Evidence of meeting #59 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
It's the operation of the program. That's what the program is designed to do.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Hold on a second, we've got a list here.
Mr. Lessard, and then we'll come back to Mr. Komarnicki, Mr. Vellacott, and Mr. Savage.
Go ahead, Mr. Lessard.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, we could review the “blues”. The Minister and senior officials told us, as did Mr. Taillon today, that what they want to achieve is fairness. When they talked about principles, they mentioned fairness. So then, as far as this motion to amend is concerned, if there already is fairness, then the outcome will be same.
We maintain that there is no fairness. The motion aims to restore fairness. It does not increase premiums, it merely distributes them differently. Mr. Komarnicki has stated on two or three occasions that it doesn't bother him a great deal, if at all, if there is no fairness.
This is one of the flaws that we have identified in the bill, and the best way to correct that flaw is by adopting a proven formula like this which will give results. It will ensure an equitable situation.
Mr. Komarnicki is arguing that even if the situation in inequitable, he wants the status quo. That goes against the spirit of the bill.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Obviously, whatever happens here today, it's not going to be the end of it. It'll be obviously appealed and taken to other levels too.
But when we say here, under Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, “Amendments to bills are out of order if they attempt to substitute an alternative scheme to that proposed with the Royal Recommendation”.... If Quebec is having a different program or a different approach here, a different scheme--I know we're into legal language, legal limbo, if you will--to me that, on the face of it at least, prima facie appears to be an alternative scheme at that juncture.
The nature of the amendment is to have an alternative scheme, and particularly in this case, that affects only Quebec. I'm wondering if the clerk has taken that into consideration--not the dollar amounts so much as the alternative scheme. It appears to be clearly that, at least on the face of it.
5:15 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
As I said before, the premium rate is not covered by the royal recommendation because it's not expenditure, it's income. The fact that this may be a--
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to apologize to the clerk, because he is doing a good job. We agree with him.
I have a point of order. This is the third time that a decision made by you and by your senior advisors has been called into question. If they disagree with this decision, they should stop wasting our time and appeal it. We can then come to a final decision, Mr. Chair.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We have a list here. Let's follow along.
I have Mr. Komarnicki and Mr. Savage.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Let me respond to what Ed said a while ago following my intervention, which is, what am I talking about here? What do I need in order to have some assurance that we don't need an amendment like this?
I don't have to work out 100% of the details now, but if the parliamentary secretary gives me his assurance that the government will support a motion asking the Auditor General to have a complete look at Bill C-56 to assure its actuarial soundness, in particular looking at how rates are set and its impact on the EI fund, I'd be prepared to move this bill through tonight without material change to it. I don't have to have the exact working. We have the blues here.
Is that something we can agree on and have a look at?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Maybe I can respond to that and then obviously I want to think about it.
The bill is not as complicated as most would make it. We have heard testimony today that said the rate is set, having regard to a number of factors, and they're policy factors. One of those is ease of administration, that it's easy to understand, and equal to the same amount that's being charged to employees now. That's not complicated. The uptake rate will determine how many benefits are paid out. There are a number of factors, but it will not be equal. There will be some deficits, and those have been indicated by Mr. Beauséjour. They've been set out to exactly what they are.
That doesn't change what we understood about the bill. You can have any number of accountants look at it, you can have any amount of number crunching, but those are policy kinds of considerations. The bill is what the bill is. The bill was put forward here. We all read the bill. We all knew how it worked. If we're going to start saying at this hour that we're going to make material changes to it, that has nothing to do with the design of the bill.
It's meant to work this way. It's meant to say that if you collect from employees what you're collecting from other employees and you have a lot of people taking maternity and paternity benefits, and you have sickness and compassionate benefits, and they are a little more than the premium, that will have to come from the EI account. That's the way EI works, and it's cost-subsidized in many other areas, if you look at the premiums today. Those who receive benefits don't exactly pay in equal to their benefits. That's the way it's designed to work. Nothing will change about that.
For me to go back and say, let's make it actuarially sound to ensure the premiums will be equal to the benefits--that won't happen, because that's not the way the bill is designed. We all knew that, and we're now playing games--some of us. I'm saying we'll have to deal with that. We knew what we were talking about last week and nothing has changed.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Ed just said you can get any number of accountants to look at it, but I just want one to look at it, an independent one.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
There is actuarial work that gets done in setting rates. You can't just say that it is what it is and then we'll change it later. There has to be some formula.
Just a second, Ed. I'm trying to find a way to work with you on this. We want to get this done; we want to get this through. Mr. Lessard has raised some big questions. He's told us today that the former chief actuary of the fund has looked at it and indicated that the Quebec rate is way out of whack. That's worthy of note.
So here we are now having to approve this bill tonight. What I'm saying to you is this. We will approve this bill, as Liberals, tonight. We will support getting this bill through so that it can be reported to the House tomorrow, but we just want a separate set of eyes to look at this; we want an assurance from the government. It doesn't have to be a long study by the Auditor General. It could just be that she's had a look at it and gives a report to this committee. That's what I want. It's something so that I can go back and say, these questions have been raised, let's get a separate set of eyes....
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
You can do that if you want to, but it's not going to change the principle of the bill.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I want you to work with us in the spirit of unanimity and collegiality. Christmas is less than a month away.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
The trees are up on Parliament Hill. Let's just see if we can work together on it.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
If you want to get an actuary, then get an actuary—there are many of them around—to have a look at the bill.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I don't want that. I want the people of Canada to have it. That's what I'm saying. Let's get somebody to have a look at this, so we can work together and get this bill through.
