The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: This item remains adjourned in the name of Senator Martin, as ordered.

(Debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Your Honour, I take the adjournment of the debate.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin, that the Senate do now adjourn.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, as ordered, the item remains under the adjournment of Senator Busson.

(Debate adjourned.)

(At 4 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, March 7, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, as a practice and courtesy and because Senator Plett adjourned the debate, I asked and he agreed that I speak this week and adjourn the debate in his name.

I rise today to give my remarks and hopefully bring clarity to the third reading debate on Bill S-236. I also believe that the sponsor, Senator Duncan, and our competent senator members of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee are of good faith. However, new critical information has been brought to our attention.

I want to give my thanks to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer for their fiscal analysis, i.e., the impact this bill will have on the working poor of P.E.I. This bill is of interest to me because of my life commitment to fight for the working poor. This bill has a negative impact of $76.6 million on the working poor of P.E.I. over the next five years, as per the Parliamentary Budget Officer report. In fact, the merger of the two Employment Insurance zones would also merge the unemployment rate. In real numbers, as of October 9, the Charlottetown zone, with its current 5.5% unemployment rate, represents 1,800 persons, while the rural zone, at 9.6%, represents 5,600 unemployed persons as per survey by Statistics Canada.

Therefore, the number of unemployed people — mostly seasonal workers — in the rural zone is three times bigger than the one in the Charlottetown agglomerate zone. In essence, the merger, as of this month, would bring the unemployment rate to 7.5% for the entire island. At this merged rate, the 5,600 unemployed persons in the rural zone would have to work 105 more hours to qualify, while the 1,800 in Charlottetown would need 70 fewer hours to qualify.

Regarding weeks of benefits, the rural 5,600 would be receiving three fewer weeks, and the 1,800 in Charlottetown would receive three more weeks of benefits.

As these numbers are survey results ending in September, we must keep in mind that as we move to winter, seasonal unemployment increases and so does the unemployment rate, particularly for those in rural P.E.I. where the numbers are currently 3% greater. This bill penalizes, as of October 9, at least 5,600 rural seasonal workers while benefiting the 1,800 in the Charlottetown agglomerate zone.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer report of September 7 gives us the financial impact of the merger for at least 5,600 working poor, forecasting a loss in benefits for them of $76.6 million over five years. This is the first point that needs to be clear for every senator.

Honourable senators, the Employment Insurance Act and regulations are very complex in their design, with a slate of variables depending on the 62 zones’ unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted with a rolling three-month average. I am not an expert, but I certainly understand how the system works.

As per the current Employment Insurance Act regulations, the rate in the 62 zones is established by a monthly survey by Statistics Canada, as per their 2011 census zones. By law, these rates are not established by government, not by the House of Commons and not by the department.

In Annex B of the act, you will find the national chart of hours required and maximum benefits paid as per Statistics Canada’s monthly unemployment rate survey. Reality is different from what certain witnesses told the committee about how this national system works.

This is the second point that needs to be understood, and, colleagues, I can supply you with all the documents I used for this speech, if you so require.

As I was driving back to New Brunswick during our break week, I was puzzled as to why our very competent senators on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee would support this bill, so I decided to seek answers. There went my break week, but I believe it was for a just cause.

I first read the committee transcript. Very pertinent questions were asked by Senators Simons, Cotter, Klyne and Marwah. However, some witnesses regrettably and constantly said that government set the rate; that government can increase benefits; that it is an issue of fairness; that the financial consequences are minor; and that the Senate should pass the bill, send it to the other place and they would take care of it.

A document relating to the analysis creating the two zones in 2014 — eight years ago — was also provided to committee members. I want to highlight that that document in 2014 stated that creating these two zones would result in an additional cost of $1 million to the Employment Insurance program, i.e., $1 million more for the rural zone.

We are now eight years later and the situation has changed. My immediate reaction was that most of these statements do not reflect reality. Government does not set rates, as I pointed out earlier. Government cannot increase the benefits only for P.E.I. This would then create national unfairness to all workers in similar Employment Insurance unemployment rate zones, so fairness to whom?

Financial consequence is very high for at least 5,600 rural seasonal workers. As a house of sober second thought, why would we send an ill-conceived, uninformed bill to the other place when we constantly complain that they do not give enough time to the bills they send to us? To what extent are they characterizing the Senate with these comments?

Are we being asked to close our eyes and ears and abdicate our responsibilities?

After reading the committee meeting transcript, I had a conversation with the Parliamentary Budget Officer who did the report on the financial impact of Bill S-236. She confirmed and sent the historical data from the department’s yearly report used and the projection for five years, as per the PBO labour market outlook.

There are no mistakes in the report. It is what it is, and that is $76.6 million less in benefits over five years for the working poor as opposed to the $1 million given at committee by the document or a comment from a witness who said it was merely a rounding of numbers.

Also, at the meeting the witnesses never told the committee members that in 2021 the minister and government announced a major review and modernization of the Employment Insurance program, starting with a one-year consultation process, which ended last July.

I followed up my PBO conversation with calls to both the Commissioner for Workers and the department Director of Employment Insurance Policy, Pierre Laliberté and George Rae, respectively, both witnesses at the committee. My question to both was, “Are you aware of the PBO report and the loss of $76.6 million in benefits with Bill S-236?”

Mr. Rae said the PBO report was “consistent” with the department findings, and Mr. Laliberté said he was somewhat aware of these numbers.

So I asked, “Why did you not say so to the committee?”

Both answered that the question was not asked.

Senators Marwah, Cotter and Klyne did ask the questions to the first panel, where one witness replied, again, that it was a rounding number. The same question, however, was not asked to the second panel, and I cannot identify by the transcript if the second panel witnesses were listening to what was happening at the first panel. I do believe they could have found a way to talk about their financial findings also.

My second question to them was, “Why did you not indicate that a major review and modernization were under way for the EI program?”

Again, both answered that the question was not asked.

Senator Simons asked why the Senate should be involved in micromanaging the EI program. It was the perfect time for these witnesses to indicate the major review undertaken. Both witnesses confirmed to me that they are very much involved in the yearly consultation process, as per my conversation with them.

I asked Mr. Rae why there was such a big difference between the 2014 department estimate of $1 million and today’s $76.6 million. Let’s just say, colleagues, that I was not impressed with his answer.

I also asked Mr. Poirier why he seemed so frustrated about the two zones. He answered that it is because he believes that all EI zones should better reflect the local conditions, and many other areas in the country, particularly in Quebec, should be divided into more zones. He has been making that recommendation for many years without support from the department. In other words, his frustration is not particularly the 2 zones for P.E.I. but that we should have more than 62 zones.

Colleagues, the EI Act and regulations are clear. The EI zones are nationally based, as per Statistics Canada census units. Statistics Canada creates these units to better reflect the quality of data they can provide. Statistics Canada is by law the central survey and data gathering agency for the whole of government.

A core argument at committee was Riverdale Road, where one side is in one zone, and the other side is in another zone. This has nothing to do with the EI program. The Riverdale Road issue is one created by Statistics Canada’s general census of 2011. That prompted the 2014 regulations separating the capitals from rural areas in P.E.I., Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, bringing these agglomerate capital zones on the same footing as all the other provincial capital zones.

Knowing that Statistics Canada personnel are easily accessible and sensitive to concerns, it is most probable that this thorn could have been corrected between 2015 and 2020 with a few meetings — I would add a cup of coffee to that — before the census units were used in 2021 for the ten-year general census. Not with a sledgehammer bill that is in front of us.

Another argument at committee was working in one place and living in another. The entire national EI program is based on where you live in accordance with Statistics Canada survey methodology as per postal codes, i.e., where you live.

Now, I understood that critical facts and information was not disclosed to the members of the committee, resulting in this bill being in front of us for third reading. Honourable senators, I cannot support this bill. I cannot endorse that we would knowingly now remove $76.6 million — colleagues, there are more very important facts. Could I have five minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Before we move to adjourning debate, Senator Patterson, do you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Quinn, seconded by the Honourable Senator Downe, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

If you oppose adjourning the debate, please say “no.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Those opposed to the motion to adjourn and who are in the Senate Chamber, please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Griffin, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, that further debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate. If you oppose adjourning debate, please say “no.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Those opposed to the motion to adjourn the debate and who are in the Senate chamber will please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: “Yea” that you agree to adjourn the debate? The motion is to adjourn the debate, to which, Senator Plett, you said, “No.” Now we are asking the chamber.

Those in favour of the motion to adjourn the debate and who are in the Senate chamber will please say “yea.”