Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Issue 12 - Appendix

Appendix No. 5900 S2/SS2-12 "1"

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS FOR SOCIAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING ON NEW El FISHERIES REGULATIONS

1. Section 154, Sub-section 4 of the new Employment Insurance Act states specifically that any debate of the regulations flowing from the Act is to be carried out in only one of the Houses of Parliament, not in the Senate. Could you please tell us if there is any precedent for this type of deliberate exclusion to keep the issue out of the Senate? Who requested that this specific exclusion be placed in the legislation--was it the Minister, the Prime Minister or the Department?

2. Reference has been made to consultations that took place with Members of Parliament over the summer regarding the new El fisheries regulations. Could you please tell us exactly who was consulted, and when? Were all Members of Parliament, including the two Conservative Members, provided with the information paper to which reference was made? Were any Senators given this information?

3. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that accompanied the regulations stated that consultations took place with the fishing industry. What groups specifically were contacted, when exactly did these consultations take place, and what information was provided to them? What kind of feedback was received from the industry, and in what form was it transmitted to the government?

4. Not only do Canada's fisheries already experience the difficulties and disadvantages of being a seasonal industry, they have been hit hard in recent years by such things as the cod moratorium and growing rates of catch failure. Now, self-employed fishers will see their El benefits cut by $33 million. What is the government's rationale for cutting benefits to an already depressed industry by 14 per cent? Has it done any research to forecast the effect of these cuts on the industry in the future?

5. The intensity rule included in the Employment Insurance Act will now apply to self-employed fishers through the new regulations. This is despite the fact that the opening and closing dates of the various fisheries are set by the government, and that it is illegal for fishers to work in the fishery out of season. Could you please tell us how the government justifies penalizing fishers for not fishing during periods when the government says they cannot?

6. The government has said that $33 million will be cut from the aggregate of fishers' benefits as a result of the new El fisheries regulations. The savings are to come from reductions in the amount and duration of benefits. Did the government consider the effect of the regulations on individual fishers and their families? Could you please give us some hard numbers and figures that show the average income reduction that will be experienced by fishers and their families as a result of the new regulations?

7. In 1988, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans conducted a comprehensive survey of Atlantic fishers and their incomes. The results were published in a December 1992 discussion paper by the Task Force on Incomes and Adjustment in the Atlantic Fishery. It appears that no further surveys of this nature have been conducted, either for the Atlantic or B.C. fisheries. Therefore, on just what information did the government base its new El fisheries regulations? And can you please tell us if another detailed survey will be conducted in the near future?

8. What is the government's rationale for abolishing the year-round fishing category? All we have been told is that there are "only" about 100 claimants in this category, the implication being that they do not count because they are so few in number. What will the effect of this change in the regulations be on year-round fishers, and will they be disproportionately harmed by the new regulations?

9. The new El fisheries regulations have the potential to seriously deplete--if not devastate--smaller fisheries, especially the shellfish fishery, by requiring fishers to work for an additional two weeks. How can the government justify regulations that could encourage overfishing? Is it planning to monitor the situation in the shellfish fishery after the regulations take effect? And is it prepared, if a decline in the fishery becomes apparent, to introduce an exemption for shellfish fishers from the additional two weeks' requirement?

10. There has been a lot of criticism that the federal government is lowering its deficit on the backs of workers by keeping El premiums much higher than they need to be to run the program. Now, the government seems to lowering it on the backs of fishers, too, by reducing benefits and making it harder to qualify. Why didn't the government instead use some of the five-billion-dollar surplus in the El Account to maintain some fairness for fishers, who are already struggling just to get by?

11. Historically, Ottawa has recognized that fishing is a way of life, and that it is primarily a family-based industry. Fishers' families, not just the fishers themselves, depend on the fisheries, and licences are often passed from parents to their children. In the new regulations, however, this recognition is absent. The new El Act and regulations will make it difficult for fishers to continue to support their families as before, while the higher earnings requirement for new entrants will make it very difficult for new generations to get into the industry. Can you explain why the government has chosen, with the new regulations, to contradict past policy by no longer recognizing the fisheries as a family industry?

12. Concerns have been raised that, by making it harder for fishers to qualify for El benefits to supplement their income, the new regulations will force people out of the industry and onto welfare. Is the government planning any retraining measures for those forced out of the fisheries and who do not qualify for Employment Insurance?

13. In the old Ul fisheries regulations, boat owners or lessees were credited with minimum insurable earnings for each catch delivered, regardless of its value. This recognized the unique characteristics of the fishing industry, as well as the value of the fishers' work, and ensured they were not penalized for circumstances beyond their control. This provision has been dropped in the new regulations--because, the government says, fishers' benefits are now based on total earnings rather than on weeks of work. To help us judge the effect that removal of this provision will have, could you please provide us with figures that show how often fishers had to avail themselves of this provision in each of the last three years, and what the cost of this provision was to the old Ul system?

14. We have been told that the federal government will cut $33 million from fishers' benefits, but have been given no details about where the savings will actually come from. Could you please supply us with a breakdown of the sources of these cuts? For example, what amount will come from reducing the benefit rate, from cutting the duration of benefits, from the intensity rule, and from claimants who are forced out of the industry?