Finance Committee on May 31st, 2022

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Oh, those are not the EI ones. The EI is coming up after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, the EI is coming up after.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I missed that.

Yes, we can group them...and on division, please.

(Clauses 382 to 453 inclusive agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we are moving, members, to clause 454.

I see a hand up.

Go ahead, MP Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I wonder if I might just make a proposal, Mr. Chair, and perhaps the legislative clerks could help us in determining, from clause 454 on, if all of the remaining clauses are part of division 32. If so, perhaps we could just group the remaining clauses and then deal with them as a group, if there is no objection from anyone on the committee.

The utility of that would be that it corresponds well to the conversations that have been had around these reforms. To put it succinctly, I think these reforms have not been very well received within many affected stakeholder groups. I think some of the concern, certainly on my part for just voting down these provisions, is that, while people were disappointed in the particular content of what was presented in the budget implementation act, there was a high degree of excitement around changing the EI appeals board. It's just that people want to get it right.

That's something we were hoping the government would hear. I note that the minister did tweet just before this meeting that she is interested in not only going back to the drawing board on some of these changes, but she also committed in that tweet to presenting new legislation in the fall. I think that was a major concern of stakeholders out there, that this not simply be voted down and go away, but that, if it were to be voted down, there was a clear commitment from the government that they would bring legislation back in the near term so that this is not a discussion that dies with this particular budget implementation act but a discussion that continues in the life of this Parliament so that we can find a satisfactory reform to the EI appeal board.

Given that the minister is clearly on the public record at this point committing to bringing that legislation forward in the fall, I certainly think that I would be content to lump these provisions together and to vote no.

Of course, if any member of the committee feels differently, they're welcome to say so, and we can deal with them clause by clause, but if that's a satisfactory outcome to other members of the committee, I'm sure it would save us a fair bit of time. That would be my proposal, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thanks.

We can discuss this as a whole, but we will have to go clause by clause as there are amendments that we would have to address as we go through it.

MP Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

If I may, on the procedure there, I wonder, because we would only be able to lump them together and vote either yes or no on that as a package, if it were with the unanimous consent of members to proceed by lumping them together and having a single vote, we could interpret that as meaning anyone who had suggested amendments for these provisions would not move those, in which case we would be okay. Certainly if a member did want to move one of those amendments—I don't want to stop anyone from doing that—the appropriate thing for them to do at that point would be to deny unanimous consent. If they provide unanimous consent, it would be fair to surmise that they don't intend to move those amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you for that, MP Blaikie. Yes, that would be up to the members who have those amendments before us.

We do have hands up.

We have MP Ste-Marie, who does have a number of amendments in front of us.

Then we have MP Beech and MP Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully agree with Mr. Blaikie's proposal to reject all the clauses in division 32.

I gave a notice of motion to committee members. This notice was an echo of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which studied division 32. This committee was unanimous in saying that what is in division 32 is not satisfactory and must be thoroughly amended.

My amendments to division 32 were an effort to improve the bill. That being said, if the government would agree to withdraw division 32 from Bill C‑19 and introduce a bill that better meets the needs of the community, that would be ideal. It would also be consistent with the unanimous will of the human resources committee and the testimony we heard.

I would like to point out that experts from the Employment Insurance Appeal Board appeared before the committee. They told us that they were not at all satisfied with division 32 as worded.

I asked Terry Beech whether the government would agree to withdraw this division from the bill. If he agrees with Mr. Blaikie's proposal, that means that the government will have agreed. The unions also told us that this does not work, and the experts on the Employment Insurance Appeal Board, both those representing workers and those representing employees, told us that they were not satisfied with the Employment Insurance Appeal Board proposed in division 32.

I think the right thing to do would be to put all of this together and vote against it, so that this division would be removed from Bill C‑19. Later this fall, the minister will be able to introduce a bill that will better reflect the needs, requests and consultations, as well as the needs of the Employment Insurance Appeal Board.

I would like to acknowledge the exceptional work of my colleague Louise Chabot, the Bloc Québécois member who sits on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As soon as she became aware of Bill C‑19, she warned us that it was not working. She was able to call on all the stakeholders in the Employment Insurance Appeal Board so that they could see that it was not working.

With her proposal, she managed to generate a consensus within the human resources committee that this did not make sense and should be withdrawn. She did the same thing here in the Standing Committee on Finance; she suggested certain witnesses, and she came to ask certain questions. She has done an exceptional job, and I tip my hat to her.

I would like to thank Mr. Blaikie for his suggestion. I also want to thank Mr. Beech. In fact, I asked him about this division in front of witnesses. If he agreed with what is being proposed, it would show that he managed to get his government to act and that it decided to wait a little while.

Ultimately, I'm sure that we would have a better bill, a bill that would better serve the needs of the community.

I'm in favour of unanimous consent for Mr. Blaikie's request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

Just before I go to MP Beech, MP Ste-Marie, are you asking for the withdrawal of Bloc amendments BQ-16 to BQ-23? You would be okay with that. Is that correct?

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

Yes, absolutely.

If there is unanimous consent to combine all the clauses of division 32 and to vote on a block, I agree to withdraw these amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Go ahead, PS Beech.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Blaikie for his proposal and Monsieur Ste-Marie for his comments just now. We are in favour of this proposal and will support unanimous consent.

Pending any further surprises, this is my last planned, at least, interjection for today. That being the case, I just want to say thank you to all the members of this committee and the substitutes who have served over the time. There has been a growing and tremendous appreciation from me personally for the amount of work that every member of this committee does, and for the staff who support you behind the scenes—in the MINOs, in the department and of course in the opposition offices. The public doesn't see the members sitting at endless briefings with officials, sometimes 50 or 60 officials at a time, trying to understand each and every aspect of the BIA.

I just wanted to pass on that appreciation and conclude by saying that we'll support this unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Beech.

Now we have MP Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I have to concur with regard to all the public officials as well as all the people who have worked hard around this table on Bill C-19 to make sure it receives proper scrutiny, I think we need to take a step back and take a look at many of the changes that have happened here.

We have changes to the DTC, the disability tax credit, when it comes to life-sustaining therapy. We have changes to direction and control elements of the bill. Couple that with the Excise Act changes as well as the foreign buyers changes. We've hit the express entry changes, and now we've hit EI.

This used to be a government that prided itself on consultation, yet we have had witness after witness come and say that the government didn't do its work. We have also heard commitment after commitment from the government to modernize the EI system. What do we see? We see, in this case, that they obviously didn't do their homework.

While I certainly can appreciate that PS Beech will be joining in taking away from the bill this section, the HUMA committee and this committee have found the government's work on this particular element of the file to be atrociously lacking in both depth and consultation. I certainly have never seen a budget implementation act.... This is a very large one, coming from a government that originally said it would not do omnibus bills. They've certainly thrown in many measures that I believe don't belong in a budget implementation act. For the government to try to proceed so haphazardly, without having the support of a program that so many Canadians depend on, really shows how much of a tin ear this government now has.

Again, this is from a government that said it would consult and be open and transparent. Now they are suddenly having to vote out large segments of their own budget implementation act. I really hope the Minister of Finance does a good debrief post-mortem, because Bill C-19 is no longer the bill it once was.

Again, I would simply point out that the finance minister, while she does have...and I do appreciate her ongoing service and commitment to Canada. I would say that the Prime Minister, by giving her two main focuses of being both Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister.... I would say that it shows there's just too much on her plate. She's not focused well enough that they can write EI legislation and at least be able to get it through their committees.

Mr. Chair, I really do hope the government takes the summer to reconsider this and spend the time necessary to actually find a path forward on these EI changes. It is an important program. Canadians put in a lot of money and a lot of time, and they have a lot of faith that, when they need that program, it will be there for them. So far the modernization efforts of this government are all political rhetoric and not enough action.

I think members get the flavour that Conservatives will be voting against.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Albas.

Members, shall clauses 454 to 502 carry?

(Clauses 454 to 502 inclusive negatived)

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Shall schedule 1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Shall schedule 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Shall schedule 3 carry?