Posted on 11 June 2009
OTTAWA, June 11 2009 -- The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance tabled today in the Senate its report on the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.
Senator Joseph A. Day, Chair of the committee, stated: “The practice of using omnibus bills to introduce budget measures has the effect of preventing Parliament from engaging in meaningful examination of the myriad policy proposals contained in them. In particular, the practice makes it almost impossible for committees to conduct a thorough study of the proposed legislation. The problem is further exacerbated by the inclusion of measures that are time-sensitive, or even urgent. Bill C-10 was one of the worst examples of this practice, in that it contained time-sensitive measures for employment insurance benefits during an economic crisis, putting parliamentarians in the impossible position of having to choose between doing a thorough job or helping Canadians who are desperately in need. There is no justification for governments to rush Parliament into adopting legislation in this way.”
The Budget Implementation Act, 2009, formerly known as Bill C-10, was introduced as an omnibus bill that amended or introduced 42 acts of Parliament. The bill was expedited through Parliament in order to implement the government’s stimulus measures designed to deal with what may be the most serious global recession since the Great Depression. At the time of the passing of Bill C-10, it was agreed that various committees of the Senate would be asked to conduct a more detailed examination of the elements that make up the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.
Consequently, pursuant to a motion in the Senate, the Standing Committee on National Finance was directed to examine and report on a number of elements of the bill, in particular those dealing with employment insurance. The motion also referred the elements dealing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Part 7) to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources; the elements dealing with the Competition Act (Part 12) to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce; and the elements dealing with equitable compensation (Part 11) to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
Over the course of its study, the National Finance committee heard various witnesses who presented testimony on a number of elements contained in the bill, including amendments in respect of the Income Tax Act (Part 1); amendments in respect of the Sales and Excise Taxes (Part 2); amendments to the Customs Tariff (Part 3); Stability and Efficiency of the Financial System (Part 5); Infrastructure and Housing Payments (Part 6); Miscellaneous Provisions (Wage Earner Protection Program Act amendments, Canada Student Financial Assistance Act amendments, Financial Administration Act amendments) (Part 8); Payments to Provinces (Part 9); Expenditure Restraint Act (Part 10); Investment Canada Act (Part 13); Canada Transportation Act (Part 14); and, the Air Canada Public Transportation Act (Part 15). Furthermore, the committee met on a number of occasions to examine Part 4, Employment Insurance program.
On Part 4 specifically, the committee reviewed the employment insurance (EI) benefits available to Canadians, the coverage, entrance requirements, setting the EI premiums, the timely delivery of benefit payments, and women’s access to employment insurance.
The complete list of observations and recommendations of the committee is below.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has previously expressed concern with the growing practice of burying budget implementation measures in omnibus bills.
The committee is also concerned with the longstanding use by governments of the phrase “Not a statutory instrument for the purpose of The Statutory Instruments Act.” The phrase, which occurs on fifteen occasions in Bill C-10, has the effect of removing from Parliament the right to examine and study those new regulations or rules put forth by many of the Acts included in the omnibus bill. It does not allow parliamentarians an opportunity to assess the impact of such measures on government spending and on the citizenry.
The report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is available at www.senate-senat.ca/fina.asp.
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE ON THE REPORT ON THE BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009
OBSERVATION 1
While the committee recognizes that not all unemployed workers who paid into the Employment Insurance program will qualify for benefits, it believes that the program could provide broader coverage. The committee also believes that a greater number of Canadians should have access to Employment Insurance coverage. (pg. 16)
OBSERVATION 2
The committee recognizes that there are several aspects to the entrance requirements that may deserve modification in the long run. While the committee could not conduct a broad and in-depth analysis of the suitability of all the entrance requirements it does feel that the unusually difficult economic conditions make it desirable to address at least the interregional inequity. (pg. 19)
OBSERVATION 3
The majority of the committee agrees with several witnesses, including the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, who expressed concern that the $2 billion Employment Insurance fund reserve is woefully inadequate. A larger reserve in the range of $10 billion to $15 billion is needed, both to permit the Financing Board to avoid dramatic fluctuations in premium rates, and to ensure that the fund will be adequate to cover a sharp rise in benefit payments during any future economic downturn. (pg. 23)
OBSERVATION 4
Your committee believes that an effort needs to be made to clarify the appropriate instances when this practice could be used before it further undermines the work of Parliament. (pg. 40)
OBSERVATION 5
Options that might be considered by the Senate for dealing with omnibus bills in the future include:
1. Divide the bill into coherent parts and deal with them separately, allowing committees to do their jobs properly;
2. Delete all non-budgetary provisions and proceed to consider only those parts of the bill that are budgetary in nature;
3. Defeat the bill at second reading on the grounds that it is an affront to Parliament (by way of a “reasoned amendment”); and
4. Establish a new Rule of the Senate prohibiting the introduction of budget implementation bills that contain non-budgetary measures. (pg. 43)
RECOMMENDATION 1
The Government should consider introducing a system of tiered benefits for the duration of the recession and increase eligibility for Family Supplement benefits, with the goal of providing higher rates of income replacement for those with lower incomes. (pg. 13)
RECOMMENDATION 2
The Government should consider, if needed maintaining the benefits available under Pilot Project No. 10 beyond September 12, 2010 for those regions that qualified for the benefits in the original project. (pg. 14)
RECOMMENDATION 3
The government should take steps to increase the proportion of Canadians who could be covered by the Employment Insurance Program. (pg. 16)
RECOMMENDATION 4
The federal government implement a temporary, two year: a) national standard for qualification to the Employment Insurance program, no greater than 420 hours of insurable employment, and b) the removal of the two-week waiting period that precedes the commencement of benefits. (pg. 19)
RECOMMENDATION 5
The government should re-assess the planned structure of the CEIFB and increase the size of the stabilization fund to a level considered adequate by actuarial standards. (pg. 23)
RECOMMENDATION 6
The government needs to set firmer delivery standards in order to ensure that Canadians receive their Employment Insurance benefits in a timely fashion. (pg. 24)
RECOMMENDATION 7
The federal government is urged to examine women’s access to employment insurance and to ensure that the program closes the gender gap in employment insurance accessibility. (pg. 24)
RECOMMENDATION 8
The federal government should initiate measures that will permit the gathering of information on EI training programs that will allow a full assessment of the adequacy of these programs. (pg. 26)
RECOMMENDATION 9
The majority of the committee recommends that the government cease the use of omnibus legislation to introduce budget implementation measures. (pg. 42)