Evidence of meeting #53 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes. I think with the permission of the committee we're okay, so go ahead.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
These clauses include amendments to provide an additional 12 weeks of Canada recovery benefits, to increase the maximum weeks available from 38 to 50 weeks or 25 two-week periods.
The first four weeks of these additional 12 weeks would be paid at $500 per week. The remaining eight weeks of this extension would be paid at an amount of $300 per week claimed. This means that those who extend their weeks of CRB beyond 42 weeks, as well as new claimants who apply for the first time on or after July 18, would receive the $300 per week benefit available up until September 25, 2021.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there any questions on that explanation before we go to Mr. Ste-Marie's amendment? We also have one from the NDP.
Mr. Ste-Marie.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I am not mistaken, amendment BQ-7 is exactly the same as amendment NPD-18. So I assume that Mr. Julian will be able to say more about that.
In contrast to the CERB, the Canada Recovery Benefit requires claimants to conduct a job search. This is the equivalent of what is required of employment insurance recipients. Only those who are unable to find a job continue to receive it.
In our view, therefore, there is no need to decrease the amount paid by the program. We ask that it remain at $500 per week after July.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
The two amendments are very similar, and the reality is that we can't be slashing benefits from people at this point, with a third wave hitting our shores. People who are still unable to find work should not see a massive slashing of their benefits. That's certainly something we've heard as a committee. In this respect, I think things are very clear, if we are listening to the witnesses and listening to the concerns that people have raised about the slashing of these benefits at such a critical time.
We are in the midst of a third wave, and there's the possibility, tragically, of a fourth wave. We're now seeing new variants coming in. Why would we deny people the wherewithal to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads by slashing benefits at this time?
It's no time to do a victory lap. It's no time to say everything is done and we can wrap up supports. As we've heard consistently and repeatedly at this committee, it's important to extend supports. As Mr. Ste-Marie said, these are people who are unable to find work. We're not talking about people who are not in need. We're talking people who are in need, have to put food on the table and have to keep a roof over their heads. The slashing of the benefit means that, in so many tragic cases, they will be unable to keep a roof over their heads.
We've seen growing homelessness through the pandemic. We should be providing support so that fewer people become homeless and impoverished during the pandemic, not slashing benefits in a way that puts more of them out on the street and makes more of them unable to feed their families.
There are two other points I'd like to make on this, Mr. Chair. First off, food banks are absolutely overwhelmed, which shows the magnitude of the need right now. I just heard from a food bank this week that is struggling to keep up with unprecedented demand. At the same time, Mr. Chair, as you well know, this government provided $750 billion in liquidity supports to the big banks.
The contrast I think people see is striking. Let us not be mean-spirited with people who desperately need these supports. Let's not slash supports at this critical point—the third wave of the pandemic.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We've heard the explanation on the amendment and I will have to give a chair's ruling.
The amendment attempts to remove proposed subsections 8(1) and 8(1.1) in clause 291 of the bill. The effect would be to revert back to the existing text of the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, which provides for a payment of $500.
Since the bill provides for a decrease of these payments, this amendment, if adopted, would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is therefore inadmissible, as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury. As I think Mr. Julian and Mr. Ste-Marie mentioned, this ruling applies to both BQ-7 and NDP-18. The amendments are inadmissible under the rules.
Are there any challenges to that? Everyone seems quiet. There's no challenge?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask Mr. Ste-Marie if he has something to say. If not, I'd like to add something.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
He's a very polite member of Parliament. I'm less polite.
The government should be doing this. The government could provide a royal recommendation on this. It's outrageous that it is choosing to slash benefits at such a critical time, particularly when it has been so amazingly generous with Canada's big banks and Canada's billionaires.
It's an outrage, quite frankly, so yes, I will challenge your ruling on that basis. A government that actually cared about the people affected by COVID would not be doing this.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Polite or not, Mr. Julian, you speak from the heart.
Ms. Dzerowicz, there's a challenge to the chair, so I'll take that up first and then go to you.
Mr. Clerk, could you poll the committee on the chair's decision?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yes 9; nays 2)
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
No, it's okay, Mr. Chair. I'll pass for now. Thank you.
(Clause 291 agreed to on division)
(Clause 292 agreed to on division)
(On clause 293)
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Clause 293 would add proposed new section 9.1 to the CRB Act to specify that, if the week during which an EI claimant exhausts their EI regular benefits or a combination of regular and special benefits is in the middle of the CRB two-week period, then that person may receive a payment of $300 to avoid a one-week period without income, provided the person meets the other eligibility criteria of the CRB.
In other words, it is to ensure that if someone's EI is exhausted and they apply for the CRB, they will not face a one-week income gap if their EI ends in the middle of a two-week CRB period. That relates to clause 289, as I was describing at the beginning, in the event there should be an extension of the CRB in the fall.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there any questions on that? No questions.
(Clause 293 agreed to on division)
(On clause 294)
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
This clause would increase the maximum number of weeks for the Canada recovery caregiving benefit from 38 to 42, with four extra weeks available, June 19 to July 18. These four additional weeks would be at the same current rate of $500 per week. This is accompanied by a corresponding amendment to the Canada Labour Code, which we will talk about in a moment.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there any questions on clause 294?
(Clause 294 agreed to on division)
We're on clause 295.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, would you be prepared to consider grouping clauses 295 all the way through to 302?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Absolutely.
(On clauses 295 to 302)
We'll get an explanation from Ms. Demers on them all. Then we'll see if there are any questions, and then we'll go to a vote collectively.
Ms. Demers, go ahead on clause 295 through to clause 302.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Absolutely, it's my pleasure.
If you agree, I will do clause 295, and Ms. Moran will proceed with the other clauses, which relate to the Canada Labour Code.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Clause 295, which is also in the context of amendments to the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, proposes to amend the act by adding a new regulatory-making authority to extend the eligibility period for benefits under the CRB Act up to November 20, 2021, should they be needed, as announced in the budget.
4:45 p.m.
Barbara Moran Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program - Policy, Dispute Resolution and International Affairs Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clause 296 through to clause 302 align with the changes to the CRCB, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, to extend job-protective leave for the federally regulated private sector from 38 to 42 weeks if someone is unable to work due to caregiving responsibilities due to COVID-19, and also changes the repeal date to match the new date, prescribed by regulation, on which the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit aren't available. It covers various changes that relate to the federally regulated private sector.