Evidence of meeting #21 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 changes.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
Okay.
In terms of Ms. Dancho's comments regarding the paraphrasing of my words, I wish she was as precise with my words as she is with the time and had put them all in there. It is not just the issue of pulling funding through to make these programs work.
There is also the laborious task of making sure the legislation is drafted to execute these plans. That also takes time to get through the various approval bodies before you land it on the floor of Parliament. Is that not true?
Liberal
Carla Qualtrough Liberal Delta, BC
Absolutely. There's also building consensus among stakeholders and partners and employers, and understanding the impact on the seven-year funding cycle of EI. There's just a lot to this.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
In opposition, if we go too fast then we didn't consult, and if we go too slow then we've taken too long. We have to land it perfectly and then hope it gets better through the committee process.
Speaking of the committee process, I realize that, next to the chair, I'm the longest-serving member of Parliament—it makes me feel very strange, because I think I just arrived, quite frankly—in terms of this committee. I've been here for maternity benefit changes to EI, bereavement changes to EI, sickness changes to EI, seasonal work changes to EI, longer support period proposals to change EI, easier access and standardized access changes to EI, temporary workers being included in the EI program as well as gig workers being accommodated in the EI program. Those are all motions that have passed Parliament.
If I heard you correctly, Mr. Flack, if we made any of those changes, we'd have to wait nine months before we got to the next one on the list. A comprehensive overhaul is what's required, not a piece-by-piece one, because that could take us 20 years. Is that roughly the challenge we're facing with the computer system?
Deputy Minister, Employment and Social Development, Department of Employment and Social Development
Not all the changes are the same. For example, extending the number of weeks, which we're doing now, is a four-month change that we've been working on.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
But you can't change the other ones until that one's done.
Deputy Minister, Employment and Social Development, Department of Employment and Social Development
Some we can do simultaneously if they don't.... It's more complicated than that. Some you can safely do together, but some of the major changes that have been proposed are 18 to 24 months with the current system. The reason we—
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
If we did all of those together—I'm sorry, but I have only so much time here—would there not be an impact on the rates that employers pay, the rates that employees pay or the draw on the general revenues and the general budget?
To accommodate all of those changes simultaneously, there is an economic impact that generates either government debt or government rates being increased, because EI is a self-funded program.
Deputy Minister, Employment and Social Development, Department of Employment and Social Development
As a self-funded program...yes.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
If we did that, the Conservatives would have the choice to fund it through either tax revenue or the fees that employers and employees pay, the premiums they pay into the system, in order to protect the integrity of the whole system for everybody. We can't just make these changes and snap our fingers and hope there isn't an economic impact. There is a budget that has to be approached on this issue.
Liberal
Carla Qualtrough Liberal Delta, BC
Absolutely. We have to understand the impact on premiums for both employers and employees. We also have to understand the consequences to the overall EI account, which has to self-replenish every seven years, legally, under law. There is absolutely an economic component to this.
Then there's the strategic sequencing of all the different changes we may want to do. Some we could do without impacting the system. Some we may want to sequence differently. It's a bit of a Tetris game, I would say. It's one that we are working hard to plow through, but it is not as easy, no.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
Do you ever wish you were the captain in Star Trek and could just say, “Make it so”, as the opposition seems to think you can?
The other question I have is this. We've seen that when we do wholesale computer changes at the government, we either get Phoenix—the Conservatives thought they could just go to a private vendor and have them rewire the computers—or get the NDP's response, which is just to hire thousands of public servants to process these and computer be damned.
We have to land the changes to EI at the same time we change the computer system. That's a large budget item that can't simply be done through a private member's motion. We need to attach a budget to the changes and we need to effectively transition between the risk of Phoenix and the risk of sustaining a system that's run on COBOL. That's the challenge we have to manage as we fix EI. That's what's taking so long. It's not a question of whether or not we can get it to Parliament sooner or later.
Liberal
Carla Qualtrough Liberal Delta, BC
The most important investment we will make in EI will be in our systems, absolutely, 100%.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
If you're going to make the comprehensive changes, you need comprehensive funding.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Vaughan.
Thank you, Minister, for being with us and for sticking it out through the suspension and the vote. That concludes our rounds of questions.
Minister, you're welcome to stay but you're free to leave. We're going to move now to clause-by-clause.
To the officials who are here, I understand you will be staying with us in case there are some questions on the technical or policy side as we consider the bill line by line, so I thank you for that.
Minister, you have graciously agreed to come before us on the supplementary estimates, the main estimates and EI, so we know we'll be seeing you again soon and we look forward to it.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, if I may just do a really quick positive point of order, I just want to thank the minister for staying throughout the votes and the 30 minutes. We really appreciate her giving us her time today.
Thank you, Minister.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
We are meeting to consider Bill C-24, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, additional regular benefits, the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, restriction on eligibility, and another act in response to COVID-19.
I want to welcome the officials who are here to help us with policy questions and I think the next order of business is to call clause one.
Colleagues, please use the raise hand function so we can keep a speaking order.
(On clause 1)
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Blaikie.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe I gave notice of an amendment to clause 1, so I'd like to proceed to move that amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie, and yes, we have your amendment.
Bill C-24 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act by increasing the number of weeks paid under part 1 of that act under certain circumstances.
This amendment attempts to increase the number of weeks of payments to a claimant, in the case of prescribed illness, injury or quarantine, from 15 to 50 weeks, therefore allowing people to have access to these payments for longer than they can currently under the Employment Insurance Act.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment as proposed requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.
Mr. Blaikie, you have your hand up. Is there something else you want to say?
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to challenge your ruling, and I'm happy to motivate that challenge if it's all right with you to proceed to that now.