THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 13, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 9 a.m. [ET], by videoconference, to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of Part 4 of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures.
Senator Chantal Petitclerc (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am Chantal Petitclerc, Senator from Quebec, chair of this committee.
Today we are holding a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology by videoconference.
Before we begin, I have a few reminders to make sure this virtual meeting goes well.
[English]
First, we ask you to keep your microphones muted at all times, unless you are recognized by name by the chair. You are responsible for turning your microphones on and off during the meeting. Before speaking, please wait until you’re recognized by name. We will ask you to use the raise-hand feature. Also, please pause for a few seconds just to let the audio signal catch up to you and to help with translation.
[Translation]
Should any technical challenges arise in relation to interpretation, please advise the chair or the clerk. Please remember a technical assistance number was provided to you.
[English]
Please note that if there are some technical challenges, we might need to suspend. Of course, we need to make sure all members are okay and able to participate fully.
Finally, I remind you again that Zoom screens should not be copied, recorded or photographed.
[Translation]
Without further ado, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in today’s meeting.
We are pleased to have with us Senator R. Black, Senator Bovey, Senator Frum, Senator Dasko, Senator Forest-Niesing, Senator Kutcher, Senator Manning, Senator Mégie and Senator Moodie. We are also pleased to have Senator Moncion, Senator Omidvar and Senator Griffin with us.
Welcome to this meeting. We are continuing our study of the contents of several divisions of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget.
This morning we are considering Divisions 35 and 36. These divisions make amendments to the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, which affect benefits for Canadians.
I would like to introduce the witnesses for this portion of the meeting.
We have from Employment and Social Development Canada, Ms. Caroline Cantin, Director, Skills and Employment Branch, Ms. Catherine Demers, Director General, Skills and Employment Branch, Mr. Mike MacPhee, Director General, Service Canada, Ms. Barbara Moran, Director General, Labour Program, Mr. Sébastien St-Arnaud, Manager, Labour Program; Ms. Mona Nandy, Executive Director, Skills and Employment Branch; Mr. George Rae, Director, Skills and Employment Branch; and Mr. Benoit Cadieux, Director, Skills and Employment Branch.
I now invite Ms. Demers to take the floor.
Catherine Demers, Director General, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good morning. My name is Catherine Demers. I am the Director General of Employment Insurance Policy. I am very pleased to be here this morning to provide you with an overview of Division 35, and in particular the amendments and changes that are being proposed to the Canada Economic Recovery Benefits Act. I just want to say that my introductory remarks will be in English. Of course, I will answer questions in both languages.
[English]
Clauses 289 to 301 of Division 35 would amend the Canada Recovery Benefits Act in order to temporarily increase the duration of the Canada Recovery Benefit and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit.
On September 27, 2020, as part of the transition from the CERB, the government introduced three temporary benefits for one year to provide income support to Canadian workers affected by COVID: the Canada Recovery Benefit, the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit. In March, the government increased the number of weeks available under each. For the Canada Recovery Benefit, the CRB, and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit, CRCB, this was a 12-week extension, increasing the maximum duration of the benefits from the initial 26 weeks to up to 30 weeks, available for claims made between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021.
To continue to support workers as the economy continues to recover over the coming months, the budget implementation act proposes a series of amendments to further extend the CRB and the CRCB in June to ensure that those who begin to exhaust their 38 weeks of benefits continue to have access to supports. This includes amendments to provide an additional 12 weeks of Canada Recovery Benefit to increase the maximum weeks available from 38 to 50 weeks. The first 4 of these additional 12 weeks will be paid at $500 per week. The remaining eight weeks of this extension will be paid at an amount of $300 per week claimed. This means that those who extend their weeks of CRB beyond 42 weeks, as well as new claimants who apply for the first time after July 18, will receive the $300 per week benefit available until September 25.
As well, it provides an additional four weeks of Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit to increase the maximum weeks available from 38 to 42. These additional four weeks would be at the same current rate of $500 per week. This is accompanied by a corresponding amendment to the Canada Labour Code to increase job protection leave for federally regulated employees for the same duration. It includes an amendment to add a new CRB eligibility requirement to file an income tax return for the 2019 or 2020 taxation years for those who are applying for more than 42 weeks and those who apply for the first time after July 18, 2021. This division also proposes legislative amendments to provide regulatory authority for additional potential extensions of all three benefits post-September 25, should they be needed.
In the event of an extension in September, provisions are also included to allow EI exhaustees who have received the maximum 50 weeks of EI benefits to be eligible for the CRB, for example, by allowing their EI income from regular benefits or a combination of regular and special benefits to count as income for the purposes of the CRB eligibility, and ensuring that they do not face a one-week income gap if their EI ends in the middle of a two-week CRB period. They would receive the same $300 weekly benefit rate.
[Translation]
This concludes my overview of Division 35. I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Demers. We’re trying to see if we have been able to connect with Ms. Nandy, who was scheduled to speak on Division 36. As I understand it, she is not with us.
Ms. Demers: She is still having technical difficulties.
The Chair: Was she the only one who could answer our questions about Division 36?
Ms. Demers: Yes. She was the one who was supposed to introduce Division 36, make a statement and answer questions. Unfortunately, she is still trying to gain access to the meeting.
[English]
The Chair: We are having some challenges with connecting our witness who was responsible for speaking on Division 36. My suggestion — and I know a lot of senators have their hands raised already — is that we focus on Division 35 with questions for Ms. Demers right now, and we will try to find a solution regarding the connection of Ms. Nandy.
We will begin, as per usual, with our deputy chairs. I want to say, Senator Dasko, this is the second time that I forgot to introduce you. I don’t know how; I apologize. That is the last time I forget. My apologies for that.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Ms. Demers. That was a very useful overview.
I have two questions. First, I notice that in the question and answer section of the document provided to us by the Department of Finance, in Part 4, Division 35, when explaining the difference between the number of weeks available between EI and CRCB benefit, it is noted that “the department will continue to monitor the situation to ensure people have access to adequate support.”
How will this monitoring take place and what are the factors on which you’ll base what “adequate support” for Canadians really entails?
Ms. Demers: Thank you, senator. The extensions that are being proposed for June are indeed proposed to continue to provide supports for workers having challenges returning to the labour market in the context of the current economic situation. As the economy recovers, this proposal is to provide additional support until September. It is allowing those who would have exhausted their maximum full weeks of benefits by June 19 to continue to receive that kind of support. That’s really what the proposal is about.
Your question may also be referring to the possibility of further extensions post-September until November 20, as was announced in the budget and as I was presenting in terms of the proposed amendments to the legislation. The monitoring of the situation includes the state of the economy, the labour market, unemployment rate, labour force participation rate — a number of indicators. It’s really looking at a range of factors and closely continuing to monitor — because this is something we do on an ongoing basis — the situation over the summer in the context, of course, of the rollout of the vaccines and seeing the extent to which workers continue to be able to return to work.
Senator Bovey: As a follow-up, I’d like to ask about the supports being provided to workers with pre-existing conditions that might make them more susceptible to COVID-19 and its variants. As the economy opens up, will these pre-existing conditions be taken into consideration under what constitutes reasonable job offers?
Ms. Demers: The Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit continues to be available until September 25 for those who are unable to work or have a reduction in their work hours as a result of illness due to COVID. That will continue.
Senator Bovey: So the pre-existing conditions continue. Thank you very much. I appreciate this.
Senator Frum: Ms. Demers, the original Canada Recovery Benefits Act was a discrete piece of legislation that was passed in October 2020. I recognize you’re a civil servant and not a politician, but I want to ask you: Do you know the reason why amendments to the Canada Recovery Benefit appear in the budget document as opposed to amendments to the original bill? When you put amendments into an omnibus bill, of course, they get much less scrutiny. Do you have comments as to why they were attached here and why we did not amend the original legislation?
Ms. Demers: The decision with respect to the approach, in terms of going forward with the bill, is beyond my control. However, I can say that the extensions that are proposed in June are to ensure that there are no gaps in payment for these who may need additional support. The proposal for the Canada Recovery Benefit, or CRB, extensions are indeed time sensitive from a policy perspective, which is what I can respond to.
Senator Frum: That’s fair enough. I understand that. You’re also the only witness I have to ask the question to, but thank you very much.
Senator R. Black: My background is rural, so my question is to our witness. Can you advise whether there are any issues for self-employed persons or small family-run businesses with regard to qualifying for access to unemployment measures and recovery benefits? As I noted, I’m particularly interested in hearing about access to the CRB by self-employed Canadians who reside in rural, remote and northern communities where opportunities are often scarce and there are many family farms who employ temporary foreign workers. Can you speak to that at all, please?
Ms. Demers: The Canada Recovery Benefit is available for workers and self-employed workers who suffer a 50% reduction in their work hours compared to their previous weekly benefits. It is indeed addressing the needs of both employed and self-employed workers who are impacted by COVID and not eligible for EI benefits. It provides a broad range of supports, like access to temporary EI measures, which we’ll talk about a little bit later, for those who are not eligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit across Canada in all regions.
Senator R. Black: Is there any difference in access between rural and urban communities? Have you noted any people saying there are concerns regarding access for rural, remote and northern communities?
Ms. Demers: The access should be the same. The rules are the same across Canada. In terms of service delivery and operations, this is not something I’m able to talk about specifically if you had specific cases in mind. In terms of the policy and how it is applied, it is available the same way for all Canadians, be they urban, rural or remote.
Senator R. Black: Thanks very much. Second, we’ve heard about issues related to fraudulent claims under the recovery benefits. They’ve come to light. Has there been any work done to prevent further fraudulent claims going forward to ensure Canadians who really need the support do have access to it?
Ms. Demers: I may need to turn to colleagues to answer that. I don’t know if we have the right colleagues with us today to be able to talk about integrity measures. Could we take note of your questions?
Senator R. Black: That would be fine. Thank you.
I have one very short question. What’s the reasoning behind the change from $500 to $300 at a certain point? Why the difference? Why the change?
Ms. Demers: What’s really important to keep in mind is that, first of all, those benefits are available until September. The proposed extension allows those who have maximized the number of available weeks to continue. That’s something to take into consideration. Twelve more weeks are available for additional income support. Of those, four continue at $500 per week, and then the other eight continue with partial income replacement as the economy continues to recover and support workers continue to receive income replacement as they look for work.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much for your answers.
Senator Moodie: Ms. Demers, thank you for being with us today. I wanted to ask you what unique impacts the changes proposed in Division 35 in Bill C-30 will have on different population groups. I’m thinking of Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and racialized Canadians.
Ms. Demers: Thank you for your question. I can say that for the Canada Recovery Benefit, the monitoring of the patterns of use between, for example, men and women workers, it’s equivalent.
For the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit, we know that it benefits women significantly more than men. We can understand why. In terms of access for all the other benefits, it is equivalent. However, for the caregiving benefit, we see there are more women benefiting from it, and we’re expecting those trends to continue.
I would need to verify with our colleagues who collect the information for any additional breakdown by demographic group.
Senator Moodie: I’d like to dig a little bit more into the data, if you don’t mind, Ms. Demers. I think I’m hearing you say that it’s very likely you don’t have disaggregated data already collected on individuals receiving the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit. What data will be collected, if these amendments are enacted, to determine if changes disproportionately affect specific populations? Do you have data? What changes are you expecting to put in place in terms of collecting data if you don’t already do so?
Ms. Demers: I believe we collect a range of demographic data, such as gender, age and geographic distribution. I will need to get back to you with more information.
Senator Moodie: Specifically, around Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and other racialized Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Demers, we will follow up with you to try to get those specific data inquiries.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Ms. Demers, thank you so much for being with us and answering our questions, especially without the help of the people who were supposed to be there to support you.
As I read through the proposed measures to assist workers who are not eligible for employment insurance, and caregivers, it occurred to me that the whole thing has become very complex, despite the very promising, streamlined beginnings of the emergency benefits offered to Canadians in these difficult times, especially at the beginning of the pandemic. This complexity leads me to ask you two questions.
What is the cost of administering this program, including variations relating to the public service?
Also, to your knowledge, is the government working on a proposal to establish a guaranteed minimum income? This would be a more manageable option in the long term, to eliminate the uncertainties experienced by the most vulnerable Canadians in the country. Otherwise, they must wait for government decisions every time the emergency benefit limit is about to be crossed.
If the answer is no, what do you think is preventing the government from taking such a step, particularly in light of the many requests that are coming from all sides, such as the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance?
Ms. Demers: Thank you for your question. I will begin by answering your question about costs. The estimated costs for the additional weeks of benefits are $2.5 billion and are spread over a two-year period.
With respect to looking at longer-term needs, involving labour market conditions for workers and income supports, that is done by the department and by the branch in collaboration with the provinces and territories, given the separation of responsibilities.
This is a long-term effort that will expand. It will accelerate in the context of what was announced in the budget, with the consultations on employment insurance. So, I’m not talking specifically about a guaranteed minimum income, because that’s a much broader issue, but rather the issue of income support for workers in different circumstances.
How can we ensure that our worker assistance programs are well connected to the realities of the labour market and those workers? It was announced that there will be consultations to find ways to improve our programs.
Senator Forest-Niesing: In terms of improvements, are you concerned about the complexity of the process and the need to make it less complex?
Ms. Demers: This is one of the issues that we need to look at. We’re going to make improvements in every way, not only in terms of how the program is defined, but also in ways to make it easier to access, to provide clarity, and to make sure that the information gets to the populations that are covered by these programs and benefits.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you, Ms. Demers.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Before I ask my question, I want to note that we’ve only been in these hearings for two days, but already the soft underbelly of the data question is clearly being exposed. I’m thinking we are leaning towards an observation here.
My question to Ms. Moran is around the accessibility of the CERB, which has become the mainstay of economic resiliency in our country. The ombudsman for Canadian taxpayers, François Boileau, has said that some CERB benefits are waiting more than a month for CRA to confirm their eligibility. Even as you are expanding the program and its time limit, I would like to know what you are doing to ensure Canadians receive payments in a timely manner.
Ms. Demers: Thank you for your question. I don’t know if we have colleagues from Service Canada — we do not have representatives from the Canada Revenue Agency delivering the Canada Recovery Benefit. We may have other colleagues on the line who are able to address questions related to service delivery.
Senator Omidvar: Or perhaps you could get back to us with your response in writing for the committee.
Ms. Demers: Absolutely.
Senator Omidvar: May I go on to my next question?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Omidvar: This is about the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit. The Financial Post reported just last month that less than half of the money has actually been taken up by Canadians. I cannot understand why, especially given school closures. Now we are going to extend this benefit, which I think is a good idea. Why do you think the program uptake has been lower than expected?
Ms. Demers: We are tracking the uptake. I have to say that the estimates of uptake at the beginning really were estimates. The work was being done very early in the fall not knowing exactly how the pandemic would evolve and the actual needs. It was really based on an upper-level or upper-bound assessment. We had to do an assessment of how the situation could evolve. We are seeing that there has been a continuous use and uptake of the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit. If you are interested in having a better explanation of how we have seen this evolve over recent months, and what this is showing in terms of patterns of use, we can certainly follow up on that.
Senator Omidvar: I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witness today for being here. I just have a question of clarification with regard to the CRCB. I understand that it is directed towards people who are not covered by EI. I wonder if you could just clarify something for me. Does it fill in the gaps that are not covered by the compassionate care leave under EI? I believe that compassionate care leave is still a component of the EI program. Could you tell me how this benefit that we are referring to now — that is being changed — interacts or intersects with the compassionate care leave in EI?
Ms. Demers: Thank you for your question. I can turn to my colleague Benoit Cadieux who can explain the difference between the two on the EI side versus the specific COVID measure because, of course, the caregiving benefit is very much directly related to needs resulting from not being able to work as a result of COVID.
Senator Dasko: Also if you just could clarify: Is compassionate care leave in EI also being used to deal with COVID, or is that strictly for non-COVID situations? Thank you. That’s a supplementary; I’ll throw that in.
Ms. Demers: Thank you. It is not, but I will let Benoit Cadieux provide a more complete answer.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Benoit Cadieux, Director, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you, senator, for your question. The EI compassionate care benefits and the family caregiver benefits are there to provide support for when you have to care for someone who is critically ill or at risk of dying within a certain number of weeks. It is very targeted. It is not meant to provide care more generally for individuals who are sick, for example, with COVID-19, unless they are critically ill with COVID-19. Then it could apply.
The Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit is a lot broader. It’s meant to cover cases where, for example, you have a child whose school is closed, the child has to stay home and you have to provide care for that child. It’s a lot broader. It’s really to cover those situations that are not normally covered by the EI program where a worker has to stay home to take care of a child or a family member because the facilities that they normally attend are not available to them.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. Is anybody accessing the compassionate care leave program with respect to COVID? Is that also happening? People cannot access both programs, I understand.
Mr. Cadieux: Correct. You cannot receive the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit at the same time as you are receiving EI benefits.
We don’t have any information on the reason for the illness, why somebody may be accessing the compassionate care or family caregiving benefits under EI. That is not information that we collect.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. You have answered my question.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have succeeded in having Ms. Mona Nandy join us. I will keep the order of questions that I see on my screen, but I want to make sure that we hear her in case we have some other challenges. Let’s take a moment to have the opening remarks on Division 36 from Ms. Nandy.
Mona Nandy, Executive Director, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good morning, and sincere apologies for the challenges of joining today and for my lateness. It was a technological nightmare.
Thank you for having me here to speak to you.
My objective today is to present to you Division 36 of the budget implementation act, which proposes amendments to the Employment Insurance Act to implement an extensive series of amendments to implement Budget 2021 announcements.
What I would propose, given the extent of these amendments, is to speak to you about them in four categories. The first category would be those amendments that would maintain more flexible access to Employment Insurance benefits for a period of one year while the job market continues to recover from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The second set of amendments would extend EI temporary measures that are otherwise expiring in September 2021 related to seasonal claimants and fishers.
Third would be to continue training supports and integrity actions related to the EI emergency response benefit.
The last set of amendments proposed to the EI Act would make permanent changes to enhance the EI sickness benefits.
Senator Petitclerc, would you like me to continue to speak to those amendments or is that sufficient for the overview?
The Chair: I believe that we should go to questions because we have limited time, and with the video conferencing, sometimes we need to stop. I know my colleagues have questions for you and also other questions about Division 35. My suggestion, unless I see my colleagues opposing, is to continue with questions. I believe this will be the best use of our time.
Senator Manning: Thank you to our witnesses this morning. It’s perfect timing because my question has to do with EI in regard to seasonal workers and fishers. I think it’s the second part of the witness’s earlier comments.
Last year, my understanding was that if people in seasonal industries did not have enough hours to qualify for EI, such as 150 hours or whatever the case may be, they were given 300 hours so that they could qualify. My understanding is there is information out now that extends that to September of this year if a person files their claim by September. I’m not sure if that’s September 1 or the end of September. I’m just trying to get clarification on that 300 hours.
Many people have contacted me in the past month or so concerned about the summer’s activities in relation to tourism, fisheries and so on. They are concerned they are going to have a season this year similar to what they had in the summer of 2020.
I’m not sure if I’m asking the question correctly, but maybe we can start the conversation and find some answers.
Ms. Nandy: Thank you, senator, for that excellent question. You are right. There was a one-time hours credit of 300 hours that was introduced in September 2020 and will expire on September 25, 2021. It is for all those who seek to access regular benefits, including seasonal workers. That being said, what is proposed through these amendments to the EI Act are a series of changes that would actually provide enhanced access to regular and special benefits for workers, including seasonal workers and EI fishers.
Perhaps I could speak to those in more detail to help answer your question. Those measures would be to reduce the required number of hours of insurable employment to qualify for EI regular benefits from what was, in the pre-COVID time, a variable threshold of anywhere between 420 hours to 700 hours based on the regional unemployment rate to what could be, subject to Royal Assent, a new national entrance requirement of a minimum of 420 hours of insurable employment. In addition, all regular EI benefit claimants would receive a 14-week minimum entitlement that would also apply to seasonal workers who are eligible and EI fishers.
Currently, another one of the temporary measures introduced in September 2020 was a uniform unemployment rate of 13.1% across the country. That minimum unemployment rate will end in its application as of September 11, but what we are proposing through these amendments is to continue it for a two-week period so that EI claimants, for that two-week period until September 26 when this new national entrance requirement of 420 hours comes into effect, are not subject to variability again, going from the 420 to 700 hours. So there is a smooth transition to these new temporary changes.
I would add that for this 420 hours national entrance requirement is applicable not only to support more flexible access to EI regular benefits but also to EI special benefits. So as part of these changes we are eliminating the distinction temporarily in the act — or proposing to do so — between major and minor attachment claimants. So that special benefits can be paid to EI eligible claimants who have accumulated at least 420 hours of insurable employment. Currently there is terminology in the act — this major-minor attachment claimants — that creates a distinction between those who have plus or minus 600 hours. That will no longer be necessary once you transition to a flat 420 hours entrance requirement.
As I said, these changes will benefit seasonal workers as well as EI fishers because we are making corresponding reductions to the earnings requirements for the self-employed who have opted in to access the EI special benefits, and then equivalent reductions to the earnings thresholds for EI fishers via the amendments to the EI regulations that are part of the BIA.
Senator Manning: On the 300 hours credit, that’s a one-time use. Is that available for seasonal workers this summer, if they have not availed themselves of it already, and what would be the deadline?
Ms. Nandy: The credit will expire. It’s a one-time credit, as you said, but all temporary measures that were introduced in September 2020 will expire on September 25, 2021.
Senator Manning: Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Mr. Cadieux, I seem to have misunderstood your response to Senator Dasko in relation to the Canada Caregiver Economic Recovery Benefit. Can you explain the difference between the Canada Caregiver Economic Recovery Benefit related to COVID-19, and the caregiver benefits under what was called “compassionate care leave” in the past? Does this affect that portion of “compassionate care leave” for those who are caring for relatives with a chronic illness, physical or mental disability or other chronic condition? Can you explain the distinction, please?
Mr. Cadieux: Yes, certainly. Thank you for your question, Senator. As I mentioned to Senator Dasko, the distinction is that the caregiver benefit under the EI program is for those who are caring for someone who is seriously ill or at risk of dying in the coming weeks. So it’s intended to allow families to be present and to care for someone who is seriously ill, and it has a very specific purpose.
With respect to the Canada Caregiver Economic Recovery Benefit, it is much broader. This benefit allows parents and families to stay home and not work if they need to care for a child or other family member who, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, must stay home when that person would normally be at school or away from home.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. Madam Chair, may I ask Ms. Nandy a question, please?
The Chair: Very quickly, please.
Senator Mégie: Ms. Nandy, has your team ever estimated the costs of all these changes to EI for small businesses?
Ms. Nandy: Thank you for the question, Senator Mégie. I will have to contact my team to do some checking. I know we have done a cost estimate, but I don’t know how much it is, especially for small businesses, as you mentioned.
Senator Mégie: Can you send this in writing if your team is not complete at this time?
The Chair: Absolutely, Senator Mégie. We’ll make sure we follow up and get that answer for all the senators.
[English]
We are almost running out of time for this first panel. Senator Omidvar, your hand was raised and now I don’t see it anymore. Just let us know if you want to ask a question.
I’m asking for your cooperation for a very quick one question with limited preamble, and then we can get ready for the next panel.
Senator Frum: I have a question for Ms. Demers. In response to a question, you mentioned that the cost associated with the measures in section 35 are $2.5 billion over two years. However, when the program began, the estimated cost was that it would be $6 billion. By March of this year, the cost had reached $11 billion, almost double. How confident are you in your current estimates of $2.5 billion over two years?
Ms. Demers: Thank you, senator. The estimates that we use combine a number of factors in terms of looking at patterns of use today and the current economic context, so Labour Force Survey data and unemployment data. Those are estimates that are always unknown in terms of the potential return faster to the labour market with the recovery of the economy or further shutdowns or lockdowns. We are monitoring and seeing how these changes are impacting our takeup rates, which then impact our cost estimates.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: My question is for Ms. Demers and again it is about costs. In answering my question earlier, and you also just mentioned it, you talked about the costs associated with this whole program. I’m particularly interested in knowing the costs associated with managing this program. If you could provide those in writing following today’s meeting, that would be greatly appreciated.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator. I think it’s possible to do that follow-up; is that right, Ms. Demers?
Ms. Demers: We will follow up, yes.
[English]
Senator Griffin: Prince Edward Island has a population of only about 160,000 people on a good day. In 2014, the change was made from one EI zone to two EI zones. Even the provincial government has been asking since then to have it restored to one zone.
If the BIA passes with two zones, can you confirm for me that an act of Parliament would now be needed to change it back to one zone? How does that factor into the EI zone consultations that are planned?
Ms. Nandy: Good morning, Senator Griffin. Thank you for the question. It would require regulations to change the EI zones or EI regions that are mentioned in the EI Regulations specifically. It would not be an act of Parliament that would be required in that instance.
I turn to your second question on the consultations. As Budget 2021 announced, in addition to the temporary measures to facilitate access to EI, there are a series of targeted consultations, including with workers in seasonal industries. As part of those conversations, there could be discussions on regions across the country where those seasonal workers are working.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: My question is quite short. It is just a point of clarification on the changes to the Canada Labour Code with respect to medical leave.
Who is covered by that leave program? Are they workers under EI or not? Are they just in the federally regulated industries or elsewhere?
How does this intersect, if at all, with the debate that has been going on at the provincial level with respect to sick days and the provinces either implementing sick days or not? I’ll leave it at that, just a point of clarification particularly with respect to those changes in Division 36.
Barbara Moran, Director General, Labour Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you, senator. I’m happy to answer that question. In terms of who it applies to, it’s for individuals who are in the federally regulated jurisdictions, so transportation, telecommunications and so on. It extends the available unpaid medical leave in order for employees to avail themselves of EI, if they qualify for that.
In terms of your question about the debate going on right now, that’s primarily centred around paid sick leave, which is a different question. This is unpaid medical leave for which there is a benefit in place were they to qualify.
Under the Canada Labour Code, we do have another leave provision, a personal leave provision. If an employee has served more than three months with the same employer, they’re eligible for the first three days of that leave to be paid. Again, it depends on the province. All provinces have some sort of unpaid medical leave, and now it would seem that a number of them are starting to put forward a limited number of paid sick leave, sometimes related to COVID.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I was booted out for a bit, so if my question has been asked, you’re very welcome to say it has been asked and answered, and we can save time.
I have a micro question and a macro question. The micro question is, with these extensions to EI, are there any additional costs to small business, or are premiums frozen still and will remain so?
Ms. Nandy: Premiums are frozen until 2023. That has been determined. In terms of future costs, I think there was a question from Senator Mégie where we agreed to have some follow-up on the specific reference to costs to small businesses.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. My other question is more future-looking. The government has announced a federal commission on EI to look into the vast puzzle that EI has become, based on regions and qualifying hours and disqualifying features, et cetera. When is the federal commission expected to start doing its work? And in its deliberations, will it look at the new economy, especially gig workers?
Ms. Nandy: Senator Omidvar, thanks for the question. As I was mentioning earlier, there’s reference to consultations and the need for discussions with Canadians to inform future longer-term reforms to the EI system to make it an EI system for the 21st century. One of the specific topics of those targeted consultations mentioned in the budget would be, in fact, to explore the possibility of a benefit for self-employed workers and gig workers.
Senator Omidvar: Do you have any timelines you can give us as to when this commission is going to start its work?
Ms. Nandy: The consultations, plan and the dates are still being developed. It’s still early days as we’ve just had the budget. We’re sort of thinking through the appropriate timing for those. No, at this point, I don’t have any dates specifically to share with you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. It has been a bit challenging this morning. If there’s anything you feel you need to add to your testimony, you may do so in writing and, of course, we will follow up with some of the specific questions.
I believe Senator Griffin had more questions. If that is the case, I would ask Senator Griffin to send them in writing, and I’m sure our witnesses will indulge in answering those specific questions, as we do need to move to our next panel.
[Translation]
We will continue with our second panel of witnesses, with whom we will also study Divisions 35 and 36 of Bill C-30.
Our witnesses at this time are Mr. Pierre Céré, Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, as well as Ms. Kelly Masotti, Vice-President, Advocacy, and Mr. Stephen Piazza, Senior Manager, Advocacy, from the Canadian Cancer Society.
Without further ado, I invite Mr. Céré to make his statement. He will be followed by Ms. Masotti.
Pierre Céré, Spokesperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses: Honourable Senators, thank you for your invitation.
We all know that since the spring of 2020, the health crisis has been coupled with an economic crisis, unlike anything we have experienced in our lifetimes to date.
Between mid-March and the end of September 2020, approximately 9 million people lost their jobs, or 45% of the workforce. On average, 9 million people received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for three months, which was later replaced by the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB). In late September 2020, the EI system was put back on track with major easing measures akin to true EI program reform. However, this reform is temporary.
If you want to get a clear, unbiased picture of the realities of the world of work, look at the EI fund. From September 27, 2020, to May 2, 2021, therefore in a period of seven months, more than 4 million employment insurance claims were processed. There are currently 2.3 million beneficiaries. On the CRB side, the three types of benefits total 2.8 million beneficiaries as of September 27, 2020.
A recent study by the International Monetary Fund suggests “avoiding a premature withdrawal” of support programs, while noting that “the lessons from the crisis represent an excellent opportunity to review the EI system,” including its stabilizing role. I would add that the IMF is right.
On the other hand, the objectives of the Budget Implementation Act do not fully support this. Indeed, in Division 35, the CRB extension measures provide that for the last eight weeks, or those accrued since July 18, 2021, benefits will be reduced to $300 per week, and that the September 25 deadline could be extended to November 20, 2021, at best. I ask you, does the Senate have the power to amend this budget bill and level the benefits at $500, thus rising above partisan interests and petty political games?
With respect to employment insurance, Division 36 of the bill is very complex. It puts in place temporary improvement measures for one year, 2021-2022, and then returns to the status quo in 2022.
We welcome some temporary measures, such as the introduction of a single Canada-wide eligibility criterion at 420 hours; the fact that penalties attached to reasons for job separation take into account only the last job; the fact that severance pay does not affect unemployment benefits; the fact that seasonal workers in 13 administrative regions of Canada will be eligible for an additional five weeks of benefits.
On the other hand, there are two blind spots in these measures: for the calculation of the benefit rate, there is a straightforward return to the status quo, with a variable denominator set by the unemployment rate. As for the benefit period, it is, on balance, already a return to the status quo and to benefit periods that are too short. These blind spots should have been avoided, for example, by temporary measures establishing a fixed 14-day denominator and a universal benefit period of 50 weeks, as is currently the case.
By proceeding in this way, the government is not helping regions equally. It will even penalize some regions, while the pandemic affects all of Canada.
Finally, increasing sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks is a promising and historic move, but why delay the implementation until August 2022? If it’s because of the computer system, the computer system provides a very handy excuse.
The government is pushing back its plans to reform the employment insurance program. Be that as it may, in the meantime, we need temporary measures that meet the needs. Blind spots and loopholes need to be addressed quickly, as was the case last year with the CERB. As for the commission that will be appointed to evaluate this program and make recommendations, it must work for a period of one year, not two years.
Historically, Canada has been the architect of great achievements internationally, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other achievements, as well as domestically, such as the health care system, and many other achievements.
The social safety net is critically important in dealing with unemployment and crises. We must act accordingly.
The Senate is a great place to think wisely about our nation’s laws. We urge you to modify and amend this budget implementation bill.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Kelly Masotti, Vice President of Advocacy, Canadian Cancer Society: Thank you very much. Good morning, senators. With me today is my colleague Stephen Piazza. Today we are pleased to speak in support of Bill C-30, specifically Division 36, as written, an extension to the employment insurance sickness benefit.
The proposed extension to the EI sickness benefit from 15 to 26 weeks will have a positive impact on people living with cancer. Our remarks will focus on this benefit specifically, and this specific provision, and the importance it will have for the cancer community. We strongly encourage all senators to support this important change.
The EI sickness benefit has been virtually unchanged since 1970. It provides insured employees up to 15 weeks of financial assistance if they are unable to work for medical reasons, provided they have qualified with over 600 hours already worked.
When Canadians face cancer, their struggle is not just medical but also financial. In addition to a decrease in income, they also face a rise in expenses, such as medications, the cost of medical travel, parking and home care costs. The stress of this financial burden affects their emotional well-being and therefore their psychosocial needs.
We would like to share one story with you, as written by Kathy MacNaughton about her husband David. She says:
He could no longer work as a carpenter; something that was exceptionally hard for a man like David who prided himself on being able to provide financially for his family.
Through his employer, David was eligible for coverage through the employment insurance sickness benefit. But the benefit only offers 15 weeks of coverage and David’s cancer treatment far exceeded that timeline.
When his benefits ran out, he no longer had income. Other than cancer, the biggest thing on David’s mind was how he was going to contribute financially.
While David was going through treatment, our car insurance bill was due and we needed to find money to pay for it. I told him not to worry; we would figure something out.
It’s clear that for people like Kathy and so many other Canadians, the status quo is simply not working. As Canadians live longer, with longer careers, more people are likely to develop an illness while they are in the workforce. With nearly one in two Canadians expected to develop cancer in their lifetime and more than 1 million Canadians living with and beyond cancer, there’s a critical need to provide additional support.
I will now pass things over to my colleague Stephen to continue.
Stephen Piazza, Senior Manager of Advocacy, Canadian Cancer Society: An extension of the EI sickness benefit to 26 weeks is a strong start and will have a major impact on the lives of those living with cancer. We commend the government for making this important investment that will ensure many Canadians are not forced to choose between a paycheque and cancer treatment.
At 26 weeks, the EI sickness benefit will align with the compassionate care benefit for caregivers, which was extended in 2016. This extension is also supported by the overwhelming majority of Canadians according to our recent polling data. Results from a CCS-led poll in February 2021 found 88% of Canadians support extending the sickness benefit to 26 weeks, whether funded by employers or out of their own pocket. Similarly, 84% support an extension of up to 50 weeks.
An extension to 26 weeks is a strong start, but it is our hope that the benefit is expanded even further to better meet the needs of all cancer types. The average length of cancer treatment and physical recovery for breast, colon and rectal cancers, three of the most commonly diagnosed cancers, exceed 26 weeks, at 26 to 36, 37 and 47 weeks respectively.
It is estimated that 77% of sickness benefit claimants that exhaust the 15 weeks do not return to work immediately. About three quarters of these claimants took at least an additional 26 weeks off work.
Further expansion will mean even more Canadians are able to benefit from this important support this program provides. The Canadian Cancer Society will continue to work with the government and all parties to build on this historic investment so that even more people can access the financial supports they need to thrive through their diagnosis and treatment.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration. We look forward to addressing any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Chair: I thank the witnesses. We do have some questions for you. We will begin with the deputy chairs, Senator Frum and Senator Bovey; they will be followed by Senator R. Black. Senator Frum, you have the floor for the first question.
[English]
Senator Frum: This question is for the witnesses from the Canadian Cancer Society.
We know that the government’s slow vaccine procurement program and the low rate of fully vaccinated Canadians has in many ways taken the greatest toll on Canadians afflicted with cancer, especially due to surgery backlogs.
Do you have any sense of the magnitude by which the Canadian cancer community has been impacted by the pandemic? Do you expect to see growth in the financial needs for these programs?
Ms. Masotti: Thank you, Senator Frum. That’s a wonderful question.
It’s still very early for us to be able to provide any reasonable data to talk about numbers with respect to cancer patients. What we do know is that there is a backlog in many provinces, and we are quite concerned about that backlog. I’m going to turn it over to Stephen, who primarily focuses on Ontario. I know he has some numbers for Ontario that he can reference.
Mr. Piazza: First, with respect to the surgical backlog that we’re seeing and the collateral damage of COVID-19 on the cancer system, in Ontario alone we’re looking at a backlog of over 13,000 cancer surgeries and over 100,000 surgeries in total beyond just cancer. We’re seeing in a number of provinces that along with the surgical backlog, there’s also a backlog in cancer screenings.
To your point, senator, we are concerned that we will see somewhat of a tsunami of new cancer diagnoses when this pandemic is behind us as we get through this backlog. It’s not so much a matter of if we will see these cancers; it’s at what stage they will present. With this backlog in screening, we will see more cancers presenting at a later stage, which impacts survival.
I want to take a bit of time to speak to the psychosocial impact that this pandemic is having on people facing cancer as they see their treatments postponed, their screenings backlogged and wait for governments to prioritize them, in some cases, with a first or second dose of a vaccine.
The Canadian Cancer Society ran, to date, three surveys in the cancer community, the first in July 2020. It was a look back to the first wave of the pandemic. The second was in November 2020 and the third in January 2021. We’ve seen a considerably heightened level of anxiety among people facing cancer and their caregivers, throughout all three rounds of surveys. The number of caregivers for people facing a cancer diagnosis was actually higher than the people with the diagnosis themselves, which really shows the impact on people facing cancer but also their caregivers.
Senator Frum: Thank you very much for that answer.
Senator Bovey: I’d like to thank all the witnesses. I’d like to follow up on the question that Senator Frum asked. I think many of us have been caregivers for loved ones with cancer and have been part of those sagas. I can only imagine how much harder it would be to be in those shoes now in the pandemic.
I noticed in your press release on Budget 2021 that you were relatively pleased with the provisions of a tobacco tax increase, e-cigarette tax increase, increased funding for palliative care and pediatric cancer research. You noted in that press release that, for the first time, time off under compassionate care benefit would be equal to time off for a person with cancer under EI.
I want to go back a little. Why do you think that discrepancy existed in the first place? What’s your rationale for the discrepancy having been there and for it having been corrected in this budget? Do you think the correction will be ongoing?
Ms. Masotti: Thank you, senator, for your question. The Canadian Cancer Society was certainly supportive in 2016 and 2017 when the discussions were taking place about an extension to the compassionate care benefit. We were there to announce to Canadians the day that they were eligible to start receiving those benefits. We will do the same for every single benefit that the Canadian government announces for cancer patients. It’s important for the community to be aware these benefits exist and for them to gain access to them.
I can’t speak to why that benefit first and the sickness benefit second, but I can say that while we were thrilled with the extension to the CCB, it then became so painfully obvious that cancer patients themselves were not receiving the same time off in coverage that they required to be able to recover from their illness, get treated and then, if they so choose, return to the workforce, which is ultimately what our goal is. In so many instances, cancer can be seen as a chronic disease. It’s in those instances where people need that time to get well so that they can return to the workforce, which is their goal and our goal is for them.
While there was that discrepancy, we then decided it was time for us to continue to talk about the sickness benefit because it’s so important for people living with cancer. The extension from 15 to 26 weeks, as my colleague Stephen said, is a wonderful start. As the other witness said, this is an historical change to the system and it will benefit many Canadians.
In the budget, the government states that 169,000 Canadians will benefit from this extension, which we’re thrilled about. But also as my colleague Stephen states, there’s room to extend that even further. We know there are many cancers that require greater time than the 26 weeks.
We took the liberty of doing some public polling. The Canadian public is largely supportive; 88% of Canadians are supportive of an extension beyond that 26 weeks. We’ll continue to watch the situation, and we’ll continue to advocate on behalf of Canadians who are living with cancer in this country.
Senator Bovey: I’ll presume you’ll put into that what Mr. Piazza said, that you’re fearful — I’m going to use the word — that cancers will be diagnosed now at a later stage because of the slowdown of diagnoses during the pandemic. May I presume that going forward, you’ll include those realities and the data that comes out of those realities into your request for needs going forward?
Ms. Masotti: Absolutely. We had the privilege to present at the Standing Committee on Health a couple weeks ago, where we spoke to these concerns at that point in time. I am happy to share some of those recommendations that we have on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society. Today we are here to talk about the extension of EI, but I’m more than happy to share our other priorities and how we are to support Canadians with cancer.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much.
Senator R. Black: I have one question for our first witness, Mr. Céré. You have noted that changes in amendments to Bill C-30 are necessary to support those facing unemployment in Canada right now. Just to be clear and concise, what else can the government do to continue supporting these unemployed Canadians in the future? Can you be clear and concise on what else should be done? Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Céré: Are you referring to Division 35 or Division 36? To the CRB or EI, senator?
[English]
Senator R. Black: You can share your thoughts with me on either.
[Translation]
Mr. Céré: In Division 35 of the CRB, it is very good to consider an extension and make it consistent with the EI benefit period, that is to consider it over a 50-week period. There is obviously a political game being played in Parliament: For the last eight weeks or for new claimants starting in July, the rate drops to $300. Why? Are we waiting for an opposition party to introduce an amendment? Is this a political game, whether there is an election or not? It is not right to lower this rate during a pandemic. We are still in a pandemic and in a time of crisis. The employment situation has not yet recovered.
We are asking the Senate to restore this amount because last year the amount was restored by Parliament. Would the Senate be able to bring it back to $500?
There are two issues with respect to employment insurance, the calculation of the rate and the calculation of the benefit period. The variable standard, the denominator, with which the benefit rate is calculated, is being reinstated. This will hurt countless regions, Indigenous communities, and seasonal workers who are contained in large EI administrative regions, where the denominator could be 20.
If someone has worked 15 weeks and you divide that by 20 to average things out, you are having an adverse effect. The benefit rate is what’s in the base, and the benefit period is what we’ve known since 1996, which is short periods. There are people who will have very little in their base for a short time. That is not right and the government can correct that.
I urge the Senate to make these very simple changes: one denominator, which is 14, and one benefit period, which is 50. We’re talking about section 330 of the budget implementation bill. That’s it.
[English]
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you to the witnesses. I have a question for Mr. Céré. Let’s forget about COVID-19 and imagine that it passed. What do you think — and I’m sure you’ve heard about this — about the idea of providing a guaranteed minimum income instead of reforming EI?
Mr. Céré: It is one thing to talk about a guaranteed minimum income at political conventions and in various forums, but it’s another to realize that there are many schools of thought on the issue and that such a policy would require a clear framework. A guaranteed minimum income could be established to take the place of all other income replacement supports. Those supports are many and are often delivered by the province. Just think of income replacement programs for work-related injuries and illnesses, wage loss insurance and car insurance. It’s a long list. Establishing a guaranteed minimum income is a noble endeavour, but one the government would have to think long and hard about in order to balance the right elements.
However, if the idea is to establish the guaranteed minimum income as a threshold below which no one should live, it would have to be adjusted in relation to provincial social assistance programs. As far as the constitutional negotiations are concerned, I say good luck to anyone wanting to bring such a policy to fruition. It will be quite the road, certainly a long one.
In the meantime, can the government use the EI system to expand coverage to unprotected workers, such as self-employed workers? Of course. The failings of the EI program have been studied since the 1990s. Keep in mind that the 1990s were a time of austerity, and the EI system has been in a proverbial straitjacket ever since — 30 years. That is why the system collapsed last year. It could not sustain the pressure. We need a system for the 21st century, but not in 2085. The answers are known. All the analysis has been done. No stone has been left unturned. The Human Resources Committee has heard from hundreds of witnesses and received dozens of briefs. The government knows the solutions. Let’s get on with it, for goodness sake. If there has to be a commission, so be it, but the work should not take more than a year. Temporary measures could be introduced for 2021 and 2022; meanwhile, a commission could study the whole system — admittedly, a highly complex system — to come up with recommendations that would finally lead to a system fit for the 21st century.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Mr. Céré.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I have a question for both groups. I was going to ask you where you stood on a guaranteed minimum income as well, but your answer was quite clear. I’m worried. I’d like to hear both of you comment on the growing complexity of the system. Is it a challenge for those you work with and help? I welcome any recommendations you have in that regard.
[English]
Ms. Masotti: I can start. With respect to the growing complexity of the system, I would suggest our organization needs to see this extension implemented from 15 weeks to at least 26 weeks. While we respect the government’s commitment to look at an overall reform of the employment insurance system, the sickness benefit is one of five special benefits, and it’s the last one of the five special benefits to be amended. We would consistently encourage the government not to allow that benefit to be tied up into the overall reform of the EI system. This is the last benefit. It needs to see parity with the compassionate caregiver benefit so we are no longer in a situation where caregivers have more time than the patients themselves. This is why we would encourage this specific budget implementation bill to be supported and passed. Stephen, I don’t know if you have anything else you would like to add.
Mr. Piazza: I will speak briefly to the patient experience with a diagnosis. Along with navigating the EI system, they are also perhaps navigating reimbursements for cancer medications. If you live in Ontario, you are navigating the Trillium Drug Program, you are navigating transportation to and from your cancer treatment. You are navigating care for your children while you undergo that cancer treatment. So along with your experience through the EI sickness benefit, you are managing and navigating a number of other pieces that impact your life.
I would ask that this is all kept in mind as we talk about this population.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Mr. Céré, I’m especially interested to hear your comments, but not as they relate to the amendment you proposed.
Mr. Céré: Is that question for me, senator? In terms of the Canada Recovery Benefit, I don’t think Parliament will implement the measures in Division 35 of the Budget Implementation Act. Politics are very much in play because of the possible election. To be perfectly frank, I encourage you to rise above partisan interests by supporting the amendment. It’s the same as last year, when the government always started with $300 or $400. A game of politics with the opposition ensued. Now, it needs to come from the Senate; the termination or continuity of the Canada Recovery Benefit should be standardized at $500. That seems appropriate to me. The government may even be planning for that.
As for the EI measures in Division 36, people are really going to suffer the consequences beginning in September. It is not about the eligibility requirement. Establishing a single threshold of 420 hours for the entire country is a good thing. Except when it comes to calculating the benefit rate, the variable entrance requirement still comes into play. The administrative regions are drawn up arbitrarily. They are more or less catch-all regions, with varied employment realities, ranging from seasonal work and part-time work to on-call work and, of course, full-time work. Not to mention, Indigenous communities are lumped into very large administrative regions despite the wide range of realities those communities face.
In Quebec, for example, the Lower St. Lawrence region is combined with regions across the river, Charlevoix and Haute-Côte-Nord, and includes part of the Lac Saint-Jean area. That one administrative region encompasses all kinds of employment realities. Unemployment rates may be down because things are going well in certain parts of the region. In other parts, however, that will not be the case because they have seasonal employment. People have to resign themselves to dividing their earnings by 20, even though they have worked 15 weeks. Their benefit rate decreases by a quarter or a third. It’s the status quo for the benefit period, something that has been criticized in every possible venue since 1996. It’s not appropriate to return to that rate, especially not in the midst of a pandemic. That is unacceptable. If I could share my screen with you, I would show you a straightforward amendment that could be made to the budget implementation bill; it would restore temporary measures to help people and require the government to establish a commission that would spend one year examining the system’s reform, which is surely doable.
In 2013, Quebec established an EI review board, the Commission nationale d’examen sur l’assurance-emploi, which did a tremendous job in less than a year. At the time, the Forget commission had been the most recent national inquiry in the 1980s to examine the EI system. It is possible to conduct such a review in a year, and make the transition from temporary measures ending in 2022 to a system fit for the 21st century. Currently, two aspects are problematic, the benefit rate and the benefit period. That the government intends to maintain those elements following the temporary measures is unacceptable, especially in the midst of a pandemic.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer.
[English]
Senator Moodie, your hand was raised, but I can’t see it raised anymore, so let us know. In the meantime, we will move on to the next senator.
Senator Manning: Thank you to our witnesses this morning.
I know we are talking about the amendments to the EI system as it relates to people suffering from cancer and regarding other sickness benefits. Cancer is not an individual concern; it quickly becomes a family concern, from a financial and health aspect. In May 1999, my own sister discovered breast cancer and she passed away in June 2000, 13 months later. It was indeed a large family concern for everybody to make sure we were there on all sides to help.
So I would ask for any ideas or suggestions the Cancer Society has not only for the EI benefits but for anything we could look at in the Senate regarding ways of improving the lives of those who are suffering from that dreaded disease.
I want to ask a question that maybe I missed. Do you have any stats on how many people have availed themselves of the 15-week program? I know you mentioned something, but I was trying to make some notes. Do you have any stats in relation to people who have availed themselves of the 15 weeks of sickness benefits but who would have availed themselves of the 26 weeks or even up to a 50-week program, if it were available?
Ms. Masotti: Thank you, senator, for that. Just give me a second here to look at the data I have available on hand. I can certainly follow up with additional information. Stephen, please also feel free to jump in.
Based upon 2019 data from BC Cancer, the variation in time needed for treatment and recovery was between 26 and 36 weeks for people with breast cancer and 37 weeks for colon cancer. These are two of the most common types of cancer for Canadians. So we support any additional time — at least 26 weeks — in order for these patients to have the time off they need to recover.
As a comparison, 28 of the 36 OECD countries provide at least 26 weeks, or six months, of paid leave for personal illness.
Stephen, do you want to jump in with additional numbers?
Mr. Piazza: Yes. A little more than a third of those EI sickness benefit claimants had used the maximum number of the 15 weeks. Of that one third, 77% take additional time from that 15 weeks. As well, I mentioned in my statement that about three quarters of these claimants took at least an additional 26 weeks off work from that time.
Senator Manning: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: My question is for Mr. Céré.
I could not agree more with you that the EI system is outdated. It was built for 40 years ago, and we are still carrying its legacy in these very different times. I agree that a quicker review would serve us better.
But I want to ask you a question about the expansion of benefits in the future. If these benefits are expanded, they will come at a greater cost. The cost is borne both by employers and employees; we all know that. The employer pays $7, and the employee pays $5. This is a bone of contention with small businesses. Small business groups have proposed that the premium should be shared equally between employer and employee.
What do you make of that position?
[Translation]
Mr. Céré: Senator, I would say a number of considerations come into play. First, the premium rate has been frozen at 1.58% since 2020; it’s the same this year and next year. That is the employee contribution, the lowest premium rate since 1980. In 1981, the rate was 1.8%. The premium rate was so low because of the surplus that had been accumulated. The government used to misappropriate surpluses in the EI fund. Everyone knows the stories of EI surpluses being misappropriated. The current government does not want to accumulate a surplus. Since 2016, the government has consistently worked towards a break-even point in the fund. The premium rate remains quite low, however. Going back to the 2008 rate of 1.73%, for instance, would give the government the flexibility to correct a good many problems.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked into the possibility of extending the duration of EI sickness benefits to 50 weeks. According to his calculations, he estimated that raising the premium rate by 6 cents would make it possible to provide people with 50 weeks of sickness benefits. Under the current system, sickness benefits are available for 26 weeks. A historic increase is certainly called for, the sickness benefit period having been the same since 1971. It’s safe to say it is time.
When I say all the problems and solutions have been documented, I mean it. In the body of EI literature, no stone has been left unturned, every solution has been identified and every number has been calculated. The House of Commons Human Resources Committee has examined everything. Canada can have a smart and balanced EI system that protects workers throughout the employment spectrum, whether they are part-time, seasonal or self-employed workers.
Numerous countries around the world have programs that protect self-employed workers. According to the OECD, Canada is one of the few without such a program. It’s high time to step into the 21st century.
Now, in response to your question about employers and employees sharing the premium equally, I would say this. Employers are the ones who have been calling for such a measure; it is a request I have heard before. In fact, we engaged in a dialogue with the employer community and we are familiar with their concerns about equal contributions.
Here’s a historical fact to keep in mind. Since the program was created, the Canadian government had always been involved in funding EI, in accordance with various formulas that changed over time. In 1989, the government withdrew itself from the EI funding scheme.
Returning to that funding scheme is an option. For instance, the government could assume the costs of administering the EI program, roughly $2 billion annually. Currently, workers and employers cover those costs through their contributions. If the government were to step in, it would lighten the load on employers and workers. Responsibility-wise, various formulas would be not just viable, but also acceptable to all sides, so they would be worth looking into.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we do have a little bit of time. If someone has a question, we are happy to take it.
[Translation]
If none of the honourable senators has a question, I would like a clarification. Mr. Céré, you talked a lot about the impact of Division 36 on the different regions. I’m curious to hear your position. Is the impact specific to each province? In other words, overall, will certain provinces be affected in different ways?
Mr. Céré: The provisions will have an impact everywhere. The variable entrance requirement was suspended last year. The minister, Ms. Qualtrough, applied an artificial unemployment rate of 13.1% to all regions across Canada — astutely and smartly so, I must say. The effect was twofold. First, for a year, the eligibility requirement for everyone was 420 hours. Two, the best 14 weeks were used to calculate the benefit rate. Everyone received the same fair treatment, and it worked.
For 2021-22, the requirement is still 420 hours, but the divisor is no longer 14 weeks. As a result, in a number of regions across Canada, seasonal workers will work 15 or 16 weeks, depending on the season, and the divisor for their region could be set at 20 weeks. Average earnings and the benefit rate are going to drop drastically. The same is true for the benefit period, which will be variable again. It is laid out in the bill. The table is quite something. What the table mainly does is show people how few weeks of benefits they will receive. All of that emerged in 1996, when the goal was to realize large-scale savings and surpluses in the EI fund — a goal that was achieved back then.
That is no longer appropriate today. People need to be adequately protected, and I think the government is able to show some political courage.
I do not understand why the government put off reforming the EI system for the 21st century, given its firm commitment to do so. We really believed it would happen in 2021-22, albeit perhaps in chunks. Here we are, however, and the government has postponed reforms, citing an outdated IT system. Outdated though the IT system may be, 9 million people received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and 3 million are currently receiving the Canada Recovery Benefit. Some 2.5 million are collecting EI benefits. The system might need updating, but it’s working. Why delay the 26 weeks of sickness benefits until August 2022? I think a lot of it has to do with politics, and that’s unfortunate.
In conclusion, Madam Chair, I will say this. I understand that employers and workers have different views on the subject, but I also know that it is possible to find balanced solutions that work for both sides. Quebec was able to do it with its parental insurance plan. Consensus is possible on many other issues; the parties concerned just need to sit down and talk to find the points they can agree on. It is possible to move forward.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer. Thank you to the witnesses.
[English]
Thank you all for your presentations and for answering our questions. If there is anything that you forgot and you want to add, please do not hesitate to send it our way. We will be happy to read and receive it.
[Translation]
That concludes our meeting. If there are no further questions, I will say thank you to the witnesses.
(The committee adjourned.)