Evidence of meeting #14 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was seniors.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
EI stuff is a complex issue. I think Mr. Vis has raised an important issue around the antiquity of the computer system, which apparently still is coded in COBOL. It's old. Trust me, it's held together by spit and glue sometimes.
I think taking a look at its flexibility.... One reason we can't do day-by-day disbursements is that the computer system just can't handle it without collapse. It's tying our hands as we move towards EI reform. I think taking a look at what the cost of that change is and how we avoid a Phoenix calamity and the mess.... Somebody has to start talking about that. This committee is well positioned to do that. It limits our capacity to deal with seasonal industry, the workers who are impacted and the regions of the country that depend on EI to tide people over through the surges of income and the loss of work due to climate.
I would add that I think MP Gazan is also challenging us to broaden our understanding of how we ensure people's earnings when work has clearly changed radically. The gaps that people experience are now caverns that they fall through. I don't think we should limit our imagination on solving EI, but I think that we need to fix EI in a way that it can be reformed to do more than simply address the precarious work of the gig economy, which is the urban equivalent of the seasonal employment black hole, as it's sometimes referred to.
It'll depend on the witnesses we call. I think that Madame Chabot's motion is broad enough to allow for MP Vis's line of inquiry, as well as MP Gazan's. I think there are other issues we're going to bring to the table that escaped the previous study on this, which was done just four years ago in this very same committee.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I just wanted to thank you for that, Adam and Madame Chabot. I agree with you. It's a very complicated system.
Here's the thing. We don't know how long we're going to be in this pandemic. Many people are going to be running out of EI. Certainly people in my riding are starting to not qualify for EI. That ends up as going from not qualifying for EI to being unsheltered. I think we need to look at the current system, but also options for going forward.
I would propose that we have at least one or two experts on guaranteed livable basic income who could sit on one of the research panels, so we can learn more about options going forward in this pandemic. I would certainly be happy to recommend a few witnesses and experts in the field.
Thank you.
February 2nd, 2021 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've been in discussion with MP Vaughan, and I'm wondering if we can come back, just for a second, Mr. Chair, if you'll allow it, to the motion from Mrs. Falk, because I don't think that Mr. Vaughan's complex reformulation is required. I think that Mr. Vaughan, essentially, would like to just add a couple of words to Mrs. Falk's motion.
Mr. Chair, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to present that to Mrs. Falk in English.
I would also like to show the changes to Ms. Chabot, to see whether the French is acceptable.
Mrs. Falk's motion would stay as is, except.... It would basically read, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the impact of COVID-19 on the financial, social, health and overall wellbeing of seniors;”—so it stays the same—“that the committee review existing and announced programs for seniors”, and then just add in the words “including federal transfers to provinces and territories and indigenous governments”. Then it would continue with Mrs. Falk's wording—“and make recommendations to improve support for seniors”, etc.
It would only add those words: “including federal transfers to provinces and territories and indigenous governments”; that would be the only change to Mrs. Falk's motion.
I will repeat it in French for Ms. Chabot.
According to the proposal, we are keeping what Ms. Falk's motion proposes but, after the words “les programmes actuels pour les aînés”, we add “incluant les transferts fédéraux aux provinces, territoires et gouvernements autochtones”. Mr. Vaughan accepted that.
Mrs. Falk, I'm interested to know if that is okay with you, because I think that would simplify things, as opposed to a whole new motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that latitude.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
No, thank you. I think we're getting a little more focused in here, subject to what Mrs. Falk has to say, but I did see an email exchange between Mrs. Falk and Mr. Vaughan that wasn't far off what you just did.
Mrs. Falk, what are your thoughts?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Yes, I was going to ask if my email was received. I basically took what Mr. Vaughan sent me and we interjected it into the motion.
Yes, that's fine.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We have a friendly amendment.
I take it that we are now back to the motion, but next on the speakers list is Madame Chabot.
Ms. Chabot, the floor is yours.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I would like to ask a question about the addition. What do you understand by federal transfers for seniors? I understand the idea of programs, but I want to understand what you want to include in this idea of transfers.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
Sure. There are several cost-share programs between different orders of government—for example, around seniors' housing. It's an area of provincial responsibility, and while we can make programs eligible, setting targets or having specific achievements outlined in that will have an impact on the quality of life that seniors face. Should federal money be conditioned? Should it not be conditioned? What was transferred? What were the conditions under which it was transferred? What was the impact of those conditions? I think we need to take a look at that.
We also have the disability community's experience around CERB. We transferred CERB to people with disabilities who were working and who were laid off, but who also received a top-up in different provinces, and when they went on CERB, that top-up was clawed back. Understanding how federal transfers to individuals, including individuals on CPP, who may be seniors and may be working.... Different provincial governments treated those transfers to individuals differently. We need to understand what governs that decision, how it was rectified and how to make sure that we don't create gaps like that in the future.
Although there are clearly areas of provincial authority, even some of those areas have partnered funding models where I think we need to understand what the federal role is. Is it a silent partner? Is it a partner that imposes national standards, or is it one that gets out of the way and simply matches per capita transfers? That's a whole area that has a direct impact on seniors; therefore, I think it's an area that we should include in the study as we try to understand the impact that our federal dollars have on the quality of life for Canadians as they age.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you for that answer, Mr. Vaughan. It's clearer now.
I support Ms. Falk's motion with the addition, and I agree that it should be our next study, after the one on employment insurance.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
I think we have a consensus.
Colleagues, we now have a motion that has been amended with the acceptance of the mover. Do we have consensus to adopt that motion?
(Motion agreed to)
I believe we also have consensus that the next item for us to study is the EI motion presented by Madame Chabot and that it is broad enough to encompass the themes that we've now laid upon the analyst in a somewhat haphazard fashion to have her put together the background documents, and thereafter, a study on the motion that was just presented. I think that's where we are now.
We're back to the analyst.
Do you have even a little bit of clarity now as to what we might be looking for in terms of themes?
4:20 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Yes. This has been very helpful. Thank you.
What I would suggest, because I think we're on the same page, is that we begin on February 18 the study with departmental officials. Then, when you decide what date you want to submit your witnesses, I would suggest that maybe the Library of Parliament analysts could also suggest some witnesses, just in case we want to cover a broader range, and you can consider them or not as you choose. I just throw that out there as a suggestion. Then we can also prepare background materials for the committee to be ready for the 18th.
Does that sound reasonable? Does that sound like it's the best way to begin?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Sorry, Chair, I just wanted clarification. MP Housefather, when he said his amendment part, I just want to make sure it says “federal programs” in there.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Am I right, Anthony, that this was your intent? I think that's what you said.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It was “federal transfers to provinces and territories and indigenous governments”.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
That's correct.
I think the course of action proposed by the analyst is a good one. Can we perhaps set a date for the submission of witness lists? If our first meeting is on the 18th, probably a week out would be a fair amount of time to be able to invite people. Just for the sake of discussion, can we say the 11th, which is nine days from now, or is that too aggressive? I'm in your hands.
Mr. Kent, go ahead.