are on paper. I don't understand why the government is ignoring this and pretending that nothing is wrong. Before the Liberals were in power, I had worked extensively with Denis Coderre. At that time, everyone was in favour of this bill, which went a long way by proposing 52 weeks of benefits.

I think the public trust is very important. In December 2019, in a private meeting I had with Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Qualtrough, it was clearly agreed that 26 weeks was inadequate, that they would go back and do their homework and come back with a better proposal. Again, it was a matter of trust.

Finally, let's talk about COVID-19. All those who will be dealing with the aftermath of COVID-19 and its complications for a long time will not have enough with 26 weeks of benefits. As Mr. Céré was saying with respect to temporary measures, if we set the duration of benefits at 50 weeks, we could cover them all instead of always using temporary measures. We have shown that it can be done. We have the money; it comes from the workers. Everything has already been studied. Just do it.

Frankly, I don't understand the 26 week proposal. Fairness, trust and humanity are key to helping people look after themselves.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Céré, we were surprised by the temporary measures, the 420 insurable hours of work, using the 13% minimum unemployment rate, and the 26-week duration, which was extended to 50 weeks temporarily.

According to Resolution AE-21, which you worked on, you want these measures to be considered permanent in the reform. Let's not forget that most of the temporary measures will expire in September 2021.

Did I understand what you said correctly? Can we build on that?

[Pierre Céré]

We definitely can.

We're aware of these issues and we have already implemented measures to make employment insurance more flexible.

Right now, budget announcements are being made for next year. That's fine, but it's not too late to do some good. The expectation is that, by August or September 2021, based on some projections, we can even make the single eligibility requirement permanent. The eligibility requirement based on various unemployment rates in the 62 regions needs to be dropped for good. We need to stick with a single eligibility requirement for both regular and special benefits.

The temporary measures will end in September, and those who do not qualify for employment insurance are very concerned. I'm thinking especially of the self-employed. Fortunately, the CRB has been extended to 50 weeks, but that will all end in September. What happens after that?

The department has a mandate to review the employment insurance program with the goal of expanding coverage to include the self-employed. September is just around the corner. I was expecting to see a proposal to revise the program to cover self-employed workers. I was expecting it to be similar to the CRB, which already exists.

The crisis is not over and the transition to recovery is barely under way. We don't know the future, but we do know that the temporary measures will end in September. The self-employed are the first to feel it. We have a serious issue.

I think of all our friends in the world of arts and entertainment, and of all the self-employed everywhere. That's a lot of people. We need to think about this and put permanent measures in place for employment insurance. We're very anxious to see coverage expanded to include the self-employed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Céré.

Ms. Gazan, please, you have six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

My first question is for Madam Dubé.

First of all, thank you for sharing your story. As somebody who comes from a family of people who have had cancer, as we all do, I think your story is common. I agree with you. Certainly 15 weeks are not enough. You mentioned 26 weeks are not enough. I agree with you on that.

I also have the concerns that you raised, particularly around COVID-19. We talk about people having COVID-19 but we don't talk about the long-term impacts of that in terms of health implications, even after somebody recovers from COVID-19 but is left with serious health implications.

In light of your personal story, but certainly in light of the pandemic that we're currently in, why is it so critical to expand the number of sick weeks even further?

[Marie-Hélène Dubé]

Thank you for the question.

It's an important point. I can give you a very simple example related to COVID-19. My youngest son is 22 years old. He's a firefighter and is in excellent shape. He contracted COVID-19 last December, and he was the first to admit he was surprised he was so sick. It took many weeks, even a few months, for him to recover, and we're talking about a young person in great shape.

We are starting to see cases of young people—and not so young people—who are already past the six-month period for the effects of COVID-19 and are still not able to return to work.

By setting the number of weeks of benefits at 26, are we once again telling all the people who are going to join those who have run out of benefits and are not returning to work—they currently make up 77% of those people—that they too will be forced to go on welfare? That percentage will go up and the reciprocal percentage, 23%, will go down.

We must not overlook all the impacts associated with this illness or the many years they will be part of a system that does nothing for them. As Mr. Céré said, we are sailing in uncharted waters on this, but we can already start taking a step back. We can see that there are impacts, and that young people and people of all ages are being affected, including very active ones. Do we want to push these individuals into poverty?

In addition, I have often heard the government say that no one will be left behind and that they will help all Canadians. What about the sick people who went through their 15 weeks of benefits and fell through the cracks? They had no CERB, no other benefits. That is terrible. We need to think about that.

For all these reasons, the benefit needs to be changed to reflect today's reality. Why put in place a benefit that's inadequate and that will immediately lead to more claims? Let's get it right and make sure we include those who will experience the effects of COVID-19.

This will also stop us continuously implementing temporary measures. Otherwise, we're going to have to develop more of them. So this would allow us to introduce a measure that would more in tune with the times.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Madam Dubé.

I agree with you completely. It's one of the reasons I have been pushing for a permanent, guaranteed livable basic income.

I don't think—