Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 20 - Evidence - Meeting of December 15, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 5:20 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting to order.
A notice has been properly given and we have good representation. Senator Di Nino asked for the floor to make a statement before we go to clause-by-clause consideration.
Senator Di Nino: Senator Finley asked me on the way here to explain his absence and the fact that he has withdrawn from any participation on this bill for full and proper reasons. The bill is one that is under the ministry that Senator Finley's spouse happens to be responsible for, so he felt there may be a perception of a potential conflict, and he would like that to go on the record, if you do not mind.
The Chair: That will go on the record, and we appreciate very much his understanding of the importance of appearance in these matters.
Honourable senators, are we prepared at this time to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-56? You will recall that we did an extensive pre-study on this particular bill. We did not intend to call any further witnesses.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-56?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
If you will look at the bill — each of you has a copy of it — you will see in the table of contents there seems to be a convenient grouping of clauses under major headings. I would propose to follow those major headings, if that is agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 2 to 17 under the heading "Employment Insurance Act" pass?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 18 to 20 under the heading "Transitional Provisions" pass?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 21 to 33 under the heading "Consequential Amendments" pass?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 34 to 36 under the heading "Coordinating Amendments" pass?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 37 pass?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I am assuming there are no amendments, but does anyone have any amendments at this stage? We have observations. Senator Carstairs was to attend, but she is of the understanding that proceeding by way of an observation rather than amendment should garner fairly wide support for her particular observation. Senator Callbeck has two other observations that she would like to talk about.
Shall the bill carry, without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
With respect to the first observation, honourable senators, Senator Callbeck will talk about the $78 million shortfall.
Senator Callbeck: Yes. The departmental officials gave us analysis that showed that by 2014, the expenditures from this fund would exceed the revenue going into the fund, and the shortfall would have to be picked up by the Employment Insurance fund, which means that regular contributors to EI would be subsidizing the self-employed people for their special benefits. Thus, the shortfall would be $78 million, which would mean premiers would have to increase or require a transfer of funds from the government to the Employment Insurance Financing Board to cover any shortfall.
The Chair: In effect, we are pointing out that there will be this shortfall and hoping that this is front and centre with the government.
Senator Eggleton: This observation does not recommend to the government.
The Chair: No, it does not. It might be that the government decides that the employment premiums should increase. That is one option.
Senator Eggleton: Do you want to recommend one or the other?
This is sort of neutral.
Senator Di Nino: With recommendations, you have all kinds of problems with —
Senator Eggleton: We did that on Bill C-62.
Senator Di Nino: Our observations have basically been to point out where we think there should be further action or analysis rather than making recommendations.
Senator Callbeck: That was my understanding.
The Chair: That was my understanding as well.
Senator Eggleton: I will not press the issue.
The Chair: Thank you. That was the first item. If you would proceed with the second, Senator Callbeck.
Senator Callbeck: The second point is in regard to self-employed individuals in the province of Quebec. They are entitled to sickness and compassionate care, and their parental and maternity benefits will still fall under the Quebec government. We heard from an expert witness who said he felt the premium the Quebec people would have to pay was too high compared to the rest of Canada. We are suggesting that the government consider setting up an independent working group to examine this issue to see if the premiums are fair for self-employed people in the province of Quebec.
The Chair: This subject was also an issue in the House of Commons and was never resolved. I think we are simply highlighting it. Are we agreed on that item?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Peterson: Did an actuary determine these numbers?
The Chair: The actuary is actually the person who came to speak to us. The government said they ran some figures, but it was not apparent that they had used an actuary to develop these figures. That is what the government representatives said. That is why there is some question. The former government actuary, Mr. Bédard, was concerned about these particular figures. We are suggesting that they had better be looked at.
Senator Peterson: Thank you.
The Chair: The final item, then — I am sorry.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like to add one point about the independent committee that is to decide if the rate is set at a fair level. If the committee simply considers whether the rate is fair or not, the answer will be "yes" or "no." If the rate is not fair, the independent group should recommend a rate that is, which would give it a little broader mandate.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: I think that, basically, that concern it is implied by the observation. I am not sure we need to go through it. If we start to change it, we will be here all night. That is the only thing I am concerned about.
Senator Lang: The point that has to be made is that this is voluntary. This is not compulsory. The marketplace will determine if you are too high.
Senator Di Nino: That is clearly and frequently stated in the bill and in the debates. We say that this bill has a relatively narrow focus. It is to include on a voluntary basis in the Employment Insurance program self-employed Canadians. Again, I do not think we need to change anything.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Carignan, can you accept that observation? It is not a solution, it is an observation.
Senator Carignan: I know, except that I have difficulty with the argument that we cannot touch the text because we will be here all night. If that is the case, let us leave now and say the text is fine. I suggest that the reason we are here is to make any amendments that may be called for.
I understand that determining the idea of fairness is implicit. But deciding whether the rate is fair or not does not suggest to me that the independent group can recommend another rate that would be fair. I think it is important to make that additional comment. These are only observations; it is not a major change. If you say that it is already implicit, let us make it explicit. I do not see what that could really change.
[English]
The Chair: Are there other comments on this issue? My inclination is to accept the wording as it is.
Senator Di Nino: Mine as well.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator, thank you for your understanding.
[English]
With respect to the final two paragraphs, Senator Carstairs spoke on these points. Senator Carstairs, would you like to highlight what is in this observation?
Senator Carstairs: I have read the observation, and it is everything I certainly would want. It would read better if you changed the position of an "is" in the fifth line: "We learned that not only is such a determination extremely difficult" rather than putting the "is" before the "extremely difficult." It is very awkward English, but that is from an old English teacher. I can live quite comfortably with the way it is knowing the difficulty of time.
Senator Di Nino: We would have to reprint this whole thing with French translation.
Senator Carstairs: Just leave it as it is.
The Chair: Great. Does everyone understand what is being recommended and pointed out here? We are pointing out that it would be nice to have a wording change that is somewhat softer and, second, an extension of this particular compassionate care.
Senator Gerstein: Before we leave this, as deputy chair, I wish to recognize Senator Carstairs first for her appearance at our Finance Committee meeting where she was both an active participant and arranged for witnesses to appear before us who were quite moving, I might say; and, second, for the eloquence of her expression this afternoon in the chamber.
The Chair: Hear, hear.
Honourable senators, can we agree under the circumstances to attach these observations to this bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Honourable senators, is it agreed that I report this bill back without amendment but with these observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
That is it. The bill has passed. Thank you. This meeting is now concluded.
(The committee adjourned.)