Evidence of meeting #28 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 system.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Colleagues, normally we would do drafting instructions in camera. I want to remind you that we are not in camera, and we will proceed in that fashion unless there is a motion to proceed otherwise.
We have been provided with a draft report outline from the Library of Parliament.
At the risk of putting our analysts on the spot, I think it would be appropriate to first ask Eleni or Mayra if they would like to offer any comments on the document they've put together for us. Then we'll open up the floor to members to offer advice and drafting instructions.
To our analysts, is there anything you want to say before we start the speakers list?
4:50 p.m.
Eleni Kachulis Committee Researcher
Sure, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
As requested by the committee, we have prepared a high-level outline including some themes that may have arisen from the evidence. In addition to an overarching review of employment insurance, we also have some more specific themes included. We would be looking for input from the committee on themes that may have stood out to them, as well as any gaps in the themes we've identified and any recommendations that members have on the structure of the report.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Colleagues, the floor is open.
We're going to begin with Ms. Dancho and then Ms. Chabot.
Ms. Dancho, you have the floor.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the analysts for your hard work on this. I think it's an excellent first draft, and it seems to encompass a lot of what we talked about.
One thing that did stand out to me was part H, employment insurance financing. I was surprised to see that at the very bottom of the report. I think this is a very critical report, as we've seen the impact on Canadians and the need to improve the EI system. I believe that the financing of EI shouldn't be sort of buried at the bottom; it should be somewhere in the beginning of the report to ensure that there is a full costing for various initiatives. I know that our NDP colleague, Ms. Gazan, is very keen on UBI. There could be costing on that as well. I think that sort of costing brings a significant amount of legitimacy to the EI program, the reforms that we're talking about and a number of initiatives that were proposed both by MPs and by the witnesses we talked to.
It's important for the legitimacy of the report that we don't shy away from the cost or the benefit of it, and that we have that front and centre. There should also be involved in that the premiums for employees and employers included as well. I'd love to see some charts. I know that there's been great work done by the PBO and others that we could perhaps pull from, but I feel strongly that we should be seeing a robust financing section earlier on in the report. That's one of my opening suggestions, Mr. Chair.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank our analysts once again. In fact, I will take this opportunity to thank them for sending us another report, received yesterday and which will inform our study. I appreciate that.
Overall, I agree with Ms. Dancho that we could change the order once we have discussed the context of the administration of the plan, including its funding which is already quite detailed. Actually, the recent budget even has forecasts on this issue. I think we all know the basic rule of funding, which is a seven-year balance and the premiums, but I would agree that it can be changed in any order. Then we'll see how the final report flows best.
I know this has been addressed, but I am wondering about the last section, “Reforms outside the employment insurance program”. I am not saying that reforms outside of our study are not useful, but our study is specifically about the EI program, its issues and its modernization. I don't see any reason to include child care and pharmacare at all. I don't think it's relevant to include it in the report because I don't see the connection between pharmacare and EI.
April 22nd, 2021 / 4:50 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thank you.
There are a couple of suggestions that I want to pass on on behalf of my colleague Leah Gazan. One is to ensure the inclusion of perspectives on the guaranteed, livable basic income and how it could work in partnership with EI. The other is to ensure the inclusion of perspectives on the expansion of EI sickness benefits. Obviously, we know that was something that was somewhat addressed in the budget, but many, as we even heard today, are calling for Canada to go further.
Some key points that were also raised today were the particular perspectives of precarious workers. That could even be in the context of this crisis, where we saw precarious workers in long-term care and in other heavily impacted workplaces...and what it means to expand EI to make sure that it's available to them. Then there are the migrant workers, as well, who, as we heard again today, pay into EI but aren't able to access it.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
If the analysts want to jump in on the first round, I have a few things to discuss, as I'm sure some of us do. It would be good to hear from the analysts on some of that first.
I don't know if we lost one of them—the lovely Eleni. I see we have another lovely lady.
4:55 p.m.
Mayra Perez-Leclerc Committee Researcher
She's still around. Her screen is frozen currently.
With regard to financing, the only reason it is there is that it is the same approach we followed with the previous EI report. There is no other meaning attributed to it. We can certainly move it up, if that's what the committee wishes for us to do. That's not a problem at all.
Section I, the reforms outside the EI program, is just to reflect witness testimony. Again, if the committee wants it out, it can be removed. We're happy to proceed in whatever manner you suggest.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you for your remarks there.
I did want to support my Bloc colleague in saying that although I think the sections in I are critical—and perhaps we could study them in this committee—they don't really necessarily add or take away but just seem a bit out of place. I do agree with Ms. Chabot in that regard.
One thing I also thought could be included was a mention of CERB. It's not so much CERB on its own, but the necessity of CERB, where EI failed, why CERB was needed, where there were shortcomings in that EI-CERB stream and then how that was met by CERB.
I think we would be remiss if we created an EI report in the year of the pandemic when the Liberal government created this entire new CERB program to meet the shortcomings of the EI system.... It just seems odd not to mention CERB in there at all, given how connected they were and are. I would suggest we have a section about that in here.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I think MP Dancho is correct in foregrounding how we pay for this. It's very easy to point a finger at any one of the three seats at the table, but it all has implications and I think that's critical.
I also think it's just as critical in that process to identify a number of witnesses who talked about constantly layering on these tiny solutions to precarious income, whether it's structured because of life circumstances or whether it's industrial circumstances or what have you. Every time we try to fix a little problem with EI, we create a bigger problem downstream because, as I think the last person agreed, one of them will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I think we need to take responsibility for that as MPs. All parties come forward with what they think are small improvements, but when you take them in totality we're building a real challenge. I don't think any of us disagree with the compelling arguments. We all support them and they usually get passed unanimously, but there is an impact and it limits our ability to deal with some of the bigger issues, which we clearly see on the horizon, especially around the gig economy.
The second thing is that I'm going to slightly disagree with this notion of sidelining or excluding things like CERB, things like basic income, things that are the big picture items that people often veer toward when they think they can solve the EI crisis by simplifying EI and dealing with all the complexities with another program. I think we need to understand that the reason people are landing at 17 different versions of basic income, or this notion that CERB taught us everything we need to know and just take the learnings of CERB forward, is that we still have structural issues like seasonal work. Basic income may be the answer to the season work challenge, because it may be the thing that locks people into income and, therefore, provides some answers.
I think the alternative models of solving some of these channels have been raised by many of the witnesses, and I think we need to include them. However, I would include them as an appendix, rather than a set of key recommendations, just because I think they move us away from fixing EI, which is the fundamental reason we're having this study and the reason Madam Chabot brought this forward. It's about fixing EI and making EI do what it was originally intended to do as opposed to make it do everything else under the sun.
The last thing I would say around the drafting instructions, which I think also is derived from some of the testimony we heard, is the computer system. I don't know how we fix any of these issues without understanding the complexity, the cost and the urgency of addressing the IT challenges. We can't do day-by-day supports around training. We can't do the seasonal work, in and out quickly, as people job-share. We can't pivot when we have issues of a day lost here, a month lost here and a week lost there, if we don't have a computer system that responds in real time.
Collectively as parliamentarians over a number of generations, we have all refused to make the switch from COBOL to a modern system, and I think we're now gun-shy with Phoenix. It taught us that you can't just simply buy a new system off the shelf, plug in a new computer and things will work fine. IT doesn't work that way; it never has.
I think we need to really understand that nothing is possible without IT being addressed. With IT addressed, it gives us perhaps the flexibility and the nimbleness that we need to deal with an ever-changing employment and employer landscape and, let's face it, maybe now pandemic landscapes because this isn't the last pandemic, nor is a major climate change event not going to create the same situation with forest fires and floods. We really have to lean into that IT situation and we have to be brave and not shy away from it.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you very much.
Ms. Dancho, all the measures that had to be put in place urgently when 9 million workers were unemployed are related to the CERB, the measures to make EI more flexible and the three new measures. All of the temporary measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic are part of the context, and I think that's where this can be placed. It paints a picture of how we had to adjust. That can be used to demonstrate our good governance.
One thing I would also like to mention to the analysts is the issue of seasonal industry workers. It is also what we have called the EI black hole. Witnesses have talked about it, but we should address the issue in specific details. The seasonal industry and the EI black hole affect a number of regions in Canada. I don't know where we can add it, I leave that to your discretion.
I appreciated the recent report that we will address on Tuesday. I agree with Mr. Vaughan, it is a report based on testimony. Certainly, we did not hear from a lot of witnesses in our study, but we heard some and we received a lot of briefs.
We gave groups, organizations and individuals until April 9 to submit them. That also adds to the report. I agree that, as you have done so well, the report must illustrate solutions, problems and issues that have been raised by all the witnesses we have heard. I am confident in this regard.
I will conclude by saying that we should not burden the report with reforms outside the program, which, in any case, will not be considered in a reform of employment insurance. It is of societal interest, but not for this report.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Ms. Chabot, you are right, we received 30 witnesses, and written submissions.
Ms. Ashton has her hand up, but I think that's because she didn't lower it last time.
It's last call, Ms. Ashton, if you wish to make an intervention. It's not really last call. It's next call, I guess.
Mr. Vaughan, go ahead please.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
I'm going to speak up on behalf of the experiences from Prince Edward Island that you brought up around the way in which we've broken up EI into a fragmented system that works differently in different jurisdictions, even though economies are changing in every jurisdiction. What we heard about the lack of consultation and the lack of understanding of local conditions was really troubling as it relates to P.E.I., where one side of the street gets EI and the other side of the street doesn't. It just doesn't make sense, especially in a community that is as fine-tuned and granular as it is in P.E.I.
In the context of the urban space, where 70% of workers don't get EI, period, no matter how much they pay into it, there is a rigidity to the way EI looks backwards to fix itself, instead of looking at real life circumstances now and looking forward to where we know the economy is going.
From my perspective, I think that the way in which the EI Commission makes those reforms has to become as nimble as the computer we want them to use, and it's not. Even though I knew we were at the point where we were about to appoint the new commissioner, life circumstances took over and we had to start again. There's nothing you can do about that when a candidate has to be removed just at the point of being selected. We had a tripartite conversation where you had a traditional employer, a traditional workforce representative and a traditional government response.
However, we just heard that there probably is a seat at the table for the new, emerging gig economy, which is way out in front of all of that. There's probably also a need for the difference between large businesses and small independent businesses, which use EI very differently. The large corporations use EI as a training mechanism. In the smaller communities, as we heard from many witnesses today, EI is a lifeline to keep small businesses alive when there are sudden and unexpected economic downturns.
I think we're locked into an historical evaluation process that doesn't work, and we haven't modernized the evaluation process so that reforms are made in real time as the funding is adjusted in real time. That lack of flexibility and nimbleness in the commission is how P.E.I. and, I would say, Toronto landed in the same space for very different reasons.
The commission needs changes. The consultation process and the diversity of consultation processes need to be made much more public, much more accountable and much more obvious to all parties involved around the table. Otherwise, we're going to repeat mistakes by using the same old evaluation system and governance system. I think that would address P.E.I. and the gig economy—freelancers and the contract work economy—which now has become so prevalent in large urban spaces.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciated Madame Chabot's comment, when she said to emphasize the inclusion of the paper copy submissions. I think that's key.
Then I agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Vaughan on the technology side. One of the notes I had was that there should be a section on that alone. I think it would be warranted, given that in every single meeting we've had, folks commented on this.
I'd really love to see the analysts dig into everything that we've heard on that. There should be some recommendations—or at least one, I would hope—about that specifically. It needs to be fixed. It would be great if there were some specifics, as mentioned by the witnesses. I think that may be the most important, in order to—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Yes, something like that....
I agree with Mr. Vaughan there. I think it should have its own section, and particular detail should pay attention to that.
On the CERB, again, I agree with Madame Chabot. It sounds like, Mr. Vaughan, you agree as well that it should be included. I would say that it warrants more than just an appendix mention.
I think the undertaking of CERB and why it was needed are quite significant. In particular, we've seen an overlap between EI and the CRB, the second iteration of CERB. This very quick evolution over a year's time should be outlined, how it interacted with EI and how it made up for the shortcomings. Again, I feel that will inform a lot of what the EI recommendations would be, given lessons learned from CERB.
For the analysts, it was the OAG report that outlined a number of the good things about CERB and a couple of the shortcomings we saw. I think that's a really bountiful resource for writing the section about CERB and the process we've seen in the last 13 months. I would ask the analysts to take a look at that and include some of the information therein.