Human Resources Committee on Oct. 19th, 2022

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

That brings another question to mind. In 1972, what were the stats of women and men in the workforce? I will be so interested to know where we started from in EI when that information comes back.

We have labour shortages, which we've studied in committee. We're talking about labour shortages. I just wanted to have an understanding of it. Was there any data modelling done around whether the 15 weeks, the 26 weeks or the 52 weeks gave us the best opportunity to get folks back to work healthy and happy?

[Benoit Cadieux]

As I mentioned, approximately 33% of claimants currently exhaust their 15 weeks of benefits. Among those, what the evaluation in 2019 demonstrated was that close to half—about 45%—never returned to work afterwards. For those who did return to work, the vast majority returned to work within the first 10 weeks after exhausting their 15 weeks of benefits.

Certainly, an extension to 26 weeks would help that group of claimants who are most likely to return to work shortly after exhausting their 15 weeks of benefits. Any extension beyond 26 weeks—for example, an extension to 50 or 52 weeks—would certainly provide support to additional claimants, but a lot of these claimants are individuals who unfortunately would not be likely to return to the labour market.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll begin with Ms. Ferreri for five minutes.

You have the floor.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I'm going to back up a bit because I want to sort out a few questions that I have. I'm new to HUMA—and thank you for having me—and have been recently appointed as shadow minister for families, children and social development as well.

Mr. Cadieux, you're director for employment insurance special benefits policy at Employment and Social Development Canada. On the question that my colleague asked earlier in terms of why the recommendation wasn't extended to 52 weeks, you said to go back to the minister of ESDC. I'm a little confused as to which minister that is, because when we look at the mandate letters, there are four ministers and four parliamentary secretaries.

Who are you saying we should be asking?

[Benoit Cadieux]

My response was really to say that a lot of these decisions were political decisions, so at the end of the day, you would have to direct your question to the minister responsible for the EI program, which is Minister Qualtrough.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I'm just going to read to you from the mandate letter for Minister Gould. It says:

As the Minister responsible for Service Canada, lead the development and implementation of modern, resilient, secure and reliable services and benefit delivery systems for Canadians and ensure those services and benefits reach all Canadians regardless of where they live.

Wouldn't you say that it would also be Minister Gould?

[Benoit Cadieux]

Minister Qualtrough is responsible for the policy of the EI program, so any questions regarding policy questions would have to be directed to her.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

We had a very powerful witness here in HUMA this week, who has been working on this for 13 years. She went through health issues herself. She's been told by all levels of government, by all ministers, that this has been approved, yet 13 years later, we're still in this same holding pattern. Can you tell us why?

[Benoit Cadieux]

I'm not sure I understand the reference to “13 years later”. Could you, perhaps, elaborate on that?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Yes. She started an organization, “15 weeks is not enough”, and has been advocating, for 13 years, to extend EI benefits from 15 weeks to 52 weeks.

[Benoit Cadieux]

Certainly, I cannot speak to why it was not extended earlier. All I can say is that, right now, the proposal is to extend it to 26 weeks. I can't say why it wasn't extended earlier than that.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Can you clarify for me, then—since you're the director for special benefits employment insurance policy at Employment and Social Development Canada—why you wouldn't know the answer on what the delay has been? What's your role, then?

[Benoit Cadieux]

Certainly, there are a number of reasons why a government may or may not choose to extend benefits. It is beyond my decision whether to extend beyond 15 weeks. I could not provide you with an answer as to why the government of the day chose to wait until now to extend sickness benefits. Multiple governments were in place during those 13 years.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you for your answer.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have a little less than a minute.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you so much.

What's frustrating for Canadians watching at home, I guess, is the lack of timely or targeted delivery of services, which were promised. Where is the accountability to taxpayers? I hear you saying that it's not you, that it's the minister. I would love to know your thoughts on where people should point their attention.

Where does the accountability fall? We're asking for something everybody seems to agree on, yet we're still sitting here in a holding pattern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Give us a short answer, please.

[Anamika Mona Nandy]

Perhaps I can jump in on this, if that's okay.

As officials, we respond to the priorities of governments of the day. When we're talking about the sickness extension from 15 to 26 weeks and the implementation of that extension, it is in response not only to a government commitment but also, as I mentioned before, to parliamentary approval of the additional weeks of sickness benefits to 26 weeks.

As we have indicated, we are moving forward with implementing that commitment as quickly as possible—before the end of the year. That's what we are proceeding with, while understanding that there is a proposal before this committee to further extend sickness benefits to 52 weeks, under this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ferreri. That concludes your time.

Now I believe it's Mr. Long for five minutes.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Ms. Nandy and Mr. Cadieux, thank you very much for coming today and for your work on this.

I was surprised, Mr. Cadieux, when you were talking about.... The average draw was nine weeks, and 33% used 15 weeks. Can you confirm that and elaborate, please?

[Benoit Cadieux]

That's correct. The average number of weeks of EI sickness benefits used—for somebody who used only EI sickness benefits—was nine weeks, and 33% of claimants used all 15 weeks available to them.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

When you did that analysis, what year was that?

[Benoit Cadieux]

This is 2020-21 data.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Has it changed? Has it increased? Has it stayed somewhat static?