Honourable senators, it so happens that I’m speaking to a concern that the Speaker pro tempore raised yesterday regarding Bill S-236 and its impact on the net savings reported by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The PBO calculated the savings over five years to be $76.6 million.

It’s important to consider a few factors here. First, this is a one-and-a-half-page report that came out just under a month ago — well after our study was completed in the Agriculture Committee. The PBO’s calculations are based on the current Employment Insurance system and historical data. Finally, the PBO itself acknowledged that there is significant uncertainty in their study where it says, “The cost estimate produced is highly sensitive to the PBO’s labour market outlook.”

I thank Senator Ringuette for ensuring that we have this question appropriately addressed. That’s why I chose to stand and offer the perspective of a committee member involved in the study of this bill.

Colleagues, we need to remember what Bill S-236 is and what it is not. Specifically, Bill S-236 does not set a rate for the size of benefits or their duration. It does not tie the department’s hands on how to calculate benefits and the duration of those benefits. It is not about cutting anyone’s benefits.

Bill S-236 sets out a structure to make the province one zone to ensure equity across EI claimants to avoid the current situation of the unfair treatment of citizens based on their place of residence and to assist with the labour shortage currently affecting the province.

Bill S-236 is purely about creating one zone for a small geographical area with a population in the region that has unique labour-market characteristics. We heard compelling testimony from witnesses representing business, municipal interests and labour. For those who are not from Prince Edward Island, people regularly work in one zone and live in the other. Neighbours across the road from one another, who work at the same location, can end up receiving fundamentally different levels of EI support. Again, they are working at the same location and working the same number of hours but living a few feet apart.

Folks live and work in different places all over the Island. They live in Surrey but work in Charlottetown. They live in Charlottetown and work in Summerside. This is not a “Charlottetown versus the rest of P.E.I.” question; this is a P.E.I. question. It is a question about fairness across Canada’s smallest province with a very mobile, urban and rural population.

My first question to the Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, official who testified before our committee last spring when we studied the bill was whether he had ever been to Prince Edward Island, because, if he had, he would see how foolish having the second zone is. The arguments for why the two zones were originally created and have been maintained were anything but convincing.

When we studied the bill, that same ESDC official said that the Charlottetown EI zone was shaped as it was because it corresponded with Statistics Canada’s Charlottetown metropolitan zone. It does not. For some reason, one district was arbitrarily dropped and another arbitrarily added. They are not in the same areas. They are not the same zones.

Additionally, for years, the Commissioner for Workers of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission has advised for this change and told us that the officials kept ignoring it. His frustration was absolutely palpable during the study.

To answer the concerns raised by Senator Ringuette, first, as Senator Duncan discussed, this job of setting rates is not ours. The government generally, and ESDC specifically, can choose to set a rate that it thinks is fitting. That is the government’s responsibility. This actually happened recently in an effort to ensure equity among Islanders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate was artificially set at 420 insurable hours to qualify, regardless of the actual unemployment rate. However, that temporary measure just expired on September 24, and the province is back to two zones, leaving many residents in the Charlottetown zone without the necessary 700 insurable hours needed to qualify for EI.

We all know that this province needs certainty now more than ever, given the events of Fiona in the last two weeks. The current circumstances are exacerbating the insecurity.

Second, the reason Bill S-236 does not address the rates is because that could lead to a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The bill then would need a Royal Recommendation, and we cannot do that here in the Senate. It can be done in the other place, either by amending the bill or introducing an amendment to the act in some legislation or a budget implementation bill. That is not something we can do here in the Senate.

So, as Senator Duncan said, that’s why the bill should go to the other place where they can decide to leave the rate and qualifying decisions in the hands of ESDC or, if need be, introduce an amendment to set such a rate and affix a Royal Recommendation to such an amendment.

I don’t think that will be necessary, however. Further committee study in the Senate, as suggested by Senator Ringuette, will not change that particular situation. The Senate is not in a position to instruct the government to set a rate that would need a Royal Recommendation. That is something that elected representatives in the other place can do.

Colleagues, that is why I ask for you to consider my observations. My hope is that you will choose to bring Bill S-236 to a vote today and call the question. Thank you very much.

Certainly.

I think it’s good when parties can have members with differing views on situations. I view that as a positive thing. This is a situation where there is a lack of fairness. Yes, one side is benefiting in a manner that is not justifiable. Certainly in the eyes of the commissioner it is not justifiable and hasn’t been for quite some time, and another side is being penalized for sure. Those MPs are doing a good job of representing their constituents.

We’re talking about having a system that delivers greater fairness across a very small area, and that the change itself was not justified and how it was justified was not accurate. The Employment Insurance system has evaluated that through the Commissioner for Employers for several years and the recommendation keeps being ignored.

Is it a politically divisive issue, and does that benefit one politician and not another? Potentially, but that’s not our job here. Our job here is to try to bring as much fairness to those that are not being properly represented.

Yes.

I don’t know how to answer the question because I couldn’t have said it better myself. The reality is we can only deal with what we have control over. The issue raised by Senator Ringuette is one we feel we addressed in committee. It’s one that doesn’t actually affect our chamber. If there are disagreements in the House of Commons — and I gather they occur from time to time, even within given parties, even within the Conservative Party and within the Liberal Party — that happens. That’s not our job to fix, and I still encourage my colleagues to call the question on this today. Thank you very much.