Department of Employment and Social Development Act—Employment Insurance Act
Bill to Amend--Second Reading
June 13, 2023
Honourable senators, I rise here today at second reading to speak to Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council). The bill’s goal, as elaborated by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Diane Bellemare, is to set up an employment insurance council within the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which would create a social dialogue on matters related to Employment Insurance, or EI.
As you may know, colleagues, our social safety net when a Canadian is without employment has been in place since 1940. At first, it was called the unemployment insurance — or the UIC, as we used to call it in my area, thanks to a popular 1755 song — to finally becoming Employment Insurance in 1990.
From 1940 to today — 2023 — the overhaul of the program has been limited. Instead of doing a modernization of the program, successive governments introduced numerous pilot projects to help the labour market find workers and, at the same time, help Canadians find jobs.
For example, right now, we have another pilot project to help Canadians who work in seasonal jobs survive through the “black hole.” I have talked about this issue before. The “black hole” is a period in the year where seasonal workers have no insurable hours left, but their seasonal jobs have not begun yet. Again, the reaction to help people right away has always been a pilot project, which is a short-term solution. Yet, all the while, seasonal workers are still waiting on a medium- to long-term solution.
I am certain that they are not the only ones who need a better safety net when the jobs are just not there. The labour market has evolved tremendously since 1990 with the internet. Since the 2000s, telecommunications have changed how we live and how we work. New technology has been good for some in the economy, but it has been disruptive to workers. Even just in recent months, the emergence of artificial intelligence could prove to be another major disruption in the labour market. Who knows where the artificial intelligence could be in two to five years.
All of that to show, colleagues, that the job market has evolved tremendously in the last decade, but our EI system hasn’t left the 20th century. It remains outdated, and it has become a patchwork solution that needs dire modernization.
We just need to look at the recent COVID pandemic in 2020: the program is very rigid and not as easily adaptable to sudden situations. Now that we are post-pandemic, we need to address how we protect and help unemployed Canadians.
That brings me now to Senator Bellemare’s bill. The idea of having a social dialogue within the Employment Insurance Commission sounds like a good idea. What we want is for decisions to be made based on what employers and employees need. Swing the pendulum too much on one side, and it hurts the economy. If we swing too much on the other side, it hurts the worker. It is a difficult balance.
For me, prior to being a senator, I was a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick for my riding from 1999 until my appointment in 2010. My experience with Employment Insurance and social support is based on meeting with constituents in a desperate situation who have nowhere else to turn. How many times have I cried with my constituents who needed money to buy food, to pay heating, to pay for their kids’ clothing, and the list goes on.
That is where I stand: with the workers who need help to support their families. The bill before us proposes a social dialogue between the most representative employers’ organizations and the most representative labour organizations. If there is to be a proper social dialogue for EI, there must be due diligence to ensure that nobody is forgotten. My concern would be that the social dialogue focuses on where there are more workers in the bigger industries and, on the other hand, on representatives of the bigger employers. It is important that people who are not necessarily in the main industries as well as those in the areas of the country where there are fewer people also have a voice. I am concerned there will be a concentration of the dialogue where there are the most workers and bigger employers.
As well, it might be important to factor in the regional aspect of our country. I’m pretty sure when I say “the black hole,” not all Canadians would think of the four-week hole for seasonal workers of not having an income, just like I am not familiar with an issue that could be in the Prairies or Western Canada. We need to make sure that every region has a voice. The fact remains that we live in a geographically wide country, with a diverse economy true to each region. Each region’s labour market will be distinct from the other.
Finally, I would caution on having too much bureaucracy. The Employment Insurance ecosystem is wide. I understand the council would be within the commission — but as long as it does not centralize the focus and the consultation within one structure. Sometimes one thing sounds good in theory until it is applied to reality, which is where my experience as a member of the legislative assembly comes into play. I have held hands with people going through the EI system. Even though it was a federal issue, and I was a provincial legislator, I was solely involved just to help out when the time was there in any way that I could.
Hearing directly from the people who are not represented by big unions and who do not work in a big industry, they cannot be left behind. It must be inclusive so that all voices are heard.
At the end of the day, honourable senators, our EI system needs a major overhaul. Employment Insurance is part of our social safety net for Canadians, by Canadians. Future governments need to take better care of it. It needs to be bold and bring about an overhaul instead of pilot projects. We have seen too many times the EI program not answering the needs of Canadian workers in a fast-evolving economy. I trust that the committee will do a great study of the bill because, now more than ever, our Employment Insurance system needs to be modernized.
While we wait for the government to present its plan to improve the EI system, I thank and congratulate Senator Bellemare for her initiative. Thank you, honourable senators.
I wonder if the senator would take a question.
Yes, I will.
First, thank you for your remarks in regard to your experience but also on the bill. As we know, it has been decades since we have had a major overhaul of the EI system in this country. Regardless of where you live, whether in an urban environment or a rural community, the challenges a worker faces on a daily basis are no different — what happens to them if they fall through the cracks or do not have benefits or are unemployed.
I think it is fair to say the system we have used for the last decades to try to address these concerns has not really gotten to the crux of the matter: How can we put a better system in place to recognize the reality of what Canada is?
In rural communities, it is quite normal that people work seasonally. Without those people, those industries would die. I will use P.E.I. as an example. We need people to harvest potatoes as we need people to harvest fish. But there are times when there is no work for them to do in those industries, and it is part of our collective responsibility to look after them.
I hope that many of the concerns you have raised on the bill can be addressed by the committee and that they will hear from witnesses who will be able to tell their stories. The structure that Senator Bellemare’s bill proposes will be as inclusive as it can be to ensure that all regions and all industries in this country have a seat at the table. The workers and employers are the ones who pay into the system.
Would you not agree that we can address those concerns you have raised while, equally, ensuring those voices will be heard when the new structure is created if this bill were to pass and become part of the law in this country?
I totally agree.
Regarding the council that is going to be put in place, it will be extremely important — specifically, in rural New Brunswick and rural Canada, there are a lot of places and companies out there that are not unionized, so we need to ensure those people have a voice and that we can hear from them.
I have total confidence — I have been on the Social Affairs Committee for a long time; I’m not there right now, but I have been for a long time — and I have total faith in the committee that they will do great work and ensure all voices are heard. Yes, there are a lot of people who are hurting out there. Again, I remember when I was a member of the legislative assembly when there was nowhere else to turn, because there were not even pilot projects or anything. I would even reach out to churches and local organizations in the community to see where I could get firewood to help a family heat their home in the winter, or get food or different things.
Yes, I’m passionate about it. I really have faith that the committee will do a great job on it and make sure that our voices are all well heard. Thank you.
First of all, congratulations on your speech, which is crucial for regions where industry relies heavily on seasonal work, such as fisheries and agriculture.
With regard to the spring gap, we are repeatedly being told that consultations are ongoing and that employment insurance is going to be reformed.
Don’t you think that the danger we’re currently facing — given the scarcity of resources and the fact that we’re competing for skilled labour — is that regions like yours and mine, where workers are tied to seasonal industries, will be taken over by other, more permanent industrial sectors? Don’t you think it is urgent to stop holding consultations and reform employment insurance to take these realities into account?
This is where I think the committee could do some work. First of all, at the moment, there isn’t even a system in place to give a voice to those who are affected by all this. There’s no one to hear them.
It is all well and good to speak with the government representatives who are here and are making the decisions, but there’s no recourse to make sure that those voices are heard. That’s where we have to start, to make sure that everyone understands. The sad thing is that many people believe that seasonal workers — I already introduced an inquiry on this subject a few years ago, perhaps before you arrived in the Senate.
There are places in the country, like New Brunswick, for example, where people work in the fishing industry, in a potato field, in agriculture or in tourism, but the season eventually comes to an end. The number of weeks of benefits they receive it isn’t good enough, especially if they have a family. We got a response right away, and everyone agreed that, yes, we need a pilot project, but we’re well beyond that now. We need to do something to fix the situation in the regions. If all seasonal work were to disappear, our country would be in a real sorry state. Thank you.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)