Employment insurance is a complex program that has been part of Canadians’ income safety net for decades. It has undergone many changes over the years. The changes implemented in recent years and the decreasing percentage of unemployed Canadians who receive EI benefits have raised concerns about the system’s ability to meet its primary goal: providing income support to workers who lose their jobs. Throughout this study, witnesses offered their perspective on the various changes to EI made since 2012, including the modifications to the process for appealing EI-related decisions. Witnesses also commented on access to EI and the aspects of the system that can affect that access.

In general, the employee representatives believe that access to EI is currently too restrictive. While they support the proposed changes to EI announced in Budget 2016, they maintain that many other improvements are needed to adequately protect workers from the risk of unemployment. The key proposals from labour stakeholders include eliminating the variable entrance requirement for EI, improving access for vulnerable workers, such as part-time workers, establishing higher quality service standards for both new applications and complaints, and protecting the integrity of the EI Operating Account.

The employer and taxpayer representatives do not contest the necessity of helping unemployed Canadians through a good EI system. They are also generally in favour of improving the program’s service standards and preserving the integrity of the EI fund. However, they believe that an overly generous EI system can discourage workers from seeking or taking jobs, which, in the context of an aging population and labour shortages in some regions and occupations, could prove harmful to businesses and the economy in general.

In this report, the Committee makes a number of recommendations to improve access to EI and the system as a whole. In particular, a number of the Committee’s recommendations relate to the EI changes made in 2012-2013, and the relatively low percentage of unemployed Canadians who receive EI benefits. The Committee is aware that none of the proposed solutions is a panacea. Given Canada’s geographic size and the diverging interests of the various stakeholders, a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to be found. The Committee nonetheless hopes that the recommendations in this report will foster an appropriate balance between an EI system that adequately protects Canadian workers from the risk of unemployment and one that encourages labour market attachment and labour mobility.