Bill C-56 (Historical)

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act and other Acts by establishing a scheme to provide for the payment of special benefits to self-employed persons who are not currently entitled to receive them.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Labour

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is not actually a point of order, but I do welcome the opportunity to also congratulate the Minister of Labour and indeed all members of Parliament, perhaps with the exception of a few.

I think we all know the parties that were actively involved in trying to ensure that the back-to-work legislation that was introduced in this House and that I intended to call later today is now unnecessary.

I think that is great news for the country. I congratulate both sides of this dispute for coming to this common sense resolution so that we did not have to occupy the time of the House and the time of members from all parties in a debate in this place.

It would be my intention following routine proceedings to call Bill C-56 for debate this afternoon.

Employment Insurance

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-56, for the first time, we are offering self-employed workers in Quebec the opportunity to pay into the plan in order to receive compassionate care, sickness and injury benefits at an affordable price.

This is the first time these benefits have been offered outside private companies. It is a good thing for Quebeckers who are self-employed workers.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has improved the employment insurance system for all workers and their families. We introduced Bill C-56, which would offer compassionate care and sickness benefits to self-employed workers in Quebec at an affordable and reasonable rate. That is a first.

As it stands, Quebeckers have access only to a private insurance program that can be very expensive. I invite the Minister of National Revenue to give the House an update on Bill C-56

Human Resources Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I also wish to thank all members of committee from both sides of the House for their hard work and their spirit of co-operation in getting this bill through committee.

Employment Insurance

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is trying to force workers in Quebec to swallow an insult. The contribution rate that self-employed workers in Quebec will pay for benefits under Bill C-56 is totally disproportionate. According to the human resources department's own estimates, Quebeckers will pay too much for the services they receive.

Will the government admit the injustice that is being done to self-employed workers in Quebec, who are going to have to subsidize other workers?

[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?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to remind Mr. Komarnicki that I was the one who chaired the committee in your absence.

I will do it in English so there won't be a translation problem between me and Mr. Kormarnicki and he will understand the weight of my words.

I was the person who presided over the meeting because you were away, Mr. Chair. In the meeting we discussed under what circumstances we would discuss and do the clause-by-clause and table Bill C-56. I do not recall our ever mentioning the word “amendment” either in a negative or in a positive sense. We simply discussed the fact that we would do the clause-by-clause and that we would eventually, by Friday at the latest.... That is what the agreement was. There was no agreement as to whether we would bring in or not bring in amendments. We simply didn't discuss it.

That is the first thing I want to say.

The second one is, since Mr. Komarnicki talks about additional expenses, the legislative clerk has just explained to us—and I have to take his word as being a very informed person—that there are no additional expenses, and this is why he has ruled that my colleague Mr. Lessard's motion is not out of order as you wish it to be, Mr. Komarnicki.

The last thing I want to mention is this regarding Tuesday afternoon when I sat in the chair once again. I want Mr. Komarnicki to recall how difficult it had been--and he was part of the discussion--to bring the actuary to this meeting this afternoon. We didn't even really know, in fact, which actuary we were bringing because we didn't even know what his full title was, whether he was actuary to the government or if he was one to the ministry or what. That was another question we were asking. I know that perhaps other people around this table were not in the dark, but I was pretty much in the dark as to who this person was and what his title was, and therefore what his responsibilities were.

So things have come out this afternoon that I certainly didn't know about and I am very glad I know about now, because it does bring a certain light on that aspect--not on the whole Bill C-56, but on that aspect of the bill. This does not change the fact that eventually we will come to a decision, whatever that decision may be, and that eventually it will be tabled or not on Friday.

Mr. Komarnicki, I'll say it right to you. I feel that what you are doing right now is pure blackmail. I'm telling you, Mr. Komarnicki, I am disappointed in you.

[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.

[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.

[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]

The one they're handing out now has Bill C-56 on the front. It says G-1 in the right corner and talks about “committee stage”, and it should have a “number 1” written on the bottom of the page.

[Luc Taillon]

First, I would like to say that the figures in Mr. Bédard's document are for the most part correct, except for the qualitative comments that I do not agree with. I have the English version of the document in front of me. When he says that the Quebec premium rate of 1.36% is excessively high, I feel that Mr. Bédard is comparing apples and oranges.

We are not dealing with a compulsory plan here. We must be very careful with the figures that Mr. Bédard is using. Many of those figures are actually taken from the most recent report of the Chief Actuary, published last October 14. They all deal with a compulsory plan. Employment Insurance is a compulsory plan.

However, Bill C-56deals with a voluntary plan. The actuarial dynamics change considerably. My first reaction is that he is comparing apples to oranges.

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

Mr. Chair, I would appreciate it if you could give him a little more time. This is critical. Over there, you have the only witness who can corroborate or contradict our information, and here, just now, we had people doing their best to prevent him from speaking. We decided that we were going to hear the testimony from the witnesses here in its entirety.

I would like to hear from Mr. Taillon. He is the Chief Actuary. We invited him here today. It is his responsibility to enlighten us, all the more so because he says he agrees with the figures and with Bill C-56.

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

Like you, I am sure he is.

I am going to read the document. Mr. Bédard is retired, yet he has generously taken the initiative to give us his opinion on the questions we were asking during the discussions that he saw on television. He writes the following:

At the committee meeting on November 19, you asked Minister Finley and Mr. Vermaeten what were the costs of the special benefits included in the employment insurance benefits package. Please find attached the answer to your question. - Maternity/parental leave benefits: 0.88% - Sickness benefits: 0.41% - Compassionate care benefits: 0.0002% (minor) It is worth noting that premium deductions applicable to the Quebec parental leave benefits program must be included in the total cost calculation, as well as the costs related to the premium reductions applicable, Canada-wide, to private wage insurance benefits (in case of sickness) offered by employers.

In bold characters, he then writes:

The premium rate that Quebecers should pay under C-56 for insurance sickness benefits should be 0.41%. A 1.36% premium rate would be excessively high. If, in accordance with C-56, the 1.36% premium rate is charged (as for the employees), then the reduction granted to employers, which is 1.4 times the reduction granted to employees, is not taken into consideration.

At the end of the document, he invites me to contact him if I need further clarification.

On the following page, there is a list of the employment insurance special benefits. He gives a breakdown of the cost of those special benefits, a breakdown that we could not get from the officials in our two most recent meetings with them. We have checked the breakdown and it seems to coincide exactly with our own figures.

Mr. Taillon, could you tell us if this document could serve as a reference for us in our work today, and whether the information is correct?