Department of Employment and Social Development Act—Employment Insurance Act

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading as critic of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council). I would like to take the opportunity to thank Senator Bellemare for her tireless work and advocacy for the improvement to the Employment Insurance, or EI, program as well as to congratulate her on Bill S-244.

As you may remember, colleagues, Bill S-244 proposes to create a social dialogue within the EI program of our country with government, employers and employees with the proposed council.

During the committee’s study, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology studied the bill for three meetings, which included the clause-by-clause consideration. They heard from both EI commissioners — Nancy Healey representing employers and Pierre Laliberté representing workers — as well as from labour unions — the Canada Labour Congress and Unifor — and stakeholders representing employers — the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

All of them are in favour of the bill. They believe formalizing the consultations through social dialogue will enhance their voices and bring about more suitable programs for their respective members. In my opinion, their approval of the bill is also indicative that the patience of both workers and employers has run out. They want to see substantial changes made to the Employment Insurance program now.

Everyone knows the Employment Insurance program is broken in Canada, and yet the government sits on its laurels instead of bringing the program into the 21st century as they promised.

As for government officials, they expressed clearly their concerns regarding Bill S-244:

. . . Again, I’m not an expert; we didn’t draft this particular bill, so I can’t say that I have expertise on its policy intent. On read, there is a potential, without further clarity and determination, that the advisory role and the reporting functions of the new broad advisory council could have unintended results on the existing governance of the program.

As you see, colleagues, some concerns remain with this bill. I tend to share the concerns of the government officials on how the council will change the dynamic of the EI decision-making process. Their concerns are important to note and to be repeated in third reading.

Colleagues, during my second reading speech, I expressed the following concerns, which are still present today. A gap remains for representation on the Employment Insurance Council. As the bill states, the council is composed of the two EI commissioners, not fewer than five members from the most representative labour organizations and not fewer than five members who must be from the most representative employer organizations.

There are also two possible observing members — representatives of provinces and territories for the labour market policies and programs as well Indigenous representatives and Indigenous organizations.

Honourable senators, for people who work in seasonal economies, for folks who also perform multiple jobs as part of the gig economy and for those who are not unionized, how will they be represented? How will their voices be heard? My fear remains the same. By amplifying the voices of the biggest unions, which are focused on more populated areas, it could very well diminish the voices of rural Canada, of seasonal economy workers and of non-unionized workers. They all pay into the EI program, and their realities should not be left out in the decision‑making process.

The current Liberal government has had over nine years to finally bring meaningful and necessary reform to the EI system, but they continue to drag their feet in reforming the Employment Insurance program to the realities of today’s economy.

I see Bill S-244 as a symbol of the frustration and disappointment of Canadians over the government’s inaction on this file. To say Canadians deserve better is overused, but for a reform of such importance, it is important to repeat it: Canadians deserve better.

The labour market is changing, and the Liberal government still won’t proceed to bring the EI into the 21st century — and not only for the 21st century, but problems from the previous century persist. I must mention the infamous “black hole” period for seasonal workers.

In the latest budget, there was only one EI-related item — the renewal of a five-week pilot program for seasonal workers to cover the “black hole.” As a reminder, the “black hole” is a period in the year where seasonal workers have no insurable hours left, but their seasonal jobs have not yet begun. Colleagues, is that how seasonal workers should be treated by their government? Every year, they live in limbo, wondering if the government will keep the pilot project going or if they will finally bridge the gap.

Imagine, colleagues, a family of four depending on a pilot project to make ends meet because the seasonal work hasn’t begun yet. That cycle needs to stop. I take this opportunity to remind the chamber of their stories and their struggles because the federal government has certainly forgotten about them. The government prefers to continue with the untenable patchwork approach instead of a meaningful reform.

While I do have reservations with Bill S-244 for the underrepresented on the Employment Insurance Council, if this bill is to become law, I would urge the council’s first order of business to be making room on their council to hear the voices of rural Canada, seasonal workers and non-unionized workers.

I would also encourage the House of Commons to look carefully at that question when they review this legislation. The EI program remains, to this day, a program funded by the workers and the employers. Prioritizing the voices of the biggest unions and the voices of the biggest employers’ representatives could have the consequence of shutting out voices from non‑unionized workers, seasonal workers and workers working in the regions who have different needs than workers in bigger urban centres who enjoy larger representation.

During all my years as a provincial legislator and now as a senator, I have always believed in consultation and effective dialogue by the government with its citizens. It is for that reason I tend to support the bill but with a caution of ensuring the council doesn’t shut out people who need the social safety net of the Employment Insurance program. Thank you, colleagues.