Finance Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

We'll hear Mr. Saxton on this, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that we agree with our colleagues. It's unfortunate that the previous Liberal government chose to raid from the fund more than $50 billion, but as I mentioned earlier, the legislative requirement to break even over time will ensure that any surplus EI premiums are ultimately only used to pay for EI benefits.

(Clause 137 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Can I group any other clauses, colleagues?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

You could group up to clause 156.

(Clauses 138 to 156 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 157)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, we support this clause. My colleagues across the way will be very happy to hear that.

Let's just clarify that this fixes a mistake that was made by the government, again in another omnibus budget bill that was rushed too quickly. Too much was crammed into one bill and there was too short a timeframe to consider it. That's when mistakes get made. Just as we are fixing the mistake of doubling the taxes that credit unions pay, which we fixed in another clause here, this clause fixes a mistake that the Conservatives made when they penalized fishermen and women, costing them EI benefits.

We fought hard against these changes at the time because we knew it was penalizing unemployed workers and it hurt particularly those in Atlantic Canada who depend on seasonal work like fishing.

We're glad to see that the Conservatives are fixing one of their more egregious mistakes, but we think that they should go further and repeal the EI changes that have already been condemned by premiers, workers, employers, and a variety of experts.

This clause fixes the mistake that the Conservatives made, but we think that the overall package of changes they made were a big mistake for Canadian workers and that they should be amended as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

I'll go to Mr. Keddy, please.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm glad to hear that my colleague across the way is going to support this correction.

It needs to be said, quite frankly, that this was an unintended consequence. The EI regulations got changed. I don't recall at the time, Mr. Chairman, anyone in any of the parties saying anything about a separation of fishing hours and regular hours and the fact that they couldn't be added together. I think that needs to be on the record.

This is a recognition by the government that this shouldn't have been done. It's an effort to correct it, and I'm glad to hear that the opposition parties are supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Ms. Nash and then Mr. Brison.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm a little astounded by the member's comments.

To be fair, Mr. Keddy, it was prior to your membership on the finance committee—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Please make your comments through the chair, please.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

That's fair.

It was prior to his joining the finance committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I've been here forever. They're going to stuff me pretty soon.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

It's never too long, presidency of the chair.

It was prior to Mr. Keddy joining the finance committee.

My goodness gracious, there were news conferences and protests and there were many speeches given about the impact these changes would make on seasonal workers. I remember vividly being at one news conference on this. There was a great deal of publicity given to the impact this would have on seasonal work, which of course people in the fishing industry are a part of. There was a lot of concern that the impact, the denial of benefits, would mean that people who work in seasonal industries would be forced to leave their area to go to find other employment because they would not be able to get benefits during off-season, and that's unfortunately the nature of the work that some people participate in, such as fishing, tourism, and many other sectors. Clearly there were a lot of concerns raised at the time.

We are glad that the mistake made by the Conservatives is being fixed with this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Brison, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Further to Ms. Nash's comments, we were strongly opposed to these changes, not simply with the fisheries, but for other sectors as well.

While we support this change, this correction, we still believe that overall the changes are deleterious to particularly rural and small town Canada, and the regions in Atlantic Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, again please.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Again, just to finish my point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, of what I stated, there was lots of opposition to the changes in EI, absolutely. That opposition was completely unfounded.

More importantly, what I'm specifying is that this specific change is a change that allows fishing hours to be used along with non-fishing hours and allows the fishing hours to take precedence, because those stamps, quite frankly, are worth more, and so it increases the EI.

There was an unintended consequence and the government recognized that. I represent one of the largest fishing ridings in this country, and I and a number of colleagues approached the minister on it. The minister changed the rules because the rules were unintended. That's why it's backdated to April 1.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Côté, you have the floor.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am very happy that Mr. Keddy spoke again because that shows the lack of rigour on the government side.

I would just like to remind the committee that we are looking at an omnibus bill. Once again, it is because of omnibus measures, not to mention the rush and the debates being cut short, that this type of measure was passed. It is very interesting because, during the hearings on the consideration of Bill C-4, a number of very credible witnesses warned us about the dangers of having a bill that deals with a number of different pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, it has not been studied in sufficient depth, despite all the serious thought and effort that has gone into it.

So we are forced to correct it after the fact, after all the costs have been incurred by various players in the community, as well as by the government and taxpayers, of course. It is very important to point that out.

In closing, I would say that this is just one measure among many that the government had to correct and that it will have to correct in the future. In addition, there is no mention of the major dangers that were brought to our attention by a number of witnesses, meaning the referral of some measures to court because they are not consistent with some of our country's fundamental laws. The outcome is costs, exclusion and hardship for people.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

(Clause 157 agreed to)

Can I group any more clauses?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Shall clause 158 carry?

(Clause 158 agreed to on division)

Shall clause 159 carry?