Human Resources Committee on Oct. 17th, 2022

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

Thank you, Ms. Dubé, you have brought up important issues, both in terms of the economy and society. Let us not forget that we are talking about workers here.

The main aim of the employment insurance program, which should be a social safety net but has become a rather flimsy one, is to give people the means to return to work. This is me speaking rationally, as you have explained so eloquently.

With the minute I have remaining, I'm going to turn to Mr. Bazin.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Bazin. It could not be more relevant.

I would also like to thank you for supporting women on the issue of the reference period for maternity leave and the eligibility and accessibility problems they encounter. This also applies to sickness benefits because in both instances, they are considered special benefits. The same problem arises.

Do you think that we should target these problems by introducing reforms to the employment insurance program?

[José Bazin]

That should be the priority. Even when it comes to employment insurance and sickness benefits, if someone has a burnout, they can't get better in 15 weeks and very rarely in 26 weeks. It's important when it comes to illnesses such as cancer, but also in cases of work-related illness, such as burnout, when workers have to go back to work when they're not yet well. It creates an additional cycle of work-related illness. Unfortunately, this is not often recognized. In Quebec, for example, the CNESST does not recognize this.

This is a very important factor for all types of illnesses, whether it be cancer or a burnout. You can't get better in 15 weeks or even in 26 weeks, or very rarely so.

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

Thank you, Mr. Bazin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

We will go to Madam Zarrillo for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, the NDP supports this increase in weeks, and the Bloc does as well. I think it's been spoken of today that it's been brought a number of times in the past by the Bloc and also by the NDP, but there has been some lack of political will from the other parties. I'm hoping that today, through this bill, there is some consensus and we can get this increase in weeks happening.

My first question, Mr. Bazin, is around the stacking of benefits. If Bill C-215, the one we're discussing today, gives us a window to very quickly and efficiently increase those weeks of benefit, will there be any problems around the stacking of benefits? Will there be any risks or losses to other benefits that we should know about?

[José Bazin]

Indeed, when it comes to Bill C‑215, we absolutely have to amend section 12(6) so that everyone can receive the maximum amount of employment insurance and sickness benefits, i.e., 52 weeks.

It is all well and good seeking to change section 12(3)(c), which sets out the maximum amount of employment insurance and sickness benefits that a person can receive, but if we do not amend section 12(6), there will still be problems.

Let me give you an example. In Montreal, we are entitled to a maximum of 36 weeks of regular benefits. That is the maximum period for regular benefits. If I lose my job, I'm entitled to 36 weeks of regular benefits, but if I become sick afterwards. I will not be entitled to more than 14 weeks of sickness benefits under the employment insurance program because I will have already received the maximum amount of benefits. Section 12(6) is very clear on this. As soon as you receive at least a week of regular employment insurance benefits, the maximum that you can receive afterwards is 50 weeks. It is impossible to receive more than 50 weeks of any benefit because you have received regular benefits.

Sometimes, the reverse can also be true. I will give you another example. Say I get sick. I am entitled to 52 weeks of sickness benefits under the employment insurance program. Afterwards, I go back to my job and there's a fire at my place of work. I heard of a similar case recently. There was a fire in the workplace and the person should have received regular employment insurance benefits, which replace normal wages when someone loses their job. However, because that person had already received sickness benefits, they were not entitled to regular benefits due to of section 12(6).

Whichever way you look at it, if you do not amend section 12(6), unemployed workers will not be entitled to wage replacement benefits, whether it be sickness benefits or regular benefits. We really have to proceed with caution here, and that's the reason I would ask the committee to amend Bill C‑215, so that section 12(6) does not cancel out the amendment to section 12(3)(c).

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Bazin.

Can I ask if the Liberal government has seen these? Have you had any feedback in relation to the amendment that you can share?

[José Bazin]

We did indeed submit the idea to the Liberal government.

Of course, we were mainly fighting for women who had lost their jobs after taking maternity or parental leave. As I said earlier, even the Social Security Tribunal reiterated, on January 10, that section 12(6) of the Employment Insurance Act infringed upon the right to equality guaranteed by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government is aware of the situation. At any rate, we spoke about the issue of stacking benefits.

Whatever the type of special benefits, as soon as a person receives regular benefits, section 12(6) becomes a problem. It is impossible to receive more than 50 weeks of benefits, any sort of benefit, even if a person is entitled to various types of benefits, because that can happen to workers who lose a job, become ill or have a child. We hope that all these things won't happen all at once, but sometimes it can.

If we manage to change the number of weeks of eligible benefits, we must absolutely avoid this being nullified by section 12(6) of the Employment Insurance Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

I have a few minutes left of our two-hour slot. I need some direction from the committee on one item. That will not allow us to continue with questioning. Is that okay with the committee members?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

With that, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing in the last hour. Obviously, this is a very emotional issue. Thank you for taking the time to come in and share some very personal experience with the committee this afternoon.

Madam Clerk, that concludes the witnesses.

Mr. Sansfaçon wanted to stay, and I agreed that he could stay to hear the testimony.

We will conclude this round of questioning.

Madam Zarrillo, did you put your hand up?

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

I did. It's for when we're done. Is the testimony finished?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes.

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

I have an item for the committee. I wanted to bring forward a motion. It's a motion that I circulated a couple of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Before that, Madam Zarrillo, I would like to excuse the witnesses at this time, and again thank them for attending.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bazin and Ms. Dubé.

Madam Zarrillo, you had the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a motion to put on the floor today about the federal housing advocate report. I move:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study to examine the research reports on the financialization of housing released by the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate on September 8, 2022; that the committee examine corporate ownership of single family homes, rent gouging and other predatory tactics such as renovictions; that the committee hold no fewer than three meetings with witnesses for this study; that witnesses include researchers from all of the six reports released through the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate and a dedicated panel to hear testimony from the Federal Housing Advocate; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

For the benefit of the new committee members who were not with us, this was a motion that was under discussion the last time the committee met. There was a motion to adjourn debate at that time because of a translation issue on an amendment that was before us.

We have Madam Zarrillo's motion. It is in order, as it has the time frame for notice to proceed to the committee.

Mr. Collins.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

You recall at the last meeting, as well, that we had an amendment to Ms. Zarrillo's motion at that time, and we needed the translation for it. I think that has been distributed to the committee clerk and to committee members.

Could I read the amendment that deals with real estate investment trusts? It's along the same lines as Bonita's motion as it relates to the financialization of the housing market. If I could read the amendment at this point in time, it would read, in the second paragraph, that the committee examine the issue of financialization in the housing market, including corporate ownership of single-family homes, rent gouging and renovictions, “and the impact of 'real estate investment trusts' on the rental housing market, including but not limited to increased rental rates and the loss of affordable housing units, as well as the tax treatment of real estate investment trusts”.

Then, if you move on to where it states “that witnesses include”, I've added the words “but not be limited to” researchers from the reports released through the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate.

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

Mr. Chair, given that the interpreter does not have a copy of the motion and that Mr. Collins is speaking a bit too quickly, I could not hear the motion in French.

Would it be possible to help the interpreters and myself by having him speak a bit more slowly and provide us with the text?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Take it from the top, Mr. Collins.

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

I'll read it from the top.

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study to examine the research reports on the financialization of housing released by the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate on September 8, 2022; that the committee examine the issue of financialization in the housing market, including corporate ownership of single family homes, rent gouging and renovictions, and the impact of “real estate investment trusts” on the rental housing market, including but not limited to increased rental rates and the loss of affordable housing units, as well as the tax treatment of real estate investment trusts; that the committee hold no fewer than three meetings with witnesses for this study; that the witnesses include, but not be limited to, researchers from the reports released through the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate and a dedicated panel to hear testimony from the Federal Housing Advocate; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there debate on the amendment?

Mr. Aitchison.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I'm completely opposed to all of this. In fact, things like renovictions and all these things we're talking about, trying to demonize private sector landlords, are absolutely 1000% provincial jurisdiction. The one thing we have some ability to affect when it comes to housing at this level of government is supply and assisting with getting some supply done.

If we're going to do any study here at this committee, that study should be on why billions of dollars have been promised to the CMHC. It's like a straitjacket, because community groups and various different investors that are trying to get units built—I can give you several examples all across Canada—can't get any funding out of the CMHC. To me, that's the real problem; that's the real challenge we have. It's an area we actually have some responsibility over. We actually can effect some change on it.

This other stuff is really provincial jurisdiction, with landlord and tenant acts and all that kind of stuff. It doesn't really affect anything we do here. I'm not going to start telling the provinces how to handle their landlord and tenant boards now.

We should focus on why, in fact, after promising literally billions for the last seven years, the situation is worse than it was seven years ago. I think this is a partisan effort to try to demonize certain groups of people when we really should be focusing on what we can actually do around here that we haven't done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Martinez Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to get into a debate on this issue, but I just want to say that any study that the federal government could undertake to look at ways of improving the work we do so that all Canadians have a roof over their heads would be a good study.

That said, I would invite my colleagues to vote on the amendments.