Human Resources Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right. We'll go to clause 2, then.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed. The chair calls clause 2.

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to on division).

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Now what I would ask you to do is go to your first page, G-1, and I'll ask Mr. Komarnicki to read amendment G-1.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Here we go:

That Bill C-56 in clause 4 be amended by replacing lines 18 to 23 on page 2 with the following:

initial claims for benefits under this Act by an individual if the individual who accumulated the violation qualified for benefits in each of those two initial claims, taking into account subsection (1) or )2), subparagraph 152.07(1)(d)(ii) or regulations made under Part VIII, as the case may be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Is there any discussion on that? Then I'll call the question.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 5 to 9 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 10)

We now have clause 10, and the BQ-1 amendment, so what I'll ask Mr. Lessard to do now is read the amendment, which probably is on page 2 of your package.

Mr. Lessard, the floor is yours to read the amendment, and then we can have any discussion thereafter.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Our amendment is as follows: that Bill C-56, in clause 10, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 7 the following:

(2.1) For the purposes of this section, the system for reducing the premiums under Part VII.1 is as follows: A - (A x B) where A is the premium rate entitling an individual to all special benefits and B is the percentage equal to the ratio of the cost of the special benefits of the employment insurance system already offered under an agreement with a province to the cost of all special benefits.

Mr. Chair, basically, we want this to be related to the actual costs of the two benefits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lessard, we have a point of order here.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's a point of order with respect to the motion to amend.

Bill C-56 as you know, Mr. Chair, would establish a scheme to provide for the payment of special EI benefits to self-employed workers who are not currently entitled to receive them. Premiums for the special benefits are set out in part VII.1 of Bill C-56, and since the bill would increase government spending, the bill is accompanied by a royal recommendation, as we know. The member has proposed an amendment that would change the manner in premium rates for EI special benefits and how they're calculated. The amendment would add an additional calculation for reducing employer and employee premiums, and this would increase the EI program costs by reducing premium rates for self-employed workers. By amending the manner in which the premium rates for EI benefits are calculated, the amendment would alter the conditions of the royal recommendation for Bill C-56, and citation 596 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which states:

...an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or it relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

Page 767 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and I quote:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiatives of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury....

I would therefore ask that this motion to amend the bill be ruled out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard, you can continue on.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Is my amendment in order, Mr. Chair? If not, I would like to respond. I feel that Mr. Komarnicki's claim is not valid. I can explain why.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sure.

According to the legislative clerk, this amendment is not out of order.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Okay, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

This amendment is very appropriate. It would also have been very opportune if our colleagues opposite had been able to hear from Mr. Bédard because they would then have understood how pertinent this amendment is.

Mr. Chair, I feel that I have to say that Mr. Taillon's claim that the documents I have that list the costs are comparing apples and oranges is unfortunate. That just shows contempt, as the conservatives do when someone has an opinion different from theirs. That is destroying people who hold different views. This is what Mr. Taillon is doing when he says that a career official who has given Canada 32 years of service, including 12 as Chief Actuary, is incompetent, at the same time as he refuses to have his own documents in hand.

I find that offensive. I find it irresponsible and unacceptable, because, in those documents, we are going to discover an annual deficit of $100 million whereas there will be a $30 million surplus in Quebec.

What will happen then? That deficit will have to be made up. Quebec will have paid twice because there will be a $30 million surplus precisely because fewer people are eligible. We must remember that everyone in Quebec who takes parental or maternity leave is not eligible. That just leaves the people on compassionate or sick leave, and that is a minority.

That is why the amendment we are proposing here provides a balance. It is totally false to claim that there is fair treatment here. And, all through this present exercise, we have been prevented from showing this. This is even clearer today, because the only person who could provide us with an objective opinion about all this, a generous contribution on his part that does absolutely nothing for him, has been dismissed out of hand. They have rejected the advice and are doing what they have done in other committees: treat the person who wanted to testify with disrespect and not even give him the opportunity to be heard. I find this quite deplorable. It would have provided the clarification that our colleagues require in order for them to vote with us in favour of this amendment and to clearly understand what it is about.

We had other documents to present, Mr. Chair. We have a very basic one here that sums up the situation very well. But there are other documents that show the excessive contributions, the surpluses in Quebec and the deficits in the rest of Canada.

Let me tell our colleagues in the Liberal Party this right away. I feel that the intent to make up any deficit from the public purse is very good. But even that is going to add to Quebec's financial responsibilities, since there is no funding for it. Our taxes are going to be used to pay for a benefit that Quebec is already paying for itself, Mr. Chair.

That is why I feel that, in order for us to vote in favour of Bill C-56, this amendment must be passed. If not, people will accept it based on a misunderstanding of its costs, which will have been falsified, Mr. Chair. And we cannot give our support to that.

I hope that colleagues will vote with us to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Further to the point of order, I'd like to not challenge the chair directly just at this moment, but I think we need some explanation as to the advice that suggests changing the essence of what the royal recommendation for the bill was, which set a particular specific premium rate with respect to those who would qualify for certain benefits in Quebec and those for the rest of the country, which somehow could be amended without needing an expansion or a contraction of the royal recommendation.

Now, the portion that I quoted was quite clear, and I think I have it on pretty good authority that an amendment such as this infringes the financial issue of the crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the crown has demanded or recommended a charge. It also talks about the fact that if you're going to change the premium rate by the amendment, you are doing something that is going to affect the general purpose and intent of the bill, how it is to be administered, how the charge is to be raised, and how it's to be made with respect to the EI account and general revenues, and that's the prerogative of the government.

So I think we need a pretty clear explanation with respect to that, and I would actually challenge any decision that would be contrary to the committee as a whole, because I don't buy that, quite frankly. So I think we need to have some better explanation. It's in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'll let the legislative clerk talk, and then we'll go to Mr. Lessard.

[Wayne Cole, Procedural Clerk]

The royal recommendation deals with government expenditure and the terms and conditions of the expenditure. This deals with the premium rate, which is not expenditure, it's income. It's the money that comes into the fund, not the money that goes out, and so it's not covered by the royal recommendation that accompanies the bill.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

But it does relax the conditions or qualifications that are expressed in the royal recommendation part of the bill.

[Wayne Cole]

It does not change or relax the terms of the royal recommendation with respect to the expenditure in the bill, and the royal recommendation only deals with expenditure. It doesn't deal with all of the terms and conditions of the bill, but only those terms and conditions that relate to expenditure.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Let's put it in plain, simple English. If the premium rate is reduced, as this would propose, for the same benefit, ultimately it will be a charge against the EI account, which is underwritten by the Government of Canada, and that certainly would be out of order.

Can you answer that?

[Wayne Cole]

There is no additional expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund as a result of this amendment. There may be an accounting change inside the consolidated revenue fund, but no one is eligible for any additional benefit in any way that is different from that already provided for in the bill and covered by the royal recommendation.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It changes the amount of the premium. Quite frankly, if the formula is applied, it will change the amount that is collected, and that ultimately will have an impact.

[Wayne Cole]

It does not have an impact on the royal recommendation, because the royal recommendation does not deal with the income. It only deals with the expenditure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to take names for this.

I've got Mr. Lessard, and then I'll come back to Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Lessard.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I won't repeat the clerk's arguments. I think he was far more convincing that I could ever be.

Mr. Chair, I invite Mr. Komarnicki to reread the “blues”. He just confirmed that he would like to see any surplus from Quebec used to offset the deficit for the rest of Canada. I think he should reread the “blues” because he inadvertently contradicted us, to serve his own cause.

I do, of course, agree that our motion is completely in order, because it does not add to the government's spending.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Again, along the same lines as what Mr. Komarnicki raised, a technical legal term is used here, but the end result is that it may well and quite likely would mean for greater expense.

I don't understand the logic. I know we're getting into highly technical stuff here, but the bottom line is that it's going to be a greater drawdown. I would think, then, that it does contravene and it's against the royal recommendation.

That's my view.