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
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. Are there any questions on that? I see none, and nobody is up.
(Clauses 295 to 302 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 303)
Thank you very much, Ms. Demers and Ms. Moran.
I believe we have Mr. Rae and Ms. Nandy here, who are ready for the next one.
We will turn to division 36, which is on benefits and leave related to employment.
Ms. Nandy, you're up to explain clause 303.
Mona Nandy Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you, Chair. I hope you can all hear me.
My name is Mona Nandy. I am the executive director of employment insurance policy at Employment and Social Development Canada. I'm here with you today to present clauses 303 to 361, which propose amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Labour Code and the employment insurance regulations.
I am joined by my colleague, Barbara Moran, who will speak to the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code, as well as by several colleagues, including Catherine Demers, who was just on for division 35, as well as George Rae, Benoit Cadieux and Michael MacPhee, to help answer questions you may have regarding division 36.
For some additional context, division 36 proposes a series of amendments that I will be speaking to related to the Employment Insurance Act and the employment insurance regulations, which can be grouped in four categories.
The first category would be those amendments that would maintain more flexible access to employment insurance benefits for a period of one year while the job market continues to recover from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The second would be those EI temporary measures that are otherwise expiring in September 2021, related to seasonal claimants and fishers. The measures included in this bill would extend those temporary measures that are otherwise expiring.
The third set of proposed amendments would continue training supports and integrity actions related to the EI emergency response benefit.
The final set of changes in division 36 would make permanent changes to enhance EI sickness benefits.
That's just an overview, before I move into it clause by clause, if that's okay, Chair.
Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Starting with subclause 303(1), this repeals the definitions of “major attachment claimant” and “minor attachment claimant”.
The objective of the subclause is to support the establishment of a new national entrance requirement of 420 hours of insurable employment for claimants seeking EI special benefits, for a one-year period starting September 26, 2021.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. We're on page 300 of the bill. Are there any questions on clause 303? I don't see any questions.
(Clause 303 agreed to on division)
(On clause 304)
Could you give us an explanation on clause 304? Then we have NDP-19.
Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Definitely, Mr. Chair.
There are numerous subclauses to clause 304. The first subclause establishes that all claimants seeking EI regular benefits and special benefits must have at least 420 hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period in order to qualify for benefits. The objective here is to support the establishment of this new national entrance requirement of 420 hours of insurable employment, for both regular and special benefits, for a one-year period starting September 26, 2021.
Subclause 304(2) would return the sections of the EI Act that I just spoke about to their original language and operation, beginning on September 25, 2022, as per the expiry of that one-year period.
Subclause 304(3) would remove the qualification requirement table based on the regional rate of employment, which is outlined in paragraph 7(2)(b) of the EI Act. The objective here is to remove the qualification requirement's dependency on regional rates of employment.
Subclause 304(4) reverts the sections of the EI Act that were listed, which I just mentioned in subclause 304(3), to their original language and operation, beginning on September 25, 2022, again with the end of the one-year period.
That concludes clause 304.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I have an NDP-19, Mr. Julian, if you want to go there.
I know, Elizabeth May, that you have an amendment here as well at some point, so don't let me miss that.
Green
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It came in late, so I don't have it in my notes.
Mr. Julian, if you want to explain your NDP-19, I'll give you a ruling.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I don't doubt that, Mr. Chair.
This would lower the qualifying period, ensuring that there's a national threshold of 360 hours for EI. This is something that we've heard in testimony is very much needed and would make a difference in terms of easing accessibility to benefits that people desperately need.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If there's nothing further to add there, then my ruling is this, which you're expecting: The amendment attempts to reduce the number of insurable employment hours necessary to obtain benefits under the Employment Insurance Act from 420 to 360 hours. The effect would be that more people would have access to these benefits, which would result in increasing 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, so I rule it inadmissible.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The key words that you used were these: “that more people would have access to these benefits”. It's a sad testament that you're being forced, as the chair, to enact the government's refusal to provide more supports and more access to benefits.
I certainly don't hold it against you, Mr. Chair. I know it's the government that's forcing you to say those words through its practices and its refusal to put a royal recommendation in place.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. The reality is that it does require a royal recommendation when it's about money out of the federal treasury, so the challenged ruling—
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It was me, Mr. Chair, who raised the point of order.
Liberal
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I'm sure he shares the concern that I have, which is that Mr. Julian put some things on the record that were not accurate by any means. To defend the chair here, I know you're modest, Mr. Chair. You're not going to get in the way of Mr. Julian's making an argument, letting his opinions cloud what are the facts, and the facts are not what he said.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't think it's a point of order. I think it is debate. I don't mind being challenged, so we'll leave it at that and not get into a strenuous debate. I have to follow the rules, and that's what they are.
We'll move to a vote on the challenge to the chair, Mr. Clerk.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, wait until we vote on 304 first.
(Clause 304 agreed to on division)
(On clauses 305 to 307)
Do I see any disagreement on bundling clauses 305 to 307? I see none.
Could we get an explanation on those, Ms. Nandy or whoever? Then we will vote on them.
