THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 29, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] 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: Good evening, everyone. It’s good to see your faces. I’d like to begin by welcoming you to this committee, as well as our witnesses and those who are joining us on the World Wide Web. My name is Rob Black, senator from Ontario, and I chair this committee. I’d like to start by asking the senators to introduce themselves around the table, starting with our deputy chair.
Senator Simons: Hello. I’m Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Duncan: Good evening. Senator Pat Duncan from Yukon.
Senator Oh: Senator Victor Oh from Ontario.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Today the committee is meeting on Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).
We have one witness today, from the Mackillop Centre for Social Justice, Mary Boyd, Coordinator, and she’s joining us by video conference.
Ms. Boyd, welcome to our Senate committee meeting. You have five minutes for your opening remarks. When I signal by holding up this hand, that will mean one minute is left. Please keep that in mind. When I raise both hands, it’s about time to stop.
With that, Ms. Boyd, please carry on.
Mary Boyd, Coordinator, Mackillop Centre for Social Justice: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my short presentation, I intend to address the problem of the division of Prince Edward Island into two EI zones. It never should have happened. The zone boundaries have been gerrymandered to achieve certain political goals to the detriment of people in the Charlottetown Employment Insurance economic region, which extends well beyond the Greater Charlottetown area to the North Shore of P.E.I.
The largest P.E.I. industries — agriculture, fishing and tourism — depend on seasonal workers. Many of the workers live in Charlottetown and commute to their jobs in various parts of the province. They work side by side with others who qualify with fewer hours and are eligible for longer periods of benefits. This was not a problem when P.E.I. was one zone. The EI boundaries have been carved in such a way that people living on different sides of the road work under different EI rules. This leads to tremendous inequality in the workplace where workers doing the same work are subject to different rules and benefits.
It is important to note that Charlottetown has the highest rate of poverty in the province and many workers have a very difficult time trying to find enough hours to qualify for EI. Some find themselves searching for extra weeks of work to meet the required hours because their seasonal job doesn’t last long enough.
Many are in crisis and turn to short-term solutions like food banks. Demand on the Charlottetown food bank increased to 50% more in August 2020 compared to August 2021. It is as a result of low wages and the highest inflation rate in Canada.
Housing, food and energy are costly. Rental costs are beyond affordability for many. Some of the homeless work but can’t afford rent. In addition, there is a great deal of part-time work paid at the minimum wage with some hours so limited that people have trouble qualifying for benefits. The CERB helped some, but many who received it now have to pay it back. EI takes 50% of the EI payments, and social assistance recipients also have to pay back part of it. There should be a CERB amnesty because many people thought the CERB was given to people to help them through the COVID pandemic. Now they are faced with severe penalties.
Although many people have long waits for their EI, they find that the government doesn’t wait any length of time, putting a lot of pressure on these workers to pay their CERB penalties.
Unemployment is still a big problem. The concept of full employment needs to be rethought because the current 5.4% unemployment rate is not acceptable. Furthermore, the numbers of unemployed can usually be doubled because of discouraged people who no longer look for work.
The majority of those in poverty in Charlottetown are immigrants from various backgrounds and cultures. They outnumber the traditional Island poverty population by a significant number — 22.9% to 12.1% for ages 18 to 64. Some immigrants complain that they are exploited by employers, especially recently arrived immigrants who are eager to work. Women are also hard hit.
There are many irregularities in delivery of EI. Some people in the new rural zone are given only 20 weeks of EI benefits. Going back to one EI zone for P.E.I. is of prime importance. This change will help the high numbers of working poor in this zone, many who fell into poverty once the 700 hours to qualify were imposed.
We ask the Senate to pass Bill S-236, as this is a fair way to help the working poor, the homeless, those in need of food banks, the discouraged, Indigenous, immigrants and women. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Boyd. That’s great.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Before asking and answering questions, I’d like to ask members in the room and our witness to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or removing your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact our colleagues and committee staff within the room.
As has been our previous practice, I’d like to remind each senator that you have five minutes to ask and to get your questions answered. We will move to subsequent rounds if needed.
With that, I’ll start with our deputy chair.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Ms. Boyd. I want to thank you for persevering, for coming back this week and for sneaking out to Staples to get the right headset. I appreciate your tenacity in coming back to speak to us. I really appreciate your testimony, too, because it casts a very different light on some of the recent evidence we’ve heard. This is where I am confused.
We met a couple of weeks ago with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who told us that going back to one zone would basically siphon $75 or $76 million out of the pockets of the poorest people in Prince Edward Island over the course of five years. As an Albertan who only made one visit to P.E.I. on a vacation, I want to try to understand why we are being told such conflicting things about the potential consequences of consolidating into one region.
You’ve spoken eloquently and passionately about the working poor of Charlottetown. Is there any concern on your part that if there were to be one zone for P.E.I., it could have a negative impact on the people living outside of Charlottetown, who would lose their preferential benefits?
Ms. Boyd: Thank you, senator. I thought I heard somebody say that it’s possible to return to one zone without penalizing anybody and that before P.E.I. was divided into two zones, everybody received the same and it worked very well. The changes came overnight, much to the great surprise of everybody.
So it can’t be that difficult to go back to what was there before. Certainly, none of us who are concerned about this and about the poverty around Charlottetown would ever want to see penalties imposed on the people outside the Charlottetown zone.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the western part of the province. I spent a lot of time with the women in support of fishing who harvest Irish moss and know the lives and the concerns of the fishers and have many good friends there. They’re not the ones who divided P.E.I., nor are the people in Charlottetown. This was a political act with the aim of gaining more political advantage and therefore it should be corrected and could be corrected if, in fact, we simply went back to where it was.
Furthermore, I think that many of us have been calling for reform of the EI system and we want a uniform system across Canada. We do want an increase in EI payments to 70% of income because 55% is not livable. Even a lot of EI is not livable because of wages. If we were to go to where it was before and if we were to have a uniform system, nobody would lose, nobody would be driven into poverty, nobody would be deprived, and that’s the way it should be.
I don’t see a problem there because, as it is now, over the years, an equal amount of money, or approximately an equal amount of money, has been taken out of the pockets of people in the Charlottetown zone. So let’s level out the playing field in a way that nobody loses. I really thought that I heard a comment that this was possible.
Senator Simons: I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer, couldn’t we just move everybody up. What did he say? The government can declare that Wednesdays or Thursdays, something like that.
Senator Oh: My question for Ms. Boyd is this: Do you think that the enactment of Bill S-236 as it stands would solve the issue of Charlottetown residents receiving lower benefit than their fellow Islanders?
Ms. Boyd: I don’t know if I can answer that right away because I’m trying to think of the actual wording of that amendment. If somebody has the actual wording. But what I would say in answer to that is we do have to have a standardized system of Employment Insurance. I do think that we can change the situation of two zones into one without penalizing anybody on P.E.I. If it takes maybe a year or two of doing that, of correcting the wrong, to work out the other problems and money and everything —. This is a very special case, just as I believe there are special cases in Northern Canada with the same kind of problem. It’s not a lot of cases. It’s unique. When you see a very small province like Prince Edward Island divided like this, it’s kind of an abomination. It doesn’t help unity and people are feeling that inequality very deeply.
Senator Oh: Is it possible to revert to the original state when it was, as you said earlier, they have done this because of political reasons?
Ms. Boyd: Yes, I think it is possible to go back. Apparently, there could be some complications and things would have to be sorted out, and that would have to come from a higher authority than right here in P.E.I. It would have to be done at the level of the parliamentary bureau office and in legislation.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for being here and being persistent. Thank you for your presence here.
First, I want to ask you a basic question. I take it that you are in favour of one zone, right?
Ms. Boyd: Yes, I am, definitely, senator.
Senator Jaffer: One thing I’m having difficulty with while studying this bill is will it mean that some will receive less with the one zone and it will become equal, but equal may mean those who are getting more might get less? Is that your understanding or that’s not been resolved yet?
Ms. Boyd: That hasn’t been resolved, and I believe it could be resolved. Some people are saying that people in West Prince will get fewer benefits, that their benefits will be cut. I think they would be working an average of something like 560 hours. So they would lose money. That is just in the straightforward thing of levelling it off. But I don’t think that’s the end of the story, by any means. I think we could go back to one zone by going back to what we were before this was ever enacted in 2014. It just takes some figuring in order to be able to smooth out the inconsistencies and make sure it’s fair and just to everybody.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your answer. You say it will take some fiddling — sorry, I may not be saying the right word — some adjusting.
Ms. Boyd: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: What would you expect the government to do? Would you expect them to make it the same for everybody and no levelling, some get less, some get more? What do you mean by that exactly that it will take some work?
Ms. Boyd: The requirements for qualifying for unemployment insurance. As it stands right now, in the Charlottetown area, many people can’t qualify. When they work side by side and one person can qualify and the other can’t, this is the problem we’re trying to get at.
There’s another problem and I’ve heard it many times from people on social assistance is the fact that it’s very difficult to get further training and to get into training programs. If you can’t qualify for EI, you can’t qualify for training. It’s a Catch-22 situation that needs to be corrected.
So there’s more to it than just the money and just the period of drawing benefits. There’s also lost opportunity for people to be able to get further training and skills.
Senator Jaffer: You’ve given me the impression, and also from your bio and what I have read about you is that you are very knowledgeable about what happens in P.E.I., especially for people who are in the lower income level. I’m going to ask you this question and I hope — the chair might say we will have to go to the second round to finish it.
If this bill passes and P.E.I. goes from two economic zones to one economic zone, what kind of impact would that have on poverty overall in P.E.I.? What impact would it have on your work as an organization in developing a poverty-reduction strategy for P.E.I.?
Ms. Boyd: It depends on how we figure everything out, because if we go back to the fact that the majority of people in poverty are indeed in the Charlottetown area, then it would mean, by passing the bill, that overall poverty in P.E.I. would be reduced. Not only would it be reduced, but more people would have the possibility of working, which is what people want. It’s a basic thing to say that people do want to work and should have an opportunity to work. The only problem related to all of this and related to poverty is that 55% of the low-income is not very much. It’s poverty wages.
People should keep in mind that more employers on P.E.I. tend to pay the minimum wage than in other places. That impacts the well-being of people on EI.
Yes, just at face value, there would be less poverty.
The Chair: I have a question for you, Ms. Boyd. We’re aware that during the pandemic, P.E.I. reverted back to one zone for the pandemic. Do you know why that was, and what have you seen in the way of impacts over the last few years because of that?
Ms. Boyd: I’m dealing with the census and the data that comes out from income tax returns. Right now, we’ll be dealing with 2020, which was just getting into the pandemic.
Yes, it seems that the impact is going to be that there will be fewer people in poverty in both zones in P.E.I. because of that. That’s because of the CERB. But then there’s been all kinds of frustration, because people received the CERB and then they get into all kinds of red tape about getting shifted back to EI. There are problems there.
When the CERB and all of that ended, we were going to see, as I said, a decrease in poverty, an increase in income and then it’s liable to go right back down to what it was before. So there will be a bit of a boom, but it’s not going to last.
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much, Ms. Boyd, for your presentation. As Senator Simons noted, thank you for your tenacity in making sure you were able to appear today. I appreciated reading the information you and others have provided.
I have a couple of questions.
First, there were a number of references by a senator in their discussion about this bill to the working poor. I would like to ask you for your definition of the “working poor” and how it fits in with this discussion of an amendment to revert P.E.I. back to one zone.
Ms. Boyd: My definition of the “working poor” is people whose wages are not at the recognized poverty level for Canada.
The other thing that’s very important about this is how we measure poverty in Canada. We now have an official measure — or a pretty much agreed-upon official measure — with the Market Basket Measure, but we prefer to use, with our poverty work, the low-income measure, or LIM, after tax. It sets the rate of poverty higher than the Market Basket Measure — significantly higher.
As far as the definition, we have many people working full time year-round who are below the poverty line.
I’m sorry; I’d like to hear a bit more about the last part of your question, Senator Duncan.
Senator Duncan: I’d like you to put the definition of the “working poor” in the context of this proposed change to the legislation.
Ms. Boyd: Yes. It seems to me that, in the context of the legislation, going back to one zone, there would be fewer working poor — or maybe people not even taken out of poverty but at least having a relief — a reduced poverty. The depth of poverty is another problem that we have. We play around and we talk about facts and figures, but we sometimes overlook the fact that there is a depth of poverty. In P.E.I., if you are below the poverty line, you are often very far below the poverty line. That means more suffering for everybody.
With the one zone, I go back to the fact that fewer people would be in poverty. Those who still might be in poverty because of the 55% would be in less poverty than they were previously, and they would be able to enjoy a better life.
At the same time, the most important part here is the fact that so many people don’t qualify at all. They’re abandoned, left out and silent. These are people who would be able to get jobs if we went back to the one zone. It’s 700 hours in that Charlottetown zone that’s the most difficult. I’ve been to places where workers have gone, “Can you try to get me one week of work here and two weeks of work here, because I need to get my EI?”
Senator Duncan: Thank you for that fulsome answer. It’s truly appreciated.
Did you see a difference in the equalization of the EI payments during COVID, aside from your comments on CERB? I noted there were also some changes made to the social assistance program. Aside from those programs, if we were to talk only about EI, did you see and are you able to substantiate a difference that was made when zones were equalized?
Ms. Boyd: Yes, I’ve seen statistics that have shown that income was raised and that poverty was reduced. That’s a fact. We’ll be seeing more of that, I think, when we issue the child poverty report card. We know for a fact that is the case — significantly, in a sense — 3 and 4 percentage points — something like that. That is significant.
Senator Duncan: Thank you again for your presentation.
Senator Simons: With this question, I wanted to see if I can understand the difference between employment models in Charlottetown and the rest of the Island. We heard last week from a representative of the fishers who talked about the fact that there are these very specific cycles of when it is lobster season and when it is fishing season; the work is seasonal and cyclical.
In Charlottetown proper, how many people are constrained because they’re working, say, seasonally in the tourism sector and that’s why they can’t get enough hours because they’re working in restaurants or hotels that have a high season and lay people off? Or is it just that people are working year-round at lower-paying jobs?
Ms. Boyd: There is a tendency to pay the minimum wage; some employers do that. But we also have to look at the workforce in terms of the big box stores and that sort of thing in Charlottetown. There’s a lot of that kind of industry.
Senator Simons: Retail and service jobs.
Ms. Boyd: Yes. So this is where people have trouble getting enough hours, because they have no control over the hours they’re given. That’s all controlled by whoever they work for, whether it’s a Superstore or McDonald’s. So that’s a problem.
Of course, for the tourist season, the peak season is in July and August. Certainly, there’s work being done to extend the shoulder seasons on both sides. Some of that is successful, but the really concentrated time is more July and August.
Tourism doesn’t offer a great deal of opportunity to qualify for EI, and yet some people seem to manage, in that work, to be able to qualify. But it’s touch and go, and it’s difficult.
A lot of students and younger people work in tourism, and that makes a difference, too, because they’re more flexible about where they go to find jobs and where they go to get extra hours.
Senator Simons: They might come to be in Anne of Green Gables for the summer and then go back to university at Dalhousie, or wherever.
Ms. Boyd: Yes.
Senator Simons: I imagine you can expand the shoulder season to May and June or September and October. Is there any tourism in the winter? Is there a Christmas tourism season? Or is the winter very, very quiet in those hospitality sectors?
Ms. Boyd: There are a few things, some cross-country skiing and things like that, but it wouldn’t match what happens in the summertime at all.
Senator Simons: Thank you. That is helpful for me to understand the state of play.
Senator Jaffer: You have been so clear in your answers, and I certainly have learned a lot from you, but I have some more questions. You have talked a lot about the minimum wage. I understand — and I may be wrong — that it’s $13.70. Am I correct on that?
Ms. Boyd: Yes, that’s correct.
Senator Jaffer: That’s all across the province because it’s a provincial rate?
Ms. Boyd: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: Okay. For me, with a quick calculation, $13.75 or $14 does not give you even enough to pay your rent. Are P.E.I. rents so low? How do people manage to pay rent and food and everything? That’s the challenge, right? Food banks are used more often.
Ms. Boyd: Yes, and we have the highest rate of inflation in Canada. That’s been true for a while. That’s why food is a problem. Energy, transportation are problems; heating your home is a problem. There are some homeless people who work, but they are still homeless. They are living in some of those camp situations. The average rent, what’s considered an affordable rent for the Charlottetown area, is around $1,400 a month. That’s quite a lot for someone making the minimum wage to have to pay. There have been a lot of fights and tensions lately with landlords. We’ve had a lot of “reno-victions” and things like that in Charlottetown because Airbnb and other short-term rentals and landlords want to renovate just to get into the short-term rental business. People find themselves on the streets or in really bad situations. The cost of housing is very high. It’s out of all proportion to the incomes of many people.
Senator Jaffer: I’m from Vancouver, British Columbia, and I know what you are saying because we have the same situation. I can’t comprehend that someone who works full-time would still have to live in those camp situations and use food banks. There is something very much wrong with what’s happening because, generally, we are a very rich country.
I have another question for you. How can we address the problem of inequity in the current EI system? You said that we have to work something out in P.E.I. without hurting the vulnerable islanders in the process. I asked you this before, and now I’m coming back to ask in another way. We all agree that, as senators, we cannot reset the EI in any province, but we are also mindful not to act in a way that would reduce existing benefits for hard-working citizens.
You have given us an even better picture now because $1,400 rent is a lot for someone who earns minimum wage. How do we address this issue? What do you see as the inequity? You have mentioned that a number of times when you have spoken. What are the inequities?
Ms. Boyd: Well, the inequities are certainly tolerating a high rate of unemployment. That’s definitely a basic inequity. Then the fact that, with low wages, you only receive 55% of the low wage you earn. That’s why we’re asking that the benefit level be raised to at least 70%. I don’t know how people exist on that; I really don’t know. I believe that some people have cut back a lot. If you listen to people who are studying statistics on food and consumer purchasing and things like that, they are noticing a decline in purchasing.
Senator Duncan: My question is more broadly on the last report that we received in preparation for tonight. On the Campaign 2000 to end child and family poverty, some interesting information has been presented, including a graph that showed the different areas of P.E.I. There is a high rate of child poverty in Charlottetown. There is a high rate of poverty for persons of working age in Charlottetown. The rate of poverty for seniors in Charlottetown is the lowest of all the different counties. Can you help me understand why that would be?
Ms. Boyd: No, I don’t know if I can help you understand that because some of the new information is showing that, maybe, in those periods when there was one zone, during the pandemic, seniors didn’t benefit as much. It was really the workers who benefited and not the seniors. I’m puzzled with that one, myself, except that I know that Old Age Security pension, or OAS, is not enough. I have talked to seniors who own their own homes, for instance. It’s a great struggle for them because they say, “Okay, we can buy food and we can manage, but as soon as something breaks in our home, as soon as we need a repair or something like that, we just don’t have the money to do that. OAS doesn’t allow for that.”
The other thing that I think might be true of seniors — I have noticed it but haven’t been able to quantify it — is that a lot of seniors work now. They supplement their OAS by going into the workforce. You see them in the fast-food outlets, in the grocery stores, in some of the clothing stores. They are out in the workforce, and that could be the difference.
Again, as I said, it’s the whole problem of part-time work. An employer will take a part-time worker who might work for 15 hours or something like that. They can’t qualify for Employment Insurance, but they can earn a bit of money to increase their income somewhat. There is some of that. That might be the most significant thing that’s kept the poverty level lower for seniors. But I don’t think we’ll see seniors keeping up during the one-zone thing, nor should it be expected because they are not full-time workers anymore.
Senator Duncan: If I have understood you correctly, these are old figures. If I’ve understood your presentation this evening, you’ve very eloquently explained the need for overall EI reform in terms of more than 55% of an individual’s income. You have also stressed that need to return to an equalized situation for all islanders because of this specific challenge to P.E.I. of two zones that are unique to P.E.I. in a small area. Did I understand that correctly?
Ms. Boyd: Yes, you have.
Senator Duncan: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: I am interested that you said there are — I don’t know if you said 22%, I may be wrong on that — immigrants coming onto the island. Yet, you are saying — and I find you as an authority — that there is not enough work on the island. What kind of work are immigrants doing? Why is the provincial government letting so many immigrants come into the province, because the provincial government has a lot of say as to how many immigrants come into the province?
Ms. Boyd: Well, Canada in general is putting a big push on for more immigrants, and saying that we need an immigrant workforce because there are more jobs than Canadians can handle at the moment. It used to be a few years ago that immigrants didn’t come to P.E.I. It also used to be that when they came, they didn’t stay and left to bigger centres because there was more of their own culture in the bigger centres. We still have the lowest retainment situation of any province in Canada. An awful lot more immigrants stay here because they like it. They like P.E.I., the people and they like to be here, but still many of them move once they get their feet under them.
We do have a lot more immigrants in P.E.I. now, and we haven’t made the right accommodation for them for shelter, for instance. We kind of let them go, I think. We sponsor them for a short time and then they are on their own.
Yes, the number is 22.9% of the immigrants are in poverty versus 12.1% of the working-age group. I think that’s very significant for immigrants and newcomers. I have also been told by some that because they don’t have papers and they want to work, that they are not protected and they are told if they want to work, that they’ll work for very low wages in some cases.
Senator Jaffer: Is it specifically to immigrants or can it be any? Because in some provinces, immigrants do most of the jobs that nobody else wants to do. In P.E.I., what kind of jobs are available for immigrants?
Ms. Boyd: Well, fast-food outlets, for instance. More in grocery stores now than we used to have. The jobs are more indoor jobs, but they are still — gas stations too, that’s another place where you see immigrants working. We have taken in an awful lot of students who have student visas but they are allowed to work a certain number of hours, and they do that, but also entire families.
It depends on the skills of the immigrant. It depends on a number of factors, but like every other part of Canada, we have doctors and nurses and qualified health care workers here who can’t get into the health system because they don’t qualify by Canadian standards. This is a big obstacle for those people. But certainly fast-food outlets, grocery stores, that kind of work, that’s where you see many.
Senator Jaffer: Where do the immigrants mainly come from? What country? Do you know?
Ms. Boyd: Well, we have a large number from China. We have a growing number of Filipinos. We’re seeing many more people from India. There are quite a few Africans as well. Beside that, we are seeing more people from Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Afghanistan and other places.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for answering all of my questions. I learned a lot from you. Thank you.
Ms. Boyd: Thank you.
The Chair: No other questioners on the list, and so with that in mind, Ms. Boyd, thanks very much for joining us today and participating. Your assistance with the committee’s further examination of the bill is very much appreciated. We do appreciate you joining us.
Colleagues, I want to recognize and thank you for your thoughtful and active participation. I also want to take a moment to thank the staff that support the work that we do, our interpreters, the teams transcribing the meeting, the committee-room attendant, multimedia service technician, the broadcasting team, the recording centre, ISD in the background, our page, our clerk and library analyst. We couldn’t do what we do without your help, so thanks very much.
With that, colleagues, there will be a meeting this coming Thursday. We are meeting and going on an off-site tour. But the next meeting in this room will be Thursday, December 8, where we will continue our discussions and examination of Bill S-236. If there is no other business, colleagues, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)