Evidence of meeting #26 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I call the meeting to order. We are continuing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15.
(On clause 212)
The amendment that will be coming forward is NDP-13.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
That is correct. I already discussed amendment NDP-12, at the same time as NDP-11.
In fact, the three amendments concern the same clause. We know that in the bill the amendments to employment insurance allow for a five-week benefit extension for the 12 regions selected by the government. The criterion for choosing these 12 regions is arbitrary, to say the least: there has to have been a two-point increase in the unemployment rate over a three-month period, without any indication of an economic upturn.
I was surprised by the minister's answer, yesterday, when we asked about this. Three other regions have already been added to the list. Four other regions may become eligible within a month, but no other regions are to be added to the list of those that may benefit from an extension of benefits. This adds to the arbitrary nature of the government's decision, I think.
I am going do discuss one amendment at a time, since they have to be considered separately, even though all three concern the same clause.
Amendment NDP-13 seeks to have all regions included. It eliminates discrimination regarding all Quebec and Canadian regions. So the number of regions would no longer be limited to 12. The entire country could benefit from this measure. We propose that everyone have access to the extension of benefits, no matter where they live.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think, as you know, this would impose an additional charge on the public treasury, and therefore I have to rule it inadmissible.
I will read, because we're in a new meeting, the relevant section of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, where it states on pages 767 and 768:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
This amendment would increase the number of eligible claimants, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury, and therefore I would rule it inadmissible.
On amendment BQ-7.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Chair, I've only spoken to one of my amendments. The three are different. I was going to move to the second one if the first one was defeated.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll come back to amendments NDP-14 and NDP-15.
Amendment BQ-7 is being moved by Mr. Marcil.
Go ahead.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Simon Marcil Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment BQ-7 seeks to increase the number of regions, to open up the list of regions in the bill. The regions are all oil-producing regions, unfortunately. The problem is that the entire resource sector is experiencing a downturn, including the mines in Abitibi. The situation is no better on the North Shore. From what we can see, that is not the only economic sector that is not doing well. Given the energy the government is putting into killing the aircraft industry in Quebec, things may get very difficult indeed, including in my own riding.
The amendment proposes that we eliminate the list, which is closed, and that we add regions as need be. The regions that are on the list are all outside of Quebec.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Basically, it's quite close to the same ruling that applies to amendment NDP-13.
Amendment BQ-7 would grant the minister the power to extend the number of regions, and in my opinion the amendment diverges from the current conditions of the royal recommendation in a way that could increase the number of eligible claimants, which would impose an additional charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I would rule that the amendment is inadmissible.
On amendment NDP-14.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I've often mentioned, the five-week benefit extension was made available as part of what was called a pilot project. This project was abolished by the Conservatives in 2011, if I'm not mistaken, or 2012. The measure was available in regions where the economy was largely dependent on seasonal jobs.
The purpose of the amendment is to add regions that used to benefit from this pilot project to the 12 regions proposed by the government. These are the regions concerned: Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, central Quebec, Trois-Rivières, northwestern Quebec, the Lower Saint Lawrence and North Shore, the region of Chicoutimi—Jonquière, the regions of eastern Nova Scotia and western Nova Scotia, Madawaska—Charlotte, Restigouche—Albert, the regions of southern interior British Columbia and southern coastal British Columbia, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, St. John's, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I would reject the amendment basically under the same rules, but a little differently. Amendment NDP-14 attempts to extend the number of regions, and so in the opinion of the chair the amendment would increase the number of eligible claimants, which would impose an additional charge upon the public treasury. Therefore, this amendment is inadmissible.
NDP-15.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I don't believe you can find that one out of order, Mr. Chair.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Since my two previous efforts failed, I'm going to make a third attempt.
If we go strictly by the definition issued by the government as to eligibility for the employment insurance benefit five-week extension, three new regions of the country are now eligible. These are the southern interior British Columbia region, southern Saskatchewan and the Edmonton region.
In this regard, I would like to point out that the Prime Minister himself publicly announced on May 13 that these three regions would be covered by the provisions on this extension of employment insurance benefits. It is the government's wish, and here we have the bill that could put it into effect. Our proposal is to add these three regions to the 12 already covered by the provisions in the bill.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The same ruling applies, Mr. Caron. You are adding regions, so it is likely going to impose an additional charge upon the public treasury, and I know you wouldn't want that, so I would have to rule that the amendment is inadmissible.
Go ahead.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
The government has already announced that it is going to do so. If it is the government's will and it has already been announced, how will these three regions be covered if the bill we are going to adopt is not amended? I think that is quite a legitimate question at this point.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there officials here who can answer that question? A cabinet decision is a matter different from a piece of legislation. As the minister announced last night, they are bringing in three additional regions where the 2% increase in unemployment over three months exists.
Mr. Liepert wants in.
In terms of this committee, the royal recommendation only relates to the bill in question. The matter you raised is something that certainly can be raised with the minister.
They're having a discussion at the back of the room. We'll see whether we can get some officials, but Mr. Liepert will continue in the meantime.
Mr. Liepert.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
This is just a general comment to follow upon what Mr. Caron is proposing. It is frustrating for a member of Parliament on this committee, which is supposed to be doing due diligence on a bill, that the Prime Minister can go out on his own and make an announcement that effectively changes the bill that we haven't even gotten through committee yet. I don't understand, first of all, why in this particular bill we are being region-specific and why those terms aren't part of regulations rather than of the bill.
Then we have things being changed on the fly, as I say, before the committee has even had a chance to go through the bill. Frankly, it almost makes a sham of the process, Mr. Chairman.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there any other comments?
Mr. Caron, Mr. Champagne, do you have anything to add?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
My question was real and honest, and I would like to obtain a reply.
Why does the bill specify 12 regions? The government announced that three regions would become eligible under the criteria it developed, but it did not add these three regions to the bill.
I don't understand. I would like a public servant to come and answer that question.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Champagne, do you have anything you can add or can any officials add to this?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
We can have an official provide the answer to that, to testify about the process and the royal recommendation that needs to come first before that can be amended. They will provide a technical answer. It's a technical issue, Mr. Chair.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Ms. Ryan, I believe, director general, employment insurance policy, skills and employment branch, have you heard the discussion?
3:40 p.m.
Annette Ryan Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I have, sir.
This change requires a royal recommendation,
which we do not yet have. Until that has been established, that's the timing issue that would prevent it from being considered now. It's somewhat of a parliamentary issue as much as a substantive policy issue, but that would be the sequence that is missing at this point.