Common sense has prevailed. It’s a somewhat startling development amid the bureaucratic red tape entanglements of Ottawa.
We have the evidence necessary to reverse a discriminatory decision by the previous Harper government that split Prince Edward Island into two EI regions in 2014.
A Commons report concludes that the decision was wrong and should be reversed. Islanders knew this fact two years ago. It’s been eight months since the election. Why hasn’t this wrong been righted?
We were given assurances - in a somewhat defensive opinion piece submitted by P.E.I.’s four Liberal MPs earlier this month – that they are working hard to reverse the damage done by the Harper government on EI and other issues. The MPs were responding to a Guardian editorial that suggested our members appear ineffective in delivering on promises made during the election campaign last fall.
They claimed much has been accomplished since last October but more work remains to be done. The lingering two-zone issue is proof of that. This isn’t a conclusion by a citizen’s interest group like the P.E.I. Coalition for a Fair EI. It was a Commons committee that studied the impact of recent EI reforms after hearing from bureaucratic experts. One by one, the parliamentary report shredded the Harper government reforms after getting feedback from expert witnesses on the effects of the changes on provinces, employers and EI claimants.
A commissioner with the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission used P.E.I. as an example when she told the committee that Islanders had a “very hard time” with the changes.
She cited an example where two people working at the same plant could have different levels of access to EI and have a different benefits period simply because one employee lives in Charlottetown and the other person lives outside the city.
When the changes were first announced in March 2014, many Islanders were not familiar with the term ‘census agglomeration.’ The issue was confusing then and remains so today.
It generally sought to even the playing field. Since Charlottetown offered more economic opportunities than rural areas, claimants in the urban zone didn’t need enhanced EI benefits.
The committee now agrees that splitting P.E.I. into two EI zones had negative consequences on this province and recommended the division should be reconsidered and previous boundaries be restored.
Gail Shea, then-Egmont MP and Harper cabinet minister, had announced the changes. Coincidentally, those changes didn’t impact anyone in her constituency. The most impact was felt in Charlottetown, a large section of Malpeque and parts of Cardigan – three Liberal seats.
The committee’s recommendations are not binding. But it would be a further injustice if the report is not quickly adopted.
Despite the public backlash and expert testimony, there was still dissenting opinion from the Opposition Conservatives. Tories still defended the decision to separate P.E.I. into two economic regions.
There are good reasons why the Conservatives are now the Official Opposition. EI is one of them.
Common sense has prevailed. It’s a somewhat startling development amid the bureaucratic red tape entanglements of Ottawa.
We have the evidence necessary to reverse a discriminatory decision by the previous Harper government that split Prince Edward Island into two EI regions in 2014.
A Commons report concludes that the decision was wrong and should be reversed. Islanders knew this fact two years ago. It’s been eight months since the election. Why hasn’t this wrong been righted?
We were given assurances - in a somewhat defensive opinion piece submitted by P.E.I.’s four Liberal MPs earlier this month – that they are working hard to reverse the damage done by the Harper government on EI and other issues. The MPs were responding to a Guardian editorial that suggested our members appear ineffective in delivering on promises made during the election campaign last fall.
They claimed much has been accomplished since last October but more work remains to be done. The lingering two-zone issue is proof of that. This isn’t a conclusion by a citizen’s interest group like the P.E.I. Coalition for a Fair EI. It was a Commons committee that studied the impact of recent EI reforms after hearing from bureaucratic experts. One by one, the parliamentary report shredded the Harper government reforms after getting feedback from expert witnesses on the effects of the changes on provinces, employers and EI claimants.
A commissioner with the Canadian Employment Insurance Commission used P.E.I. as an example when she told the committee that Islanders had a “very hard time” with the changes.
She cited an example where two people working at the same plant could have different levels of access to EI and have a different benefits period simply because one employee lives in Charlottetown and the other person lives outside the city.
When the changes were first announced in March 2014, many Islanders were not familiar with the term ‘census agglomeration.’ The issue was confusing then and remains so today.
It generally sought to even the playing field. Since Charlottetown offered more economic opportunities than rural areas, claimants in the urban zone didn’t need enhanced EI benefits.
The committee now agrees that splitting P.E.I. into two EI zones had negative consequences on this province and recommended the division should be reconsidered and previous boundaries be restored.
Gail Shea, then-Egmont MP and Harper cabinet minister, had announced the changes. Coincidentally, those changes didn’t impact anyone in her constituency. The most impact was felt in Charlottetown, a large section of Malpeque and parts of Cardigan – three Liberal seats.
The committee’s recommendations are not binding. But it would be a further injustice if the report is not quickly adopted.
Despite the public backlash and expert testimony, there was still dissenting opinion from the Opposition Conservatives. Tories still defended the decision to separate P.E.I. into two economic regions.
There are good reasons why the Conservatives are now the Official Opposition. EI is one of them.
