Human Resources Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

[The Chair (Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, we are in public for the last witnesses on the youth employment study.

I would remind all members that you have the option to participate in the official language of your choice. If there is an issue with interpretation, please get my attention and we'll suspend while it's being corrected.

The clerk has advised that the witnesses appearing virtually have been sound tested and have passed.

Again, I would remind those in the room to place their devices on silent mode and please refrain from touching the microphone boom. It can cause popping and be harmful to our interpreters.

Please direct all questions through me, the chair, and wait until I recognize you by name before proceeding.

We have three witnesses this afternoon. Each has five minutes or less to make an opening statement.

I will begin with Michaël Bizzarro, co-coordinator for Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi.

We have Syed Hussan, executive director, Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

We also have Mr. Mikal Skuterud, professor in the department of economics, University of Waterloo, who is appearing as an individual.

We will begin with Mr. Bizzarro.

You have five minutes for your opening statement.

[Michaël Bizzarro, Co-Coordinator, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Michaël Bizzarro, and I'm the co-coordinator of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, also known as MASSE. Thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of our organization as part of your study on youth employment in Canada.

For over 25 years, MASSE has been advocating for the right to accessible, fair, universal and non-discriminatory employment insurance. We are made up of 17 organizations advocating for the rights of unemployed persons in Quebec.

Today, we wish to draw your attention to a generation of young workers who, even when they can find work, are too often excluded from this essential protection, like many other categories of claimants.

Today's youth face a labour market in which atypical jobs proliferate: part-time, seasonal, contract and gig work. According to a 2025 study by Desjardins, four times more youth aged 15 to 24 reported working part-time involuntarily than other age groups. They contribute to EI, but many do not have access when they lose their jobs because they aren't able to accumulate enough hours to be eligible.

This illustrates just how outdated the current system is because it is based on unfair eligibility criteria: the regional unemployment rate, exclusion in the case of voluntary departure or misconduct, and ineligibility for benefits simply for making the choice to become a mother and losing one's job during or shortly after parental leave.

On September 8, Mark Carney's government announced the extension of temporary EI support measures until April 11, 2026, including 20 additional weeks of benefits for long-tenured workers. At the same time, it eliminated the artificial adjustment of unemployment rates by one percentage point, a measure that had improved access to the program.

While we recognize that this extension will help thousands of workers affected by the trade war with the United States, we are concerned about the use of the long-tenured worker category to determine eligibility. This distinction fuels prejudice against beneficiaries and automatically excludes workers in seasonal industries, young people, people in precarious situations and newcomers. In other words, this measure does nothing to help those who still cannot qualify for benefits or who work in a high-turnover industry.

We are also seeing a worrying trend of blaming immigration for rising youth unemployment. While it is true that the rules were relaxed for non-permanent residents in order to address labour shortages, we must not lose sight of the economic context, including the tariff war, the transformation of work, and the growing use of AI. These are the factors that are currently holding back youth employment.

We believe that the current situation is primarily the result of a weakened labour market, where atypical and gig work dominates. We therefore urge the government to adopt structural measures to improve access to employment insurance for young people, which would improve it for everyone, rather than looking for scapegoats.

For MASSE, the solution is to completely overhaul the employment insurance system. Young people are experiencing a labour market crisis, so they must have access to adequate protection.

With that, we recommend the following: a universal eligibility threshold of 350 hours, or 13 weeks worked, regardless of region, employment status, or gender; 50 weeks of benefits to provide a modicum of stability and reduce the seasonal gap experienced by workers in seasonal industries; and a benefit rate of at least 70% of income, at a minimum of $500 per week, to prevent beneficiaries from becoming impoverished.

These measures would finally allow employment insurance to function as a social safety net, rather than being a measure exclusively for “good” workers.

Finally, we believe that a system overhaul must address more than just the eligibility issue for younger workers. We believe that comprehensive EI reform must be part of a broader effort to ensure universal accessibility and combat discrimination. To this end, MASSE is calling for the immediate implementation of an accessible, fair, universal, and non-discriminatory employment insurance system.

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Bizzarro.

Mr. Hussan, you had your hand up. Was there an issue?

[Syed Hussan, Executive Director, Migrant Workers Alliance for Change]

I was struggling with the interpretation, but it's working now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay.

We will go to Mr. Skuterud for five minutes or less, please.

[Mikal Skuterud, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Waterloo, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me.

My name is Mikal Skuterud. I’m a professor of economics at the University of Waterloo, the director of the Canadian Labour Economics Forum and the Roger Phillips scholar of social policy and fellow-in-residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.

On my website, you’ll find my disclosure statement. In it, I state:

In my role as a researcher, I deliberately avoid advocacy as I believe I can contribute more by seeking and disseminating objective evidence than in advancing agendas. For this reason, I have throughout my career declined funding from organizations with explicit advocacy mandates or private interests.

What are the facts on youth unemployment?

The unemployment rate of Canadians aged 15 to 24 now stands at 14.7%. That’s up from a historic low of 9% in the summer of 2022, but essentially is unchanged from one year ago. It’s also similar to the rate in 2012, lower than rates in the 2009-10 period and lower than in an entire period from 1992 to 2000. Two more facts are worth noting: 54% of Canada’s unemployed youth, in the most recent data, were full-time students, and 61% were looking for a part-time job.

Are we in a crisis? No. A return to the historical norm looks to me more like where we are.

What doesn’t explain the recent increase in youth unemployment?

First, I’ve seen no clear evidence that it’s being driven by generative AI technologies substituting the work that our youth do. I’m also convinced that postpandemic growth in the temporary foreign worker program is not the main culprit, although it probably hasn’t helped. TFW numbers are too small and concentrated in markets where Canadian youth are mostly not competing for jobs. Exceptional growth in the population of current and former international students is probably playing a bigger role, but those numbers have been in sharp decline since early 2024, yet youth unemployment remains elevated.

What does explain the increase?

Between April 2022 and April 2025, the number of low-skill job vacancies—that is, jobs that require a high-school diploma or less—dropped from over 600,000 to less than 300,000. That’s more than a 50% drop in three short years. Youth unemployment is not high because young people are losing their jobs. It’s high because it has suddenly become much harder for young people to find a job.

Is a decline in the demand for low-skill labour a problem that the government should be worried about or trying to solve? Emphatically, no.

In 2022, the dominant economic narrative in this country wasn’t a youth unemployment crisis. It was a labour shortage crisis. In hindsight, the government’s efforts to address low-skill labour shortages, especially on the immigration front, proved disastrous, to say the least.

Labour market needs are a short-run business problem, not a problem that governments need to solve. Tight low-skill labour markets should be celebrated and left for free competitive markets to address through wage adjustments, labour mobility and technological investments that boost labour productivity.

What really matters for average economic well-being in the population is the mix of jobs that are done in the long run, which is determined by two main factors: technological change and labour supply. If you want a high-skill, high-productivity and high-wage economy, you need to prioritize boosting the average human capital of the population.

On the immigration front, you do this by relying on a transparent rules-based system that prioritizes the applicants who have the highest expected future earnings. On the education front, you do it by allowing slack lower-skill labour markets to incentivize young people to invest in their skills so they can better compete for higher-skilled jobs.

In trying to do too much on both fronts, I worry that federal government policy will once again do more harm than good.

Thanks again for the invitation. I’m happy to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Skuterud.

We'll now go to Mr. Hussan for five minutes or less.

[Syed Hussan]

Thank you, Chair.

I am the executive director of the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change. We are connected to tens of thousands of current and former international students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and undocumented people across the country. We hear from them every day. It has been shocking to see how immigration has been scapegoated for youth unemployment. I'm here to set the record straight. The evidence, including from the Bank of Canada, clearly does not support this claim.

Let me review the claims that have been made before you in this committee. First, an argument has been made that temporary residents are taking retail and restaurant jobs from young people. This is just clear scapegoating. The federal government's own evaluation of the temporary foreign worker program found no evidence of job displacement or wage suppression nationally. Everyone knows that the vast majority of temporary foreign workers are in agriculture, care and trucking. These are not where young people are getting their first jobs.

As for international students causing youth unemployment, you only have to look at the data from 2021. Only 34% of “study permit only” holders had any employment income at all. That works out to around 211,000 international students reporting income as compared with 2.3 million Canadian youth who were working that year. Even if every single one of those international students was directly competing with young Canadians, which is not how the labour market works, they're still less than 10% of the youth workforce.

Here's another fact. During the recent year GST/HST holiday, Restaurants Canada reported that around 24,000 new food service jobs were added, and yet food services still accounted for about one in six private sector job vacancies. If immigrants were crowding out youth for restaurant jobs, there would be no vacancies in this sector. The reality is that restaurants cannot find enough workers. This is a demand problem, with not enough consumers and employers not hiring, and not a supply problem.

Another argument you've heard is that too many temporary residents are flooding the labour market. However, the Bank of Canada in October 2024 examined why unemployment rose among students and found that it was because of tightening monetary policy and falling job vacancies, not immigration. When interest rates rose, businesses pulled back on hiring. Youth are always getting squeezed out because they lack experience. This is true whether immigration is high or low.

The third argument you heard is that the population is growing faster than jobs. This assumes that the economy is sort of a fixed pie—more people, same pie, less to go around—but the IMF has shown that immigration increases output and productivity. So many studies have researched the incredible economic wealth that immigrants bring into our country. The Bank of Canada found that around 2.5 percentage points are added to the level of economic output because of immigration. In fact, cutting immigration, as has happened over the last two years, has had a counter-effect. A recent RBC analysis showed that reduced temporary migration over the two years, before what was announced this week, will shave nearly one percentage point off economic growth over the next three years and reduce government revenues by a cumulative $50 billion over five years starting in 2025.

Another argument you have heard is that youth unemployment is at 14.7%, and that this proves immigration caused it. In 2024, the government cut temporary resident arrivals by over 15%. An additional 1.2 million people couldn't renew study or work permits. Permanent residency was also reduced. If immigration were the primary drive of youth unemployment, then reducing it in 2024 should have lowered youth unemployment in 2025. Instead, youth unemployment rose.

It is time to stop linking migration with youth unemployment. Doing so is pure fearmongering and racist scapegoating. What is causing youth unemployment is monetary policy tightening, a general slowdown and deindustrialization. We are in a downturn. It's the past rate hikes that have been causing hiring slowdowns.

Youth unemployment is a crisis. International students, temporary foreign workers and immigrants did not cause it. Frankly, focusing on immigration wastes time. Young people need help now.

The solution is simple. Canada needs a jobs strategy, and in it a national youth workforce development strategy based on what the central bank's evidence actually shows. We also need to end the two-tiered immigration system, where some people get access to permanent residency while the rest do not, which allows employers and institutions to exploit our migrant neighbours and friends. A single-tiered immigration system means permanent resident status for everyone in the country, and it's a labour market stabilization tool. It ensures that everyone has labour mobility, equal rights, security and stability. This is what will strengthen local economies and reduce unemployment.

I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Hussan.

We will now go to the six-minute round of questioning, beginning with Mr. Genuis.

You have six minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Hussan, could you briefly outline your background in economics for the committee's benefit?

[Syed Hussan]

I'm sorry, but I did not hear the question. Was that for me?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Could you briefly outline your background in economics, any formal training you have in economics?

[Syed Hussan]

I have a master's degree in social and political thought. I also teach at the Munk School—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Political thought...okay.

My question is about—

[Syed Hussan]

It's social and political thought, which includes political economy.

I'm sorry, but are you asking for my...? I'm happy to send you my résumé. I've been doing this for 15 years, sir. I teach at the Munk School—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I think that would be helpful.

I'm going to take my time back.

Mr. Hussan, I want to draw your attention to this. You repeatedly referenced Bank of Canada data. You did so inaccurately.

I have in front of me a report from the Bank of Canada titled “The Shift in Canadian Immigration Composition and its Effect on Wages”. The abstract states:

We document recent changes in Canadian immigration, marked by an increasing prevalence of temporary residency. Using microdata from Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey, we show that temporary workers' characteristics and nominal wages have diverged from those of Canadian-born workers. Between 2015 and 2024, temporary workers have become younger, less experienced and more likely to migrate from lower income countries. As well, the shares of temporary workers in skilled occupations have declined moderately. Throughout this period, the average nominal wage gap between temporary and Canadian-born workers has more than doubled, widening from -9.5% to -22.6%. Further, we estimate Mincer regressions to assess how these evolving characteristics have contributed to the growing wage gap. Our findings show that this increase can be explained by observable characteristics. Our results suggest that aggregate nominal wages would have been, on average, 0.7% higher in 2023–24 had the characteristics of temporary workers remained unchanged over the past decade.

That is the actual report of the Bank of Canada. Calling the many esteemed professors of economics who have appeared before this committee names simply because they have read the data correctly and because they have a background in the subject doesn't exactly help to make your case.

My next question will be for Mr. Bizzarro.

[Syed Hussan]

I'm sorry, but what was the question?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Chair, the interpreters can't keep up with Mr. Genuis. They can't interpret. It's really too fast for them.

When the interpreters don't have the text in hand, would it be possible to speak more slowly to make sure I can understand as well, and to protect our interpreters, of course?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

You have the floor, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My next question is for Mr. Bizzarro.

Mr. Bizzarro, you've proposed making EI easier to acquire and increasing benefits. I'm curious if you think EI premiums should increase as well.

[Michaël Bizzarro]

Thank you for the question.

First, as you all know, both the employer and the employees have been contributing for some years now. There used to be a third party contributing. The government—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Can I jump in? I do have very limited time.

I just want to know this. Very briefly, do you think that EI premiums should increase?

[Michaël Bizzarro]

A third party should contribute. Yes, the government should contribute as well.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You're proposing that EI premiums not increase but that the government supplement the EI fund from other sources of revenue.

[Michaël Bizzarro]

That would be in addition to the other two contributors, exactly.