Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

Seasonal workers make up a significant and unique portion of Canada's labour market. According to the Canadian Out-of-Employment Panel (COEP) Survey database used in this paper, roughly fifteen percent of those who experienced a job separation were in jobs they described as seasonal. This estimate is substantially larger than the roughly 3 percent of total employment considered to be seasonal when looking at the regular seasonal fluctuations in total employment using the Labour Force Survey. We consider the COEP estimate of seasonal work to be more realistic for the purposes of policy as the use of fluctuations in total employment tends to hide the seasonal rises and falls of seasonal industries. This is because a seasonal fall in one industry may cancel out the seasonal rise in another. Our COEP estimates of seasonal work will vary, depending on province or industry being examined. It also varies among demographic groups. In general, seasonal work is more prevalent among less-educated males in primary industries in Eastern Canada. As well, an important distinguishing characteristic is that seasonal workers are less likely to be married or have children.

Evaluation evidence is available on the ability of the individual's ability to cope with spells of unemployment. In general, the seasonally unemployed were able to cope better than non-seasonal. They were more likely to find subsequent employment and less likely to experience a drop in their consumption after the period of unemployment. In spite of this, workers in seasonal industries were in general found to pay less into the EI system than they took out.

Past evaluations showed two aspects of seasonal claim behaviour that became the focus of EI reform. First, under UI, there was no evidence of an entrance requirement effect on employment durations for seasonal jobs. An evaluation did find, however, a strong statistical and economic significant effect (about 1 in 20) for seasonal job spells ending at the maximum year point, at which workers qualify for enough weeks of benefits to fill the remainder of a 52 week period. This suggested a significant tailoring of seasonal jobs to the UI system. As well, past evaluations found that UI was becoming more of a permanent income support for high repeat users since the early 1970s. Further evaluations found a high correlation between seasonal work claims and repeat claims. High frequency users represented only 7% claimants but 25% of all claims. Over the 20 years of claims, there was an upward secular trend of such income support dependency. By contrast, UI was found to protect low frequency users against the risk of unemployment. Low frequency users represented 62% of claimants but 25% of all claims. There has been a downward trend in their pattern of use, which increased during recessions.

Some evaluation evidence is now available on the impact of EI reforms that are relevant to seasonal workers. The move to the hours rule has led to seasonal workers working more hours per week, while forming a claim with slightly fewer weeks of work. However, preliminary monitoring analysis has also documented the differences in EI experiences within the seasonal worker group. Those with income of $12,000 or less per year fared considerably worse in meeting eligibility requirements and weeks of entitlement relative to other seasonal workers. These individuals generally worked fewer hours or were students. For seasonal workers overall, internal HRDC research has shown that after EI reform entitlements increased by 1 week and the percentage of experiencing periods where they are receiving neither benefits or employment income dropped substantially.

The EI community focus groups have also provided some social context for understanding the adjustments of seasonal workers to the EI reforms. Specifically, the EI system was considered generally to be fairer in its eligibility and entitlement rules, except where no alternative employment was available. In this context, seasonal workers perceived the intensity rule to be punitive and unfair in punishing them for living in areas where alternative, stable employment was not available.