Finance Committee on June 8th, 2026

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Unfortunately, I do not because this amendment actually duplicates already-in-place reporting requirements that are set out in section 3 of the Employment Insurance Act.

Each year, the minister of ESDC tables in Parliament a monitoring and assessment report that's prepared by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. It assesses the impact and effectiveness of employment insurance benefits. Previous annual reports have provided pretty much exactly the information that's included in this, including the number of claimants, additional weeks of regular benefits and regional distribution. For those reasons, this amendment is actually duplicative. It would not optimize government operations to add a parallel process that's identical to what is already in place.

For those reasons, I'm sure the members opposite will agree that perhaps they just didn't do their homework on this and will be fully satisfied that they already have access to this information on a regular basis. I'm sure they'll vote down their own amendment.

Mr. Lawrence is smiling. I'm sure he'll even withdraw this amendment. Mr. Kelly would not want to add to government operational spending to duplicate efforts, I'm sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you.

Mr. Lawrence, you have the floor.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I defer to Mr. Kelly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Kelly, you have the floor.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks. I won't withdraw my motion. I think that this is a good motion that should be put to a vote after it's been debated for as long as might be necessary to make and hear the proper arguments for and against this amendment.

Certainly, we don't want the government to waste money. We don't want the government to carry on with the agenda that it has had, wherein we've seen an explosion in the size of the public service that has happened under this government. What we do want is a little bit of accountability. I hope it wouldn't really impose that much of a cost on government. If we had more accountability, and if we had better information for parliamentarians, we would be able to have a more efficient public service by knowing whether or not measures introduced by the government are having the desired effect and whether or not they are getting the job done.

I reject his argument, and I reject what I think was his premise, that we are somehow favouring a larger government. It couldn't be further from the truth. We stand by our amendment. I hope that it passes.

I'll leave it at that for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

By saying that, Mr. Kelly is saying that he doesn't agree with the fact that there is a duplicative process, which I detailed in my response. He's actually siding with more unrequired reporting that duplicates government efforts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Ho, go ahead.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I find it kind of ironic. As parliamentarians, our job is to get all the information we need to make informed decisions. If we don't get the information, how can we improve those processes? This isn't like we're creating a new bureaucracy, staffing it with our Liberal friends and then publishing reports. As you said, some of the information is already published, but we're asking for additional information.

One of the members accused us of not doing our homework. We have an amendment here to our CPC-11. Subclause 38(5) amends section 12 of the act by adding proposed paragraph (2.31)(b), which refers to “the regional distribution of those workers”. Employment insurance discloses a lot of information by province, but some provinces are pretty big, like Ontario or Quebec. It doesn't include information on some big metropolitan areas like the GTA or Montreal. Some of that information could perhaps be useful for the government to make its decisions, assuming this government is one that makes decisions based on informed choices.

This is something that does provide more clarity. It does not create more bureaucracy. It does not add more costs, as some of the members on this committee seem to suggest. It just provides a little bit more clarity. It's information that the government should already have. They should have the social insurance numbers of those on EI. They should know where they live. They should have all this information. It's just a matter of tabling it in a format that is a bit more prescriptive, which is the regional distribution. Of course, some provinces are many regions. Something that we can support is to have that more precise information so that the government can make informed choices.

Choosing to be wilfully blind and saying, “No, it's all enough,” is not what we were elected to do as parliamentarians. As parliamentarians, regardless of party, we're here to hold the government to account and to make sure that the ever-growing army of bureaucrats—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Go ahead, Mr. Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I realize that my colleague, whom I am getting to know—and how enjoyable it is—is talking about the amendment. I think there's a rule, though, that prevents members from repeating the same thing. I think that if members check the blues, they'll see this sentence: “As parliamentarians, we are asking for accountability.”

He even used the same words. If he's going to say the same thing, he should at least change it up a bit. I don't know how you enforce that rule.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Ho, please get to the point.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I find it kind of condescending when some of the members say that we're somehow creating a bureaucracy or trying to slow things down, when it actually does the opposite. It's to equip the government to make some well-informed choices. I think it's a common-sense amendment that all parliamentarians can support.

Why would we not want more information? This information is already being collected. We're not asking the government to go out there and collect additional information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Ho, I think the point has been made. You're not supposed to be repetitive.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Kelly, go ahead.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Turnbull had invited me to debate a point, but with Mr. Ho's intervention in between, I think we'll just carry on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Jackson, go ahead.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

It's a pleasure to be here. I'm pleased to make my first intervention as a parliamentarian at the finance committee. Thank you for having me this evening.

I think we're debating an important amendment this evening, and a number of important amendments that my colleagues have put forward.

I did note that there are, I think, officials still in the room with respect to the meeting this evening. In particular, I noticed on the witness list some officials from the Canada Food Inspection Agency. Of course, my constituency is rural, with a predominantly agricultural economy in southwestern Manitoba, bordering Saskatchewan, with a lot of food—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I'm just asking for relevance. We're debating an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act and some of the reporting requirements that are within this amendment. I don't know what being from an agricultural riding has to do with this particular issue. Perhaps the member opposite will get to that, but I would just ask him to stay relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Jackson, I think you might be on the wrong amendment in terms of witnesses. Perhaps you might want to save that question for when we get to an amendment with regard to the CFIA. This one is regarding the Employment Insurance Act.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Yes, Madam Chair, but with respect to the amendment talking about seasonal workers and the regional distribution of those workers, in terms of a lot of the seasonal agricultural work that goes on in western Manitoba, which I represent, the CFIA has to inspect a number of those as part of their responsibilities. I wonder whether they have commentary on the impact of these reporting requirements on their operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Is there anyone from the CFIA who can answer this question?

Normally, they don't inspect seasonal workers. Is there someone who'd like to step forward to take this question?

[Jay Holmes, Executive Director, Business Enablement and Regulatory Services, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm Jay Holmes from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It's correct that the CFIA does not inspect seasonal workers or have responsibility in our mandate for that activity.