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.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I expect this is the same point of order that Ms. Koutrakis was about to raise. I think there's a technical issue with the phone lines, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. Look into it, because we have Pat, Ed, Tamara.... Is Mr. Falk here? I don't see him. There he is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right.
Is there any discussion on schedule 1?
(Schedule 1 agreed to on division)
(Schedule 2 agreed to on division)
(On schedule 3)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
On schedule 3, there is an amendment from Ms. May called, I believe, PV-1.
Ms. May, the floor is yours.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to briefly remind members—and I know you're all keen to get out of here—you passed a motion some time ago that requires me to be here if I have amendments. Otherwise, I could have done this at report stage. I'm here because of your instructions.
I have a reminder to the clerk to please remember in future to give me the 48 hours' notice so that I can get my amendments in on time pursuant to the motion you passed.
This one is very straightforward. Prince Edward Island right now, as you can see in the bill, is treated as “The region of Charlottetown, consisting of the Census Agglomeration of Charlottetown”, and “The region of Prince Edward Island, consisting of all Census Subdivisions that are not part of the Census Agglomeration of Charlottetown”.
My amendment is very straightforward. I'm really speaking to you today on behalf of a number of municipalities in Prince Edward Island, and particularly on behalf of the mayor of Charlottetown, who asked me to try to carry this forward. I know there are problems, and I want to touch on them briefly, but the message here is “one island, one province, one zone”.
What is happening here is a number of very odd results. I think Mr. Fraser is aware of the kinds of things that sometimes happen in maritime provinces. You can be a few feet from somebody else and your entitlements under employment insurance can be very different.
In the case of Prince Edward Island, it is quite a perverse result. Now, I recognize—and I have had notes from Finance Canada and actually had a very helpful conversation with Minister Carla Qualtrough—that in making the change here, this section deals with the seasonal pilot program. It won't solve the larger problem.
I took that back to the mayor of Charlottetown. The concern here is that if we enshrine in the statute these different zones for purposes of EI, it will make it harder to fix it in regulations down the line, and the mayor of Charlottetown, Philip Brown, doesn't see how we're going to get to fix this problem any earlier than 2023 if we don't grasp the nettle and try to fix it here.
That's what I'm attempting to do to: assist a wonderful province. We know how wonderful it is because our chair hails from there. In getting this fixed, we will be showered in Malpeque oysters and we will have a grand celebration one of these days, but for now, I put it to you that we have a problem.
I know that my amendment is controversial, in that it is not perfectly suited to fix the problem, but I don't think the municipalities and the unemployed workers of Prince Edward Island have a better option right now than passing this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Ms. May. We did look at the amendment and I had the legislative clerk look at it. The amendment is in order.
Mr. Fraser.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thanks very much.
I'll do my best to be concise. Ms. May and I had a conversation about this issue as well, which I was grateful for.
The issue around this proposed amendment is that it pertains to a section that only deals with the seasonal pilot program, as Ms. May has quite rightly acknowledged. My fear is that it's not entirely innocuous. My understanding is that there would be risk if we create a different definition of the zones in Bill C-30 that refers to the seasonal pilot while the regulations that apply to the ordinary EI zones remain as they are. We could, in an unintended way, actually lead to the perverse consequence where Islanders would not be eligible for the seasonal pilot expansion.
I just have a final point. This is a problem that actually impacts my constituency. I was looking for other ways to address the issue for my own constituents, who sometimes work for the same employer or live in the same community, but have access to different EI benefits. I understand that the commissioner's review of the program is under way. There will be an opportunity in the medium term—I don't have a specific date for you—to actually address the underlying issue through the regulatory change, which I would submit is the proper course of action rather than amending Bill C-30.
I'll leave it to members to decide what they're going to do, but for that reason and with great respect to Ms. May, I'll be voting against the amendment, despite the fact that I want to fix the problem in my own community.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I expect we will have to go to a vote on this. Is there any further discussion?
With no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, could you poll the committee on PV-1?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The amendment is lost. Thank you, Ms. May, for putting that forward, though.
(Schedule 3 agreed to on division)
(Schedule 4 agreed to on division)
Then we go to the short title....
Mr. Fraser.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Chair, I meant to raise this at the beginning of the meeting, but I had a substitute, so I didn't. I promise not to take long on this.
There was one clause during the course of our clause-by-clause exercise that I wanted to raise for the potential opportunity to revisit. I'd like to propose a short motion and then just give a one-minute explanation as to what it is. It is a motion that relates to Monsieur Ste-Marie's initial proposed amendment that would have limited the transfer of funding to the Canadian Securities Transition Office to $1. The amendment was defeated, which would have had the effect of ultimately not allowing the organization to operate.
The Conservatives sided against the amendment, as did other parties as well. I did also. Subsequently, on the vote on the main motion, the main motion was defeated, which, in effect, resulted in the same outcome. I don't know. I view those two outcomes to be at odds. I was hoping to propose a motion.
I move that the results of the vote by the committee on clause 158 of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures, be rescinded.
I can boil it down to the Coles Notes. I think this organization is important. It has important impacts on capital markets regulation. It has a major opportunity to work not only with the bank on securities regulation, but also with the major banks to strengthen our anti-money laundering regime in Canada.
Finally, the reason I raise it.... I would have taken everybody's vote at their word, but it was one of the few things, when former Prime Minister Harper was in office, that I was quite in agreement with when it happened. I just wanted to give the opportunity for folks to revisit this issue at committee before we deal with the bill in the House.
I'll leave it there. I could repeat the motion in French if that would be for the benefit of the crowd, if the translation wasn't accurate. I see Monsieur Ste-Marie's shaking his head no, so I'll leave my submission there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I will have to ask both the clerk and the legislative clerk if this motion is to rescind the results of the vote on.... Did you say clause 158?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I, to be honest with you, have never dealt with this kind of situation before. Is that motion in order? Can anybody give me some advice? That's why I like it when the clerk and the legislative clerk sit beside me.
Who wants to give me some advice, the clerk or Philippe?
Philippe says I would need unanimous consent to allow that, Mr. Fraser.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
I am against the motion.
You said we needed unanimous consent; I am going to vote against the motion. We've spent a long time debating it. I think I'm making an informed choice, not a random one.
Thank you.
