Hello.
It is my pleasure to be here with you today.
My name is Fernand Thibodeau and I am the spokesperson for SWHS, Seasonal Workers Help and Support. This organization helps workers in seasonal industries, on a volunteer basis. I am here to discuss the situation of seasonal industry workers, who are central to the economy of our regions and who live in regions that depend on these industries.
Seasonal industries have always played an important role in the Canadian economy. They are crucially important in some regions of the country and they provide a large proportion of the available jobs.
Unfortunately, because of this dependence on seasonal industry in growing numbers of regions, it is not possible to survive on a combination of seasonal work and the support provided by employment insurance. Even if the workers take all the work available in the high season, they will not be able to get through the dead season. In a good year, a seasonal industry worker will work for 12 to 14 weeks, which amounts to 525 hours. Even in the regions where the unemployment rate is above 16%, workers will qualify for only 33 weeks of benefits, leaving them with no income for five weeks.
In view of the present unemployment rate, the pilot project is no longer meeting people's needs and is not going to put an end to the employment insurance black hole. The problem arises from the fact that during the dead season, there are not a lot of jobs available. The lack of economic diversification thus makes us dependent on help from the employment insurance program. The problem of the employment insurance black hole—the weeks with no income—leads to further devitalization of our regions. People are tired of constantly living in a precarious situation, and young people are moving away. It amounts to deportation by stealth.
The pilot project launched by the government that offers five additional weeks of benefits was welcome help, but it is not enough. As I have shown, even in a region with the maximum unemployment rate, the employment insurance black hole persists. It has always existed, but for many of us, the situation has worsened in the last few years. This is a result of the fact that some of our communities are in employment insurance economic regions where the unemployment rate is lower and does not reflect the real situation in our local economies.
For example, in my region, the employment insurance economic region of Restigouche-Albert, our small communities depend on seasonal industry. They have been combined with the communities on the outskirts of Moncton, and this brings the unemployment rate down. Another problem lies in the fact that in some of our communities, the unemployment rate is going down, not because there are more jobs, but because, as a result of the aging of the population, there are fewer job seekers for the same number of available jobs.
This is why we think the pilot project should be improved. Because our government is not inclined to reform employment insurance, we have made recommendations to the minister for this to be done, but unfortunately, they have not been accepted. This is what we are recommending.
First, the number of weeks of supplementary benefits should be raised to 15 weeks in the designated regions. Those supplementary weeks would be subject to the maximum number of weeks of benefits that is currently set, which is 45 weeks.
In addition, access to the pilot project should be facilitated by changing the eligibility criteria established for workers to get seasonal worker status. At present, the rules are complicated and arbitrary. They mean that genuine seasonal industry workers are not eligible. We propose that employers state whether or not a layoff is temporary on the record of employment.
As well, we recommend that the map of the employment insurance economic regions be redrawn to better reflect labour market conditions. The map has not really changed in over 26 years and it needs updating. I will take this opportunity to congratulate the commissioner, who has worked hard on this. His work came to an unfortunate halt with the COVID‑19 pandemic.
Another possible avenue is to change the parameters of the employment insurance program by setting the threshold for qualifying at 420 hours' work, offering 35 weeks of benefits, and using the 12 best weeks to establish the level of benefits. A formula like that would be simpler and fairer.
For people who are worried about the potential for these kinds of provisions to be abused, I would point out two things. First, at its maximum, employment insurance benefits do not even provide the equivalent of the minimum wage, which itself is not enough to rise above the low-income thresholds set by the government.
Second, according to the Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report, jobless workers use only 20 of the 35 weeks allowed, on average. This means that the large majority of Canadians use the program responsibly.
In conclusion, I would like you to take away two points from my testimony. We need help to revitalize our regions outside the cities. Employment insurance will not solve all the problems, but it plays an essential role. It needs to be adapted so that it provides better support for the workers in our seasonal industries and those who live outside urban areas.
Thank you for your attention.