Human Resources Committee on June 17th, 2021

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Right. I have a lot more I could say about this, but will continue on another subject.

Your organization has done some very important work. We had an opportunity to meet, Mr. Séguin. I was with the minister when we met. We are well aware that you had many challenges to deal with during the pandemic. In the midst of it, we came to the assistance of the most vulnerable seniors of all ages by paying out $1,500 per senior couple. We discussed this.

Was this money helpful to the seniors you represent during the pandemic?

[Serge Séguin]

Unfortunately, we didn't ask them about that in the most recent survey we conducted of members of our association in the spring. We are now analyzing the results of the survey. We have a number of figures to analyze, because the survey was divided into several parts.

At the moment, we're getting a lot of calls and emails about the increase in Old Age Security beginning at 75 years of age. Those aged 65 to 74 are very unhappy and have the impression they are being overlooked by the federal government.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I understand.

You say that the only answer you received at the meeting I attended was that 65 year-old seniors had more money than those who were 75 years old.

[Serge Séguin]

Yes.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

That's what you understood. However, we also mentioned that according to our studies, people aged 75 years and over spent more time in hospital and needed an increasing amount of health care. Do you remember that part? That's what our statistics show. The minister also told you that 57% of seniors 75 years of age and over were women and that almost half of them were windows. Do you remember that as well? Those are the statistics that the minister reported at the meeting.

You also said that you were in favour of this 10% increase for seniors 75 years of age and over, but that you would have liked to see it extended.

Do you remember the minister presenting these figures to you?

[Serge Séguin]

It's possible. I don't remember everything that we discussed, but I know that the data don't necessarily represent Quebec. I understand that you have some data, but it doesn't necessarily reflect our perception of things.

In fact, this increase is welcomed by people 75 years and older. We won't be asking you to take these funds away from them. However, allow me to repeat that you shouldn't have abandoned those in the 65 to 74 age group because it creates a separate category of seniors. We believe that they all deserve to receive some of what you made available to seniors.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I see that the time is going by very quickly, and so would like to return to another subject.

Seniors were the focus of the programs that your organization supported. Have you noticed which services in particular, in the Quebec community you represent, were used most by seniors since the beginning of the pandemic?

Does your organization have trouble ensuring that services meet the needs of seniors and that it is easy for all of them to gain access?

How did the organizations you are familiar with ensure that the services were appropriate and accessible?

[Serge Séguin]

Access to health care and social services was definitely difficult during the pandemic. It was hard to make a doctor's appointment. All kinds of minor and major operations that had been scheduled, such as hip replacements or knee problems, were postponed. Elderly people often have conditions like these. The specialists have been saying that delays in all of these operations are going to have a harmful impact on people's health.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I'd like to ask one last question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm sorry, but that's all the time we have.

Thank you very much, Mr. Séguin and Ms. Newman. We are extremely grateful for your testimony and for being here today, and also for the work you are doing in your respective provinces and communities.

To both of you, we very much appreciate your being here. Thanks for being so generous with your time and advice, and for the excellent work you're doing in your communities. It will be of great assistance to us in our work.

We are now going to suspend, colleagues, because we have a couple of people joining us for the clause-by-clause examination.

To both of our witnesses, you're welcome to stay, but you're free to leave. Thank you so much for being with us today.

The committee stands suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call the meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 26, 2021, the committee will resume its consideration of Bill C-265, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine).

Before we begin clause-by-clause consideration, I would like to welcome Benoit Cadieux from the special benefits, employment insurance policy, skills and employment branch of the Department of Employment and Social Development, who is available as a resource to us to answer any policy-related questions in the context of the bill. I'm also pleased that we have with us Philippe Méla, legislative clerk, for any legislative, technical or legal matters that may arise.

With that, we will proceed with clause-by-clause.

Colleagues, please use the “raise hand” function to be recognized.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the short title and the preamble are postponed until the end. I therefore call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of quick things.

I want to thank the Bloc Québécois for bringing this bill forward. I think it signifies a real step forward in EI benefits for those who really need them.

I wanted to make a comment. My Conservative colleagues and I, on this committee and in caucus at large, have been working quite hard internally to put forward a policy, which was resoundingly adopted at our recent policy convention, to extend sickness benefits to 52 weeks.

We're taking the perspective that in Canada, having a full year to have sickness benefits, whether you're dealing with a significant illness or a horrific injury that you need rehabilitation for, really sends a very clear message on our special benefits in this country and I think would mean a lot to all Canadians who really need that time. There's something about a full year, I think, that is quite important. It's something we can really hang our hats on and say we've accomplished as lawmakers.

For that reason, I'd like to move that Bill C-265 in clause 2 be amended by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following: “tine is 52”. The full amended clause would read: “because of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine is 52”.

Mr. Chair, that's my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

Clause 2 of Bill C-265 seeks to amend paragraph 12(3)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act, to increase from 15 to 50 the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid because of illness, injury or quarantine. The amendment attempts to extend the benefits to 52 weeks.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following 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 proposes an extended period of benefits, which imposes a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Madame Chabot.

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

Ms. Dancho moved her amendment and you ruled on it, Mr. Chair. However, I had my hand up first, and that wasn't what I wanted to comment on, but rather the bill itself.

I would like to point out that the proposed amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, in clauses 2 and 3 of the bill, are perfectly consistent with a motion that was adopted in the House of Commons in February of last year. I would also like to thank all of the opposition parties for having agreed to the principle that the maximum number of weeks for benefits be increased to 50. That is precisely the intent of Bill C‑265, which we have supported throughout the work of the House, and which is now before our committee.

We received two opinions from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on the matter of the 50 weeks and associated costs. You'll recall that in our committee's study of employment insurance, there was consensus on 50 weeks among the witnesses who came to offer solutions on how to enhance the employment insurance system.

I also appreciate all the work that was done by members of the Conservative Party and for their proposal of a 52‑week benefit period. I believe this came up during their virtual convention. It's a significant proposal. It clearly demonstrates Conservative support for workers who are sick. The message of this bill is that 15 weeks is not enough. Even a benefit period of 26 weeks does not go far enough, because 77% of workers would be left out.

The bill being studied by the committee proposes increasing the benefit to 50 weeks, in compliance with everything that has been put forward from the outset. That's what we want to see adopted and we are sticking to our position.

Mr. Chair, you have just ruled that the amendment is inadmissible, for the reasons you gave us. I would like to ask you what legal opinion your decision is based on.

Beyond these considerations, I would ask all of my colleagues to debate amendments with the proposed 50 week period in mind, which is almost a year. It would certainly be consistent with the testimony we heard on Tuesday and with other testimony that we may have heard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Ms. Gazan, please go ahead.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to echo my support for this amendment, and certainly what Madame Chabot indicated as well.

I think we've had lots of testimony. I know you're the chair and you've made a ruling, but it's unfortunate that we weren't able to address this further in the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Vaughan, please.

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

I listened with great interest as people dissected arbitrary numbers. Just so I understand, why is one advocacy position 50 and the other 52? What are the additional two weeks metricized on, beyond just the symmetry to the calendar?

I'm also curious to understand the cost implications between the two, if Ms. Dancho has that estimate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the remarks from Madam Chabot and the support from Madam Gazan. I'm glad to see that we can work together across partisan lines, towards a common good.

Mr. Vaughan, I think you have really great questions. I would just say that the Bloc bill is very good at 50 weeks, but from our perspective and the work we've been doing internally with our party, it's just been 52. That one-year rounding out is a really nice symbolic gesture for those who really need the support. That's the motivation behind our amendment.

The chair has ruled it inadmissible. I understand his ruling, and we won't be challenging the chair on this, but we do wish we could have made it 52 weeks.

Again, we thank the Bloc for its work on this.

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

Did you model the cost differential? I'm just curious.

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

I'm not sure what the cost would be compared with 50 weeks. I would assume it would be a little more. From the testimony I've heard, and from the consultations we've done with our party, particularly in Quebec, a year sends really a strong signal that we support people who really need the recovery time. We stand by that 52-week period.

Mr. Chair, are we allowed to debate an amendment that's not admissible?

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

I was just curious.

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

Yes.

I'm just wondering. I don't want to waste time. If it's not admissible, it's not admissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I appreciate your remarks, Ms. Dancho. The advice you're giving me is the same as what I'm getting from the clerk by text.

If there are any other interventions with respect to clause 2, we'll hear them now.

Hearing none, does clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)