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.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I would like to ask the same question Mr. Liepert asked, which is entirely relevant.
Why specify the regions in the bill, if the criteria that determine which regions will be eligible mean that from one month to the next, new regions could become eligible and we will constantly have to amend the law?
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I would like the official to answer this question first.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
It's a political question, Mr. Chair.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
No, no. My question is simple: why have included that in the bill rather than in regulations, since the regions determined according to criteria established by the government run the risk of changing constantly? Why is this being done through a bill rather than through regulations?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
This would be related to the discussion yesterday of the structure of the policy, which starts benefit access in January of 2015 on a reach-back basis, in which case the further we move from that base period makes the policy intent much less applicable to this policy measure.
The second issue discussed yesterday was the definition of “sudden” being based in the reference period of December 2014 to February 2015. This is part of the definition that becomes less pertinent the further we go in time from that base period. There is a commitment to continue to study how this measure plays forward to inform permanent changes to the program, as you may be suggesting. This particular definition has both a policy rationale that's structured around that time period as well as the definition of “sudden” that reflects that.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Caron, I don't want to go down this road too far. I have ruled based on the legislation that this does require a royal recommendation. It does go somewhat to your point as to whether these measures should be part of a budget bill or a separate bill; I will grant you that.
We'll take a couple of more comments, but we've already ruled.
Go ahead and ask your question, as Mr. Liepert wants in.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I have one last question.
If the government intends to add the southern interior British Columbia region, southern Saskatchewan and the Edmonton region, as had already been announced, another bill might become necessary to amend what we are currently amending through the budget implementation bill.
The bill establishes the 12 regions, and the intent is to add three. And so the bill we are studying now will have to be amended to add those three regions. Am I mistaken?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Could I ask a question that might clarify this?
In the new regions that have come in, have they hit the 2% threshold? Isn't the criterion in this bill that if you have an increase of 2% in unemployment over a three-month period, then that brings the region in? Am I wrong or correct on that?
Mr. Champagne.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
You're right, Mr. Chair. That is the criterion by which the list is selected; but the structure of the legislation is to name the listed regions, as we have done in the past with any number of pilot projects that provided benefits on a regional basis. That has an administrative logic as well as the policy intent logic of basing the list of regions in the time that lines up with the commodity decline.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I just want to get a little clarification on past budgets. Would it have been common practice in past budgets to actually name regions, or would the budget have contained the criteria, and as the chair said, so that if you fell under or met those criteria, then you would qualify? Has it been past practice to specifically name regions, or is this something that is new to this budget?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
It's a bit of a complex answer to your question.
There is a well-established practice within the employment insurance program to introduce policy changes via pilot projects that follow a list of named regions. This has been the case in the past with any number of measures. We call them regional pilots. This authority still exists within the EI Act and regulations.
The difficulty of using that power in this case is that essentially we cannot provide benefits retroactively or, more specifically, retrospectively via regulations. That's a legislative power that we have to follow if we in fact want to have benefits in a timing that coincides with the labour market implications of the commodity's downturn. Essentially, if we wanted to go back and help people who started to be affected as of January 2015, we'd need to do it via legislation rather than regulation.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Would you admit that you could have done it by criteria in the legislation and not have been region-specific?
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
That would be a very different policy mechanism that would be difficult to implement for our administrative folks. The amount of systems changes and operational changes involved are really quite considerable. That's been one of the core principles of why lists are typically preferred in these approaches rather than a moving trigger, which is built into our program through the variable entrance requirements but requires a very deep and profound approach administratively so that you have quite a large system that adjusts in real time. That's beyond the policy intent of a response to this specific downturn.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Right. I just want to get clarity.
Right now we are talking about the particular clause, because you rejected the amendment. We are in a situation of having to vote for or against a clause that we know is wrong, in practice, because we've been told that we are otherwise going to add regions to it. We're being asked to vote on a clause that the government has already publicly said is outdated.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I would just say, Mr. Chair, that you've drawn the motion, and we've provided feedback and explanation. I think everything that has to be said has been said on this.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
This is going to be the final comment because we are into a debate, but I think it's a good discussion.
Mr. Caron.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I agree with you: it's a good discussion. Ms. Ryan gave us information and we appreciate that, but it doesn't solve the issue. Mr. Liepert is right.
Right now we have to approve a clause that is now incomplete because of the government's own wishes. The government no longer intends to have 12 regions, but 15. However, the bill forces us to take a position on a list that contains only 12 regions. I think this will add to the confusion around this clause regarding the five-week benefit extension. And this adds to the arbitrary nature of the government's decision.