Agreed.
Evidence of meeting #154 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bank.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #154 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bank.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
On division 17, Western Economic Diversification Act, the witness is Mr. David Dewar, director, strategic policy and government affairs.
Mr. Grewal.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
I think we all have access to the preambles, so I think we should make it optional if they want to say them or not.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes, we have access to them.
Perhaps you could be very brief on your preambles.
Go ahead, Mr. Dewar.
May 8th, 2018 / 9:10 p.m.
David Dewar Director, Strategic Policy & Government Affairs, Policy & Strategic Direction, Department of Western Economic Diversification
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do have a short opening statement.
The Department of Western Economic Diversification is a regional development agency in the innovation, science, and economic development portfolio. Our mandate is to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, the four western provinces.
We are seeking a minor amendment to our enabling legislation, the Western Economic Diversification Act.
Currently, in order to sign an agreement with a province, the act requires that our minister first seek the approval of the Governor in Council, essentially cabinet and the Governor General. This requirement can add months to the process which can delay the implementation of federal initiatives as well as provincial initiatives. We're seeking to amend the Western Economic Diversification Act to eliminate this requirement. This change would allow us to respond more quickly to opportunities to collaborate with provinces in areas of shared responsibility.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
On the preamble, Raj, I know we have access to it, but I do know people read some of these transcripts to find out what's happening, and the preamble informs them. That's part of the reason for it. We do have access, but there are people who do read the transcript, surprisingly.
Are there any questions for Mr. Dewar?
Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Dewar.
On division 18, which is the Parliament of Canada Act, from the Privy Council Office, we have Selena Beattie, director of operations, cabinet affairs; and Madam Burgess, legal counsel.
The floor is yours.
9:10 p.m.
Selena Beattie Director of Operations, Cabinet Affairs, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
Mr. Chair, and members, I'll be brief, given that you have the preamble, but some folks may still be looking for a bit more information.
As you are aware, members of Parliament do not currently have access to maternity or parental leave. You do not contribute to employment insurance, and therefore, you don't have access to benefits under the Employment Insurance Act. As part of its study of ways to make Parliament a more family-friendly environment, the House of Commons procedure and House affairs committee recommended amending the Parliament of Canada Act to make maternity and parental leave possible for members of Parliament.
The amendment that the government is proposing as part of the budget implementation bill would allow for the House and the Senate to make regulations that would enable maternity and parental types of leave provisions for parliamentarians.
I am happy to answer any questions.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you.
Actually, one of my daughters was born while I was in the last Parliament, so it's just interesting to see how this mechanism would work. Maybe you can explain exactly how that would work for a female member, or I guess a male member, so that they could utilize the said benefit, compared to EI, for example.
9:10 p.m.
Director of Operations, Cabinet Affairs, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
Members do not receive a salary. They receive an allowance. The Parliament of Canada Act currently provides that for every sitting day a member does not attend the House, their income is cut by $120 a day. Three exceptions are within section 57 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Those reasons are: if the House or Senate was not sitting—if you didn't miss a sitting, you're not cut for missing a sitting; if you're on public official business; or by reason of illness. Pregnancy or parental leave wouldn't fall into any of those categories.
The procedure and House affairs committee recommended adding maternity or parental leave as a fourth category. The government has chosen to achieve the same end in a slightly different way because if it were simply added as a fourth category, that would be a blanket that would apply with no restrictions and no parameters until the House or the Senate chose to apply parameters.
The approach the government is recommending to Parliament in the budget implementation act instead would create a new power for the House and the Senate to create regulations for its own members. The details of how this would operate will be up to members themselves to decide, and the House would then have the ability to adopt an order setting out those regulations, if this amendment is adopted.
There would then be a subsequent stage whereby members would determine what those parameters would be. Would there be a limitation to the number of days? Would it be less than the full income for a specific number of days? Any number of parameters would be up to the House to determine for members of the House.
When the House adopts an order, that would have the power of regulations, which would then regulate how this would apply to members.
The specifics of the actual scheme will be for you to decide for members of the House.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Would this motion be like a committee of the whole where all members could speak to it, or would it go to PROC for examination before it was ratified by the House? What would the process for that be?
9:15 p.m.
Director of Operations, Cabinet Affairs, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
Both the House and the Senate would have the power to adopt an order for the regulations, and the House could adopt an order by any number of mechanisms. Normally, a motion would be moved but it could potentially be a motion for concurrence in a committee report. It could be another type of motion. Again, those are subject to the rules of the House, and it would be for members of the House to decide.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I appreciate that perhaps there is a process whereby PROC could dive into this because, again, we want to make sure it works for parliamentarians. I would imagine that PROC would appreciate being consulted before something was done.
Thank you.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here today.
Your answer seems to be “no”, but out of curiosity, I would like to know whether, under the current regulations, it is already possible for women to obtain a doctor's note for sick leave after giving birth. Obviously, given the circumstances, it isn't possible to return to work the next morning.
With regard to the allowance, would a doctor's note not already allow for some flexibility and prevent women from having their pay cut by $120 a day, even though pregnancy and parental leave do fall under the three exceptions? Could part of the leave already be covered that way?
We agree that women cannot get a doctor's note for a whole year after giving birth, but could this approach remedy part of the problem?
9:15 p.m.
Director of Operations, Cabinet Affairs, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
I would not want to say too much about the sick leave practices of the House of Commons. I'm not an expert on the matter and I do not know what standards have been applied to date.
However, maternity-related absences are not always necessarily because of illness. The new regulation would give the House of Commons the opportunity to also adopt regulations to cover pregnant women and parents other than the woman carrying the baby who could also be entitled to parental leave to take care of a newborn or newly adopted child.
Some women may experience illnesses associated with pregnancy, but that is not always necessarily the case. We do not want to imply that with pregnancy comes illness, which is not necessarily the case. If a pregnant woman finds herself in a situation where she has to take sick leave for reasons that are not related to her pregnancy, the two provisions of the act could apply.
It would be up to the House of Commons to decide how the two provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act would apply to its own members.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you for your answer. I was mostly asking out of curiosity. It is true that I do not know all the details of how that works or how flexible it is, and that pregnancy is not an illness. Thank you for correcting me.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I understand the sensitivity of this issue. I was just saying that there might be a way for women to take leave as things now stand. That is what we want and what we are hoping for.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. It is in the bill in any event, and further decisions have to be made.
Thank you, Ms. Burgess.
Thank you, Ms. Beattie.
We're on division 19, Canada pension plan.
Mr. Countryman, from Finance, you've been here before. With you, from ESDC, is Ms. Giordano.
Welcome. Who would like to start?
9:20 p.m.
Marianna Giordano Director, CPP Policy and Legislation, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you very much. I will make this brief, as I know you've all had a hard day.
This bill proposes amendments to the Canada pension plan consistent with the agreement in principle reached unanimously by Canada’s finance ministers in December 2017. The changes eliminate the pension reductions for young survivors and fixes the amount of the death benefit at $2,500 for all eligible contributors, which will mainly benefit low- and moderate-income families who contribute.
What is more, the amendments provide for an additional benefit for disabled retirement pension beneficiaries under the age of 65. The bill also implements a disability drop-in and a child-rearing drop-in to protect pension amounts under the CPP enhancement for individuals who are disabled and parents with lower earnings during child-rearing years.
In addition, this bill also maintains portability between the CPP and the Quebec pension plan, following the enhancement of the latter. It also authorizes the making of regulations to support the sustainability of the CPP enhancement.
These amendments will provide additional support to Canadians and their families and will be especially beneficial to women, as they are more likely to reduce work to care for young children, become widowed at a young age, or collect a disability pension. In addition, integrating the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan enhancement ensures the full portability of the enhanced benefits across Canada for all workers.
As well, Canadians can rest assured that the fully funded enhanced CPP will remain well funded over time, providing them with benefits they can count on.
I am happy to take any questions.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Ms. Giordano.
Are there any questions on the Canada pension plan provisions?
Mr. Dusseault.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being with us.
My question has to do with the benefits and with the attribution of income as opposed to the exclusion of income. The system that the government chose involves attributing earnings during the years in which the person in not part of the labour force.
Did you examine the difference between the system of excluding earnings, which from what I understand is how the current system operates, and the proposed system of attributing earnings?
Did you figure out what that would mean for those receiving the pension?
9:25 p.m.
Director, CPP Policy and Legislation, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
The difference will depend on the earnings of each beneficiary. Of course, it will be less beneficial for those who have children at a young age.
It will be less beneficial for these individuals. However, the trend is that people have children later in life. For these individuals it may be more beneficial as we're taking the five-year average prior to their taking time off to take care of children. It really depends on your pattern of earnings.
9:25 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
The fact of the matter is that you have data that shows that this could have a more serious impact on young people, particularly young women.
