Finance Committee on June 3rd, 2021

[Mona Nandy]

Definitely, Mr. Chair.

Clause 305 simply continues the objective of ensuring that EI claimants with violations are no worse off by selecting the hours of penalty that correspond to the highest rates of unemployment, so more than 13%.

The objective of clause 306 is simply to make sure that when stipulating for the period between September 26, 2021, and September 24, 2022, claimants with monies paid on separation—that could be vacation pay or severance pay—can receive EI benefits at the same time, thereby increasing access to the EI system.

Similarly, that's the same objective for clause 307.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any questions on those three clauses?

(Clauses 305 to 307 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 308)

On clause 308, could we could get an explanation? We have two amendments on that, I believe.

[Mona Nandy]

Certainly.

Again, Mr. Chair, clause 308 has several subclauses. I will go through them one by one.

The first subclause, subclause 308(1), outlines the maximum number of weeks of entitlement for regular EI benefits that an eligible seasonal worker claimant can receive, as outlined in the new schedule V. This subclause also outlines the criteria by which a seasonal worker is eligible to receive these maximum weeks of entitlement.

Those include that the claimant has a benefit period that falls within the period beginning on September 26, 2021, and ending on October 29, 2022; that at the beginning of the benefit period the claimant is a resident of a region described in schedule VI of the BIA; and then, that in the five years prior to the beginning of the benefit period, the claimant had demonstrated that they were a seasonal worker—for example, they had three benefit periods established with various presumptions in the parameters around the establishment and beginning of the benefit periods.

The objective of this subclause is to replicate in legislation the parameters of the pilot project related to increased weeks of benefits for seasonal workers, which is commonly known as “pilot project number 21”. That is included in the EI regulations as of September 26, 2021. That's subclause 308(1).

Subclause 308(2) increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid “because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine” from 15 weeks to 26. The objective of this subclause is to provide more weeks of sickness benefits to claimants on a permanent basis.

I do realize, though, that I have moved on. I think there is an amendment, as you were saying, Mr. Chair, on subclause 308(1). I wonder if you want me to continue or just pause there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Maybe you can finish the clause and then we'll come back to each of the amendments, so that we're done with the discussion on clause 308 before we get to the amendments.

[Mona Nandy]

Certainly.

Subclause 308(3) replaces subsection 12(8) of the EI Act: the reference in that subsection to “major attachment claimant” with “claimant” as part of the removal of the definition of “major attachment claimant” for the EI Act for that one-year period beginning on September 26, 2021 and ending on September 24, 2022. As previously mentioned with the subclauses of clause 303, the objective of this subclause is to support the establishment of the new national entrance requirement of 420 hours of insurable employment for special benefits for a one-year period as of September 26, 2021.

Finally, subclause 308(4) returns the sections of the EI Act listed in the previous subclause 308(3) to their original language and operations, beginning September 25, 2022, which is the end of the EI temporary measures for a one-year period.

That's it for clause 308.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much for that fairly lengthy explanation.

We'll turn to Mr. Ste-Marie on amendment BQ-8.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to speak to amendment BQ-8, and I will return to amendment BQ-9 later.

They are both along the same lines and complement what was suggested to us by the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, who testified before the committee.

For the period beginning September 27, 2021, Mr. Serré had reminded us of the two blind spots in this legislation. In particular, this amendment is designed to ensure that the benefit period is 50 weeks. As we know, the old version of employment insurance did not work well. It needs to be revised and it will be. In the meantime, the pandemic is still with us and the economy is still at risk. This motion ensures that EI benefits will last 50 weeks, in part to ensure that seasonal workers are not adversely affected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

The chair's ruling on this amendment is that the amendment attempts to extend the duration of the pilot project number 21 until September 2022. The effect would be that more people would have access to an increased number of weeks for a longer period of time, which would result in increased payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation, since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury. I rule it inadmissible.

Can we go to amendment NDP-20?

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I stated at the outset, I have the utmost respect for you and have repeated that consistently through the finance committee. Mr. Fragiskatos took objection to the reality, which is that the government's withholding a royal recommendation puts you in an uncomfortable position of having to rule out of order improvements that would make a big difference in people's lives. I would have to disagree with Mr. Fragiskatos that this is something that's acceptable. The government should be walking the talk and should be accepting these improvements, which would make such a difference in people's lives.

That is also the case for amendments NDP-20 and NDP-22. I'll present both of them together. We have heard, through the course of the witnesses that we had and the testimony, that the 26 weeks is simply not enough time to get through illness. This is from Liberal witnesses who came forward and when opposition members asked them, “Is 26 weeks sufficient?” these Liberal witnesses—witnesses called by the Liberal Party—said that, no, actually it would be much more important to have a full year of benefit support when people are going through critical illnesses, such as cancer. While they are recovering, the time, the requirements and the demands on people when they are trying to get through these health crises are enormous, so when Liberal witnesses brought forward to our committee agree with the opposition that we should be looking to 50 weeks, I think that is a fundamentally important recommendation that we as a committee should uphold.

That is why both NDP-20 and NDP-22 have been put forward. Also, as you know, Mr. Chair, the labour movement nationally and a variety of other organizations are all calling for this as well. This is very germane to another measure within the budget implementation act that fell far short of what's actually needed, and now is the time for us to rectify that error.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The amendment attempts to extend the number of weeks of benefits for prescribed illness, injury or quarantine from 26 to 50, which would result in increased payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, with deep respect for your role as chair and not a lot of respect for the government action on refusing a royal recommendation, I would challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right. Mr. Clerk, there's been a challenge to the chair's ruling. You can poll the committee, please.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

(Clause 308 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

A new clause 308.1 is proposed by the NDP in amendment NDP-21.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we already dealt with this under the Bloc amendment. It's a slightly different approach but the same thing—to include the standard denominator. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't be challenging all of the rulings on this, but it is clear that this would provide more stability for people who are unemployed and searching for work at this difficult time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Whatever ruling I make here will apply to amendment BQ-9 as well.

Does Mr. Ste-Marie have anything to add to the argument for either NDP-21 or BQ-9?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I would remind you that representatives of the Comité national des chômeurs et chômeuses appeared before the committee to tell us about the two blind spots in Bill C-30. This is the second blind spot. In accordance with the representatives' recommendation,the amendment seeks to use the single denominator of 14 instead of denominators of up to 21 in some cases. The amount that seasonal workers will receive each week will be greatly reduced because of this blind spot in Bill C-30. It is, therefore, an important amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

The amendment provides for a different method of calculation of weekly insurable earnings such that the insurable earnings would be divided by 14 in all cases rather than a number between 14 and 22, which would result in increased payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed in inadmissible, as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury. That ruling applies to BQ-9 as well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I think I'll be appealing your decision, but I do have a question for our witnesses. Your ruling specifically states that this would increase payments from the consolidated revenue fund, but it's the employment insurance account that pays for employment insurance.

Could our witnesses respond to my question? Is the employment insurance account separate from the consolidated revenue fund account, or has this current government basically taken over the employment insurance account?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll go to the witnesses, but as I understand it, there's separate accounting on both and it is the consolidated revenue fund.

Go ahead, Ms. Nandy, or whoever else from the public service who wants to answer this.

[Mona Nandy]

Hi there. I'm going to ask if George Rae can be called in to help with this particular question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Rae, if you're not in, the clerk will let you in.

Mr. Rae.

[George Rae, Director, Policy Analysis and Initiative, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

The employment insurance operating account is a fund that gets reimbursed and has debits and credits from the consolidated revenue fund.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

When did that merging happen? Of course, organized labour has raised this over the years. I think this is the first time we've had the government openly admit that they've just taken over the employment insurance account. When did that merging take place so that employment insurance is no longer considered separate and independent of the consolidated revenue fund?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

As I understand it, Mr. Julian, it was always a separate accounting. I could be wrong on that.

Mr. Rae.

[George Rae]

That's correct. It is a separate accounting.