Evidence of meeting #27 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was coverage.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses
The entire world of work has been paralyzed by the public health situation. The shock was brutal last year and continues to be so. There are still major shockwaves. You can see what is happening in Ontario at the moment. The economy is paralyzed in a number of places. So these income replacement measures provided for Canadians are courageous and necessary. We don't let the people down. We don't let the citizens of this country down.
Last year, when the CERB was established, employment insurance in all its forms was completely set aside, including regular benefits, sickness benefits or caregiving benefits, in order to establish a single benefit based on good faith. About nine million people lost their jobs and were able to take advantage of the measure, which was subsequently replaced by the CRB.
What Marie-Hélène Dubé said about the CRB was true, and I echo it. Sick people who were not eligible, or who were eligible only for 15 weeks of sickness benefits and cannot demonstrate even the slightest ability to work, are ineligible for employment insurance, of course. But they are no longer eligible for the CRB either and they are in limbo. A gap needs to be filled there and it is not too late to do so.
No one has pointed this out since the meeting began, but the 26 weeks of sickness benefits that are going to be provided will begin only as of August 2022. Why are we waiting until August next year, until 2022, when, in the current situation, all kinds of temporary measures have been established and then extended? You know as well as I do that we could move a little faster. It should have been done quite quickly.
We are demanding a comprehensive 50-week benefit, for regular benefits and sickness benefits alike. However, 26 weeks is a step forward. When something is offered, you take it. We celebrate it, saying all the while that it is not enough. We will continue to fight for it to go to 50 weeks.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
You brought up Ontario, and of course in Ontario the conversation about the sickness benefit coverage is very much alive. I'm actually pretty encouraged to see the increasing coverage in the budget.
I want to ask you—
Liberal
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you.
One thing is for sure: the status quo is no longer an option. I think we all agree on that and, correct me if I am wrong, the witnesses have said so too. That is why we are conducting this study. It is a concern to realize that, in September, very soon actually, most of the temporary measures will come to an end. I was just going to mention that the 26 weeks of sickness benefits will begin in 2022.
The Supreme Court has held that the objectives of employment insurance “are not only to remedy the poverty caused by unemployment, but also to maintain the ties between unemployed persons and the labour market”.
I am now going to talk about the funding of the employment insurance program. In annex 1 to the budget, I read that it would be back in balance in seven years. That is a concern, because first, there will be a huge deficit, then a surplus in the second year, and then a return to balance. Of course, it depends on the premium rates paid by employees and employers, which can change. That has been proven. However, when the program was established, the government also played a role in funding it.
Mr. Céré, is that a possible solution? Could that be reinstated?
Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses
Yes, that can be a possible solution. The important thing is for the program to protect workers and to cover its costs.
Since the government of the day withdrew the state from the fund in 1990, it has only had premiums from the workers and the employers, on a 40-60 basis. Employers provide 60% of the employment insurance fund. Could we see the state returning to the fund, contributing 10%, for example? Yes, we could. Other formulae are also possible.
I have often heard representatives and leaders of employers' associations say that they do not disagree with us at all, that they understand that we are in the trenches, that we know the need for an employment insurance program and that they are able to help us. However, they find that they are paying too much. Could we change certain things along those lines? Yes, we could.
We need a real program that protects workers and we need to balance the program's expenditures.
So it is very possible to foresee the state contributing to the employment insurance fund once more, Ms. Chabot.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, has said that self-employed workers are not prepared to contribute.
Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses
They are mistaken.
Take, for example, the Québec Parental Insurance Plan, the QPIP. It is probably the only social program that had the courage to do that after the 1990s. Since 2006, self-employed workers have been automatically protected under the program. They pay a premium, sort of midway between the total of the workers' premium and the current employers' premium. You can consult the figures on the Québec Parental Insurance Plan. I have them with me.
The CFIB is wrong when it says that employers will be paying for self-employed workers. That's wrong. Look at the QPIP; it works well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you.
The last round of questions goes to Ms. Gazan, please, for two and a half minutes.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you so much, Chair.
Monsieur Céré, in the last round you began speaking about EI models that other countries are using for the self-employed. I'm wondering if you could point to two specific international models that we should perhaps consider implementing in Canada.
Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses
That is a huge topic. In the appendices at the end of the document we have provided for you, in French and in English, you will see a study we prepared on how self-employed workers are covered around the world.
We went to see what was being done in Australia, and even in places like Belarus, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece and Hungary. The document has four pages on the programs that provide regular coverage and those that provide voluntary or partial coverage. However, countless countries, in both north and south—we can even talk about Kazakhstan, I believe—have employment insurance programs that protect self-employed workers. A number of formulae are possible.
It is a major debate, of course, but we believe that such a program in Canada could model itself on the operation of the CRB. It would perhaps not have the same eligibility criteria, for example, how much money people have to have earned or the same $500 per week. However, the CRB has a structure that could be used as a model to establish a permanent program that would ensure that the world of self-employed work is covered.
I feel that we have reached that point as a 21st century society.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Céré and Ms. Gazan.
Colleagues, that is all the time we have with this group of witnesses.
My thanks to the witnesses for their passion, their obvious expertise and their long experience with these issues. I am grateful to them. Their participation will be very useful for our study and they have my sincere thanks for joining us today.
We will suspend the session in order to welcome our next witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The committee meeting today is part of our review of the employment insurance program.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.
Wait until I call you by name before you begin to speak. When you are ready to speak, click on the microphone icon to activate it.
The interpretation services provided in this videoconference are much the same as during regular meetings of the committee. At the bottom of your screen you can choose between the floor, English or French.
When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses to continue our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks followed by questions.
We have with us today, David Gray, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
We also have with us Kimmyanne Brown, workplace rights coordinator, Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail, and Ruth Rose-Lizée, a member of the Conseil.
We will begin with Mr. Gray.
Welcome to the committee, Mr. Gray. You have the floor for five minutes.
Dr. David Gray Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.
The title of my very, very brief presentation this afternoon is “Employment Insurance Reforms for the Post-Pandemic Period”.
The first point I would like to raise is that this pandemic was a once-in-a-century catastrophe, and the economic impact of this pandemic has also been quite distinct from that of the previous recession of 2008-09, for example. When I say once in a century, I hope that we have to wait more than a century in the future before something like this happens again.
I'm assuming that the labour market recovery, the economic recovery, will be nearly complete by the end of this year, 2021, so the first point that I would like to assert is that we should not implement major and permanent reforms to the EI regime in the post-pandemic period based on what's happened right now in the pandemic era labour market. Having said that, I think there are definitely some lessons to be learned in the pandemic-induced recession now. There was a depression for two or three months in the spring of 2020. I'm assuming that much of the recovery will be done by the end of this year, so I'm going to talk about reforms under those premises.
Regarding the fallout, the rate of long-term unemployment has risen substantially. Canada has generally fared quite well compared to many other countries as far as long-term unemployment is concerned, and so I fear that some workers will be laid off permanently. We are going to have to allocate more resources towards retraining, skills development, literacy and essential skills for those workers who will never be able to return to their prior jobs. This, I note, is an ongoing challenge of targeting workers on the periphery of the labour market with efficacious employment benefit and support measures.
I'd also like to talk about a topic that was brought up in the prior session, gig workers. We all know that gig workers in certain occupations have been hit very, very hard by this pandemic. This includes my younger daughter, who aspires to be an opera diva in the live entertainment industry. She has had her career put on hold for at least a two-year period, so I want to address the issue of whether EI coverage can be extended to gig workers.
I have a piece that was published recently in Policy Options. It is really short, current and totally accessible. My co-author, Colin Busby at the Institute for Research in Public Policy, and I argue that a step in the right direction would be to try to get more and more gig workers covered under the labour code so they're more like employees rather than self-employed people. There is no official definition of what constitutes gig workers as far as Statistics Canada is concerned. The dividing line between self-employment and gig employment is quite fuzzy from both a legal point of view—I think some changes are possible there—and from a practical point of view.
We should note that some gig workers have other jobs, so some gig workers are just moonlighting. An advantage would be the major welfare gains, as we economists say, for certain gig workers in the face of unpredictable shocks beyond their control, which leave them unemployed temporarily. Ideally, it would be desirable to at least partially plug a hole in the social safety net that does not cover gig workers.
However, many challenges would be involved. There are hardly any instances in the industrialized world where governments provide unemployment insurance benefits to self-employed workers. I fear that many would opt out of it if given the opportunity, so we might have to make participation mandatory in the interests of solvency. That would definitely spur some opposition.
We have to wrestle with the issue of eligibility, for instance. Eligibility would have to be based on prior earnings as the unit of account. It's far more administratively convenient for employment insurance when we base eligibility on hours worked as the unit of account.
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, okay.
My fear is, though, we would likely see the provision of insurance altering the employment and unemployment outcomes. That would likely encourage a higher level of separation, sometimes in the form of quits, other times in the form of layoffs, higher than the counterfactual, more than what would otherwise be the case.
Ideally, we want to cover losses, which are totally unavoidable from the viewpoint of the employer as well as from the employee. A lot of details would have to be ironed out. We might have to experiment with a pilot project or two to gauge the values for the level of earnings that are covered, the percentage of prior earnings that would be covered, the length of the prior contribution period and the length of the benefit entitlement period.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Gray.
I'm sure you will get a chance to elaborate more once we go to questions.
Next we're going to the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail
Ms. Brown, you have the floor.
Kimmyanne Brown Workplace Rights Coordinator, Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail
Good afternoon.
As I understand it, the sound problem that my colleague Ms. Rose-Lizée is experiencing is still not rectified. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Yes, that is correct. The problem itself seems to be rectified now, but I don't know whether the sound quality is sufficient for the interpreters.
Ms. Rose-Lizée, can you speak for a few seconds so that we can check that everything is in order?
Ruth Rose-Lizée Member, Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail
We would like to draw your attention to two issues that discriminate against women. I would also like to point out that our brief was signed by 17 women's groups. It was coordinated by the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail, Quebec's principal organization focusing on problems of women's access to work and on defending women's rights at work.
The first issue is the limit of 50 weeks when special benefits and regular benefits are combined. You should know that a number of cases, at least six, are currently before the Tribunal administratif du travail. I have prepared an in-depth document on that subject, and the committee can consult it if it wishes.
The problem has existed for a long time. A number of cases previously went to court, 20 or 30 years ago. Currently, the limit of 50 weeks affects women predominantly because they apply for the great majority of maternity and parental benefits. If they are unemployed when their leave comes to an end, they are no longer eligible for benefits.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have a point of order, Chair.
I'm so sorry, but there's no interpretation at all. I've been patiently waiting, but there's still none.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I just received a note to that effect. It's because of the quality of the sound that the interpreters are unable to translate.
Ms. Rose-Lizée, I am afraid I have to inform you that we must hand over to Ms. Brown for the rest of the presentation.
Ms. Brown the floor is yours.
Workplace Rights Coordinator, Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail
I do not know the exact point my colleague reached, but you have access to our speaking notes, which come in two parts.
My colleague was talking about the 50-week limit on benefits, which directly discriminates against women.
I will talk about the issue of the eligibility requirement based on hours of work. I heard a number of earlier witnesses bring that up also.
It is the position of the Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail, or CIAFT, that this requirement directly discriminates against women.
Why does it discriminate? As you probably know, most part-time work is done by women. In 2019, 64% of those doing part-time work were women. You probably also know that they are not working part-time by choice but often because they have to. Far more women are looking after domestic duties, such as caring for children, balancing family, work and school, as well as informal caregiving, which must not be overlooked in the context of the pandemic. That is why the requirement based on hours of work is discriminatory.
We recommend that a hybrid eligibility requirement be created, with two possibilities for assessing eligibility: hours worked or weeks worked. You will understand that, with the requirement based on the number of weeks worked, women who work part-time will be discriminated against. For the same effort at work, the same premium rate and the same experience of unemployment, women are less often eligible for benefits than men. This disproportionate effect is discriminatory. That is why we sincerely believe that a hybrid eligibility requirement would clearly address our concern.
Our position is detailed in our speaking notes. You will also find a table there with an example showing the difference between a woman working part-time and a man not working part-time. You will see that the woman is clearly discriminated against.
Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?