Human Resources Committee on May 26th, 2022

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I have very little time for just one quick question.

If you were sitting in my chair, what would you recommend we do with section 26 going forward?

[Leah Nord]

It's a word of caution that these continual drips in the bucket will continue to burden the system. I would look to that larger EI consultation process as an opportunity to truly reform and bring us forward for the rest of this century and into others.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Liepert and Ms. Nord.

Before we move to Mr. Collins, I wanted to say that, within the time we have left, we will conclude after Mr. Collins with Madam Chabot for two and a half minutes and Madam Zarrillo for two and a half minutes. That will take us a little beyond our hour, to be fair.

Mr. Collins, you have five minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time today with my friend and colleague, Mr. Coteau.

Welcome to the witnesses and thank you for the information that you've provided today.

Mr. Chairman, I'll start with Ms. Nord.

Welcome back to the committee. You assisted us with our labour shortage study, so welcome back. I listened with interest to the comments that you made in your opening statement related to division 26 so I'd like to take us to that issue.

You highlighted the financial pressures that have come with increasing eligibility over time and I think your comment was along the lines of “EI resources shouldn't fund everything”. However, in the same statement, you also recognized the importance of investing in skills, education and training programs. I think you had a line there that spoke to that.

Having participated in our labour shortage study, we consistently heard about widespread labour shortages and a historically low unemployment rate. Those issues have forced the government to rethink how it meets these challenges. I think it's led us to decide on a program that is expanded as it relates to eligibility and provides more resources to the provinces and territories, which you recognized in your opening statement with the $2-billion investment.

I'm trying to reconcile those two comments that you've made. It shouldn't fund everything, but we need to be cognizant of how much money is being invested, specifically to the point of expanded eligibilities.

Can you elaborate on that in terms of emphasizing that training programs are important—we have a labour shortage—but warning us to be cognizant of eligibility and how many resources are being invested into the program?

[Leah Nord]

I welcome the opportunity to clarify that. Skills training, upskilling and re-skilling are definitely the way of the future. There were so many trends before the pandemic and the pandemic accelerated a number of them, this included. The point is that I think, through an EI reform-modernization process, we should take a look at this.

To say that training is important doesn't mean necessarily that it belongs in EI. We could argue about expansion in part I of special benefits—absolutely—but we have to recognize that all of these pieces.... There are conversations going around about the self-employed and gig workers as well. We can all agree this is important. I think that the first step is piecing this all out.

We have to remind ourselves that employment insurance is an insurance program. There are those principles as well. It would offer the opportunity to look at all of these pieces, cost them out and then look at where they best lie. Is it within the system or outside of the system? How is the system funded?

This is exciting. This is our opportunity to be able to do that. Thank you.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Ms. Nord.

Mr. Chair, I'll cede the rest of my time to my colleague, Mr. Coteau.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much to all of the witnesses today. This is such an important conversation. I want to say thank you for being here with the committee.

I have a general question with the little time left, and it's around your opinion on what's taken place over the last few years. We've had a pandemic, we've had a shift in the workforce and pressures, and of course big changes when it comes to how government responds to some of those pressures.

I wanted to get anyone to respond with an opinion on shifting attitudes and urgencies with files connected to EI, such as paid sick leave.

I'll stop there. Anyone can answer.

[Luc Vachon]

That is a very broad question. You're referring to everything that has happened with respect to employment insurance and support measures. Let's just focus on the last two years. As I always say, we know how much we spent on the measures that got us through the last two years, but it's hard to quantify what it would have cost not to have them nor what effect that would have had. I believe that's what the programs are designed for and that they've had a tremendously positive effect.

In terms of sick leave, our organization's position is that a minimum of 10 days of sick leave should be offered. There are a lot of factors at play, but women often bear the burden of having to take time off work, while being in the most precarious situations and generally earning less. So, if there were programs that could help reduce these challenges, they should be implemented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Vachon.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

What I find interesting about this discussion is that we are talking about employment insurance, and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is the place to do it. If we are dealing with issues that affect something other than the divisions before us, it is because they are part of the long-awaited comprehensive reform of employment insurance. This is actually part of the mandate of the Minister of Employment, who was to present us with a framework for employment insurance reform before June 2022.

There is hope, at least I hope so, because there is a lot of discussion, and it concerns the main stakeholders, those who pay into EI: workers and employers. So I thank you for your testimony. It will enrich our future discussions. At least, we hope so.

What worries me is that we go to the trouble of consulting with employers and workers on what a reform of the appeals process should be, we turn off the lights for two years and nine months, perhaps for good reason, and then all of a sudden we think of a reform and put it in a budget implementation bill. It leaves an odd impression about the government's intentions.

If I understand correctly, it is imperative that we recommend to the Standing Committee on Finance that Bill C‑19 be split to allow for a real discussion on reforming the appeals process based on the recommendations that you worked on and were consulted on at the time, before 2019. You can simply answer yes or no.

[Luc Beauregard]

Yes, it has to be separate.

I would like to add a comment, because there is an important element to consider, which is that this does not meet the needs of workers. It's true that things were done during the pandemic. Mr. Vachon wondered what would have happened if the same measures had been taken without a pandemic. I think there is a study to be done on this, because changes and additions are needed.

We're talking about the Social Security Tribunal and the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal, but there are other things to consider in the employment insurance file, and I think a complete analysis is needed. It will not be complete if one part of the reform falls under Bill C-19 and another part is studied elsewhere. We need to look at the whole issue and it needs to be done separately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Beauregard and Ms. Chabot.

Now we have Ms. Zarrillo for two and a half minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to put a question to Mr. Beauregard and then to Mr. Vachon.

Will there be positive impacts to EI clients, to workers, if division 32 stands as is in the current budget implementation act?

[Luc Beauregard]

For us, there will be no positive effects. We are heading towards a process that is defined as tripartite, but which is not, in reality. We will not have representatives who know the environment. There are differences between the situation of an unemployed person in Alberta and an unemployed person in Quebec. It is not true that the situation of the unemployed is uniform.

We need to go back to the structure that existed, that is, by involving people who know the community. We need people who know the community and we need a tripartite process that is truly tripartite, that is, that represents all parties. As I said earlier, when a decision is made, there will be far fewer disputes afterwards with a tripartite process, because the work will have been done by groups that know the community and the workers.

[Luc Vachon]

We could not see any positive effects. I agree with Mr. Beauregard.

The issue is extremely important. The employment insurance system is not a trivial system. The stakes are extremely high. When you make a reform, you have to make sure you know the scope of it and what the objectives are. The fact that all this is being buried within a number of other subjects, which are just as important, worries us because not enough importance is being attached to it.

This regime is at a crossroads. It needs to find a structure that is more oriented towards those who should benefit from it. I am not just talking about the workers, but also the employers, who contribute to this scheme. It must be brought closer to the people on the ground. As my colleague said, there is a difference between the situation of an unemployed worker in Alberta and an unemployed worker in Quebec. I would add that there are even major differences between regions in Quebec. Unemployment in Montreal and unemployment in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean are not the same, given the industrial fabric.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Luc Vachon]

There are extremely different realities and the current structure does not allow for them. It is the men and women who are struggling with this problem who suffer. So we have to go back to the fundamental objectives. We have to ask ourselves why this structure existed before. We need to go back to the old structure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Vachon and Ms. Zarrillo.

That concludes the first hour of witness testimony. I want to thank Mr. Beauregard, Mr. Vachon and Ms. Nord for appearing today to give their perspective on the subject matter.

We will suspend for a few minutes while the witnesses leave, and then we will move to the second hour, which is to get the input of committee members on their suggested recommendations or amendments.

We will suspend for five minutes.

I will go to Madame Chabot before we suspend.

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

I wanted to ask you to take a real five-minute break, but you just said it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Luc Beauregard]

Thank you very much.

[Luc Vachon]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We will suspend for five minutes. We will reconvene at around 12:10 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee will resume and proceed to a discussion of the recommendations to be proposed to the Standing Committee on Finance.

The first hand up I see is Madame Chabot's.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for allowing this study on important sections of the employment insurance system. This is within our area of expertise and jurisdiction. I look forward to dealing with the much needed comprehensive reform. At the moment, we have heard witnesses primarily on division 32.

I want to inform you that we have tabled a notice of motion. It is in proper form and we have forwarded it to the clerk in both official languages. My point is this. In light of the testimony heard on division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19, the best recommendation we can make to the Standing Committee on Finance is to withdraw division 32 of part 5 of omnibus Bill C‑19 for separate study.

If I were to summarize the comments of all the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday and Wednesday, including Mr. Bolduc of the FTQ, they believe that division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19 should be part of a separate bill and therefore removed from this omnibus bill so that the reform can be the subject of thorough review and deliberation. The same is true for the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, MASSE. This morning, the three witnesses were unanimously of the same opinion.

There is a consensus among employers and workers. They say that they were consulted and that a report was arrived at, but that what was put in Bill C‑19 does not correspond to the consensus established after many consultations. The government, in an August 15, 2019, Employment and Social Development Canada news release, for which Minister Duclos was responsible at the time, made the following commitment:

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission will become responsible for first-level EI appeals through the creation of a new tripartite decision-making tribunal called the Employment Insurance Boards of Appeal.

This is a cry from the heart that it is extremely important that this be done. Moreover, we do not understand why the government included this in Bill C‑19. One witness told us that it could not have done a better job of clouding the issue. Even I, as employment critic, was surprised to see this section in Bill C‑19. There was no mention in the budget of any intention to extend pilot projects for workers in the seasonal industry. At least it looks good, because it has a cost impact. If we had done nothing, it would have meant abandoning a measure that provides interim support until comprehensive EI reform.

In short, the wisest proposal we can make to the Standing Committee on Finance is to withdraw division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19.

I will read the motion:

Based on the evidence received and heard in committee, in considering divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Bill C‑19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures, the committee recommends to the Standing Committee on Finance that division 32 of Bill C‑19 be split.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Have you concluded your remarks for the moment, Madame Chabot?