Human Resources Committee on June 15th, 2021

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

I would like to thank the witnesses who have been asked to come again and tell stories that are not easy to tell. It certainly makes me reflect on my mother's last chapter in life, which was a 15-year battle with three different bouts of cancer. My parents were immigrants. They'd split up, so there were three teenage kids taking care of our mother while she did and didn't work, while we tried to go to school. It was pretty intense.

One of the issues that was really hard to navigate, as I was doing this work for my parents as a minor, was the issue of working while on benefit. I was wondering if Ms. Kelndorfer could talk about the changes that have been made to restore working while on benefit, but also some of the changes around seasonal employment to try to make EI more flexible and more nimble and to take advantage of the good days so the bad days can be weathered.

I also wonder whether those have helped fortify the changes we've made to the EI sickness benefits that have also kicked in.

[Julie Kelndorfer]

Thank you for that.

Yes, I think there should be acknowledgement regarding the changes to working while on sickness benefits included in the EI system benefits. It's an important change that has been made and it supports keeping people attached to the workforce and being able to receive some benefit, while also working, so I think that has been....

I'm not sure about the seasonal piece as much. I haven't looked into that as much, but I think the entire concept around flexibility is key here. I think people have different needs and need supports in terms of their illnesses and sickness that need to be accommodated. I think anything that we can do to create that flexibility is going to be important.

I do think we have to take into consideration the realities of different people, so increasing that flexibility and also increasing that extension piece will be supportive of all people who are dealing with illness and sickness in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Vaughan.

Thank you, Ms. Kelndorfer.

Colleagues, that takes us to 30 minutes before we have to sign off. We do have some committee business to tend to, so I'm sorry for truncating the period of questions for this very fascinating panel, but that's exactly what we have to do.

Allow me to thank Mrs. DeBellefeuille and congratulate her for her leadership, because of which her private member's bill has reached this stage. We are very grateful to her and she has our congratulations.

My dear witnesses, let me repeat the message that you heard before. We are grateful to you for telling us your very personal stories in a public forum, and we thank you for your passion,

Thank you very much to all of the witnesses for being with us here today. It's clear that this is something that is extremely important in your lives personally and for the people for whom you speak. It is greatly appreciated. You have touched every one of us, and we thank you so much for being with us and, as was indicated, having the courage to tell your story in the powerful way you did.

With that, you are welcome to stay, but you're free to go.

We're now going to move into committee business.

Colleagues we're going to be doing committee business in public, so there is no need to log off.

We have four items I would like to cover, and Ms. Dancho has one.

Just to ensure that we don't run out of time, Ms. Dancho, if you want to you can introduce the item you wished to bring forward, and then perhaps we can try to work through my list in the remaining 26 minutes.

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is just something I'd like the committee to consider since it looks as though we may not finish our seniors study. Conservative colleagues were talking about the benefit that we might have if we could extend.... Actually, we'd have to reopen the submission, because the deadline is closed, but if we can reopen and extend the submission deadline for the seniors study until we complete the witness testimony, we would have just a little bit more time for a few more seniors' advocates to provide some more in-depth feedback, and we could do a more fulsome study. I would just ask that the committee consider reopening it and extending it until the witness testimony is done, which could be next week, depending on how the committee goes, or perhaps it could be in the fall.

That's just a simple request in that regard, and I would appreciate it if the committee would agree to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have a request to extend the deadline for the submission of briefs until the end of verbal witness testimony. Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, we have agreement to extend the deadline.

Thank you very much, Ms. Dancho.

While we're on the seniors study, if we can deal with that next, we have a suggestion from the analysts that there was some testimony that we heard while we were sitting as part of the COVID committee last summer, before this committee. It has been suggested that the testimony that was given when we were doing that would be of assistance with the seniors study.

Is there any objection to the suggestion that the testimony be received and be included as part of the ongoing study that we're doing right now with respect to seniors?

Ms. Falk, please go ahead.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I don't have an objection. The only thing that I would like to make sure of is that, if there were maybe witnesses who came last summer who then submitted a brief this time, nothing would be cancelled out and that what was provided last summer and a brief this time, if provided, could maybe be time marked.

I do believe that COVID, as we all know, is evolving and always changing, and this is just so that nothing would be nullified or cancelled out. That's all that I would ask.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think that's reasonable. Are there any concerns about that?

Just for the sake of clarity, the proposed wording that I've been provided is as follows:

That, in the context of the study of the impact of COVID-19 on seniors, the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the 1st Session of the 43rd Parliament on the study of the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session.

I think, based on Mrs. Falk's intervention, we can add “in addition to any other testimony, verbal or written, provided in the course of the current study”.

Is that agreeable to the committee? I believe I see agreement. Thank you.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] one with respect to the report on the employment insurance program. That report will be ready to be tabled in the House on Monday, and it is my plan to do it on Monday. If that plan changes, I will let you know right away, but that's what it looks like.

A question for the committee is this: Is the committee amenable to instructing the analysts to prepare a press release on the tabling of the EI reform report?

Is there any discussion on that? I think we have agreement.

To our analysts, you can consider yourselves so instructed.

The last thing is the Centennial Flame Research Award. We have had a discussion around the award. We have not yet adopted a motion to set a deadline for the submission of applications or to fix on the amount of the award. In the discussion that we had on May 27, it was proposed that the amount be set at $6,700 and that the deadline for submissions be July 1, which now appears to be kind of tight.

It's open to your suggestions with respect to the Centennial Flame Research Award. Are we still comfortable with $6,700, and could I hear from you as to a reasonable deadline for the submission of applications?

Ms. Chabot, the floor is yours.

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

Personally, I agree with the amount being $6,700.

As for the applications, you seem to be saying that a July 1 deadline is tight. Given that this has nothing to do with the House rising, what are we able to do? We can decide that it will be a little later than July 1, can we not?

Actually, I am going to keep going and you can give me an answer later. Given that I have the floor, I would like to ask a question about our committee business.

When are we going to do the clause-by-clause of Bill C‑265? Perhaps I don't know the rules, but I thought that we were going to do it today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay.

We are going to discuss it right after the topic we are dealing with at the moment. But you are right, Ms. Chabot. We have to discuss it today as well.

Ms. Dancho, please, on the Centennial Flame Research Award.

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

I just want to suggest September 1. That gives us two months to get the word out in our communities. It's the summer when students are out of school, and it might be a good time for them to focus on applying for scholarships and things like the Centennial Flame Research Award. Two months would be nice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's a good idea.

Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm okay with that. My only thing is this: Let's say, potentially, an election were called. Would that impact our ability to distribute the award if we were to wait until September?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think it's unlikely that we're going to be able to give the award until Parliament returns. If there is no election, according to the parliamentary calendar, it would be mid-to-late September anyway. The earliest we are going to be back would be mid-to-late September. If an election intervenes, it could be later.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Do we have consensus, then, to set the award at $6,700 and to set the deadline for the submission of applications at September 1?

Mr. Vaughan, please.

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

I'm sorry. I was just going to speak in favour of that. I'm in favour of both of those, September 1 and $6,700.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay, do we have consensus? I believe we do.

As for Ms. Chabot's last question, she is right. Normally, there is a period of 48 hours in which amendments to a bill can be submitted, but that can be changed by a decision of the committee.

So we have at least two options for the clause-by-clause consideration. The first option is to do it this week, on Thursday, and the second option is to do it at the following meeting, which is next Tuesday.

Colleagues, if we are ready to go to clause-by-clause on Bill C-265, we can adopt a motion now to do it on Thursday, if you wish, or next Tuesday. If it is your wish to continue to hear from witnesses, then we should deal with that now as well.

I'm in your hands as to how we dispense with Bill C-265.

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

Mr. Chair, if we need a motion to do it on Thursday, that is what I will propose. But there is something I don't understand.

We had decided to call witnesses up to a certain date. We have heard the witnesses and I don't think that we are going to make any witnesses come back. Since we had up to the same date to submit amendments, I thought we were going to be voting today. We are not going to be calling for witnesses again.

Does that mean that you have not asked to receive amendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No, not yet.

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

Okay. There were no amendments and no one has asked for any.

So I propose that we move to clause-by-clause consideration, without witnesses, on Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Colleagues, we have a motion to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-265 at Thursday's meeting. Is there any discussion?

Do we have consensus to proceed in this fashion? Excellent. The next order of business is to notify all MPs who are not members of official parties of the plan of the committee.

Am I missing anything?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Danielle Widmer]

Mr. Chair, I would just request that a deadline for the amendments be set by the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Given the tight timeline that we have, what would be a reasonable amount of time for amendments to be put in a proper package for us to consider on Thursday? How about the close of business tomorrow?

[The Clerk]

Yes, please. That would be ideal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Do we agree that it be circulated to members of Parliament that any proposed amendments be received by the clerk by 5 p.m. eastern tomorrow? I believe we have agreement on that.

Is there any other business to come before the meeting?

Seeing none, is it the committee's wish to adjourn? I believe it is.

Have a wonderful evening. Thank you very much, colleagues, and we'll see you on Thursday for clause-by-clause.