THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 1, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:05 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Let me first welcome our interim clerk, Joëlle Nadeau, who will support our work at least until the end of June — and maybe beyond; we don’t know. We have senators both in the room here and online, and we will introduce them as they ask their questions.
My name is Ratna Omidvar. I’m a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
Today, our committee is continuing its examination of the subject matter of certain sections of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.
Today, specifically, we are examining the matters of Divisions 24, 26, 27 and 29 of Part 5, which amend, respectively, the Old Age Security Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Criminal Code, the Canada Labour Code and the Department of Employment and Social Development Act.
Since we are covering such a range of departments, it is no surprise that we have many public officials. Thank you so much for taking time to be with us. Thank you as well to the other witnesses. From Employment and Social Development Canada, we have Kristen Underwood, Director General, Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat; Kevin Wagdin, Director, Old Age Security Policy and Legislation; Fariya Syed, Director, Employment Program Policy and Design; Saajida Deen, Director General, Employment Program Policy and Design; Anamika Mona Nandy, Acting Director General, Employment Insurance Policy; George Rae, Acting Director, Employment Insurance Policy; Deanne Field, Executive Director, Employment Insurance Benefits Processing; Annik Casey, Director General, Employment Insurance Benefits Processing; Douglas Wolfe, Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program; and Zia Proulx, Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program. Thank you to all of you for joining us today.
I now invite Kevin Wagdin to speak to Division 24. He will be followed by Saajida Deen on Division 26, Anamika Mona Nandy on Division 27 and Douglas Wolfe on Division 29. Witnesses, you will have five minutes each, and then we will go to my colleagues for their questions.
Kevin Wagdin, Director, Old Age Security Policy and Legislation, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I’m here to present a small no-cost amendment related to the Old Age Security Act.
As many of you may know, the Budget Implementation Act, or BIA, of last year — 2021 — included provisions related to a 10% increase to the Old Age Security pension for seniors 75 years and older. One of those provisions amended the definition of income in the Old Age Security Act to exempt the one-time payment for older seniors from the calculation of income for GIS purposes. The language in this provision made specific reference to clause 276 of the BIA.
During the legislative process for the BIA, an earlier provision of the bill was actually struck down, which meant the provisions of the bill were renumbered. However, the cross-reference under the Old Age Security Act was not adjusted to reflect this renumbering. We’re here to correct this erroneous cross-reference and to ensure that there’s no ambiguity surrounding the legal authority to exempt this payment from the GIS calculation in July.
This issue was raised during the examination of Bill C-12 in the Senate, particularly by Senator Patterson, who I believe is here today. The Minister of Seniors committed that the government would fix this error as soon as possible. I can assure that there will be no impacts to clients as a result of this erroneous cross-reference. IT systems and supporting tax forms have already been developed to exempt this one-time payment for older seniors from the GIS calculation, and the exemption will be implemented as intended.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wagdin. Ms. Deen, on Division 26.
Saajida Deen, Director General, Employment Program Policy and Design, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good afternoon. My name is Saajida Deen. I’m the Director General responsible for employment programs and policy design in ESDC.
[Translation]
I am here today to talk about Division 26, Part 5. Part II of the Employment Insurance Act enables the provision of EI-funded skills training and employment supports. Under Part II of the act, the Government of Canada, working with the provinces and territories, makes annual investments in programs and services for those seeking to find and keep employment.
[English]
Building a modern Employment Insurance system includes improving Canadians’ access to the programs and services required to get back to work. This division of the Budget Implementation Act amends Part II of the Employment Insurance Act to achieve this by broadening client and program eligibility to enhance access and responsiveness to labour market conditions.
[Translation]
By helping Canadians prepare for, find and keep employment, the Government of Canada is making sure that employers and industries across the country have access to the skilled workforce Canada needs to fill labour shortages and drive inclusive and sustainable economic growth over the long term. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Deen. Ms. Nandy on Division 27.
Anamika Mona Nandy, Acting Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you, honourable senator. Hello, everyone. I’m here to present on Division 27.
Division 27 would amend the Employment Insurance Act, the EI Act, to implement certain Budget 2022 announcements. In particular, it would extend for one year, until October 28, 2023, the EI temporary measure related to seasonal claimants that would otherwise expire on October 29, 2022. It would also clarify how the Budget 2021 temporary measure on monies on separation will come to an end in September of this year.
In particular, on the seasonal measure, this division would enable eligible workers employed in seasonal industries residing in the 13 targeted EI regions with highly seasonal economies to continue to access up to five additional weeks of EI regular benefits in their off-season. This includes continuing supports for workers whose seasonal claiming pattern was disrupted by the timing of temporary COVID-19 measures.
With regard to the transitional clarification of the Budget 2021 measure that I mentioned earlier, the proposed legislation would clarify how the monies on separation measure will come to an end on September 24, 2022. Under the current temporary measure, monies paid on job separation, such as severance pay and vacation pay, neither count as earnings for EI benefit purposes nor affect the timing of a claimant’s receipt of EI benefits. This transitional amendment would clarify that, as of September 25, 2022, monies paid on job separation will resume to be considered as earnings for EI benefit purposes and will affect the timing of a claimant’s receipt of benefits.
Unlike other temporary measures announced through Budget 2021, monies on separation can be reported to the EI Commission and allocated at different times. Therefore, a transitional provision was necessary to specify the applicability of this Budget 2021 temporary measure to an allocation start date.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Nandy. Now to Division 29, Mr. Douglas Wolfe.
Douglas Wolfe, Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Strategic Policy, Analysis, and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Good afternoon, senators.
Division 29 of Part 5 would amend the provisions of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, that will provide up to 10 days of medical leave of absence with pay in a calendar year to employees in the federally regulated private sector.
Specifically, the proposed amendments would, among other things, simplify the rate at which employees earn the days of medical leave of absence with pay. That is, after receiving their first three days of paid leave, employees will no longer need to wait an additional 60 days before earning subsequent days at a rate of one day at the beginning of each month after completing one month of continuous employment with their employer.
Second, it will standardize the conditions related to the requirement to provide a medical certificate. Employers will be permitted to request a medical certificate for leaves of absence that are five days or longer, regardless of whether the leave is paid or unpaid.
Third, it will authorize the Governor-in-Council to make regulations in certain circumstances, including to modify certain provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay, and it will ensure that, for the purposes of medical leaves of absence, an employee who changes employers due to the lease or transfer of a work, undertaking or business, or due to a contract being awarded through a retendering process, is deemed to be continuously employed with one employer.
The amendments would also provide that the medical leave with pay provisions would come into force automatically on December 1, 2022, unless an order of the Governor-in-Council is made before that date.
Thank you very much, senators.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wolfe.
Questions now from my colleagues. As always, you have five minutes for your question and your answer, so please keep your questions short so that we can get the fulsomeness of information from our witnesses. Our first question goes to Senator Bovey from Manitoba. Senator Bovey is the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Bovey: I’d like to thank all the presenters. We’ve certainly covered a lot of territory in these amendments.
I have two questions in regard to the Employment Insurance Act. I know that the proposed new employment support measures no longer mention incentives for employers, incentives for participants such as temporary earning supplements or of support to start a business or become self-employed. Would incentives such as temporary earning supplements help for starting a business or becoming self-employed under section 59 of the act still be possible, or are they wiped out completely?
Ms. Deen: Thank you very much for that question.
To clarify, in removing those categories, what we are attempting to do is provide more flexibility. The provisions that currently exist in Part II of the Employment Insurance Act were written in 1996 at a time when the Government of Canada was beginning its devolution of federal programs to provinces and territories to support those individuals who were either receiving EI benefits or who had received EI benefits in the recent past. The legislation enshrined those eight programs that the federal government was delivering in 1996 into the legislation.
As we all know, the labour market has evolved significantly in the last 25 years, and really the intent of these changes is to remove those prescriptive program categories to allow jurisdictions to design and deliver programs that respond to the local labour market conditions.
Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Ms. Deen, you talked about economic conditions. I have a question regarding the economic zones in P.E.I. regarding EI income. Earlier, you talked about improving service.
In a June 2021 report, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, chaired by a P.E.I. MP, issued a recommendation that ESDC “reinstate a single employment insurance economic region for P.E.I. within 12 months.” With the election, there was no reply that I’m aware of, so I’m asking now if there is movement in your department on this. As you know, we have a bill before the Senate on this at the moment, so it interests me to know whether your department is considering it.
Ms. Deen: Thank you very much for that question.
I believe those provisions are not related to Part II of the Employment Insurance Act, so they’re outside of the scope of the changes that I’m discussing today.
Senator Bovey: I appreciate they may not be in the scope of what’s on the page of this bill, but my question was, is there movement in your department on this?
Ms. Nandy: Saajida, I can jump in and help with that answer, if that’s okay, senator.
Boundary reviews of EI regions are required to happen every five years. The last boundary review was started in 2018 and then, obviously, was affected by the pandemic. It concluded in 2021. The next will start in 2023. As part of the process, all regions would be reviewed, including those that are in P.E.I.
That said, with the amendments put forward in Division 27 with regard to seasonal claimants, both P.E.I. regions are included in the 13 targeted regions that would be affected by this seasonal measure. EI claimants in P.E.I., both in rural P.E.I. and in Charlottetown, would have access to up to five additional weeks, should they be eligible for this particular measure.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: My question is for Ms. Nandy. Division 27 provides another year of the additional five weeks of Employment Insurance. My understanding is this was part of a pilot project designed to inform the development of a long-term solution to better support seasonal workers. Could you tell us what is being done now on that long-term solution? What have you come up with? What considerations have you made to date? How successful is this pilot project?
Ms. Nandy: Thank you for the question.
Pilot Project No. 21 for seasonal workers was in effect from 2018 to 2021. As part of Budget 2021, a temporary measure was put in place to create a legislated measure that would provide up to five additional weeks for the 13 targeted regions and would replicate the terms of the pilot project that has ended. What is before you in Budget 2022 as part of the Budget Implementation Act is a measure that would further extend, for an additional year, until October 2023, that same support for seasonal claimants for those five additional weeks in the same 13 targeted regions.
The long-term approach on seasonal workers is part of the ongoing work on the plan for EI modernization. Also in Budget 2021, there was an announcement on EI consultations. Those consultations are ongoing. As part of those consultations, the important topic of supports for seasonal workers is being discussed, including with round tables with stakeholders.
To answer the question, a long-term measure on seasonal workers would be part of the government’s future consideration on EI modernization once the consultations conclude.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that.
What I understand you saying is that the process is under way and no lessons have been learned. My background is health care. In health care, Canada is known globally as the country of pilot projects. I’m worried that this may also happen here. Can you give us any comfort that this won’t happen here as well?
Ms. Nandy: Thank you for the additional question.
As part of our ongoing policy work on pilot projects under the EI program, we also undertake evaluations of the projects. That evaluation work is ongoing. We will learn lessons from what worked and what didn’t work with this current pilot and previous pilots. We will also receive input as part of the consultations directly from stakeholders, employer and labour groups in seasonal industries to inform the government’s plan on EI modernization.
Senator Poirier: Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us today.
My question is also for Ms. Nandy. It’s along the same lines as that of my colleague Senator Kutcher, but with more detail. My question is with the budget document. On page 146, it says that Budget 2022 proposes to extend these rules for up to five additional weeks for eligible seasonal workers
. . . until October 2023 as the government considers a long-term solution. . . The cost of this measure is estimated at $110.4 million over three years, starting in 2022-23.
On page 148, the table breaks it down. There’s $3 million for 2022-23, $56 million for 2023-24 and $51 million for 2024-25. Why is the government earmarking $51 million in 2024-25 for a measure that is meant to end in October 2023?
Ms. Nandy: Thank you for the question.
The cost of this measure is related to operating costs to support these five additional weeks for claimants, with the majority being in the second year. Given that EI benefits can be provided for a benefit period, in this case for 45 weeks with an additional up to five weeks for these eligible seasonal claimants, that could run into future years. Hence, the additional costs.
Senator Poirier: The mandate letter of Minister Qualtrough gives a vague date of summer 2022 to bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system. If the government is earmarking funds for 2024-25 for the measure for EI for seasonal workers, is this a signal of this becoming permanent? When can we expect more details on this EI reform?
Ms. Nandy: The government’s plan on modernizing the EI program, which is a priority, will be considered after the consultations conclude to allow for the fact that we are currently engaging with employer groups, labour groups and other stakeholders, including those in the seasonal industries, to ensure that that input, as well as lessons learned from pilot project 2021, can inform the way forward on modernization.
Senator Poirier: Can you clarify again for me? I’m having a hard time catching why a program that ends in 2023 — I know you explained it, but it seems hard to register. Why do you need $51 million for 2024-25 when the program is finished in 2023? Can you clarify a little bit more on that?
Ms. Nandy: The additional five weeks, or up to additional five weeks, are paid at the end of a benefit period. That could be in a period that is longer than 52 weeks, so that can go into future years.
Senator Poirier: It is not ending in October of 2023?
Ms. Nandy: In terms of eligibility, it is, but when benefits are paid, somebody may be eligible as of October 2023, and then they would be paid for the 52 weeks following.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question of my own. I’m curious about the rationale for the different dates. We are extending a temporary measure for seasonal workers until October 28, 2023, and we’re sunsetting the separation measure in September 2022. Help us out with this. How do you come by these dates?
Ms. Nandy: Right. I know that the dates are a little confusing. There are many of them. I will try my best. I will also ask my colleague George Rae to step in if there are additional details to clarify.
I will first take the transitional measure on monies on separation that you referenced, senator. We have a current temporary measure on monies on separation that is scheduled to end in September of 2022. It will end on September 24, 2022, specifically. Amendments are needed to clarify how, post that date, monies paid on separation that are received by EI claimants are treated. Under the current measure, those monies paid on separation, like vacation pay or severance pay, are not counted as earnings and do not affect the timing of when an EI claimant can receive benefits. A claimant can receive the benefits and get their vacation pay at the same time. So we needed to make that clarification for the period after that.
The Chair: I understand that, Ms. Nandy. My question was, are these dates pulled out of the air? September 25 for separation monies, 2022 for temporary measure for seasonal workers, October 28, 2023. I am looking for some rationale. I understand what the measure is supposed to do. I’m looking for some rationale behind the dates.
Ms. Nandy: Sorry about that. The end of the temporary measures was a part of and was written into the Budget Implementation Act, 2021. It received Royal Assent. The end date of the current temporary measures — all of the current EI temporary measures other than the seasonal measure — was September 24, 2022.
The Chair: Thank you. That answers my question.
Senator Patterson: Thank you to the witnesses.
Division 24, as Mr. Wagdin mentioned in his testimony, corrects an error in the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, number one. I am glad to see that that has been done.
I am just curious. In February 2022, when the matter came up before the Minister of Seniors and officials from Employment and Social Development Canada, the committee was told that their intention was to correct this error in a miscellaneous statute law amendment act. In fact, Minister Alexis Conrad, Senior ADM, told the committee that:
We have been working with the Department of Justice, which is aware of the drafting error, to see if the government will include it in a miscellaneous amendments act, which is the standard process for these kinds of repairs.
Now, obviously that has not happened. Instead, it is in this legislation. Can I understand why a miscellaneous statute law amendment act was not used to correct the error, as the committee had been led to believe would happen?
Mr. Wagdin: Thank you very much for the question.
What Assistant Deputy Minister Alexis Conrad had indicated was absolutely correct. This issue was identified in the months following the tabling of Budget Implementation Act Part 1 last year. The typical process for correcting a legislative cross-reference error of this nature would be to go through the miscellaneous statutes process. That was something that we were absolutely pursuing, but I believe pursuant to some of the comments that had been made before the standing committee last year with Bill C-12, particularly following my minister’s appearance before that committee, there was a decision made to find the most expedient way possible to be able to address this. It was determined that was, in fact, the Budget Implementation Act of this year, so it was put forward that way. Ultimately, the decision was to try to find the fastest mechanism to be able to effect the change.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for that. I am pleased. It seems that the questions and perhaps advice from the committee was helpful to the department in getting this fixed.
I’m not sure who to ask this question of, but Division 26 proposes to modify the provisions relating to working in concert and entering into agreements with the provinces as set out in section 57 of the EI Act. It would remove the obligation, as I understand it, to work in concert with provincial governments to design measures, determine how they are to be implemented and establish the framework for evaluating their success. It would also eliminate the obligation to invite provincial governments to enter into agreements. Rather, it stipulates that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission would be required to
work in concert with provincial governments and consult with workers and employers to align employment support measures with labour market needs.
My question is, in light of these proposed changes, in the future will the government still enter into labour market development agreements with the provinces and territories related to the delivery of interventions to help participants obtain and keep employment set out in Part II of the EI Act? In connection with that, how would workers and employers be consulted in relation to employment support measures and labour market needs? What are the potential implications of these proposed changes?
Ms. Deen: That was a really great question. The provisions that you are referring to, senator, were removed because they were put in place in 1996 when we were creating the agreements with provinces and territories to devolve the federal programming. Those agreements are in effect, and there is no end date for those agreements. They exist on, and in fact Budget 2022 commits the government to intensifying its work with provinces and territories to modernize those agreements. As I said, those agreements were negotiated in the mid-1990s and reflect a legislative framework that made sense at that time. These changes that we’re making today are to modernize that framework and allow for provinces and territories to deliver the programming that serves the needs of their workers and their employers in their jurisdictions.
Senator Patterson: That’s comforting to hear. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much to the witnesses for being with us today.
Thank you, Mr. Wagdin, for your discussion on Division 24, which contains the amendment to the Old Age Pension Act and to correct the cross-reference that was made in a previous piece of legislation. Thank you also for the confirmation that one-time payments to seniors would not be taxed. That is very good.
My question is about Division 29 and medical leave with pay. It will provide federally regulated companies with over 100 employees access to new paid medical leave benefits. We know that the Canadian Labour Congress is very much in favour of this change to medical leave, but they were disappointed, and I am disappointed, to find out it is only applicable to federally regulated companies with over 100 employees. This will exclude thousands of Canadians who are working with small- and medium-sized companies. Unfortunately, we do know that higher income wage earners are more likely to be able to access paid medical leave than lower-paid employees who are often unable to access paid medical leave. Why are these new rules drafted to only include federally regulated companies with over 100 employees? What was the rationale behind that? It certainly limits the number of employees who would be eligible to receive these benefits.
Mr. Wolfe: Thank you for the question.
If the proposed amendments to Bill C-3 pass, the Governor-in-Council would have the option of delaying the application of the paid sick leave provisions to small employers, meaning businesses with fewer than 100 employees. However, the provisions would need to come into force on December 1, 2022, at the latest. At this stage, the government is not planning to use this option. The paid sick leave provisions are expected to come into force on December 1, 2022, for all employers, small and large.
Senator Cordy: So while the legislation says it is for companies with over 100 employees, you are saying that that will not be in the case and that on December 1, 2022, all employees, whether with large employers or employers with fewer than 100 employees, will be eligible for paid sick leave. Is that my understanding? Which would be positive, by the way.
Mr. Wolfe: Indeed. No, the Governor-in-Council would have the option of delaying the application. The provisions would need to come into force on December 1, 2022, at the latest. At this stage, the government is not planning to use that option. We do expect the provisions to come into force on December 1.
Senator Cordy: When will we hear that that has been confirmed, that it will be for companies with fewer than 100 employees?
Mr. Wolfe: At this stage, the government is not planning to use the option, so at this point I can say that the government has no plans to use the option to delay the coming into force for small employers.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thanks to all the witnesses here today. I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague regarding Division 29. I would simply like to remind my colleagues, who will all remember, that Bill C-3 had to be passed in a rush. The labour minister appeared before us to say how urgent it was that we adopt the bill as soon as possible so it could be implemented quickly. From what Mr. Wolfe said, it seems that it is no longer urgent for companies with fewer than 100 employees. So I have to wonder about the logic and why this appeal was made to us, or at least why we were asked to pass Bill C-3 as quickly as possible.
I hear your answer. My question pertains rather to the status of discussions, because the labour minister also said that he wanted to begin discussions with his provincial counterparts as soon as possible to ensure that paid sick leave becomes the standard in Canada, not only for companies under federal jurisdiction, but also for companies under provincial jurisdiction. I was wondering if any of you know the status of these intergovernmental discussions.
Mr. Wolfe: Thank you very much for the question. As I said, the minister definitely wanted these provisions to come into effect as soon as possible. That is very important to the minister.
We worked hard on the regulations. We will give employers time to change their system. For the time being, the government is not requiring companies to exercise the option of setting a deadline for smaller employers. We have no plan to delay the implementation of this provision.
As to the discussions with the provinces and territories, the minister met with his counterparts and will meet with them again at the end of the month. Discussions are ongoing.
Senator Verner: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses who are here today.
Others have started on the line of questioning that I wanted to go on. That is one of the real benefits of coming late. I can tell you that I am still unclear about why and what will happen to those companies with fewer than 100 employees. I am not clear that I understand what you are saying is going to happen in December. Further to that, how is the Government of Canada planning to support employees of small- and medium-sized businesses?
In your work to define the amendment and what needed to be done, did you do a GBA+ analysis, and can you share with us the findings to help us understand the intersectional impacts of this analysis that you applied to this amendment?
Mr. Wolfe: I am happy to respond to the question.
As I mentioned, at this stage, the government is not planning to use the option to delay the coming into force for small employers. The paid sick leave provisions are expected to come into force for all federally regulated employers on December 1, 2022.
In terms of support for employers, the government does not have any plans at this point to provide any additional support for employers.
In terms of your other question, absolutely, a GBA+ analysis was done. We know that, certainly for vulnerable groups, this is an important initiative. It is an important initiative because it allows individuals to be able to not make the choice between staying home and going to work, and if they stay home, they will be able to continue to get paid. Of course, this is most important for vulnerable workers, especially women, racialized minorities and other vulnerable groups. But, yes, let me assure you that we did do a GBA+ analysis.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I also had some questions for Mr. Wolfe about organizations with fewer than 100 employees. This question has been answered several times, but we still do not really know what will happen to them as of December 1.
Rather, I have a question about Division 26. I am curious about this employment insurance division, which would provide a commitment to work with provincial governments and consult workers in order to standardize employment supports in accordance with labour market needs.
I would like to know the following: how will these consultations be conducted, who will be consulted, and when will it be done? Can you provide more information about this?
I am not sure who can answer this question.
[English]
Ms. Deen: Absolutely. I’m happy to take that question, and thank you for it.
As I mentioned before, these agreements have been in place since the mid-1990s. What that means is we work every day with provinces and territories to implement these agreements that serve a million Canadians a year. As a part of our ongoing work with provinces and territories to implement these agreements, we talk about challenges that they face, what we could do to improve the agreements and what we can do to make sure that they are responsive to the needs of their stakeholders and their communities. An extensive consultation took place in 2016-17 with about 700 labour market stakeholders across Canada. As I mentioned, as part of our ongoing work with provinces and territories, they share their views and the challenges that they have with the existing agreements. We consult as a part of our everyday work with provinces and territories on the makeup and the composition of the agreements.
To get to what your question is getting at as well, which is how do we ensure that stakeholders broader than the provinces and territories have a chance to input to the priorities that this funding is used for — it is about $2 billion a year through these agreements that go to provinces and territories for training — we built in each of those agreements a requirement that provinces and territories, on an annual basis, consult with labour market stakeholders in their jurisdictions to set the priorities and to inform the design and delivery of the training programs in those jurisdictions. It is a requirement for payment every year that provinces and territories, each of the 13 of them, submit an annual plan and an annual report. In those annual plans and reports, they must outline and list the stakeholders that they consulted with to determine the priorities and to inform the design and delivery of those programs.
Thank you very much for your question.
Senator Lankin: My question is with respect to Division 26 as well. This may have been explained, Ms. Deen, but there was a problem with the audio and the translator and your voice at that time. If I have the right person on this, I would like you to speak to the reason for developing the language “workers in groups underrepresented in the labour market.” How is that going to be applied? How were these particular workers receiving supports or assistance for transition back into work before? What definite difference will this make? Is it only a positive difference? Are there any takeaways that occur as a result of this change?
Ms. Deen: Absolutely. Thank you for the question. I apologize for the audio problems earlier.
With these changes, we looked at the labour market. We know right now in Canada there are a million vacancies to be filled. We are hearing from employers that there is a need to fill these jobs that are available. That tells us that we need to go further into the available workforce that we have to ensure that they are able, trained and have the skills and competencies required to participate in the labour market. One of the important changes that we are making through these legislative changes is to broaden access even more.
Right now, to receive extensive training under the Labour Market Development Agreements, you either have to, one, be receiving EI benefits; two, have had an EI claim in the last five years; and three, have made a sufficient level of contributions, paid a certain proportion of EI contributions, in five of the last ten years. One of these changes we are introducing here is to reduce that to three in the last ten years. For a mother who has been out of the labour force for five or six years — like myself, I was out of the labour force for a couple of years — or individuals who have weaker labour force attachment or who have less recent labour force attachment, they will now be able to get access to the extensive training that they were not able to get under the previous rules.
I hope that that answers your question.
Senator Lankin: In part, yes, thank you.
Could you help me understand the relationship, for example, to people with disabilities who may meet all of the eligibility requirements there and who may currently be partially supported in the province of Ontario through the Ontario Disability Support Program where there are some supports for accommodation and/or incentives? What is the interconnection between that, and is that currently referenced within the employment agreements with the province or not?
Ms. Deen: That is a great question. There are a couple of things.
We are very lucky under the labour market transfers to get the level of data that we get from provinces and territories. That was a very important piece that we built into the agreements so that we could measure the impact year after year, month after month even, because we get client-level data on every client that is served under the Labour Market Development Agreements. What we do know right now for each of the underrepresented groups, persons with disabilities, youth, visible minorities — I’m forgetting my categories now — they are all over-served compared to their labour force availability. Part of that has to do with the great data that we have. We are able to really track where there are gaps, but also it is an objective of the agreements to serve underrepresented groups.
If I could speak briefly to the sister agreement to the Labour Force Development Agreements, they are the Workforce Development Agreements. They are not EI funded, but they are meant to serve those who are furthest removed because there are no EI eligibility considerations. Under those agreements, there is a requirement that provinces and territories spend what works out to be about 30% of the WDA envelope on persons with disabilities. That is the federal government’s largest investment in training for persons with disabilities. It is about $220 million a year out of the roughly $900 million envelope. There is a requirement that provinces and territories cost match the federal contribution for persons with disabilities. It is certainly a priority area for us to serve underrepresented groups, and in particular persons with disabilities.
Thank you.
Senator Lankin: Madam Chair, I have one quick follow-up if there is time; if not, would you put me on the next list.
The Chair: Sorry, Senator Lankin, we must proceed to Senator Dasko, and I do not believe we have any more time left for the second round.
Senator Dasko: My question is for Ms. Deen. I am following up on your comments about transfers to the provinces and your consultations with stakeholders and the requirements that the provinces have to submit annual plans for the monies that they are getting.
I know this is a big-picture question, but do the provinces differ a lot in what they are requesting from the federal government? Do they make requests that are quite diverse, or are the provinces actually quite similar in what they’re asking for? We know what happens in the area of health transfers, for example. The provinces are always asking for money with no strings attached. I don’t say that in a critical sense. That’s what they tend to do. In the area of your labour market agreements, do you find that there’s a tendency for provinces to ask for the same thing, or is it quite different between the provinces? It’s a very general question.
Ms. Deen: It’s a great question.
The easy answer is that these changes will allow for that flexibility. Really, the reason behind it is to provide that flexibility and framework so provinces and territories can do exactly what you ask, which is to serve this particular issue. For example, I can think back to years when forestry was a priority for B.C., and it was also a priority for Nova Scotia. It’s funny the way the labour market is similar and different, depending on the sector. But certainly these changes are to allow that flexibility for provinces and territories to adjust their programming to serve the labour market needs of their jurisdictions.
Thank you.
The Chair: This brings us to the end of this panel. I’d like to thank all our witnesses for your participation here today. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
We will now move to the second panel. We welcome, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs; from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist; and from the Southern Nova Scotia Seasonal Workers Alliance, Mandy Symonds. Thank you so much for joining us today.
I’ll now ask you to provide your opening remarks. I would like to remind you that you have five minutes allocated for your opening statements, followed by questions from our members. Let us start with Mr. Guénette.
[Translation]
Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business: Hello, I will give my presentation in French. My name is Jasmin Guénette and I am the vice-president of national affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We represent 95,000 SMEs across the country. We have members in every province and every sector of the economy. I wish to thank the chair and the members of the committee for inviting me.
Let me begin with a few figures about the health of SMEs. Sixty percent of SMEs have not returned to their normal pre-pandemic revenues. Further, two-thirds of them had to go into debt because of COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed on businesses, for an average amount of $160,000.
The two chief concerns of SME owners are rising operating costs and the labour shortage.
Before I continue, I wish to point out that the vast majority of our members fall under provincial jurisdiction, although we do have some members under federal jurisdiction, specifically in the transport sector.
The federal government must be extremely careful not to impose new costs on SMEs and aggravate the labour shortage they are currently facing.
SMEs have had trouble finding staff and managing working hours since the start of the pandemic. Any legislation that makes schedule management more costly or more difficult will be extremely harmful to SMEs.
I now have a few specific comments on Division 29 of Bill C-19. First of all, there is no need to move too quickly and force the implementation of sick leave provisions by December 1, 2022. Not only must the government continue to consult stakeholders, but it must also provide answers about the additional costs of these measures for the SMEs to which they apply. There was also Bill C-3 in the previous session. When it was passed, the minister himself said that specific provisions would be made to protect SMEs, but we have yet to hear anything concrete about that. Before anything else, we need clarity on this issue.
Finally, standardizing the conditions for the requirement to present a medical certificate might seem like a good idea at first glance, but this requirement must not add regulatory hurdles or remove flexibility from employers and their employees. When this issue arose in British Columbia, for instance, our members in that province told us that, since many people do not have a family doctor and since many clinics and even certain doctors refuse to issue medical certificates, the implementation of this requirement can be frustrating. I will conclude my opening remarks on that note, and I am of course available to answer your questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Guénette.
Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Canadian Union of Public Employees: Thank you for inviting me here. It’s a pleasure to be joining you from the unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation to speak about Bill C-19 on behalf of the 700,000 members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE.
CUPE has fought for all workers to have access to paid sick leave, so we are very pleased to see this moving forward. We hope that provincial governments will follow suit.
Division 29 of Bill C-19 partially addresses some of the concerns that CUPE had raised with regard to Bill C-3, but it does open up a new area of concern. Although we heard from the previous witnesses that they are not going to delay implementation for workers who work in workplaces with fewer than 100 workers, we’re concerned that that clause is there and that option is open. According to the Statistics Canada Survey of Employment, Payrolls and Hours, close to 40% of all workers are employed by enterprises with fewer than 100 employees, so we’re talking about a large majority of workers that are affected.
Research shows access to paid sick days is already very unequal. Statistics Canada reports that in 2019, less than 40% of illness or disability leave was paid. The majority of it was unpaid. Higher-wage workers with permanent positions were far more likely to have access to paid sick days and longer-term sick leave, and the vast majority of lower-wage, or more precariously employed workers, have no paid sick days at all. Statistics Canada data also shows that workers in smaller enterprises are lower wage and work fewer hours per week. There’s a correlation between these workers that you would be delaying implementation of sick leave for and those who need it the most.
Our position is that sick leave is good for workers, for employers and for the economy. Workers are more productive when they have access to paid sick leave. Sicknesses spread less quickly when you have access to paid sick leave. It’s important to note that we’re still in a situation where there are as many people in the hospital with COVID now as there were previously.
I also want to touch on the two partial improvements. First, CUPE had recommended that Bill C-3 be amended to ensure that all workers are granted 10 days of paid sick leave as an annual allotment rather than earning it on a monthly basis. The amendment is partially addressed here by allotting three days of medical leave after 30 days and then picking up one a day, but that still means that, for a worker who begins work in January, it will take them until August or September to accrue their full 10 days of paid medical leave, and they may actually need it in April. This means that they may not have accrued the days when they need them. We recommend that all workers have access to their 10 days as an annual allotment after 30 days of employment rather than accruing it.
Our second concern was regarding employers demanding medical certificates. Doctors have been clear that sick notes are not an appropriate use of health care resources, which is a significant concern right now when our health care system is already under strain. The time and expense required to access a sick note is a barrier for workers when we consider that a significant number of workers don’t have a primary care physician and that sick notes are not covered under some provincial insurance plans. It is an improvement over Bill C-3 that they can only ask for a sick note after five days, but considering, again, that COVID-19 is still prevalent in our communities, and that workers can remain contagious for longer than five days after first showing symptoms, this is still an unwise use of health care resources and can mean workers will choose to work while still contagious rather than putting up the cost for a doctor’s note. We recommend this clause be removed from the bill entirely.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. MacEwen. Ms. Symonds, please proceed.
Mandy Symonds, Organizer, Southern Nova Scotia Seasonal Workers Alliance: Thank you for inviting me. I’m a seasonal worker from southern Nova Scotia and an advocate for seasonal workers.
With the unemployment law, it’s hard for seasonal workers to get enough hours. Right now, we’re at 420 hours, and you’re entitled to 14 weeks, but workers need more weeks. I work in the lobster and food industry. With seasonal work, you’re not guaranteed to have a certain amount of work every year. Different seafood is found all along the coast here, but you’re not guaranteed anything. If workers don’t get enough weeks, they fall in a black hole where they have no income. These are the main jobs around here. They’re in little communities, and there’s not a lot of industry, only seafood, et cetera.
The best number of weeks is 21 in our zone right now, but it is a divisor. Most people’s income is around $10,000 or a little more. It needs reform. They’re taking less money home and drawing in less time. The seasonal workers would like 45 weeks guaranteed and allow a divisor of 12 to 14 best weeks.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Symonds.
We will go to questions from senators. Senators, as always, please keep your questions tight so that your answers can be fulsome. We will start with Senator Bovey, from Manitoba, deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Bovey: Thank you to all three of you. I very much appreciated your perspectives and insights. I have just one question, and it’s to each of our witnesses, if I may.
When testifying before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance in February 2022, a representative of Employment and Social Development Canada stated that the results of the pilot project providing additional weeks of benefits to eligible seasonal workers, the parameters of which are being replicated in the Employment Insurance Act and amended to Bill C-19, would be “analyzed and evaluated by the department and released later in 2022.” I’d be very interested to know, from all of you, whether your organizations were consulted as part of the development of these amendments and of the evaluation of the pilot project. I’d be interested in knowing what some of your feedback was. I’ll look forward to your responses.
Ms. MacEwen: Yes, the Canadian Union of Public Employees has been involved in consultations, and we do support extending that pilot project. We say there are seasonal jobs, not seasonal workers. In these areas, there are workers who are simply left without income in between their EI expiring and more jobs appearing. I don’t think the EI pilot project will resolve that; it’s going to be regional economic development that helps create more jobs in those areas.
Mr. Guénette: I don’t remember CFIB being consulted for that specifically. We participated in many Employment Insurance round tables and consultations, but I don’t remember that one specifically.
Ms. Symonds: Yes, I was in on the consultations with Employment and Social Development Canada and met with other provinces, for example, New Brunswick. We’re all in the alliance. We asked for 15 weeks in the pilot, and then we heard it came back with 5. We were a little disappointed but still hoping that, with the reform, when people apply for Employment Insurance when their seasonal job is done, they would get more than 14 weeks.
Senator Bovey: I would like to follow up on that, Ms. Symonds. Have you had an opportunity to go back and ask why 5 instead of 15 and push for the 15?
Ms. Symonds: I’m meeting in New Brunswick on June 13 with the other groups to make a push from there and take a stand to ask for more. We just found out recently that it was five, so we’re going to push for more.
Senator Poirier: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.
I’m going to follow on the question with Ms. Symonds. I know you’re a voice for the EI region for seasonal workers, especially with the black hole problem. Being from the east coast of New Brunswick, where there are a lot of coastal areas and fish plants, I absolutely understand the concerns and the problems that the black hole can create for our families. I know you said you have met and you have other meetings coming. When you said they offered five weeks, is this five weeks over and above what you’ve had before, or is this the same five weeks that’s been repeated for the last while?
Ms. Symonds: This is the same five weeks that has been repeated time after time.
Senator Poirier: In all the consultation that you’ve had or the meetings that you’ve had, at this point there has never been an increase to make them understand that the five weeks is not sufficient to meet that gap?
Ms. Symonds: No.
Senator Poirier: I have another question for Mr. Guénette. I’m going to read in English first, and then I’ll try to translate my notes in French for you after. Your organization shared a press release following the budget being made official. It said:
At a time when many small firms are struggling to make payroll, the budget confirms workers and employers will see another significant increase in both Employment Insurance (EI) and CPP/QPP premiums. And with potentially costly changes planned for the EI system, small firms are rightly worried about many years of payroll tax hikes ahead.
[Translation]
Part of that statement came to mind. It is the potential cost of employment insurance plans to small firms that are concerned about their future impact. Could you please tell us more about the impacts on the companies that are aware of it and on the future of SMEs?
Mr. Guénette: The last two years have of course been very difficult financially for many SMEs, whether they are federally or provincially regulated. A great many firms have had difficulties. CPP contributions continued to increase despite the pandemic. In some provinces, the carbon tax continued to increase despite the pandemic. The excise tax on alcohol continued to increase despite the pandemic. The government froze employment insurance contributions, but they will start increasing again next year. Now we are talking about saddling employers with 10 days of paid leave that they will likely be responsible for.
So the tax burden on SMEs keeps increasing, at a time when they are having a lot of trouble generating the revenues they need to be profitable. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is very worried about the future for a large number of firms. One in six firms is presently at risk of closing. So the best thing to do now and in the months ahead is to ensure the recovery of our SMEs that have been affected by the pandemic, and to have discussions about other public policies. Right now, the extra days to be covered by firms are coming at the worst time possible.
Senator Poirier: Was your organization consulted? Were you consulted to share your concerns about the impact of these measures on SMEs and about the future of employment insurance programs?
Mr. Guénette: Yes.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Thank you to the witnesses.
Division 29 specifies that the provisions on medical leave of absence with pay will come into force on a day fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council but no later than December 1, 2022. Yet, in December 2021, the Minister of Labour advocated for a quick adoption of Bill C-3, stating that it was urgent to adopt paid medical leave due to the pandemic.
Perhaps this question would be addressed to Ms. MacEwen. What are the implications of this coming-into-force date as late as December 1, 2022, for federally regulated private-sector employees hoping to benefit from paid medical leave, and do you think that timeline is appropriate?
Ms. MacEwen: I would certainly say it has not been fast. It has been very slow considering we’ve been in a pandemic for over two years. So yes, I am definitely disappointed at how slowly the government has moved on this. Paid sick leave is something that was urgent before the pandemic. It absolutely became critical throughout the pandemic, and it will remain so. We are glad they are continuing to move forward on it, but it has definitely been delayed, from our perspective.
The benefit to workers, to their productivity, to clients of businesses — the research shows it’s actually businesses that benefit the most from their workers having paid sick leave. I understand it’s difficult to fill shifts when you have a small business, but overall it’s good for the economy, good for workers and good for keeping our flu season low, let alone COVID.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Division 29 would allow the government to create a parallel system for employers with at least 100 employees for whom the provisions on paid medical leave would not yet apply. Ms. MacEwen, you spoke to your concern that this clause is still there. I’m assuming that you may not think this parallel program for small employers is justified. In your opinion, should a time limit be established for its repeal?
Ms. MacEwen: For the appeal of that clause? I feel like —
Senator Patterson: Repeal, for it to be no longer there. You said you were concerned it’s still there.
Ms. MacEwen: I am concerned it’s still there. I think it should be removed. If the government has no plans to use it, I’m confused as to why it is there. It seems to serve no purpose other than to confuse the issue. Yes, we agree it should definitely be removed.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our witnesses. I have two quick questions, one for Mr. Guénette and one for Ms. MacEwan, if I have enough time. I am trying to quantify everything we have learned and everything we have heard. Mr. Guénette, you gave testimony during the review of Bill C-3. At that time, you also talked about certain risks and the burden of the additional costs, as you mentioned in your answer to Senator Poirier today. My question is this: can those costs be quantified? Have steps been taken, have projections been made about the potential cost, especially paid leave?
Mr. Guénette: I do not have any figures to share with you today. One of the reasons for this is that the situation varies tremendously from one firm to another. A smaller firm is in a very different position from a larger one. The salaries are different and there are all kinds of reasons why I do not have any figures for you. When we ask our members that question though, and ask what barriers are preventing them from implementing those additional days of leave, 53% of our members said that it costs too much.
The costs include the salary paid and the lost productivity. They also include the difficulty finding someone to replace a worker who is on sick leave. For smaller firms, the problem is having staff available to replace someone on sick leave. It is a question of the costs and all the related management difficulties.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much, Mr. Guénette. I am trying to get a clear picture of what is involved, but I can certainly understand that it is difficult.
I would like to ask Ms. MacEwan the same question. What would be the impact of five days of paid leave instead of three, as set out in Division 29, for companies with fewer that 100 employees? Can you quantify what that would mean in terms of profits, attendance, productivity and absenteeism? Can we get an idea of what it might amount to?
[English]
Ms. MacEwen: Absolutely. I can send them to the committee afterwards.
There are economic studies of this, and it makes sense if you think about it. If someone shows up to work sick, they are not as productive as they would be if they were not sick. If someone shows up to work sick, they are likely to infect other people in the workplace or clients that they are interacting with. That cost has been quantified in economic studies. Even if the leave were unpaid and that person were sick, or if they were sick enough that they could not work at all, you would have to replace them.
Paid sick leave is actually to incentivize workers to take that leave so that they do not infect others, which is good for the workplace, but also to maintain them as workers. It is a retention strategy. Employers are telling us that they are having trouble keeping workers. Well, if you cannot give them these types of benefits, such as sick leave, and make sure that they are able to stay home when they are sick or when their child is sick, then you are going to have a harder time keeping those workers in place.
Yes, I can send those economic studies to the committee afterwards.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Lankin: Thank you to the witness. It is appreciated.
Mr. Guénette, my first question is for you. You just talked about the ability of small businesses to replace people and how difficult that was. I’m struggling with this. If somebody is sick and they are off work, whether they are paid or not, it seems to me that there is a person not there that would have to be replaced. How is that an argument to suggest that we should not support this provision for paid sick leave?
Mr. Guénette: Right now, 55% of small businesses in Canada are facing labour shortages, meaning that they do not have the staff that they need at the moment to go about their business as much as they would like. It is more than one-in-two small businesses in Canada currently having a labour shortage issue in the workplace. As well, 16% of small businesses are impacted by shortages of labour of their clients or suppliers. There are a large number of businesses affected by shortages of labour.
Senator Lankin: I’m sorry, Mr. Guénette, I do not mean to interrupt but we have such little time. That is a huge issue for small businesses. I get it. Whether a person is paid when they are off sick or not being paid if they are off sick, if they are off sick, the shortage issue is still there. I do not understand the strength of the argument that you are making with regard to this paid medical leave.
Mr. Guénette: We are concerned about the cost of 10 paid sick days. As I said in my introductory remarks, many businesses are already feeling the heat because of COVID. Many had to take on debt because of COVID, and 60% of small businesses are not back at usual sales levels. Adding those costs onto the shoulder of small businesses at the moment would be, for many of them, a cost that would be very difficult to bear. It is the cost of that program that is one of the main concerns that we have.
Senator Lankin: Thank you.
My next question is to Ms. MacEwen. Welcome back. It is very nice to see you. I generally understand the points that you have made, and I have read the economic studies that speak to the increases in productivity and the economic benefit to employers.
You spoke about the majority of employees who are in small businesses, or lower-paid jobs in small businesses and/or more precarious employment are people who have the greatest need and who have the least access to paid sick leave. I wonder if you have any statistics about who we are talking about in the workforce. For example, some of the GBA+ analysis might give us some intersectional analysis of this. I wonder if you have any numbers on that you could present to us so that we know who is being impacted now by not having access and who we would be reaching out to and being more inclusive of the workforce.
Ms. MacEwen: Absolutely. Thank you.
What we do know is that it is more often women. It is more often Black and racialized women in these various jobs, and in the transportation sector it is more often rationalized men. Unfortunately, we do not have hard facts on those. We should be getting some from the census release in September. We have started to get better data in the Labour Force Survey. They’ve started to ask an employment equity question in the Labour Force Survey, so we should be getting better data coming out of that, especially in terms of wages, part-time status, hours worked and that type of thing. We should, in the future, be able to answer that question better.
Senator Lankin: Do you have any data now that talks about the increase in the trend of workers working without paid medical leave? For example, we know that there is an increase in precarity. One of the things that the committee is looking at potentially is a study around the gig workers employment or changes in employment. Do you have data on that? Is this a growing trend that we’re addressing with this, or is it a stable portion of the workforce?
Ms. MacEwen: We do not have good numbers on that. We do have the Canadian Community Health Survey. Sometimes universities like McMaster do their own surveys. There was a survey in southwest Ontario on the precarity of work. We do know that there is —
The Chair: We do have to move on.
Senator Kutcher: My questions are to Ms. Symonds, but I would like to thank all of the witnesses for sharing your perspectives with us today.
Ms. Symonds, the five weeks that my colleague Senator Poirier and you discussed earlier is part of a pilot project on EI modernization that ends in October of 2023. In addition to increasing the 5 weeks to 15 weeks that you have already shared with us, are there any other measures that need to be taken by the government to support workers holding seasonal jobs?
Ms. Symonds: Yes. If someone makes $10,000, they use 21 as the divisor and they get 55% of their earnings. Eventually, what it works out to is they would get $263 a week with income tax not taken out. The big thing is the divisor. Best weeks is what hurts us, and the length of that you can draw employment insurance. It starts out at 14 weeks with 420 hours, which ends in September.
What is coming, I have no clue. I have not heard a lot yet. I speak to the Commissioner for Workers, Pierre Laliberté, and he is fighting for us. He speaks up for us.
The main thing is the divisor and the length of time, because there are seasonal industries all around the coast when you come up this end. I had to drive an hour for this headset. Walmart is an hour away. We’re in a beautiful place, but as far as industry goes, there is not a lot of diversity. It is seafood.
Senator Kutcher: I know your area. Thank you very much for making that incredible effort to drive that long way to get that headset. We really appreciate it.
Could I ask you a rather poignant question? What is going to happen to those five weeks after October 2023?
Ms. Symonds: After 2023, I don’t know what will be put in place, what is coming, like this EI reform and the consultations that we have been in on. Something is supposed to be coming in, in September. We hope that it is an answer.
When I got into this three years ago, I was fighting for a zone change, because our zones went from five to three in the 1990s. That really hurt us. We’re all the way down to almost in Halifax. It’s too big of a zone. When you go up around towards Digby, it’s all seafood. There are no other jobs. You try to tell them this. There is Sobeys, part time, but there are no big industries. We have a cannery being built in my little town of Clark’s Harbour, another 100 seasonal jobs coming.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much.
Senator Cordy: Ms. Symonds, thank you. I’m also from Nova Scotia, from Dartmouth. Thank you for reminding us that when you are from a rural area, nothing is ever easy, and you have to drive for an hour to get a headset to be able to speak with us. Thank you very much for doing that.
I have to tell you that I can remember listening to a previous witness at the Social Affairs Committee who said that we’ll stop having seasonal workers when we stop having seasons, and since that is unlikely to happen, we are going to have seasonal workers for a long time.
I am wondering if you are consulted regularly. I gather that you are part of a group, certainly from New Brunswick. Are you consulted regularly by provincial and federal governments about the types of changes that should be made to make life easier, considering that we do have seasons and so we are going to have seasonal workers?
Ms. Symonds: Consulted, no. I have a lot of conversations with the commissioner and with Danny Cavanagh, President of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour. The unions are all backing us. They sent letters in favour. They always say that seasonal industries create seasonal jobs, which is true. So, no, the consultations are through the commissioner. That is how we get our voice heard.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. At least you told your story today, which is positive.
Mr. Guénette, you spoke about the government saying that there would be specific things to help SMEs, and I believe that would be in regard to paid sick days. Have any of these negotiations or discussions started with the government? The government said that there would be specific things. Have they come forward with any specific things for small- and medium-sized businesses?
Mr. Guénette: It is the minister himself who, when the bill was introduced and received Royal Assent, said that he would be looking at this bill through the small business lens. We participated in the consultation around Bill C-3, and we submitted our recommendation through this consultation process. We met virtually with the minister, and we shared with him our recommendation and some of our views on this bill. So, yes, we have been a part of the consultation process around this bill, and we will continue to do so to make sure that the voice of small businesses is heard throughout the consultation process.
Senator Cordy: The number that you gave us of 55% of small businesses facing labour shortages is not surprising, but it is shocking to hear that the percentage is so high. There are certainly challenges in finding staff. It looks pretty serious if it is 55%. What can be done to help to alleviate that?
Mr. Guénette: Thank you.
The problem is very serious. Businesses are trying different things to attract and keep workers within their companies. Some have tried to raise wages. In fact, based on our survey, 82% of small businesses have raised wages in order to find solutions related to the shortage of labour. Other solutions are around automation. Some businesses are investing in automation. Another solution is to hire through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which is proving to be very useful for many businesses. Also, providing flexible hours and work arrangements with their employees is another solution that has proven to be successful in trying to cope with the current shortage of labour.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to all of our witnesses.
My question is directed to Ms. MacEwen, please, and it is in reference to Division 29. If I heard you correctly, in your opening statement you made reference to a change in section 239, that there should be a clause added, the application section that addresses workplaces with fewer than 100 workers. Could tell us more about the kind of wording of an additional clause that you have in mind?
Ms. MacEwen: We wanted the clause removed that says that they can treat employers with fewer than 100 employees differently. There is a clause saying that they can delay implementation for that class of workers. If they are not planning on using it, why should it be there?
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: I want to offer Ms. MacEwen the opportunity to finish off her comment. You were in the middle of speaking about the disaggregated data that is available in response to Senator Lankin’s question. I want to give you the opportunity to finish your comment, if you would, please.
Ms. MacEwen: Thank you very much.
We don’t have good data on health care, on what provisions people have at work. We have it scattered, so we cannot tell over time if it is getting worse or not.
We know that there is more precarious work, more gig work and more own-account, self-employed workers. Those workers definitely do not have any benefits associated with them, and they are often misclassified. That is a huge group of workers that doesn’t have those benefits. We need to do a better job of understanding who those workers are, because I suspect that we would find they are more often people with disabilities, racialized, Black and women.
Senator Moodie: Did you have any additional sources of information or data that you might want to comment on? You were mentioning academics, and then you were cut off.
Ms. MacEwen: Yes. McMaster University has done research. It’s called PEPSO, Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario. They have asked a number of questions to workers, and they did it over two periods.
I can send you that information. It is very good in terms of tracking precarious work in that specific area, and they asked questions about health care coverage and those types of benefits.
The Chair: Thank you. We look forward to receiving that information.
Senator Dasko: Mr. Guénette, I noted that you said that most of your members are not affected by this legislation. Although you do represent small business more widely, you said that very few of your members are actually affected by the paid sick leave provision.
My question really is as follows: Do the provinces, for example, look at the federal legislation and say, oh, we want to do that as well? Does that happen? Is that a concern? Or does it happen that the private sector on its own or members of companies in the private sector decide to follow what the federal government has done? I’m wondering what is the impact of what they have done on the vast majority of companies who operate under provincial jurisdiction at the provincial level.
Also, with respect to the provinces, we have an election tomorrow in Ontario, for example. Are any of the parties looking to what the federal government has put on the table? That is my question to you. Thank you.
Mr. Guénette: Thank you.
First of all, when we ask our members what is their current sick day plan, almost a quarter of them say that their paid sick leave goes above and beyond provincial requirements. The rest say that they follow the paid sick leave that is in line with the requirements. Many of our members already have a sick days plan that is above and beyond what is required.
Obviously, there are provinces that are looking at adding paid sick days. We have seen this in British Columbia recently, where at first they said they would want to introduce ten paid sick days, but they introduced five paid sick days.
Obviously when the federal government introduces such a new law, whether it is paid sick days or other labour laws, often one impact of this is that some provinces might be looking at following the footsteps, or the federal government is trying hard to convince provinces to follow the same path in terms of public policy. We have to remember that Minister O’Regan — there was a federal-provincial territorial meeting on Bill C-3 a few months ago when the federal labour minister and his counterparts in the provinces and territories had a conversation. One reason was to see what the different provinces’ appetite was for such legislation.
At the end of the day, we find ourselves in this situation. Obviously, no one wants to have employees come in sick. It is good basic HR policy to make sure that there is enough flexibility so that people do not have to come to work while sick, but there is a bill attached to such policy. Small businesses in Canada cannot bear the costs of another payroll tax. Hence, we’re saying that extreme prudence should be guiding the federal government if they want to implement this new policy considering the costs that it will add to the shoulders of the smaller employer.
The Chair: We have five minutes left, and that gives me the luxury of posing a question.
I would like to go back to Division 27 but talk about separation money. I would like to know from both Ms. MacEwen and Mr. Guénette what impact the measure that allows EI recipients to keep separation money has had on workers and what impact that has had on employers.
Ms. MacEwen: This is something that we have asked for, for a long time. Sometimes workers, when they are being laid off, negotiate a separation package that allows them to retrain for a new job. They take that money and use it to go to school. If EI then considers that money to have been just like a salary, then that makes that not an option anymore. They have to use that money to live on until they can get EI. It actually delays their ability, and then hopefully when they do get EI, they can get access to training through EI part 2. Being able to access that training right away would be ideal. That is what we want. We know that there are better labour market outcomes if we can get people into retraining right away. If they are being laid off, we know that there is an advantage to that.
I definitely would like the department to do a review of how this has been used and how successful it has been, because I think that we could modify it.
Mr. Guénette: I am not sure that I can provide an answer to that question, if only because it is not something that we have asked our members. We did not, over time, collect any information specifically on this. I would not be able to comment on this.
The Chair: Thank you so much, witnesses. I would like to thank you all for your participation in our study today, especially Ms. Symonds because of the fact that you had to drive an hour. It brings it into context. Headphones that are easily accessible in other parts of the country are hard to access where you live. We appreciate your efforts in enlightening our process here.
Senators, this completes our witness testimony for today, and on these divisions we meet again tomorrow on this bill. Since we will be proceeding division by division for our review of this bill, I will encourage all members to send their draft observations of the completed sections to the analyst as we proceed. We would request that you send your observations no later than Monday, June 6.
If there is no other business, honourable senators, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)