Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 12 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 24, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 8:30 a.m. to examine the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.
Senator Mabel M. DeWare (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We are here this morning to examine the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations. We have with us this morning Norine Smith, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister with the Department of Human Resources Development. From the same department, we have with us Gordon McFee, Director General of Insurance Policy, and Doris Beeman, Senior Policy Advisor.
Please proceed.
Ms Norine Smith, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development: I also have with me Mike Wood, who is in the Strategic Policy Group at Human Resources Development.
I hope most members of the committee have copies of this information package. I know that some of you were not expecting to be here this morning, but I thought I would speak about some of the documents in this package. This information package was provided to members of the industry in July to give them advance notice of what the fishing regulations would contain, and it was provided to them again in September when the regulations themselves were tabled in the house. In that package there are two documents. One is an information paper dated June 27, 1996, which is fairly detailed. The other is a highlights paper on the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, which will give you an overview of what the regulations contain.
In order to set the fishing regulations in context, the basic structure of the Employment Insurance Act and the reforms that were part of Bill C-12 apply by and large to fishermen just as to any other worker covered by the insurance system. The regulations are required in order to tailor the general insurance system to the particular features of the fishing industry. The regulations do not deal with every feature of the insurance system. They deal only with those features that need to be adjusted in order to be practical and applicable in a sensible way in the fishery.
To give you an example, a feature of the overall insurance system is that $413 is the maximum size of the weekly cheque. That is not covered in the regulations, per se, because that would apply equally to all claimants. The regulations deal primarily with the peculiarities of the fishing season and the times when fishermen can and cannot work. In the fishing industry, it has long been recognized that it is very difficult to count time on the job. Therefore, a weeks-based system was rather artificial in the fishery and an hours-based system would be even more artificial in the fishery.
One of the most important aspects of the fishing regulations was to move away from a time-on-the-job-based insurance system to simply an earnings-based insurance system. With respect to the qualification, for insurance, the entrance requirement is based strictly on earnings.
Almost all of these features were recommendations of the Cashin task force on incomes and adjustment in the Atlantic fishery. Almost all of the major features of the fishing regulations draw fairly directly from the Cashin report.
I am turning to the second page now, and I will jump to the middle. The large bullet deals with the maximum total benefits of 26 weeks. This is also a corollary of moving away from a system that tries to measure time on the job. For every fisherman under these regulations, if they are eligible for Employment Insurance, they are eligible for 26 weeks. There is no longer any kind of variation in the number of weeks of benefits that you can receive depending on how long you have worked.
The third major feature of these regulations is to provide more flexibility around the qualifying period, the period during which fishermen work and earn the earnings required to qualify for benefits, and the benefit period -- or the fishing season versus the insurance season. In order to reflect the diversity of circumstances within the fishery on each coast, and certainly between the East Coast and the West Coast, these regulations provide more flexibility. A fisherman can pull the start of their insurance forward by four weeks or can delay by four weeks. Compared to the old regulations, they can go four weeks either way. It has created a bigger window during which they can draw their benefits.
Those, in essence, are the main features of reform and the main changes.
There are other changes. For example, in these regulations, the concept of a minimum insured week for the captain or the leaseholder of the boat has been eliminated. That is a direct corollary of moving to an earnings-based system where what you earn determines the level of your benefits.
The changes have the effect of making it a much simpler system to administer. It gets rid of a fair bit of the paperwork in the fishery. There is a detailed page in the package describing all of that.
The only other comment I might make by way of introductory remark is that the detailed information paper and the highlights paper were provided to the industry. The detailed information paper is about 10 pages in length and goes into a fair bit of description about what the regulations would contain. That was provided to the industry in early July. The highlights paper was released when the regulations were tabled in mid-September.
We received virtually no comment from the industry on these proposals. I think that reflects that they were very much based on the recommendations of the Cashin task force which reported in 1993, I believe, and which report was strongly endorsed by the industry. To give you an example of the extent of the endorsement those recommendations received, it formed part of the submission to the standing committee of the House of Commons from the fisheries union in Newfoundland.
With that brief introduction, we would be happy to answer your questions.
Senator Comeau: Thank you for attending this morning to answer some of our questions.
Rather than going into the changes right now, I would like to concentrate on the process which led up to the changes. My first question is on section 153(4) of the new Employment Insurance Act, which states that any debate on the regulations flowing from the act is to be carried out in only one of the two houses of Parliament. That specifically excludes the Senate. Could you please tell us if there is any precedent whatsoever, in any act of Parliament, for this type of provision, under which there is a deliberate exclusion of one of the two houses of Parliament from the debate?
Ms Smith: I am only aware of the particular provisions in the EI act which govern the regulations for the fisheries benefits. Generally speaking, it is very unusual for regulations to come to any house of Parliament.
Senator Comeau: That was a long time ago, before the Prime Minister promised in writing in the red book, which he will be highlighting over the next few weeks, that this government would consult, unlike the previous government, that this would be a government of the people, responding to the people. Years ago this was the process by which governments did impose things on people, but we are now into a brand new era and the Canadian public has rightly insisted that any changes that affect benefits of Canadians should go through a process. That is why I am zeroing in on the process which led up to these changes.
Senator Bosa: Senator Comeau, what clause of the bill are you referring to?
Senator Comeau: Section 153(4) of the new Employment Insurance Act specifically provides for a debate to be held in only one of the two houses of Parliament. In other words, it only provides for debate to be held in the House of Commons. It is an absolute contempt of senators, who are members of one of the two houses of Parliament.
When we passed that bill, we signed a blank cheque providing the Government of Canada the right to make any changes to our fishing industry without the Senate of Canada having any say whatsoever. It did, however, provide that 30 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons could compel a debate on the complete rejection of the regulations. It specifically excluded the Senate, and we passed this.
Senator Bonnell: Was there any opposition to it?
Senator Comeau: We raised opposition, but someone was sleeping at the switch.
Senator Bosa: Was this raised in committee?
Senator Comeau: Yes.
The Chair: Could we get an answer from our witnesses, please?
Ms Smith: By way of historical record, this particular section has been in the act since 1990, I believe. It was unchanged in Bill C-12. There were no changes to the provisions covering the fishermen's regulations made in C-12.
Senator Comeau: You are telling me that section 153(4) was in the previous act, providing for discussion only in the House of Commons?
Ms Smith: Yes.
Senator Comeau: So there is a precedent.
Senator Forrestall: Now that we know about it, I think it should be taken out.
Senator Comeau: Yes, it should be taken out to fulfil to the red book promises that people will be consulted.
You indicated this morning, and it is public knowledge, that consultations were conducted with members of Parliament over the summer regarding the new EI fishing regulations. Could you please tell us exactly who was consulted? Apparently letters were sent out to members of Parliament at that time. Could you please tell us which members of Parliament? Was it members from all parties?
Ms Smith: Yes.
Senator Comeau: Did Elsie Wayne receive a copy of this letter?
Ms Smith: Yes, she did. Letters and information packages were sent to all members in whose ridings fishermen claim Employment Insurance. So we did not send the information to members in whose ridings there are no fishers. Yes, Elsie Wayne was included.
Senator Bonnell: Does "members of Parliament" include senators?
The Chair: We are members of Parliament.
Senator Comeau: I am a member of the Parliament of Canada who carries the title of "senator". Was there any reason for excluding senators from the list of those people who were contacted?
Ms Smith: No, there was no explicit intent to exclude.
Senator Comeau: Obviously someone made the decision to exclude senators. Was it the department or was it the minister? Did it come from the Prime Minister's office? I would like to know exactly who made the decision that senators were to be excluded from receiving this package.
Ms Smith: I am not aware that there was an explicit decision to exclude the senators. I apologize to this committee. I think it was more of an oversight.
Senator Comeau: That is not acceptable. You people are paid very handsome salaries not to make those kinds of junior-civil-servant mistakes which exclude certain members of Parliament from a list. Obviously, this decision was made somewhere. I hope you are not trying to shield the minister who may have given a direct order to deliberately exclude senators. I want to know. There must have been a decision taken. Please do not suggest that this was an honest mistake.
Ms Smith: I am sorry, senator. I am not aware of any explicit discussion about whether we should be sending this information material to senators. To my knowledge, it was, indeed, an oversight.
Senator Comeau: Are you telling me that senators, who are members of the Parliament of Canada, did not even enter into the discussion at all? We spent quite a bit of time discussing this issue in the Senate of Canada. We in the Senate probably discussed it in a much more heated way than it was discussed in the House of Commons, where the regional parties did not seem to care one whit about the provisions of this bill. In fact, some of us, as individual senators, even travelled to our regions when the House of Commons and the Senate refused to travel to them.
Was it not discussed anywhere in the department that we should be sent an information package? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Mr. Gordon McFee, Acting Director General, Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources Development: Madam chair, I should like to make two comments on that issue. What we are trying to say is that we here were not involved in any discussions about whether or not people would or would not receive the package.
Senator Comeau: Who decided to send it to members of the House of Commons?
Mr. McFee: First, what I am trying to say is that we were not involved in that discussion. Second, when the regulations were tabled, a copy of the package was given to the Speaker of the Senate. Whether or not that was distributed further, I do not know. I know that he was on the list of people who should receive this package.
What we are trying to say is we cannot answer your question because we were not involved in the process, if there even was one.
Senator Comeau: What I want to know is who drafted the list.
Mr. McFee: I do not know.
Senator Comeau: He does not know. Could we find out from the Assistant Deputy Minister who drafted the list?
Ms Smith: Senator, I should take personal responsibility for not having ensured that the members of this committee were given copies of this material at that time.
Senator Comeau: This is not a General Boyle type of situation. If the minister, the minister's office or the Prime Minister's office handed the list to you, we want to know.
Ms Smith: It was a collective process. There were endless discussions about what the material ought to be. As officials, we were involved in doing the research to figure out which members of Parliament had fisheries claimants in their constituencies. I do not think this is an issue where finger pointing is really appropriate because, to my knowledge, it was not a decision to exclude. It was simply that no one took the initiative to include, which is rather different. That is why I would like to take that responsibility. I had made that commitment to this committee.
Senator Comeau: You are saying this was a collective decision made among many groups, including yourselves. I assume it includes the minister's office. I must then assume that it includes members of Parliament. I must then assume that it might include the PMO or others.
Were any senators involved in providing input into this list that was drafted?
Ms Smith: Not to my knowledge. I do not believe so. I am not aware of anyone outside the department having any role in this at all.
Senator Comeau: I know the Senate has a bad reputation in the public eye. I accept that. Obviously, we are not elected as are members of the House of Commons. I should like to remind you that you, too, are not elected. If we are excluded from receiving such information packages because we are not elected, I think you should consider that the next time around.
You say that you made broad consultations with the industry. Could you provide us with a list of those industry people who wholeheartedly endorse the changes which you propose? You have said that you have received nothing but positive feedback from the industry.
Ms Smith: I said that we did not get any feedback at all.
Ms Beeman has a copy of the mailing list. Perhaps we could make it available to the committee. It is a list of the industry groups to whom this information was provided. We did not receive any feedback of any substance at all. The commentary was made generally through the media rather than directly to the department. It was commentary related to the general provisions of Bill C-12 and not related to the specific content of the fisheries regulations.
By way of endorsement of the amendments or the broad nature of the changes, I should like to draw to the attention of senators the submission of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers' Union before the Commons committee. Their submission included an excerpt from the Cashin task force. The Cashin task force recommended a number of provisions that are included in the regulations, such as an earnings-based entrance requirement, a fixed duration and flexibility around the qualifying period.
Senator Comeau: You just mentioned the Fish, Food and Allied Workers' Union. I wish to quote from a newspaper article dated September 28, in which the President of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers' Union, Earle McCurdy, said that the implications of the changes for fishermen are sweeping and not easy to grasp. He also said that it seems Ottawa is in a rush to adopt the new rules.
I wish now to quote from the article, which states, in part:
"Our view is that they should allow time for people to digest the changes and become fully informed, and then to be able to make representations on that basis," said McCurdy. "All we have so far is kind of a broad brush explanation of the changes, but it is really quite complex."
I will not read any further from the article. This is certainly not an absolute endorsement. He goes on to say that they should be allowed to present their views on the regulations before they are adopted. He also said that people should be entitled to a detailed briefing from officials who themselves have time to understand the implications of the changes.
It is obvious you are not getting a rousing endorsement from the Fish, Food and Allied Workers' Union.
Ms Smith: Mr. McCurdy received copies of the material in July. Staff from our regional office in Newfoundland went out of their way to offer briefings to him and to his members.
Senator Comeau: The point is that briefings are entirely different from having a good and rousing debate in Parliament, for example, where we can get into these kinds of exchanges, which may appear to be heated but which, basically, are friendly. These are debates in which fishermen can be made aware of what we are asking and so on. A briefing from officials is not quite the same thing as a full debate.
Obviously, you approached the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada on this matter. Could I know what their reactions were to the new provisions? Were they endorsed by the provincial premiers or by the governments of the Atlantic provinces? I do not recall the Premier of Nova Scotia ever making public these information packages which, obviously, were sent to very select groups. I do not recall the Premier of Nova Scotia advising us of having received a package or what his comments back to the department were. Could we find out if the province of Nova Scotia, for example, accepted these changes?
Ms Smith: The mailing list that we have provided to the Clerk includes the distribution to provincial governments. It included a number of provincial departments, not just, for example, the fisheries departments. We did not receive any official comment from any provincial government.
Senator Comeau: You are telling me that the premiers of the provinces of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, P.E.I. and New Brunswick, who have something like 26,000 fishers under their wing to whom they are beholden in the next elections, did not even take the time to get back to your department and give their views? What kind of representation is this? I am absolutely surprised. I am astounded that our premiers, who know the importance of the fishing industry, who are aware of the impact of the problems that we have had in fisheries over the last number of years, and who are aware that this is not a time to make massive changes to that industry, chose not to even bother to speak on behalf of their fishing industry. I am absolutely astounded by this, and I think my colleagues on the other side should be as well.
My own member of Parliament apparently was not even aware of this.
Senator Bosa: Before we move on to something else, Madam Chair, this is not my turn to speak, but to clarify a point, I am trying to understand why the exclusion has been placed in section 153(4) of C-12. I am trying to find a logical reason for it.
It was passed in 1990. The government of the day had a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate.
Senator Forrestall: We did not in 1990. Did I sit up all night, 24 hours a day, for--
Senator Bosa: You did that in 1989, not in 1990.
Senator Forrestall: In September of 1990, senator, I stayed up all night listening to you people blow horns and call me some unprintable names--
The Chair: Order!
Senator Bosa: I would never use that type of language.
Senator Forrestall: What is wrong with that language? It happens to be true.
Senator Bosa: Not only would I not call anyone names, I would never use that type of language.
The Chair: Senators, we are off the subject. I do not think that it is proper for this committee meeting.
Senator Forrestall: Do not call into question my word. If I am wrong, I am wrong; if I am right, I am right.
The Chair: The year 1990 was right.
Senator Bosa: I guess my memory is failing me, then, because I thought we had the debate on the GST in 1989.
The Chair: No, it was 1990.
Senator Comeau: The senator is mentioning an extremely good point. If in fact this was brought in by the previous government -- and I am quite sure you are right, although I will be checking on this -- we must recall that the previous government is no longer the government. For many reasons, and this might be one of them, it is no longer the government. Mistakes were made back in those days. We have paid the price. The fact that the previous government might have done such things is not a blank cheque for the new government to adopt virtually everything that the previous government did. I know it has adopted many things we did previously, such as the GST, free trade, and so on.
Senator Forrestall: The point is that we have been ignored. I do not care if it was by Conservatives or anyone else. I was part of it. I was there.
Senator Bosa: I was just trying to find a logical reason for the insertion of that clause.
The Chair: Senators, could we please move on? Do we have questions for the witnesses who have taken time to be with us this morning?
Senator Cohen: My question deals with the intensity rule. It is now applicable to the self-employed fishers through these new regulations, in spite of the fact that the opening and closing dates of fisheries, and therefore the times they can fish, and cannot fish, are set by governments. That is the legal time.
Can you please tell us how the government can justify penalizing these fishers for not fishing during periods when the government says they cannot fish? I am puzzled. Parts of the bill are good, but this part of the bill is upsetting to so many fishermen from the Atlantic, and most of us are from the Atlantic provinces here.
Ms Smith: I could answer that question by way of providing a few facts to the committee about the nature of fishermen's use of the insurance program.
Fishermen, on average, draw some $8,000 a year from the insurance program, compared to all other claimants who, on average, draw about $6,000 a year. Approximately 70 per cent of fishermen are drawing benefits at the maximum weekly benefit, compared to 19 per cent of other claimants who are drawing benefits at the maximum weekly rate. The fishing industry, prior to the reforms in C-12, was receiving approximately $10 in benefits for every dollar in contribution that was made to the program, a benefit-contribution ratio that was much higher than for any other industry. Those sort of facts underpinned a large portion of the reforms, including the decision that fishers, as with all workers, should be covered by the intensity rule.
I should add by way of reminder that the intensity rule does not apply to any family that has low income. Any family with less than $25,000 of family income is not subject to the intensity rule.
As well, another fact that might be of some use to the committee in considering this question is that the C.D. Howe Institute has calculated that some $50 million in UI benefits go to fishing families with more than $70,000 of annual income.
That collection of facts underpins that decision.
Senator Cohen: We have been given to understand that the federal government will cut approximately $33 million from the fishers' benefits, but we have not been told from where the savings will come. Would you supply us with a breakdown of the sources of the cuts? What amount will come from reducing the benefit rate, from cutting the duration of the benefits, from the intensity rule, and from claimants who are forced out of the industry?
Ms Smith: I will turn to my colleague Mike Wood for the answer to that question.
Mr. Mike Wood, Senior Policy Analyst, UI Policy Analysis, Department of Human Resources Development: I am not able to provide a breakdown of each particular element of the reform, but I can tell you that the maximum insurable limit on the claimants produces about 70 per cent of the savings. It is fair to say that that, together with the clawback, are the two measures that have the biggest impact on the claimants, but I do not have a breakdown for each specific element in the reform.
Senator Cohen: It would be helpful if we could get that.
Mr. Wood: This is also true with the other claimants. There is much interaction between all of the changes in the reform, so it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say that, in isolation, one element of the reform has a dollar impact of X. That is the difficulty we have in all of the reform measures.
Senator Forrestall: Can the witnesses tell us whether any financial or economic impact studies have been done on the fishing communities themselves? What is the overall financial impact on fishing communities of these changes? Are any such studies available? Do you know who might have done them?
Ms Smith: There may have been studies done of what is happening in fishing communities in the context of other initiatives such as work done by the Department of Fisheries or studies of the effects of the moratorium, for example. I am not aware, off the top of my head, of those particular studies. One general study which I mentioned earlier was the C.D. Howe analysis. That was done by an academic from Newfoundland who looked at the insurance program as it affects much of the Newfoundland economy and, in particular, the fishing industry.
That is looking backwards. Looking forwards, there is, at section 3 of the act, a commitment to undertake extensive monitoring of the impacts of the reform on all parts of the economy. The fishing industry would clearly be one of those areas where there would be extensive study undertaken. That started last summer, in fact, and annual reports are to be provided and tabled in Parliament starting in 1997. For the five years 1997 through 2002, we will be seeing extensive continuing studies of the impact of the reform generally, as well as on specific sectors.
Senator Forrestall: Is there, in the department's view, any relationship between these new regulations and the tremendous increase in fees for lobster licences? Is there a relationship at all?
Ms Smith: No.
Senator Forrestall: Do you anticipate that there might be some in the future?
Some communities do very little lobstering and so are not hit with a financial drain. Other communities are hit very hard, yet they are still facing the same economic-driven regulatory process in arriving at the qualifications to receive benefits. It seems obvious to me that the two are closely related. Could you comment on that? Perhaps there is no relationship.
Ms Smith: There is not a direct relationship. By way of general comment, the Cashin task force report recommended that access to Employment Insurance be limited not only by earnings levels but also by the notion of professionalization, so that only professional fishermen would be included in that group who would be eligible to qualify for the insurance program.
I am not fully aware of fisheries policy initiatives, but I assume that the whole notion of professionalization in the fishery is still very much part of the debate in that industry.
Senator Forrestall: In different areas -- such as the eastern passage, for example -- we have relatively high employment. Yet that area is very traditional, probably one of the oldest fishing communities in Canada. Those people have to struggle right down to the bottom of the regional rate of unemployment, at around 8 or 9 per cent. You are looking at a very high entrance level. There must be a different economic impact on such a community.
The monitoring system should report back to both houses of Parliament on any trends that seem to be developing. That information would be quite important in developing public policy in both houses.
Ms Smith: We can pass that message along to the research group.
Senator Forrestall: I wish you would not pass a message, but rather ask them to do it.
Ms Smith: I will do that.
Senator Comeau: Recently, lobster licence fees have increased from something like $30 to about $1,800 in District 34 in southwestern Nova Scotia. That is a 6,000 per cent increase. The means by which the fishing people ship their high-value lobster product to the U.S. market is also changing. The government seems to like to say it is being "commercialized." Apparently, they do not like to say it is being "privatized" because it may have negative connotations with the public. The government gives only a month-by-month extension of support now. Cuts in EI are happening at this time.
I am wondering if there is someone somewhere who is monitoring virtually all the changes which are happening. Wharves are not being repaired. The fishermen must pick up those costs themselves. Is there someone somewhere monitoring the cumulative impact of all of the negative factors impacting the communities in southwestern Nova Scotia or on the eastern shore as Senator Forrestall mentioned? Is someone measuring the cumulative impact? Perhaps that cumulative impact is greater than the sum of its parts. There may be a kind of mathematical progression which could actually destroy those communities. Is someone doing that?
Ms Smith: As part of the monitoring commitment under the Employment Insurance Act, there is a particular focus on communities. As part of our research plan, 14 or 15 communities across the country have been selected for in-depth tracking of what is happening not just economically but in terms of attitudes of workers and employers, and in terms of community involvement in their economic future. The issue of communities is explicitly found in the monitoring plan.
Senator Comeau: You have 14 communities across Canada, but the one specific area which I alluded to earlier has done well in the past. Basically, it has a good variety of natural ocean resources. Unlike many other areas of Atlantic Canada, that area still has groundfish, scallops, lobster, and so on. If you suddenly start a number of cumulative changes to the existing infrastructure and start removing things, adding fee increases, and so on, there could be devastating changes to the status quo. This is a unique community but it is only one community, and it may not be one of the 14 communities that you are looking at.
What set me off on this subject is that I read in the newspapers that even the member of Parliament from that area did not seem to be aware of what was happening. I also learned that some members of Parliament in Atlantic Canada had to be reduced to pleading with the Department of Human Resources Development to make their representations known to the minister. They could not even make their representations to the minister; they had to go through your department to make their views known to their own minister. It is sad that a government should reduce its own members of Parliament to doing this.
Is the area of Southwest Nova included as one of those 14 communities? If not, is there anything being done to monitor that specific community?
Ms Smith: I cannot remember which community is part of our monitoring plan for Nova Scotia, but I can provide that list for the entire country to the committee.
Senator Comeau: Thank you.
The Chair: I should like to return to the first line of questioning.
The letter of July 3 says that all members of Parliament have received the package. I received a letter from Elsie Wayne wherein she states that she did not receive the package and she asked me to table her request this morning.
Other than that, I should like to thank you for coming here this morning. If we have further questions, we will call you back. We look forward to receiving information from you.
Senator Bosa: I have another question. At the beginning, when Senator Comeau asked you if you had any consultations with the community, you said that you had sent out a notice but you did not receive a response. Was that notice also sent to the self-employed fishermen?
Ms Smith: It was sent to fisheries representatives. For example, it was sent to the unions that represent the fishermen.
Senator Bosa: And you had no response from them?
Ms Smith: No. We received no response.
Senator Cohen: I have a question concerning the shellfish fishermen. They now must work two additional weeks. There are concerns that the new regulations have the potential to deplete, if not devastate, the small fisheries industry, especially the shellfish industry. This encourages overfishing.
Does the government have a plan to monitor the situation in the shellfish industry after the regulations take effect? If the government finds there is a decline in the shellfish fishery, would it be willing to cancel and make an exemption to shellfish fisheries for the additional two weeks that are required? That would only be fair. It is a whole new area.
Ms Smith: I wish to clarify what has happened. Under Bill C-12, there was no increase in the entrance requirements. Rather, there was an increase in the minimum divisor -- that is, the minimum number that is used to calculate the average weekly earnings. Therefore, the fishermen to whom you are referring did not face any increase in their entrance requirement, but because the divisor is 14 now instead of 12 -- and I am assuming that these workers to whom you are referring are located in high unemployment areas where the minimum entrance requirements would apply -- they would have slightly lower average weekly earnings, but it is not any more difficult for them to qualify.
When we get to next year, though, everything changes. Next year, if they are self-employed fishers, they are covered under the earnings rules; if they are working as crew, they are covered under the hours rules. Things will be changing again.
Senator Bonnell: You said that you sent out notices to a certain union and to others. Could we get a copy of the notice that you sent out, for the committee's records?
Ms Smith: Yes. It was contained in the information package that was provided to all members of the committee yesterday.
Senator Bonnell: Is that the same package that the co-ops all received but the fishermen did not receive?
The Chair: Well, their union representatives received it.
Senator Bonnell: You named approximately 14 fishing ports that received this information.
Ms Smith: No. The 14 refers to communities across the country, in a wide variety of economic circumstances, which have been identified as communities where we will be monitoring the impact of Bill C-12 generally. They are not fishing communities specifically. There is a whole variety of economic circumstances that we tried to embrace under the monitoring plan to get a feeling of the impact of the reforms in the economy as a whole.
Senator Bonnell: Can we get that list of those 14 communities across the country so that we will have it for our records?
Ms Smith: Yes. I will provide that to the committee.
Senator Comeau: If it is a long response, please get that to us in writing.
You refer in the regulations to the elimination of a year-round fishery, and that we will now either have a winter or a summer fishery. What happens in an area such as southwestern Nova Scotia, where a lobster fishermen fishes from the end of November to the end of May and then switches over to groundfish during the rest of the season? How does that person choose in which off season he happens to be fishing? I am confused about that.
Ms Smith: It is not elimination of the fishery; it is the elimination of the concept of benefits for year-round fishermen. In the example that you are giving, when that fishers becomes unemployed -- that is, when there is no longer a season for him or her to work in -- he or she would go on benefits.
Senator Comeau: That person no longer must designate himself or herself as being a summer or a winter fisher?
Ms Smith: Not in advance, no.
The Chair: Thank you for coming to our committee this morning.
Honourable senators, how do you wish to proceed with these hearings on the regulations?
Senator Cohen: I should like to make a recommendation, in view of the concern of the 21,000 fishers that live in the Atlantic provinces. If the industry wishes to see us, then we should go to meet with them. If they do not, then so be it. Furthermore, if they wish to travel to Ottawa to meet with us, then we should provide that opportunity. I am putting that out as a recommendation because a lot of interaction still must take place and we have not debated that yet. I put that forward at this time.
The Chair: May we discuss that recommendation openly, please?
Senator Comeau: We heard testimony this morning from the officials that the industry has apparently shown no concern and has not given a response to the department. It would seem to indicate that the industry may be completely happy with the changes that have been proposed. If that is the case, so be it. However, we should not take the department's word on that. We should go back to the industry and ask them if they are happy with what is being proposed. If that is correct, then so be it; we will close the books. However, if they wish to discuss it further, we should leave ourselves open either to visit them ourselves or to have them come here.
The motion should be framed in such a way that it would leave us the flexibility to visit them, if that is the wish of the industry. I do not know how it could be done.
The Chair: As a committee, we could send out a notice to the industry letting them know that we are studying the regulations concerning fisheries in Bill C-12 and ask them if they would like to come before the committee, and see how they respond.
Senator Bosa: The witness was not just an ordinary witness; she is the deputy minister from the department.
The Chair: I realize that.
Senator Bosa: She stated that notices had gone out both to the industry and to the unions. They have received no response, which indicates that those groups did not show any interest in appearing before the committee or in disputing some of the regulations that have been presented. I think they accepted the status quo. Their representations were made when the bill was amended. Major amendments were made to the bill. At the present time, I see no reason to re-open this matter. We are looking for something that is not there.
The Chair: I would add one comment to that. When the regulations were sent out to the industry, there was not a committee at that time.
Senator Bosa: No.
The Chair: I wanted to put that on the record.
Senator Cohen: When were those letters sent out?
Senator Bosa: You should have asked the minister.
Senator Comeau: In early July.
The Chair: Yes, and again in September.
Senator Cohen: The timing of those letters is bad, too. In the summertime, nothing gets done and nothing gets read.
Senator Bosa: I would question that. The unions are keen on looking after their own interests. Whether it is summer or winter, they are fairly alert on issues that affect their membership.
The Chair: The letter was sent out on September 19.
Senator Comeau: I do not want to prejudge at this point whether the official who appeared before us today was right or wrong. That is something to be determined in the future. Obviously, she is a person who knows her business.
We have still not determined -- and she would not provide it this morning -- who was on that list of people that were contacted. She could not even provide information regarding who drafted the list.
The Chair: But we have the list.
Senator Comeau: Yes, but she could not tell us who was responsible for drafting the list, whether it was the minister's office, members of Parliament, or herself. What we do know is that we were specifically and totally excluded from the process. We must now catch up on this whole thing. We were left out of the loop completely. I, for one, must examine that list to see whether the fishermen from Nova Scotia were sent notices in an effective way.
If we, as senators and members of the Parliament of Canada, were excluded, there may be others who were excluded from receiving this information. We should approach this carefully and not exclude the possibility of seeking further input from the fishing communities and the fishing industry.
I am not saying that we should travel. If the industry representatives have not responded due to the fact that they are either happy or indifferent, so be it. We will accept that. However, the whole process leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Now that we are back into the loop, we should leave open the possibility of pursuing this further.
Senator Bosa: Senator Comeau, you know how bureaucracy works.
Senator Comeau: Yes.
Senator Bosa: And there are probably good reasons why the deputy minister did not know the name of the person or persons. The fisheries are located not only on the Atlantic coast but also on the Pacific coast. Consequently, there must have been a number of people that worked together to provide a list of representatives of the industry and the unions. We have that list here. Just because the deputy minister did not name those persons is not a valid reason not to proceed with the reporting to the Senate on the matter of that is before us now.
Senator Comeau: In Atlantic Canada, 30 out of 31 members of Parliament are Liberals. I am not saying that they are bad members of Parliament, but I am saying that 30 out of 31 of the members of Parliament are Liberal. The one member of Parliament who is not a Liberal in Atlantic Canada did not receive the letter and the information package which was referred to this morning, and we have a deposition from that member of Parliament this morning.
We know that the Prime Minister of Canada instructed his members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada to be onside on this thing. He expected and he demanded that his members of Parliament be onside on the whole UI issue. He specifically instructed his members of Parliament not to fight this.
I am not suggesting that we should be fighting, but who will open up the possibility of a debate by our fishing communities if the members of Parliament are being told not to be involved, the senators from the region are specifically excluded, and the officials are responding to the minister? I am suggesting to you that we have a duty to provide a forum for debate for those people, should they so wish it -- and not necessarily to be against the proposed changes.
Senator Cohen: Our mandate says that we speak for the regions and the minorities.
Senator Comeau: The mandate of the Senate is to provide a regional representation. That is my job, unless and until the Senate is reformed by some government of the future.
The Chair: Can we reach some sort of consensus on this?
Senator Bosa: Let someone put that motion forward, then.
The Chair: There must be a specific motion. Do you have one to put forward?
Senator Cohen: I move that if the industry is interested in discussion and debate, then representatives should come to Ottawa to appear as witnesses before our committee as soon as it can be arranged.
The Chair: Do senators wish to discuss this motion?
Senator Bosa: We have already flogged it to death.
Senator Cohen: We just hear from our constituents. It is painful, because we do not have an opposition in our area. We have to talk to them.
The Chair: I will have to put the motion on the floor. It is moved by Senator Cohen that representatives of the fishing industry, if interested, come to Ottawa to appear before the committee. All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Those who oppose the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chair: You are saying that we will not open up this committee to hear from anyone in the industry and this issue is closed?
Senator Comeau: Surely the senators from Atlantic Canada do not want to close off the possibility of our communities appearing here.
Senator Bonnell: As an senator from Atlantic Canada, I appreciate very much Senator Comeau's questions this morning, as well as the questions from my good friends from Dartmouth and Digby. They were all good questions. We received the best answers the officials from the department could give to us. However, my understanding is that these regulations have been passed. They have already become law. For us to procrastinate and to bring in people with the idea that we will change the regulations for them and give them false hope seems to be a waste of our time and theirs.
Senator Comeau: That is a very sad commentary from an Atlantic Canadian senator who has seasonal workers in his region. He says that there is absolutely no hope that the government will listen to his people. It is unbelievable that the government would shut out any possibility whatsoever of hearing about the impact that these changes will have. I am absolutely devastated.
The Chair: The motion is lost.
Senator Bosa: Madam chair, you need a motion to report back to the Senate.
I move that the committee report back to the Senate.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Forrestall: Before the committee adjourns, I wish to table a series of technical questions. Could I table them at this time? Perhaps, at their convenience, the department could send a resource person back to this committee so that we would have available to us the answer to some of these questions.
The Chair: Can we accept the tabling of Senator Forrestall's questions?
Senator Bosa: Yes, but not as an appendix to the committee proceedings.
Senator Forrestall: They are not helpful unless they are appended. I will send them, then.
The Chair: Let us hear about that from the clerk.
Mrs. Jill Anne Joseph, Clerk of the Committee: I can attach them to the minutes as an exhibit without printing them, and make sure they are sent to the department for a response.
Senator Forrestall: You cannot do it the other way? In other words, it is not that you will not but that you cannot.
Mrs. Joseph: No. If there is a motion of the committee and it passes, I can have them appended to the minutes.
Senator Forrestall: I move that these questions be appended to the minutes of this particular hearing and that in due course the department respond to the committee.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Bonnell: I should like to ask Senator Forrestall to send me a copy of those questions. If he sends them to the minister and receives some answers from him, would he send me a copy of the answers that he receives as well?
Senator Forrestall: I would be delighted to do so.
The committee adjourned.