Human Resources Committee on March 11th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I understand that a challenge to the chair's ruling is not debatable, so I now hand it over to the clerk to see if the chair's ruling will be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Thank you, colleagues.

Mr. Blaikie, did you have your hand up?

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

Yes, thank you. I'd just like to speak to the clause, Mr. Chair.

It's a clause that I think, frankly, would have been much better had the committee provided us the opportunity to consider the amendment I was proposing, for some of the reasons that we discussed earlier in the debate.

I must say that it's somewhat surprising and disappointing to see a Bloc Québécois member decide to vote in favour of compliance with the prerogatives of the Crown rather than for a study on extending sickness benefits to Quebecers during the pandemic. It would have been a good opportunity to encourage the government to comply with its commitment to extend the sickness benefits provided under the employment insurance system to help people who are sick. As I said, it's surprising and disappointing to see that a decision by the chair about the prerogatives of the Crown was the deciding factor for the Bloc Québécois.

I believe that it's important in this Parliament to put as much pressure as possible on the minority government to adopt the changes under discussion. It's obvious that we need to do so, because today, we saw that the government is in no hurry to act.

This is not the first time we are making changes to employment insurance benefit bills. However, the government has been consistently causing delays, for example by failing to suggest other solutions for those who are sick and have already used up their 15 weeks of benefits. It's really important for us to find a solution.

This amendment may not be the perfect solution, but we do need one. We're not finding it here, and not for a long time. We've been dealing with the pandemic for a year now. People are still sick and, having used up the 15 weeks of benefits, still have not received any financial assistance from the government. We need to find a solution, and I would have liked at the very least for the opposition parties to get together today to lean on the government to take action on this problem. It's a missed opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Over to you, Ms. Chabot.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my NDP colleague for his arguments about the importance of enhancing the special sickness benefits by extending the number of weeks to 50. That's what we've been asking the government to do ever since we were elected.

Mr. Blaikie, the motion you mentioned to the minister, and which was adopted by a majority of votes and not unanimously—I'm just setting the record straight—is a motion that I myself had introduced. We held press conferences. We even compelled the Prime Minister to meet with two women who had been battling for years, Ms. Émilie Sansfaçon and Ms. Marie-Hélène Dubé.

We fully agree. You must have heard us in the House, even today, condemning the fact that the government had not acted earlier.

There is the motion you were referring to, but I would say that it's still possible to act. Bill C-265 proposed by my colleague from the riding ofSalaberry—Suroît will be studied in the House in mid-April. I hope that everyone will be there to adopt this bill, which is designed to make the sickness benefits permanent, and extend them from 15 to 50 weeks. That's the goal of the bill.

We agree with your arguments about the fact that there are sick people, people with episodic disabilities and the aftereffects of COVID-19. That's why we've been arguing for it since the beginning of our term. Thank you for supporting this position.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that within a few weeks there will no longer be a regulatory gap. Thousands of unemployed workers have been calling our riding offices and major union organizations like the Canadian Labour Congress—the CLC—and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec—the FTQ—have been pushing to extend the number of weeks from 15 to 50. Some people will no longer be receiving anything by tomorrow.

I have one concern about your amendment and that is that it's not really connected to the matter of the Crown. The fact that we are in an emergency is not ideal. However, your amendment, which in principle would be easy to implement, would lead to another debate, lengthen the procedure, and deprive us of what is essentially needed, by using temporary measures. I think that we definitely need permanent amendments for special sickness benefits. It's urgent and we would be able to do it in a month.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.

First of all, voting to support the chair's decision is not a vote on the substance of the amendment. It's a procedural vote in accordance with a parliamentary tradition, ruled upon by the chair.

We all agree that solutions are needed for people receiving sickness benefits. Very respectfully, however, I must say to my colleague that Ms. Chabot has been defending this position from the outset. It's the reason for our current study of employment insurance. It's totally false to say that Ms. Chabot does not defend this idea. She's the one who has been defending it in committee from the start.

Thus far, we have always worked in a non-partisan way and been very respectful on all sides. I hope that this will continue. It wasn't a decision about the substance of the amendment.

The bottom line, Mr. Chair, is that I am grateful you gave us an opportunity to debate an amendment that had already been deemed inadmissible. I would imagine that we should, as of now, only debate the clause, and not an amendment that we are not entitled to debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's right. The debate is about the clause.

I know that the discussion went somewhat beyond it, but I don't think it's serious. It's your right.

Over to you, Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to reassure all the committee members. We can't delay the adoption of this bill. A House of Commons order states that the bill will go back to the House tomorrow.

So it's not a matter of a deadline. A House of Commons order tells us to do our work in committee and to include any amendments as required, but at the end of the day tomorrow, the bill will have been adopted. We don't even have the power to delay its adoption. That happened today by unanimous consent in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Ms. Dancho, go ahead, please.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Chair, did you call on me? For some reason, I couldn't hear you.

I'm not sure I have properly understood Ms. Chabot's comments. It would appear that she did not support the amendment because she wanted a debate on the substance. I find that very disappointing. The opposition parties are sometimes expected to work together. I don't know why she doesn't want to work with the New Democrats on this issue. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP have the same goal here, and I don't understand why the Bloc Québécois votes with the Liberals every time. The Bloc Québécois is an opposition party.

I believe that if we adopt the amendment, it would be beneficial for people who are sick. For us, the Conservatives, it's a no-brainer. I don't understand what the Bloc Québécois is doing today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

The Bloc Québécois is being very calm and collected about things today. Its position in the House of Commons is clear. Members of the Bloc Québécois vote in the interests of Quebecers, and vote for what is good for them. This bill is not perfect for one reason, and we could have spotted it much earlier. What we're doing now is still debating a matter of procedure.

Not long ago, I voted on a procedural matter. You know what my position is on the substance, and I could go on about it for another 10 minutes. I could tell you about the importance of sickness benefits. People are suffering.

I would go so far as to say that the revision of the employment insurance system is among the commitments set out in the mandate letters, along with other commitments made by the government following the elections. It was also included in the 2015 commitments. Today, were talking about technical details that make it difficult to implement certain measures. Some of the arguments are unacceptable.

The unacceptable situation—that's my reading of the procedure—is having delayed the adoption of the bill, thereby depriving millions of people, men, women and sick people, from the right to regular benefits, all because of a deadline. That's what I condemned in the study of Bill C-4. We were obliged to adopt new measures, which replaced the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, not at midnight minus one, but at midnight plus one, because the deadline had expired.

I wouldn't want us to find ourselves in the same situation. That's why I have been talking about predictability. I commented on a procedure and not the substance. As for the substance of the issue, I'm in favour of expanding sickness benefits by increasing the number of weeks from 15 to 50.

And let's not forget that we voted on a temporary measure that would remain in effect until the month of September, and it needs royal assent as soon as possible. My understanding of the admissibility issue is that if we had adopted what was being proposed, it would have led to further delays.

The Bloc Québécois votes in favour of whatever is the best option under the circumstances, in a non-partisan manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Perhaps Mr. Blaikie can clarify. Is there a deadline on this amendment?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have Mr. Housefather on a point of order.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

The amendment has already been ruled non-receivable, and the chair's ruling on that has been sustained. There should not be any further discussion or debate about the amendment or clarifications on an amendment that's already been rejected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We're not going to let this go on much longer. I take your point.

Ms. Dancho has posed a question, Mr. Blaikie, do you want to answer it? Then we're going to go to Mr. Vaughan.

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

Sure.

It's to amend the legislation, so there's no deadline on the change proposed in the amendment. There is a deadline on passage in the House, which is guaranteed by the order of the House that passed today. Whatever we do here, the bill, in some form, is going to be passed by the end of the day tomorrow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Vaughan.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

I'm glad we have clarified that the Conservatives see their job on this committee as only ever to oppose the government. That's their job and that's their choice, and I appreciate that we have other parties in the House and other members of the House who are prepared to collaborate in the best interests of Canadians.

That being said—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'll inform Mr. Vaughan, because I guess he doesn't understand how our Westminster-style democracy works, that the job of the opposition is to oppose. I'm not sure if he's aware of that.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

No.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

He'll be in opposition one day, hopefully soon, and he'll understand that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Dancho, that is not a point of order. That is a point of debate. Thank you.

Do we have another point of order?