THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 16, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET]; and, in camera, to study Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I’d like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by the chair.
Should you have any technical challenges that may arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue. If you experience other technical challenges, please contact the ISD service desk at the number you have been provided.
The use of online platforms does not guarantee speech privacy or that eavesdropping won’t be conducted. As such, while conducting committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private and privileged Senate information.
Senators should participate in a private area and be mindful of their surroundings so they do not inadvertently share any personal information that could be used to identify their location.
With that, good morning, everyone. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee as well as our witnesses today — we have two panels — and those watching this meeting on the web.
My name is Rob Black, senator from Ontario, and I am chair of the committee. Now it’s my pleasure to introduce the members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, starting with the deputy chair, Senator Simons, from Alberta. We also have Senator Cotter from Saskatchewan, Senator Deacon from Nova Scotia, Senator Jaffer from British Columbia, Senator Klyne from Saskatchewan, Senator Marwah from Ontario, Senator Oh from Ontario (Mississauga) and Senator Petitclerc from Quebec (Grandville).
Folks, today, the committee is beginning its study of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island), which was referred to this committee on June 7.
I would like to welcome our witnesses in the first panel. It is my pleasure at this time to welcome the Honourable Diane F. Griffin, former senator; the Honourable Wayne Easter, P.C., former member of parliament for Malpeque, P.E.I., and farmer; and Philip Brown, the Mayor of Charlottetown.
Thank you all for joining us today. We are delighted to have you here. We will hear opening remarks from former Senator Griffin followed by Mr. Easter and Mayor Brown. You each have five minutes for your opening remarks. With that, Senator Griffin, we welcome you.
Hon. Diane F. Griffin, former senator, as an individual: Thank you. Great to see everybody again. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today regarding Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).
First, I want to thank Yukon Senator Pat Duncan for taking on the stewardship of this bill upon my retirement from the Senate. Her motivation for taking this action was the unfairness of the current Employment Insurance zone situation in Prince Edward Island, and I offer the following quotation from her:
I appreciate the necessity for two regions in a territory as large as the Yukon, where Dawson City, with more seasonal employment and fewer job opportunities, is a five-hour drive away from Whitehorse.
My experience at the workers compensation board and subsequently as a workers advocate representing injured workers before the board and my training through the Foundation of Administrative Justice, prompted me to act particularly as I believe I am in political terms a neutral third party as an independent senator not from P.E.I.
The division of Prince Edward Island into two economic zones in 2014 created a fundamental unfairness for workers, especially those who live in the Charlottetown zone but work outside the capital region. My fellow panellists will give examples of the negative impact of the two EI zones in the small population of 160,000 people.
Last year, I spoke to Senator Gold’s inquiry on the 2021 federal budget to bring the Senate’s attention to the flawed policy of two Employment Insurance regions in P.E.I. The 2021 Budget Implementation Act entrenched in statute this unnecessary division of my province.
The government provided several reasons why it could not support the amendment to the BIA last year. The first was Employment and Social Development Canada’s computer systems. Officials indicated it was not possible for the EI system to have a single zone for seasonal workers and two zones for regular EI applicants.
Further, in the ministerial briefing binder, the government said that due to temporary COVID measures artificially increasing unemployment rates, a change in the spring of 2021 was not warranted as the two regions were temporarily de facto the same.
Those temporary measures have expired, and this bill would solve the computer system issue by amending both the Employment Insurance Act and the regulations at the same time.
For over seven years, the federal government has promised Islanders a return to one zone. This change has often been premised under the framework of a larger review of the EI system. 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 issued a separate recommendation for ESDC: “ . . . reinstate a single Employment Insurance Economic Region for Prince Edward Island within 12 months.”
Twelve months have now passed with no response from the government.
The Senate is well placed to examine the return to one EI zone for P.E.I. and to amend the bill to ensure a proper coming-into-force alignment with Employment and Social Development Canada’s computer systems. Even if, in the meantime, the government took action to return to one zone, it is still highly desirable to have a bill such as Bill S-236 enacted so that parliamentary approval is required in order to ensure there is future adequate oversight.
While it is the smallest province, Prince Edward Island is still an equal partner in Confederation. This issue needs Senate action, with the goal of sending the bill to the House of Commons. It’s a way for the Senate to serve one of its constitutional roles of giving a voice to regional interests, especially for regions with smaller populations. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Griffin. I neglected to tell our witnesses that I will hold my hand up at one minute so you have an idea of how much time you have left. Senator Griffin, you did not go over.
Moving on to the Honourable Wayne Easter. Mr. Easter.
Wayne Easter, P.C., former Member of Parliament, Malpeque, and Farmer, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, thank you for taking up this issue. I am most pleased to be able to speak on Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).
Its purpose is to provide that Prince Edward Island is one region for the purpose of applying Part I and VIII of the act. This is an issue that has haunted — and I use the word “haunted” seriously — workers, especially seasonal workers, who live in the so-called “Charlottetown zone” for eight years now.
I expect you have heard from others who have explained the consequences of the two zones. I will briefly touch on that, but the core issue here is fairness and equity under the Employment Insurance Act and its regulations for Prince Edward Islanders.
As you know, I was an MP for the riding of Malpeque for some 28 years. I saw lots of changes in Employment Insurance over that time and how changes impacted workers, families and business over those years, but I have never seen anything as unfair to some workers, those who reside in the so-called Charlottetown zone, as the changes that were made in October 2014.
In fact, the Charlottetown zone isn’t really the Charlottetown zone at all. It goes east nearly as far as Mount Stewart, and it moves west to the community of Hunter River but doesn’t include Hunter River in the Charlottetown zone. It then moves north out a kind of narrow offshoot toward Cavendish and stops around the Toronto Road. However, to the east of that offshoot is a little block that includes South Rustico and Cymbria as far back south as Ebenezer that is in the other zone.
I hope researchers for your committee have provided you with the map that clearly shows the two zones. It is essential that the map include the communities so that you can see them.
Outside of Charlottetown proper, Cornwall and Stratford, all the areas are really in rural Prince Edward Island. Officials will tell you that zone 1, Charlottetown, really consists of a census conglomeration of Charlottetown and zone 2 is everything else. Look at the map, understand it and you will have to ask yourself: Who the heck dreamt up this line and this zone, and why?
But, senators, I want to be very clear: This should not be a case of urban and rural differences. P.E.I. as a whole should be treated as one zone, and workers, regardless of where they reside, should be treated fairly and equitably on the island in its totality.
Let’s examine the geographic and population facts. Prince Edward Island is 140 miles long and 2 to 40 miles wide. Its population, as of May this year, was 166,000, with 86,000 in the workforce and a 7.8% unemployment rate.
Does that make any sense to you to have two zones in that size and population?
Now let’s take a quick look at the consequences of having two zones. At what is, I believe, its worst point, the convoluted Charlottetown zone required someone to work 665 hours to draw unemployment for 14 weeks. The rural zone, on the other hand, required someone to work 490 hours to draw for 20 weeks. However, especially in the seasonal industries, folk do not just work in the zone they reside in. Again, this is a small province, and seasonal tourism is the second-biggest industry.
I received the most complaints from the Riverdale Road area. It is the break line between zones 1 and 2, starting in the southern part of the riding. Neighbours on opposite sides of the road both work at New Glasgow Lobster Suppers, but at the end of the season, the worker in zone 2 qualified for EI. The neighbour across the road in zone 1 did not. Some managed to get other employment and gain their EI.
Others who lived in the city and drove to work at the tourist businesses were met with the same fate. The situation not only hurt workers, it also affected the ability of tourist operators to attract needed workers. The bottom line is that it’s unfair and inequitable, and it makes so sense.
How did we get into this situation? It was done for crass political reasons in 2014 by the previous administration, and this current administration has absolutely failed because of politics as well. There are differences between the MPs, and naturally, the MP for Egmont would have to protect their interests because they would get less unemployment in that area if you had one zone. But the real issue here is fairness and equity. Whether changes need to be made to the overall return situation on EI, that’s another matter that requires changes to the EI system itself.
I am willing to answer questions. Thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Easter. We now move on to Mayor Brown.
Philip Brown, Mayor of Charlottetown, City of Charlottetown: Good morning from the beautiful capital of Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to be here as a representative of the City of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, to present our views on Bill S-236 and Canada’s economic regions.
[English]
I also want to thank Senators Griffin and Duncan, and the Honourable Wayne Easter, for all the work they have been doing on this amendment or change to Bill S-236. I also want to thank Carl Pursey, who will be on the second panel, representing the P.E.I. Federation of Labour.
On behalf of the City of Charlottetown and its citizens, I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for the opportunity to discuss the subject matter of Bill S-236 as it relates to the status of economic regions across Canada.
Of the 62 economic regions, there are four around the capitals of the territories, including one here in Prince Edward Island. What makes those four economic regions distinct is that they are divided into two zones for the purposes of determining eligibility for Employment Insurance benefits. The City of Charlottetown and surrounding communities are one zone, and the Honourable Wayne Easter addressed those regions. I know he gave some great examples of great communities, but it is a larger zone than just the City of Charlottetown. So the City of Charlottetown and surrounding communities are in one zone, and the rest of the province is in the other.
Because eligibility for Employment Insurance is based on the rate of employment in the zone, residents of Charlottetown and surrounding communities receive lower benefits than residents in the rest of the province. That has resulted in serious and unacceptable inequities. It adversely affects many hard-working islanders and their families.
In short, Islanders from different zones who work together will end up with different benefits or might not receive benefits at all, as was mentioned by the Honourable Wayne Easter. For example, workers in the Charlottetown zone had to work more than 700 hours — a little different than the Honourable Wayne Easter — to be eligible for 36 weeks of benefits, while those living in the rest of the province received benefits for 45 weeks after 525 or 490 hours of work.
The irony is that benefits are based on where you live, not where you work. This situation is not only unfair and inequitable, it also undermines the principles of economic and social justice.
This issue has been raised numerous times since the zones were established eight years ago. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission was critical of what it termed the arbitrary creation of zones. It concluded that the creation of two zones in Prince Edward Island was wrong and should be reversed. It has recommended that the process of reviewing the zones should be depoliticized.
This is a view shared by previous and present Charlottetown city councils, which passed resolutions opposing the 2014 changes. Similar resolutions were passed by the neighbouring communities of Cornwall and Stratford, whose residents are similarly affected. The member of Parliament for Charlottetown, Sean Casey, has also publicly committed to return to a single economic zone for the province, a measure his party promised to implement in the 2015 federal election campaign.
The two-zone policy fails to reflect the fact that Prince Edward Island is a small province with a high level of seasonal employment. The two-zone policy is having a very detrimental financial impact on workers and their families, along with greater stress and mental health impacts. All workers must be treated fairly and equitably.
Members of this standing committee, Prince Edward Island is one island and one community, and it should be one zone. Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses. We will proceed with questions.
As has been our previous practice, I would like to remind senators that you will have four minutes for your questions and for the answers that come from those questions, so I would ask that you keep your questions succinct, and I would ask our witnesses to keep your answers succinct as well. If you have a question, raise your hand. If you are in the room, get our attention. We will begin. We do have list. If we have time, we will move to a second round, if needed.
Senator Simons: How lovely it is to see Senator Griffin back. Hello. We’ve missed you.
I do want to understand the genesis of this split, and I understand that not one of you was a part of the government that made this decision, but as best you understand it and as best you can explain it to us, why was the decision made to divide the province into two EI zones?
Mr. Easter: I will try and take that one on. I don’t want to condemn a previous government or my own because one has been no better than the other on this issue. The reason, I believe, the decision was made by the previous administration was that making these changes increased the return on Employment Insurance for the minister’s riding of Egmont. They had a higher unemployment rate, and the changes meant you would have to work fewer hours and you could draw more weeks of EI, and that’s exactly what happened.
Charlottetown is totally in the Charlottetown zone. About half of the riding of Malpeque, which is mine, is in the Charlottetown zone, mostly a rural area. It’s the same in Cardigan. The Cardigan and Malpeque ridings are split, and Charlottetown is all in the Charlottetown zone, and those in the Charlottetown zone have to work more hours to get few returns.
But when you have witnesses there, look at that map. Look at that map. How in the name could you — I don’t know how they can justify the way they drafted the map. It makes no sense to me. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The current administration has failed, even though they said they would change it. A House committee in 2016 recommended they make the change, but they have not done it because there is a split among the MPs, I think, in P.E.I. on making the decision.
Senator Simons: There are two different ways to level a playing field; one is to raise everyone up, and one is to take everyone down. Is there a concern amongst residents of P.E.I. that if you move to one zone, some people will win but others will lose? Is that not right?
Mr. Easter: Yes. There is that concern. And I would point out as well, under the current scenario, if you changed it, there would be less economic insurance money coming into P.E.I. as a whole.
You made a good point. Everyone needs to be raised up. And if there are not enough returns in the system for people under EI, then that change has to be made as well, but it is about fairness and equity.
It also affects businesses. Cavendish is the big tourism area. That’s the area I’m in right now. For them to get workers, they’re having a heck of a time because people from Charlottetown have to drive out there, and then they’re not likely to get Employment Insurance under the current scenario in a seasonal industry. So it affects the businesses as well in being able to draw in workers.
Senator C. Deacon: I thought this might be a wonderful day, but it has certainly peaked with seeing former colleagues. You’re both reminding me of what vacuums you left when you left Parliament Hill.
That was a bit of a barn burner, Mr. Easter. Thank you for your summary. Do you think the people who made these decisions have ever been to P.E.I.? What on earth are the criteria used across the country, and how on earth could they have done this? Okay, yes, there was a crass political reason, but I still don’t understand how you can apply rules differently in different provinces. That must be the case because I have had a look across the country at different zones, and I don’t see anything that looks like this, as you pointed out. The sort of finger that is sticking up to the Gulf of St. Lawrence from Charlottetown, why is that there? None of it makes any sense.
Do you think they’ve been there, number one? And, number two, what is the logic for our EI system being based on where you live versus where you work? Are we not trying to get people to get jobs and be working? Isn’t that the important factor? If they have to travel to work and they want to, that’s a great thing because they are working. What’s the logic? Maybe you can give me some background on those two files.
Mr. Easter: It’s always been great to work with many of you senators as well in the past.
Well, I don’t know if I can give you the logic, but, yes, I do expect they’ve been to P.E.I. I don’t think there was any logic. I think it was a political decision enforced on the bureaucracy, and they had to try and justify the decision.
Look, in politics, we all do crazy things at times, including my government and previous governments. And this was just the wrong thing to do to try to save a minister’s seat. I personally like the minister as well.
I would point out an anomaly on that map, which I hope you have before you. You will note the community of Hunter River is not in. On the top of the hill, Rennies Road is in the Charlottetown zone. Rennies Road, to the New Glasgow Lobster Suppers, where a lot of people work in the seasonal industry, is about two miles, maybe a mile and a half to two miles. Hunter River is about a half-mile further, and they’re in the rural zone. Now, does that make any sense whatsoever at all? And both are treated differently.
So I don’t think there is any logic. I think it was a political decision enforced. When you look at the census agglomeration, as they call it, I think it was doctored up to try to justify the decision and to come to the numbers they want.
Senator Klyne: I’m going to direct this to Honourable Mr. Easter here simply because you mentioned something a number of times as being the issue. Three things strike me here. One is the inequity of how much time you need to work, so many weeks, in one area and how much time you need to work in another area to achieve even more weeks of coverage through working fewer hours. That’s one issue which is an identified inequity.
The other comment you made was “one island, one community,” which resonates with me and the idea of commuting workers. It’s a commuting population, I would think. So if you live in Charlottetown but you work outside of that region, you’re subject to lower employment benefits than you would be if you lived closer to where you are actually working outside of Charlottetown.
Both of those points go back again to your core issue of fairness and equity. The question is how is this impasse explained to you and other stakeholders as being an acceptable practice with no change anticipated? I think about Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is a larger land mass. It has four zones — Regina, Saskatoon, Northern Saskatchewan and Southern Saskatchewan. I didn’t delve into what the differences were in the time to work for certain benefit periods. But how do they explain this to you, why that is there?
Also, could you expand on the whole politics and what would happen if the zones were eliminated and there were one economic region? How is that a loss to some political interests?
Mr. Easter: Senator Klyne, yes, I know Saskatchewan well. I lived off and on in Saskatoon for about 10 years as president of the National Farmers Union. The difference is that there you drive an hour and a half for coffee and think nothing of it. If you drive 10 minutes in P.E.I., you think it’s a long drive.
You will note that Mayor Brown and I had different numbers in terms of the hours worked and the hours drawn. That changes over time based on the unemployment rates, so you will see variables through that, throughout the last eight years. Yes, people from all over the island often drive to the Cavendish area to work because it’s the biggest tourism area in the summer, and they don’t pay any attention to those zones. But I want to come back to my point that not being able to achieve the EI numbers is affecting the businesses in the tourism industry in order to get those seasonal workers.
I really can’t answer your question as it has been explained to us, because I’ve never accepted the explanation for what it is. I think it was doctored for the wrong reasons.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Mayor Brown, and thank you to my two former colleagues. It’s such a pleasure to see you both. I can’t even remember how long we worked together before this.
I am not surprised, because I come from B.C., and I’ve never understood some decisions that I’ve made in Ottawa. I was just wondering, did anyone ever consult you about this, even if only superficially?
Mr. Easter: In terms of the previous administration, no. The decision was just made. It was made through politics. It wasn’t made through the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which is supposed to be involved in those decisions. It was not made through them. It was just made and the decision rendered.
In the current administration, yes, we’ve had lots of discussions on this. However, we’ve never gotten to the one zone.
Senator Jaffer: I have very few minutes, so for that reason I’ll just ask Wayne. In all of this, what is left out is the terrible effect it has on Prince Edward Island people. Can you explain that to the committee? In the end, it’s really about people. When you do these kinds of arbitrary things, people get hurt.
You’ve been in Parliament for 28 years. Can you give us one or two kernels about what this has done?
Mr. Easter: It hurts friendships. As I said of the Riverdale Road experience, you could have two neighbours on each side of the road, one in one zone and one in the other. One could claim EI and the other couldn’t. When they’re able to both claim EI, the one in the Charlottetown zone could draw for far fewer weeks. You see your neighbour over there. He or she has employment insurance for four or six weeks more than you do, and you worked at the same place. It’s just so wrong. It is just so wrong. That’s the problem.
As I said, it also affects the businesses in being able to draw people to work in the tourism industry.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to all three of you for being here.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our witnesses. Senator Griffin, it is a pleasure to see you. We miss you.
As you know, we are having Mr. Carl Pursey on the next panel. I want to give a quote. I’ve been reading some articles to prepare for this committee, and I want to quote Mr. Pursey. In an article, Mr. Pursey says:
Some people can’t get hired because (the employers will) ask where they live and if they live in the Charlottetown zone, they won’t hire them because they know they need more weeks to qualify and their business isn’t going to be open that many weeks.
I just wanted to have your input on whether this is still relevant. This was from a year and a half ago. What is the scope of these kinds of challenges?
This is for both witnesses and, of course, Senator Griffin if you want to weigh in as well.
Mr. Easter: Go ahead, folks. I’ve been on for a while.
Ms. Griffin: That’s something that I have not had personal experience with. With Mr. Pursey being on the next panel, I hope you’ll ask him the question, because he will know. I don’t know the details, but thank you for asking the question.
Mr. Brown: Senator, I can give you an example of my daughter working at the Bell Aliant Centre here in Charlottetown as a student in P.E.I. Emma Louise lived in Charlottetown, and her fellow worker on the deck of the aquatic centre lived in zone 1. When they went on unemployment as part of their studies at the University of Prince Edward Island, her friend who lives in zone 1 was getting a higher rate of pay and required fewer weeks, and my daughter was receiving a lower rate and could only get that payment for a shorter period of time.
That’s a family situation. But Carl Pursey has other examples. I have an example from Carl Phillis, who was a huge advocate of trying to right this wrong. He wrote many letters to the Senate and to Parliament. In one of his letters, he said:
I’ve researched the workers and the federal government’s motives and techniques by which temporary seasonal employee workers are denied EI benefits even though these EI benefits have been paid for by both the employee and the employer through government legislated payroll deductions.
So they’re both paying equally into it, but the benefits are not the same. Small province — it’s not fair. Thank you.
Ms. Griffin: I knew Carl Phillis, who was mentioned by His Worship. A very few weeks after I met with him to learn about this situation, he was deceased. I went to his funeral. So I really only saw him twice. But this was a case of somebody who was working for the City of Charlottetown, and the city did their utmost to make sure he got his weeks. However, he had to keep asking, and every year it was a different number of weeks he had to ask for.
The man was an artist. He was a great contributor to society. But he was an individual who was sorely hurt by what’s been going on since 2014. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Griffin.
Senator Cotter: Thanks very much to the three witnesses who joined us. It’s a pleasure to see all of you today.
I’m a senator for Saskatchewan, though I have spent an enormous amount of time on Prince Edward Island. I taught at Dalhousie law school for nearly 20 years, and I felt like I taught half the lawyers in P.E.I. as a result — to their regret I’m sure.
When I first went to Prince Edward Island, I bought a map. The map you buy is the same size as the map of Saskatchewan. I was shocked by how quickly I got from one end of Prince Edward Island to the other. It was like driving halfway from Moose Jaw to Regina.
The point is that if anyone is familiar with Prince Edward Island, they know it is one community not just in terms of personal relationships but also the structure of the economy. You go to a lobster supper, and you see someone who is working there but living in Charlottetown and vice versa. The incongruity of this rule is striking. In fact, it seems to me that it affects normal business decision making and normal hiring decision making on the part of employees and employers. If employment insurance presents challenges to a functioning economy, perverse aspects of it create inefficiencies that shouldn’t be there for people, businesses and communities.
I don’t know whether my question is for the mayor or Mr. Easter. I read the material you submitted, Your Worship. There is a suggestion in there that this would be changed if all four MPs from Prince Edward Island could reach agreement, and one has not. I’d like to find out if that’s an accurate statement and how it is in God’s name that any government would decide a provincial policy and provide a veto to one member of Parliament. Quite frankly, that strikes me as politically unacceptable.
Mr. Brown: Going back to Senator Klyne, Saskatchewan, I lived in Saskatchewan down in Swift Current for a year. It’s a beautiful province, huge province, and yes, everything was in quarter sections, half-quarter sections. In Prince Edward Island it might be eight full sections. You’re right, senator.
I go back to Carl Phillis’s letter. He was very passionate about how he was mistreated and that this EI system is governed by a commission made up of contributions from employees and employers. Why the government got involved with it was a political decision.
I was told, Mr. Senator from Saskatchewan, about the issue. It requires unanimity to change it. That to me is not fair democracy.
I don’t know if Wayne can add anything.
Mr. Easter: Just to quickly add, senator, I don’t believe that to be the case, that if all four agreed it would necessarily happen. I’ve been involved in this, and my riding was split. I thought it should be changed to one zone. The Charlottetown member thought it should be changed to one zone. The minister was kind of on the fence because he’s in cabinet, so he couldn’t take a decision, and the member for Egmont was opposed, but you have to understand where he comes from.
Under the current scenario, if you go to one zone, you will have lower unemployment and therefore the benefits will drop somewhat. It would be a negative to his constituents, but that doesn’t take the government off the hook. The government itself should be looking at this from a fairness and equity point of view, and if the levels of return fall, that’s a different policy question and should be handled by the government itself.
I understand where the member from Egmont comes from. We shouldn’t have gotten into this situation. We’re in it, and he, in working for his constituents, would be seen to compromise his constituents. So the government as a whole needs to make the decision.
Senator Marwah: Thank you again to our witnesses and a special welcome to Senator Griffin. Senator Griffin and I started in the Senate on the same day, so hello, Diane.
You have two regimes. One is more generous than the other. So what’s your expectation that it goes to the more generous one? Does it end up in the middle or does it go to the less generous one? And what are the consequences of that decision? What’s the economic cost of that change? Will it be plus or minus and what amount are we talking about? I see we have the Director of the Employment Insurance Directorate next. Maybe that’s a better question answered by him, but I’d like your thoughts on this.
Ms. Griffin: I can lead off, although my two panellists with me are probably more experienced in the actual cases. But this is a case of, yes, the Government of Prince Edward Island, in their anti-poverty strategy, would like everyone to be able to have the benefit of the better situation. It is not a guaranteed annual income, but it does serve a lot of the same social purpose. So they would like it to be as beneficial as possible to all Islanders.
Mr. Easter: I think a short answer to your question, senator, is the numbers on employment insurance fluctuate all the time based on the unemployment rate within the various zones, so costs and benefits will change as a result of that. So it’s really hard to specifically answer your question unless you’re saying, “Okay, there is this much unemployment. What would the draw be and how many weeks would they go?”
There is a chart. If you went to the Employment Insurance Act, there is a chart — I forget the appendix on the back of that — that will say this is the rate and here are the weeks you can draw, et cetera. So you’d have to turn to that.
But again, I come back to the fact that this is about fairness and equity. When you’re talking about a population of 166,000, a workforce of about 87,000, why would you ever have two zones?
Senator Marwah: Mr. Easter, yes, I agree it is a matter of fairness and equity, but would you be satisfied if everybody went to the lower level?
Mr. Easter: It would be much better if everybody went to the higher level, but that’s a policy decision that has to be made. Really, the Employment Insurance Act has to be adequate in its returns to those who are working in seasonal industries and waiting for the job to come back again. That’s a critical question.
Senator Klyne: I want to follow up on Senator Marwah’s question here. It would seem to me that if no one is to be negatively impacted, you would bring everyone up to the higher level. Has anyone put the numbers on the table to see what are we talking about in terms of magnitude of cost, and is the economy, when I see projecting jobs going up, able to withstand that?
Mr. Easter: You’d have to go to the act, senator. People pay in through premiums, and you’d have to go to the act to see whether that would balance out. There are times that the fund is in deficit and there are times when it has been in surplus, and it goes with the Consolidated Revenue Fund as well.
It might be a good question for the officials. There is no question that under the current scenario, if you go to the higher level, it would cost more money, but do you also get more productivity as a result, and do you get those employees to work in the tourism industry from zone 1?
Senator Klyne: I’m trying to understand the magnitude. Are we dealing with something that will bankrupt the country, or is it a rounding error?
Mr. Easter: It’s hardly even a rounding error.
Senator C. Deacon: Based on your experience at the time, Mr. Easter, there was no suggestion that this was a cost-saving measure to create two zones, that there was any economic justification to create two zones. Is that correct?
Mr. Easter: I don’t actually recall, to be honest, about what was said. The decision was made, and I don’t think there was really any justification given.
Senator Cotter: Briefly, based on this last conversation, if I understand it correctly, if it turns out there is one zone, then the employment rate will be merged as one unemployment rate for that zone, and then the EI rules would be applied to that. The consequence would be that the people in one zone will go up in terms of their benefits, because the adjustment works in their favour, and there would be a modest adjustment down to the level of the one zone for those for whom the current zoning is working perhaps as a bonus right now.
Mr. Easter: Absolutely correct.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I do apologize to my colleagues who might have been in round two or didn’t get a chance to ask a question.
Senator Griffin, Mr. Easter and Mayor Brown, thank you very much for your testimony today. Your assistance as we study this bill is very much appreciated.
Colleagues, for our second panel today we will hear from witnesses from the Employment Insurance Policy Directorate at Employment and Social Development Canada: Mr. George Rae, Director; Caroline Cantin, Manager; and Mona Nandy, Acting Director General. From Canada Employment Insurance Commission, we will hear from Mr. Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers, and from the P.E.I. Federation of Labour, Mr. Carl Pursey, President. From the Charlottetown Chamber of Commerce, we have Mr. Bill DeBlois, President, and Robert Godfrey, Chief Executive Officer.
Thank you, witnesses, for joining us today. We will hear opening remarks from Mr. Rae, followed by Mr. Laliberté, Mr. Pursey and Mr. DeBlois. You each have five minutes for your opening remarks. The floor is yours, Mr. Rae.
George Rae, Director, Employment Insurance Policy Directorate, Employment and Social Development Canada:
Good morning, senators. I am an Acting Executive Director of the Employment Insurance Policy Directorate at the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada. Joining me from the Employment Insurance Policy Directorate are Mona Nandy, Acting Director General, and Caroline Cantin, Manager.
I would like to acknowledge that we are joining you from Ottawa, the unceded Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.
We are here today to speak with you about Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations. This bill proposes amendments to this act and to the regulations that would return the province of Prince Edward Island to a single EI economic region.
The EI program currently divides the country into 62 EI economic regions, with boundaries based on geographical units established or used by Statistics Canada. As of 2014, Prince Edward Island has been divided into two economic regions: one that includes the capital of Charlottetown and the other which includes the rest of Prince Edward Island, which is not included in Charlottetown.
The monthly unemployment rate specific to each EI economic region is used to determine how many insurable hours that eligible workers need to qualify for EI regular benefits. The unemployment rate also affects the duration of EI regular benefit entitlement and the calculation of the weekly benefit rate.
The purpose of the EI economic regions is to ensure that people living in areas with similar labour market conditions are treated the same in terms of benefit eligibility, length and rate.
The EI economic regions are a fundamental component of the EI program, enabling it to adjust to changes in economic conditions that affect local labour markets.
The Employment Insurance Commission reviews the boundaries for EI economic regions at least once every five years. The purpose of these reviews is to determine whether it is appropriate to make changes to those boundaries to represent homogeneity within an EI region.
The EI regional boundary review is a multi-step process that requires extensive analysis of labour market and geographic data. Once the boundary review is completed, the EI Commission may make recommendations to make changes to the boundaries or maintain the status quo. In 2021, the commission opted to conclude the 2018 boundary review.
Changes to the EI economic region boundaries are usually implemented through regulatory amendments and would require approval of the Governor-in-Council.
In 2012, a review of territorial unemployment rates identified differences in labour market realities between the capital and non-capital areas in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and, subsequently, Prince Edward Island.
Consequentially, effective October 12, 2014, Prince Edward Island and the territories were each split into capital and non-capital regions, bringing the total of EI economic regions in Canada to 62, up from 58.
When the change to the regions in Prince Edward Island was made in 2014, the difference in the unemployment rate between the new Charlottetown economic region, 8.0%, and the new economic region of Prince Edward Island, 11.7%, was 3.7 percentage points. By comparison, the rate for the old aggregate EI region in the month preceding the change was 9.8%, which, of course, was applied to all EI claimants in Prince Edward Island at that time.
As a result, in 2014 an EI claimant in the new region of Prince Edward Island was entitled to more weeks of benefits than a claimant in the new Charlottetown region due to the higher unemployment rate.
Currently, rates in effect as of June 12, the Charlottetown region has an unemployment rate of 7.3% while the Prince Edward Island economic region has an unemployment rate of 8.7%, with a total difference of 1.4 percentage points.
As I indicated, the most recent boundary review commenced in the fall of 2018 and concluded last June. The government is considering the findings of the review to determine whether changes are required.
Along with continuing to work with the EI Commissioner for Workers and the EI Commissioner for Employers on this important issue, the EI program will continue to monitor and analyze labour market trends as they arise throughout the country and initiate the next boundary review in 2023.
This analysis will be used to inform any future changes to the EI economic regions to ensure that the EI program remains responsive to the current and future needs of workers and employers.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Laliberté.
Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers, Canada Employment Insurance Commission: Thank you for the invitation to speak about Bill S-236. With this issue, you’re hitting a bit of frustrating item for me, as commissioner. I’ve been commissioner since 2016, and it’s been extremely difficult to bring about any changes or adjustments to the EI regions.
As was said by the previous speaker, Mr. Rae, a review must be done every five years; however, there’s no obligation that the government proceeds on that. Since 2000, we haven’t had any adjustments, save those that were made in 2014.
By overly politicizing this, we are, in essence, preventing the program from adjusting as it should normally do. As was said, benefits and benefit duration are established based on local unemployment rates.
That being said, I have to veer off from what was said by Mr. Rae, because in explaining how the process works, he seems to have implied that the review is what led to the changes in 2014. That was not true. There was no such review performed at the time, and the changes were made by the sitting government at the time. So basically, the commission and commissioners, in this case, were faced with a decision that they had no input into making.
Again, my plea would be that this be corrected and that the commission be provided with the authority it should have to make those adjustments.
One thing that I would like to draw your attention to is that there are 62 regions. By creating a bunch of new small regions back in 2014, we created an anomaly. Typically, the EI regions comprise at least 100,000 workers in number. Those two regions were about half of that. Had we proceeded according to the usual process of trying to find a balance between having a homogenous region and having one large enough to do proper sampling by Statistics Canada to have sound unemployment figures from month to month, it is likely that this would not have been done.
The most extreme example is Iqaluit with 5,000 people. If we had applied the Iqaluit principle to all census divisions in Canada, we would have close to 350 regions.
So there has to be a bit of a balance in this process. It’s never perfect balance; you always find people who will rightly question the basis upon which the decision was made, but this is what we have to work from. We use census division data, and we try to collate it in a way that seems to make sense.
In the case of P.E.I., as I said, I don’t think that if we had used the usual numbers, that would have been happening. I will leave at that, and I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Pursey, you are next.
Carl Pursey, President, P.E.I. Federation of Labour: I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this very important issue.
This zone issue all began when Harper’s former Conservative MP Gail Shea announced the two zones in 2014. That move benefited the EI claimants in her riding of Egmont, as that was the only riding that was untouched by the zone issue. The other three ridings were all affected.
This can be corrected overnight, just as it has been done in one area of Alberta already. They used some of our information, and the current Prime Minister changed the zoning issue.
This has been a regular election issue here in P.E.I. that affects the other three ridings, especially Charlottetown. Many Islanders and politicians at all levels, along with the P.E.I. Federation of Labour, have presented to governments since 2014 to have this change reversed. The provincial Conservative government has written to Minister Qualtrough to “consider amendments to the employment insurance regulations to return Prince Edward Island back to one economic region.”
Workers I have talked to who live in the rural zone and work next to workers from the other zone say this is not fair. All people who work at the same workplace should be treated fairly, and all Islanders should benefit equally, regardless of where they live.
Some workers have told me that when they go to an interview looking for work, they are asked which zone they live in. If they live in the wrong zone, they will not get work due to the fact that they require more weeks to qualify for EI than someone living in the rural zone. They know they will be going to look for work somewhere else so they can get enough weeks for unemployment.
P.E.I. is such a small area, with workers travelling back and forth for work, that it makes no sense having two economic regions.
I live in one zone and drive through a rural zone to get into Charlottetown, which is another zone. That makes no sense. You can see on the map this long jut out of the Charlottetown zone. Workers on P.E.I. travel in all directions, in and out of zones to find work, and basing EI on where you live is unfair. If you have a rural address, you get to draw EI for more weeks, receive more money and have to work fewer hours to qualify. That is unfair.
Most people who work in seasonal industries work for minimum wage or barely above it. Those workers are affected because they do not have enough Employment Insurance to get them through until the next season’s work because of the zone they live in.
P.E.I. depends upon the seasonal employment industry, with workers in tourism, agriculture, forestry and fishing who cannot find work during the winter months since those industries do not operate because of snow and ice conditions.
The worker shortage we currently have will not exist in the winter, as there is no work for these workers, so we should not be penalizing them with cuts to the EI system. At present, all workers are working in those industries.
When returning to one zone, we would like to see Ottawa apply the most favourable conditions from P.E.I.’s two current economic zones to the entire province. The temporary measures put in because of COVID have made up for some shortfalls in the EI system. They must be extended until the EI system is permanently fixed.
This issue has been studied long enough; it must be fixed immediately.
Thank you. If you have any questions, I will take them.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. DeBlois, please go ahead.
Bill DeBlois, President, Charlottetown Chamber of Commerce: Good morning. I am the president of the Charlottetown Chamber of Commerce and the proud owner and operator of Buns and Things Bakery, a small business in Charlottetown. On behalf of the chamber and the board of directors, I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for the invitation to speak with you today about the EI system and Bill S-236 to discuss this important topic.
The Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce is the largest chamber in Prince Edward Island. We represent over 1,100 small businesses and approximately 20,000 employees. Since 1887, we have continued to be the voice of business in the greater Charlottetown area.
The chamber supports the Employment Insurance program. It is important to have safety nets for employees who have been laid off or find themselves out of work. We view the program as necessary in providing temporary income support for those temporarily out of work. The chamber understandings the complexities of the federal Employment Insurance program, the role it plays in Prince Edward Island’s economy and how it integrates with our seasonal industries.
We are supportive of the proposed amendment. Many of our members have expressed concern over the two different zones and the lack of parity between them. There are disparities between the two zones, with those in the Charlottetown area receiving lower EI benefits than those in the rural areas of the province. If I am employer in Charlottetown, I don’t want to have to compete against what an employee might see as favourable EI conditions in rural P.E.I., not to mention that these zones are based on where you live and not where you work.
We support the idea of one zone because it ensures a level playing field for both employers and employees when it comes to Employment Insurance. Our concerns lie with today’s labour climate. We’re facing a workforce shortage that is nearly unprecedented. We were experiencing job vacancies and challenges in sourcing labour prior to the pandemic, and the problem has only grown since. As of the end of March this year, we had 9,520 Islanders collecting EI benefits. Statistics Canada’s latest report on job vacancies, unadjusted for seasonality, states P.E.I. had a job vacancy rate of 5.6% in March of this year.
There is a gap between some — not all, but some — who are collecting benefits from the job vacancies that exist for them to pursue. We encourage the committee to recommend a full-scale government review of the EI program. We need to focus on how we help get people back to work.
In March, our chamber conducted four focus groups related to the workforce in order to understand what can be accomplished to strengthen it. The focus groups were member businesses representing a variety of industries. These groups, as well as their members, anecdotally, have repeatedly stated that retention is a giant issue across all industries, presently. Our members say it’s difficult to find people to fill job roles or stay long-term in such roles. Some pointed to the current EI program as something that needs to change to ensure people remain on the job.
Our members have also indicated concerns with the outcomes of the 2017 announcement to include post-secondary students in the Career Connect program, which allows them to access EI benefits while attending post-secondary school. The chamber has heard from members that, because of this change, it’s harder to find students to fill part-time jobs. Our members see an overall review of the Employment Insurance program as a way to ensure the program remains as a safety net.
Some actions that could result from such a review could be increasing the number of weeks required for EI support for employee retention and ensuring more people are staying in the workforce. The review should also implement permanent solutions to seasonal challenges.
Senators, the Greater Charlottetown Area Chamber of Commerce thanks you for your time and respectfully asks that you support the passage of Bill S-236, as well as implement a review of the current Employment Insurance program. We are facing a workforce challenge that needs to be addressed, and a review of the program is one of the many ways we can help alleviate the problem and strengthen our social safety net for employees who sometimes need temporary relief in times of need. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to discuss this topic.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witness. We will now proceed to questions. Four minutes per senator. If we have time, we will go to a second round.
Senator Simons: My first question is for Mr. Rae. As I understood your presentation, you’re saying that there was a greater difference in the employment rates of the, if I can call them, urban and rural, for the sake of argument. You said the difference was much larger in 2014 than it is now. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Rae: Thank you, senator. Yes. The rates now between the Charlottetown economic region and P.E.I. are 7.3% in Charlottetown and 8.7% in the P.E.I. economic region.
In terms of the rates following the change in October of 2014, they were 8% in Charlottetown and 11.7% in the new P.E.I. economic region. There was a 3.7 percentage-point difference. The aggregate unemployment rate for Prince Edward Island was 9.8% in 2014.
Senator Simons: My point is, though, if there were ever a justification in 2014, that justification appears to have if not entirely evaporated then certainly greatly, greatly diminished.
Mr. Rae: At a point in time, yes, the rates have most recently converged. At the time in 2014, they were greater.
Senator Simons: Typically, when you see a difference that small, is that usually enough to justify two zones?
Mr. Rae: It’s a hard question to answer as we’re really looking at common labour market conditions as well as unemployment rates. Generally speaking, a difference of a percentage point, if it’s within the rates in the variable entitlement table — generally speaking, a difference of 1% will result in a differential treatment of benefits.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
Mr. Laliberté, before I run out of time, you made reference to the fact that you didn’t think changes like this should be politicized. This is a political process. On the other hand, it sounds like you’re saying that in 2014 it was also a political process. Do you think there is a danger that we are adding more politicization if we act on this amendment or on this bill? Or are we actually righting the balance?
Mr. Laliberté: This is an interesting question. In a sense, you’re righting a wrong. The initial decision was definitely political. We have been struggling, as I said, at the commission to keep it more administrative-like. We’ve done, with the department, a process using objective criteria to establish what the zones should be like.
Indeed, I’m a little hard-pressed to reply. In a sense, you’re piggybacking on a process that has already been politicized. I will let you be the judge of whether that’s appropriate or not. Certainly, this is not something that the commission has approved as a process; I can tell you this much.
Senator Simons: Two wrongs make a right? Or do we want to try to make this process as apolitical and technocratic as possible, which may be the ideal?
Mr. Laliberté: Well, this was a little bit of the gist of what I was trying to say earlier. It would be nice if you just let the commission do its work and proceed. This should not be politicized. It is always contentious, right? The people who lose out in this process will always be louder than the people who win. By bringing it back to, let’s say, the Parliament, you’re necessarily going to have this back and forth. It would definitely be better if — We have a commission. Just let it work. Right? Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses. So far, we have heard all negative feedback to the committee. I would like to ask this question. In 2014, there was a political process to do the amendment. Today, what happens if we have to reverse back to 2014, before that? The current situation I’ve heard about this morning doesn’t improve the economic growth, and it has created a lot of unemployment for different zones. If we were to reverse back to 2014, what happens then?
The Chair: Where are you directing that?
Senator Oh: To EI first, Mr. Rae.
Mr. Rae: I’ll try to answer that. Thank you, senator, for the question. The process for changing the Employment Insurance economic regions is a regulatory process, which is given to the commission to make the regulations and for the Governor-in-Council to approve the regulations. That is in subsection 54(w) of the Employment Insurance Act. That is how the process unfolds in normal circumstances, if I can characterize it as normal.
The commission makes the regulations, and they’re approved by the Governor-in-Council through an enabling authority under the EI Act.
The Chair: Any comments from the other witnesses?
Mr. Laliberté: If I may say, I wasn’t sure whether your question was about the impact or the process. But if it is on the impact, I think something has been said about that earlier that there would be some loss in one of the regions and some gains in the other regions. That would be the impact, and there wouldn’t be that dividing factor that we heard about for the past hour.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, witnesses. Mr. Rae, you gave us a description of how the zones are created using Statistics Canada census data to identify economic zones, the objective being to ensure equity and fairness in terms of the eligibility of the length and rate of claims that could be made within regions. Did I reflect that fairly?
Mr. Rae: Yes, senator. I will just be clear about one point, though. The Employment Insurance Act, the subsection that I referenced, subsection 54(w), requires the use of Statistics Canada geographic units for the establishment of Employment Insurance boundaries. It is not up to Employment and Social Development to create EI boundaries or draw lines. This is simply by virtue of the fact we have to rely on the Labour Force Survey to determine the regional unemployment rate and Statistics Canada’s surveys in those geographic units. So it’s a requirement of the law to use the geographic units in the establishment of the EI boundaries that are established by Statistics Canada.
Senator C. Deacon: To ensure equity and fairness in terms of eligibility, length and rate within regions. Is that correct?
Mr. Rae: The ultimate goal is to ensure that workers in similarly comparable labour market conditions are treated the same with respect to access to the EI program in terms of their entitlement to benefits and their benefit rate calculation. Yes, that’s correct.
Senator C. Deacon: Do you agree with Mr. Laliberté who said that typically there are 100,000 workers per zone in the country?
Mr. Rae: There are 62 EI economic regions, and I’m trying to think of the size of the labour force in each of them. Obviously, the territories have a smaller labour force than most others.
The EI economic region of Prince Edward Island would have the census agglomeration of Charlottetown, which forms the EI economic region of Charlottetown. This region has a population of less than 100,000. So I’m not sure there is a hard and fast rule with respect to the 100,000. But I can tell you there are other EI economic regions with populations of less than 100,000.
Senator C. Deacon: I understand you might have been involved in the early stages of this when this came into play back in 2014. Is that correct?
Mr. Rae: I’m not sure I understand the question, senator. I’m familiar with the changes —
Senator C. Deacon: You were familiar and active in them at the time, so you have background on what occurred. I’m wondering, do you feel that the objective of having eligibility length and rate fairness has been achieved through the two zones and the way they have been designed? I have done a drive many times on Highway 224 where I would change zones three or four times — where it started and ended. Do you think fairness has been achieved?
Mr. Rae: Senator, I don’t know how to respond to that question in respect of fairness. What I can say is that the Employment Insurance economic regions strive to create similar conditions for similarly situated workers in labour markets that are the same.
I’m not going to comment as to whether or not the changes in 2014 were fair or not fair.
Senator Klyne: I think this question will probably be for somebody with ESDC.
It’s clear to me that P.E.I. is one island, one community, with a commuting labour force whose activities are normally associated with one island and one community; hence, the island should be the standard geographic unit for analysis of regional activity.
We shouldn’t be creating this just for the convenience of simplicity for Statistics Canada to collect their data. It’s a large community in a small land mass, and they should be able to fulfill the collection of statistics on that island. There are three census divisions in there. I don’t know why they have to create two economic regions here or look at this as two economic regions.
Clearly, with that commuting labour force there are no boundaries to them. I don’t know why they need to be created by Statistics Canada for the convenience of collecting data. It appears to me we probably should have had Statistics Canada here addressing this. Tell me your view on that, somebody from ESDC. I think this is wrong.
Mr. Rae: I will try to respond to that, senator. As I mentioned earlier, Statistics Canada establishes the units that we use and by law we’re required to use them. I will leave it there. That’s the requirement under the act.
Senator Klyne: My only comment to that is that sometimes laws, regulations and policies become antiquated or they’re not right for the situation. So somebody needs to make, not a deviation from any of those but, a recommendation to make a consideration that is fair and equitable. Thank you.
The Chair: Did you direct that at someone, Senator Klyne? There was no question. That was a comment, right?
Senator Klyne: Yes.
The Chair: Before we move on to round 2, I have a question and it is again for Mr. Rae. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, HUMA, then chaired by Member of Parliament for Charlottetown Sean Casey, recommended on June 17, 2021, that ESDC “ . . . reinstate a single Employment Insurance Economic Region for Prince Edward Island within 12 months.”
It’s now one day short of one year later. Why has this change not occurred? Why are further consultations necessary if the House of Commons itself is recommending this change? Mr. Rae?
Mr. Rae: Senator, I’m aware of the recommendation of the House of Commons committee in this respect. What I can say is only to confirm what you had indicated, that regulations have not been made to establish a single region in Prince Edward Island.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I want to come back to something Mr. Laliberté said. You suggested to us that we should leave you to your job, to do the review which is due in 2023. But you also told us that previous reviews, although mandated, either didn’t happen or didn’t have any force and effect.
I very much appreciate your point. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a Senate bill micromanaging EI zones in one province. I don’t know that that’s an appropriate thing for the Senate to be doing. On the other hand, when you tell us to leave it with you and you will take care of it in 2023, do you yourself have confidence that if that review happens, it will happen in a timely fashion and be acted upon in a timely fashion?
Mr. Laliberté: Thank you for the question, senator. I have no such confidence. That’s the simple answer. Again, you take it for what it’s worth, but we have absolutely no control over the recommendations that we make out of review.
The review was done last year at the same time the HUMA committee made its own recommendations, and nothing has happened from it. There are always good reasons for things not happening, as you will know. However, this is part of a process that takes us now to 22 years since we’ve had meaningful adjustments. I think it’s appropriate to wonder about whether the law and the process work as they’re supposed to work. In my eyes, it doesn’t work. It’s sad to say, but that’s just the way it is. I’ll stop there.
Senator Simons: Mr. DeBlois suggested, rather ambitiously — because this is a small bill that deals with a very particular problem — that we need to recommend in our committee a much larger look at EI, which is not really the purpose of the Agriculture Committee. It sounds to me like what you’re saying is that there may be adjustments that need to be made all across the country — if not precisely like this, akin to this — that are not happening.
Given your role, what do you think the government should be doing to ensure that EI payments are fair and equitable across the country? By “equitable,” I don’t mean equal; I mean equitable in terms of the human needs of very diverse parts of the country.
Mr. Laliberté: Thank you for the question. I wish we could act with more diligence on these things. I think the department has worked hard so that we could do this review process within a proper timeline, and then we get stalled. It’s as simple as that.
I can understand the frustration. I would be the last one to say not to proceed with this, because you might be caught waiting for Godot for some time.
I don’t take any pleasure in saying this, but for me it’s just a statement of fact. That’s the way it’s been, and that’s the way it’s likely to remain, unless there are amendments to the EI Act that actually tighten the obligation not only to do a review, which the law says right now, but also to proceed on that. Right now, it depends on a million different things. People have good reasons and good intentions, but then things get stalled.
Senator Simons: Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for name checking one of my favourite plays. I like to watch it. I don’t like to live it.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you again, witnesses.
Mr. Rae, I’m looking at the map of census zones on Prince Edward Island and I can’t see in any way that they correspond with the map of the Charlottetown zone or the Prince Edward Island zone in terms of the EI zones.
Afterward, could you provide us with and forward to the clerk the work that was done? Perhaps you have access to it or you can find the work that was done to justify how the map was created back in 2014 and how the census zones map onto the EI zone map, as is required, as you’ve said. If you could do that for us, I would be grateful.
The challenge I have is that this country has a huge regulatory burden. It’s hard on business and it’s hard on Canadians, especially vulnerable Canadians. They have as many hoops to jump through as businesses do.
Does it concern you, the way this is set up, that it is actually making the labour shortage issue on Prince Edward Island more complicated? Is that one of the things you consider in your decision making and responsibilities?
Mr. Rae: I will try to respond to that, senator. I can’t speak specifically to the labour shortage question and whether the zones in Prince Edward Island are exacerbating labour shortages there. I am not going to comment on that.
Our role is to support the commission’s review of the Employment Insurance boundaries, to look at the labour market conditions, both the unemployment rates and other indicators with respect to those regions, to determine which configurations and which regions may reflect local labour market realities. That’s the role we play.
Senator C. Deacon: If I understand correctly, they’re basically a customer for you. You look to them for their advice and direction and help to implement that. Did I interpret that correctly?
Mr. Rae: We support the commission in its requirement to initiate a boundary review every five years.
Senator C. Deacon: But what does that support involve? Perhaps you could be more specific.
Mr. Rae: It’s looking at the geographic subunits within the current EI boundaries, determining if the unemployment rate and other labour market indicators reflect the overall conditions of the region to determine if there may be some divergences and to determine whether the commission may recommend changes to those regions.
Senator C. Deacon: That sounds like double-checking the work. Whose responsibility is it? It doesn’t seem to be a clear process and people get caught in the middle of this.
Mr. Rae: Senator, as I indicated, the ultimate responsibility to make changes to the EI economic regions is expressed in the regulatory-making authority in section 54 of the EI Act. The commission makes the regulations and they’re approved by the Governor-in-Council.
Senator C. Deacon: I would take from that that you have pursued recommendations that the commission has made to get those approved by the Governor-in-Council. Is that correct?
Mr. Rae: Again, senator, we conduct analysis on the EI regions. It’s up to the commission and the Governor-in-Council to make changes to the EI boundaries.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, chair. I am no less confused, but I’ll leave it there.
The Chair: I have one further question, and again this is to Mr. Rae.
Assuming Bill S-236 receives Royal Assent, do you have any view on when the bill should come into force to ensure regulatory alignment with the EI program? How quickly can the department implement the change? Does the coming-into-force provision of the act need to be amended?
Mr. Rae: Thank you for the question, senator. I’m not going to opine at this time on whether amendments to the bill are necessary or desirable.
The Chair: Colleagues, those are all the questions we have on our list through two rounds.
Senator Simons: If you’re going to serve a softball like that to me, I’m going to try to hit it.
I have a question for Mr. DeBlois. I’ve only had the privilege and opportunity to visit P.E.I. once. I was there at the beginning of the tourism season in mid-May, and it was obvious to me how many people were working so enthusiastically to serve that tourist economy. But presumably for a business like yours, you must have a spike in business during the summer when people come in but then you need to take care of your customers all year round.
To your mind, what EI change would be necessary to deal with the chronic labour shortage and with the particular labour shortage you and so many people are seeing post COVID? We’re seeing labour shortages everywhere from Pearson International Airport to right across the labour market. What change would you like to see to deal with some of the labour market problems you’re talking about in your community?
Mr. DeBlois: Thank you for the question. It’s a good one. I’m trying to think where I would go with it.
I’m very fortunate that my particular business is a 12-month-a-year business. From my personal perspective, we do get busier in the summer, but we are also pretty steady all year.
Some customers of mine through our wholesale business are seasonal. Challenges like correcting this bill would certainly help them. As it has been described with the map, a lot of a major tourist area up on the north shore of Prince Edward Island got tied in with the Charlottetown area. That has certainly caused some challenges for some of the larger seasonal companies, particularly in hospitality and tourism where they have upwards of a hundred employees for a particular restaurant and are trying to recruit people. That is a massive challenge, especially this year.
This would be a great place to start. There is no question about that. Trying to make things a little bit more level and even for people in all regions on the island is, I think, a good place to start.
I touched on a couple of other things in my statement about some changes that we went through in regard to university students, which changed the workforce for more 12-month-a-year businesses such as mine. But that could certainly be a broader conversation for another day, I suppose.
The Chair: With that, colleagues, we have no more questions from our senators.
Mr. Rae, Ms. Cantin, Ms. Nandy, Mr. Laliberté, Mr. Pursey, Mr. DeBlois and Mr. Godfrey, I would like to thank you very much for your participation. I would also like to thank the previous panel. Your assistance with this bill is very much appreciated.
I want to acknowledge that we do have the sponsor of the bill online with us. Senator Duncan has been on for much of the discussion, just so everyone is aware.
I also want to thank the committee members for your active participation and thoughtful questions as well as our team behind the scenes — the interpretation and logistics teams here in the room and outside — for ensuring that our meetings run absolutely smoothly. Thanks to all involved.
Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 23 — next week — during our usual time slot. As you well know, it being June, there may be business conducted under government business, and we may stand to risk losing that time slot. Your steering committee will confirm the agenda for next week once we’ve had the opportunity to deliberate. However, it is expected — unless you have some conversation otherwise — that we may be ready to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
Committee members who intend to propose amendments are encouraged to consult the Office of the Senate Law Clerk to ensure any amendments are drafted in the proper format and in both official languages. That is just a big help. The Office of the Law Clerk provides confidential advice and legislative drafting services to all senators. Those consultations should begin sooner rather than later to allow sufficient time for your amendments to be drafted.
It is also helpful to send your amendments in advance to the clerk of the committee. This allows the clerk to organize and distribute copies for the meeting ahead of time.
Please note that your amendment will be treated in an absolutely confidential manner and will not be distributed prior to the meeting unless you wish it done.
After clause-by-clause consideration, the committee may wish to append observations to the report. It is recommended that members provide a prepared text of any draft observations. This text should be short and must be in both official languages. The clerk can assist you with that.
With that, I would like to suspend and have a very short in camera session.
(The committee continued in camera.)