HUMA Committee Report

AN URGENT NEED FOR ACTION

BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION ON THE REVIEW OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

The Bloc Québécois thanks members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Library of Parliament staff, as well as all the witnesses who appeared and the individuals and corporations that submitted briefs, for their essential participation in this study.

It was important to undertake this study for both long-standing and more recent reasons, summarized below. It has been more than 15 years since a full review of the Employment Insurance system was carried out. In 2004, the committee undertook a major study on this topic. In 2016, it looked into the gutting of the Employment Insurance system, and some points of these studies are featured in the current study, although the historical perspective was abbreviated. The previous study marked the end of a painful chapter characterized by Liberal and Conservative counter-reforms in a context of actuarial ideology and the zeitgeist of the last 40 years, largely influenced by neo-liberalism. These reforms diverted this program from its primarily social function and undercut its macroeconomic role as an automatic stabilizer. In addition, when the day of reckoning finally came, government officers had to contend with outdated computer programs. These are the root causes.

Unfortunately, we are all too familiar with the recent causes: an economic crisis of gargantuan proportions, triggered by a global pandemic, which resulted in the death and devastation of too many. The leaders of many nations were caught unaware, despite the fact that it could have been predicted. The Employment Insurance program in place when the crisis struck was clearly not up to the task, forcing the government to build the plane while flying it, to use their own catchphrase. The fact that the existing EI system was so outdated, as well as decades of counter-reforms, with the most radical example being the Harper government’s gutting of the program, explain why the EI system was unable to meet the needs of the population. The need for a major overhaul, which the Bloc Québécois has been seeking for years, became immediately apparent to all. That is why Louise Chabot, Member of Parliament for Thérèse-de-Blainville, proposed this study.

HISTORY OF THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM

While our party agrees with the report and the recommendations therein, we do not believe the report adequately communicates the sense of urgency we feel as regards the review of the Employment Insurance program. While we support the idea of having Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) carry out consultations on future reforms, we believe that an exercise that is essentially going back to the original form of the EI system should not excuse the government from acting now: we are concerned that the fact that the government has not brought before Parliament the $5 million announced in Budget 2021 for that purpose may indicate that the governing party is reluctant to undertake a large-scale reform. And yet, a complete overhaul is needed.

In our opinion, the briefs submitted by the Conseil national des chômeurs et des chômeuses (CNC) and the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) provide a good overview of the historical issues with the program. As the FTQ explained:

There are a number of problems with EI, but one of the most obvious ones—one that absolutely must be corrected—concerns coverage. Over the years, eligibility criteria have been tightened, and the duration of benefits and the income replacement rate have been cut. As a result, fewer and fewer unemployed workers are eligible for benefits. Currently, less than 40% of claimants receive benefits, whereas in 1989, the program covered 83.8% of claimants! When workers do qualify for benefits, it is for a shorter period of time and for smaller amounts.[1]

There is no doubt that, when the government ended its contributions to the unemployment insurance fund in 1990, a paradigm shift took place. In doing so, the federal government walked away from the fund’s social mission, leading to a series of counter-reforms that have taken a toll on the regions.

All of this brings us to the issue of seasonal workers. Canada’s Employment Insurance program has historically ignored seasonal workers. In part this is because the program was largely modelled on Britain’s first employment insurance act, the National Insurance Act of 1911, without taking the needs of Quebec’s economy into account.[2] Throughout Canada’s recent history, seasonal workers have had to fight for their rights, as decision makers have always denied the importance of seasonal work to the economy. It is a great paradox of history that a program whose foundations are based on the tacit acknowledgment that workers are not responsible for unemployment, but rather that unemployment is an economic phenomenon beyond their control, has had so much trouble acknowledging a simple truth: it is not workers but work that is seasonal, as Action Chômage Côte-Nord rightly pointed out in its brief. This historical indifference towards Quebec’s regions is the source of the problems that the province is experiencing, as the black hole in the EI program shows. The pilot project aimed at resolving this problem must not only be expanded, but the project itself must be made permanent. This historical indifference is also the source of many economic problems in Quebec’s regions. In 2013, the Bloc had raised, and for good reason, the possibility of an administrative agreement to assign responsibility for the program to the Quebec government should it so request in its submission to the Commission nationale d’examen de l’assurance-emploi.

STATUS OF WOMEN

Too little has been said about how the Employment Insurance program’s current shortfalls affect women. Yet Canada’s program has a history of sexism. Although the 1940s to 1970s saw increased access to unemployment insurance, from 1950 to 1957 the federal government implemented policies that discriminated against married women by requiring them to demonstrate their availability for employment. As a result, roughly 12,000 to 14,000 women were denied access to employment insurance in the 1950s. In 1957, the law was changed following pressure from women’s groups. The federal government saved $2.5 million on the backs of women. Although maternity benefits were introduced in 1971, the law continued to discriminate against married women. Major attachment claimants received maternity benefits while minor attachment claimants were ineligible for benefits within 15 weeks of their expected confinement. This situation led to the Bliss decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada shamefully ruled that “inequality between the sexes in this area is not created by legislation but by nature.”[3] The decision was later overturned by the same court in 1989 in Brooks v. Safeway. For all these reasons, no one should remain indifferent to the issues raised in Éliminons la discrimination à l’égard des femmes dans l’assurance-emploi, a brief presented by the Conseil d’Intervention pour l’Accès des Femmes au Travail (CIAFT) and several women’s groups in Quebec, which convincingly argues that the eligibility requirement based on hours of work, introduced only in 1996, discriminates against part-time workers, particularly women. In this respect, the brief’s second recommendation is particularly meaningful.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS

The report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources in which we participated is certainly a step in the right direction, but it does not sufficiently underscore the urgent need for action. That is why the Bloc will continue to pressure the federal government to overhaul the EI program and implement the recommendations the Bloc Québécois has long called for. No matter what the political parties that only want to take power say, in a democratic system the opposition must play its role in defending and promoting the interests of the population and in forcing the government to act. That is what we will do.

In its work during this parliamentary study, the Bloc Québécois, aware of the urgency for true reform of the Employment Insurance program and concerned by usual government complacency as well as a return to past restraint, has tried to give the report more teeth. While we reiterate our support for the report, we believe the government must take the following measures now. They are based in part on our recent recovery plan.[4] The government must: 

• create, without further delay, a self-sustaining Employment Insurance  fund free from federal interference so that it cannot be looted, as has happened in the past;
• immediately extend Employment Insurance sickness benefits from 26 weeks to a maximum of 50 weeks;
• eliminate the waiting period;
• put in place an independent, streamlined and accessible appeal system;
• move forward with an increase in the benefit rate from 55% to a minimum of 60%, which would increase claimants’ income;
• reinstate its contributions to the Employment Insurance fund; and
• implement a single hybrid (hours and weeks) eligibility requirement, as many groups have recommended.