Human Resources Committee on May 26th, 2022

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

Yes, Mr. hair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madam Kusie, are you speaking on Madame Chabot's motion, which is now before the committee?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I will, Chair.

I hope that after the motion we can also get an update on the appearance of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development since May 31 is approaching rapidly. I notice that she's actually making an appearance at the anti-poverty caucus today, which I don't believe takes precedence over committee business or House business, or certainly matters as important as the Service Canada deficiencies that we're seeing. I do hope that we will return to that matter and get a date as to when she will be appearing. I wanted to address that before I addressed Madame Chabot's motion.

Yes, we are in complete support of the motion that division 32 be separated from the bill and introduced as separate legislation. It has become evident, I think, although there are certainly significant other faults within divisions 26, 27 and 29—many of which I hope will be addressed as the government continues what seems to be an extensive process of EI reform as they head into the secondary process of consultations this week—that we cannot turn a blind eye to division 32, based on the compelling testimony we've received from a number of witnesses this week.

We will be supporting Madame Chabot's motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Kusie.

Does anybody else want to speak?

You have the motion. It's in both languages.

The motion is order, Madam Clerk, am I correct? Okay.

Madam Zarrillo, you have the floor.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Madame Chabot for the motion. I do believe that there's consensus among the witnesses that this needs to be removed.

I wanted to get some clarity on what the word “split” would mean in regard to the removal of this portion of the budget implementation act or how “split” would be interpreted by the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I cannot answer that. The term was used by Madame Chabot. It's not referred to in the letter we received from FINA.

I don't believe that the clerk or I can answer that question, Madam Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay. I would—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Maybe Madame Chabot could speak to her thoughts. Although it was not used in the motion currently before us, I believe Madame Chabot used it in her comments.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

It seems to be in the motion in English. I'll take a look in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Are you referring to Madame Chabot's motion? I do not see the word “split” in the.... I'm sorry. You are correct. It says that division 32 of Bill C-19 be “split”.

Madame Chabot, do you want to address that?

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

Mr. Chair, it is important to understand the meaning of the word “scinder”. In fact, I believe the meaning is the same in English.

The word “scinder” means that this part of Bill C‑19 is going to be treated separately. We want this part to be split so that it is dealt with separately, by another committee, and there is discussion. That's what I got from the consensus and the comments from the workers' representative, the Employment Insurance Commission representative. This is no small thing.

The Employment Insurance Commission, which has a worker representative and an employer representative, sent a joint and unanimous letter to the ministers concerned. It asked that the debate be held in a different framework than that of Bill C‑19.

In Bill C‑19, the translation does not match that used in the unanimous committee report. The word “scinder” means “to treat separately”.

Recommending to the Standing Committee on Finance that this part be split up means that we are recommending that this part be treated separately, in the way the government would like us to treat it. It is essential that it be treated separately. That is what the word “scinder” means.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot. That is my understanding of the term as well, that it would be removed from the bill.

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

I haven't written it in other recommendations, but the best place to address this issue is here, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot, we will deal with the motion you have.

We will go to Ms. Martinez Ferrada, then Ms. Gladu and then Mr. Van Bynen.

Madame Martinez Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Chabot for bringing this motion forward. I think we recognize that all the evidence we have heard in the study leads us to suggest to the Standing Committee on Finance that we withdraw this section so that we can deal with it separately. We are very pleased to support my colleague's motion to make that recommendation to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Mr. Chair, I have a question about the operation of the committee. I apologize for that, but this is the first time I've been on a committee where a particular section of a bill is being studied. I am wondering how we should frame this response to the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to understand the procedure to follow. Will a letter be sent on behalf of the committee? Will it be written as a result of the addition of my colleague's motion? I would like to understand how we will agree on the content of the letter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

It's my understanding that, when we conclude discussion on recommendations, I will ask for a motion instructing the chair to write a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance outlining the recommendations on subject matter five.

As you recall, the request from finance was to ask the committee to review and to forward this committee's recommendations to the finance committee. As we deal with them here today, I would ask at the end for a motion instructing the clerk to prepare a general letter outlining that the committee did meet on two occasions, heard from witnesses on the subject matter, and attached are the following recommendations from the committee. That is my understanding, Madame Ferrada.

I will now to go Ms. Gladu, and then Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Certainly I do support the removal of 32, but I want to be clear, because if we say we want to split it, normally what that means is that the Speaker of the House will split the bill and you will vote Bill C-19 separately from division 32. I don't know if that is exactly the intent of Ms. Chabot. I think she agrees that this needs further consultation, which is what we heard from the witnesses, and there's a full review of the EI process that's going to go on. If that's the case, perhaps the word “remove” would more accurately reflect the intention that she expressed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I appreciate your comments, Ms. Gladu, but we are not reporting to the House through the Speaker. We are simply sending a letter to FINA on our recommendations, and they will report to the House on the specific language and that would be clarified there. Madame Chabot's intentions are clear when you use the French translation, so it will be up to finance, in my opinion, unless the total committee disagrees, to instruct differently. We are providing a recommendation; we're not providing instructions to change.

Mr. Van Bynen.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comments are relative to the motion as well. I want to be clear as well that, if this is separated from the bill, division 32 doesn't simply disappear. I think the consensus is that we would like to have that looked at separately. That's the assurance that I was seeking as well. If the language would reflect that the section would be considered separately, then that's what I would like to accomplish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Van Bynen, since Madame Chabot has moved the main motion, would you like to make a friendly amendment with the clarification?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

For clarification, I wonder if Madame Chabot would consider adding the words “for separate review and consideration”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot.

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

Actually, I think that's what the word “scinder” means. Mr. Chair, you said it right, we are making a recommendation to the Standing Committee on Finance. I think that if we add these words to the word “scinder”, it will mean the same thing. I don't mind adding it, but I don't think it's helpful. If we split this section, it is necessarily with the intention that it should be dealt with elsewhere. However, if we want to make this clarification, I have no objection to it. It is not for us to specify the word “elsewhere”.

While I have the floor, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I agree with your formula. I think this is the first time that several of us have been on a committee that makes recommendations to another committee. We will have to write a letter.

That said, we have had witnesses, and I would like to know if the letter is going to include the testimony that leads us to make this recommendation.

The letter could explain that the recommendation we are making to the Standing Committee on Finance as part of our study is to split the division, so that there is a separate treatment and a separate discussion on it. First, are you going to put some flesh on the bone?

Also, will our committee be able to see the draft of the letter or do we decide to trust those who will write it and leave it alone? I wouldn't have a problem with that. It's a simple question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

We are in a time situation, too. It would be my desire that the letter be very general with what we heard from witnesses. Once we get into editing, it's only fair that the committee would have the chance to review what would be written in it. If we're going to take the testimony of some of the witnesses, then that becomes a time process.

The letter will simply indicate that the committee heard from witnesses on the various sections and that the recommendations the committee chose to forward to finance are attached. We could include the clarification for those members you indicated that the committee anticipates that division 32 would be dealt with in detail on its own.

Seeing no further discussion, does the committee want to move on consensus?

I see consensus on the only motion that's currently before the committee from Madame Chabot, on the key part. I see thumbs up.

Ms. Zarrillo, you have your hand up. Everyone else has their thumb up.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm sorry, Chair. I just have one question.

I have another potential motion for the implementation act, but it's outside of this part 5. It has to do with the disability tax credit eligibility criteria.

Is this something that I could share with the committee at this point?