Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 901 - 1000 of 147841
Danis Prud'homme
View Danis Prud'homme Profile
Danis Prud'homme
2021-06-03 17:31
Thank you for the question.
First, if a country wants to have a user–friendly society in terms of care, it must focus the care on aging. That is what experts and the World Health Organization are saying, but that is unfortunately not being done or too much time is being taken to do it.
Second, if we want seniors to live at home, they must be provided with care at home. Unfortunately, that was no longer possible during the pandemic, and we have seen their health deteriorate. So budgets must be reversed: more funding must be provided for home care and less must be invested in curative care—in other words, hospitals.
View Sean Casey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Sean Casey Profile
2021-06-03 17:32
Thank you, Mr. Prud'homme.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for being with us today.
The United Way is very prominent right across the country, not just in seniors programs but in many others.
We very much appreciate the work that you do and for being with us.
Réseau FADOQ is a very important partner in the province of Quebec. We thank you for your work in your province and in your communities.
We also thank you for your testimony today. I know that your group is often invited to committee meetings, and for good reason.
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, do we have consent to adjourn?
I see that there is consent in the room. Thank you.
We'll see you next week. Have a good weekend, everyone.
The meeting is adjourned.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I call the meeting officially to order.
Welcome to meeting number 53 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.
Pursuant to the House order of reference of Thursday, May 27, 2021, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021, and other measures.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25 of this year. Therefore, members are either attending in person in the room, or remotely using the Zoom application.
I sometimes hear those words in my sleep these days. We have repeated them so many times.
I hate to start without Mr. Julian, without one party here, but we will see where we are at first.
(On clauses 269 to 271)
The Chair: We had started a discussion—and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk—on division 32, an increase to the old age security pension and payment. It was on page 286 of the bill. I believe the lead for the department was Kristen Underwood. There she is.
Welcome, Ms. Underwood.
The floor is open for further discussion on division 32.
Mrs. Jansen.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
I was just wondering about the fact that what we're basically saying here is that 75-year-olds and older will be getting a 10% pay raise.
Canadians put money into this pension plan, this is their money and their employers do the same. In this proposal, however, we are suddenly going to give a raise only to those 75 and older.
How can we legally change a program that is paid for by employers and employees? Suddenly the government is going to change the rules mid-game. How does that work? How is that possible?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Ms. Underwood, do you want to answer that?
We're not dealing with CPP. We're dealing with the OAS.
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:36
Yes, I was going to say for clarification, Mr. Chair, that we're talking about an increase to the old age security pension. The OAS is funded through the consolidated revenue fund and not by contributions from employees and employers.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
I'm sorry, my apologies. I'm totally mixed up.
Can you explain to me how it is possible that we can decide to split seniors that way? How does it make sense that you can say that those 75 and older need it more than those 65 and older, and we're, therefore, going to split them in half, whereas OAS starts at 65? Presumably, they are all on OAS for the same reason.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I don't want to put senior people in the bureaucracy on the spot. That's more of a policy question, Tamara. Can you find a way to ask it? It's the government that decides on the policy, so I think that's probably an unfair question for the bureaucracy to answer. They do the data, the details.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
Okay.
Why is the government proposing measures that would apply to all pensioners age 75 and older, rather than measures that would specifically target low-income seniors?
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:37
The measure is meant to target older seniors. It's a universal benefit for those 75 and older. We did some data analysis, and it does show that there are higher levels of vulnerability for those who are 75 and older.
We've talked about some of those statistics here before. I could talk about them again, but the issue we're trying to address here is the increased vulnerability of older seniors.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Mr. Julian is next, followed by Ms. Dzerowicz.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, thanks to my colleagues Mr. Kelly and Monsieur Ste-Marie.
I just came out of the House, where we were paying tributes to Bruce Stanton for his extraordinary career and his 10 years as the Deputy Speaker. I want to clarify exactly how you were proceeding with this particular section.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We've just started because we didn't want to start without everyone present, as much as possible.
We're on division 32, which has clause 269. We will get to you—you have an amendment on clause 272—and others as we go through it.
I don't think there's really any choice on division 32 but to go through it clause by clause. There are so many amendments that we pretty well need to go through it clause by clause, unless you want to block some of yours in the middle.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I would definitely be blocking the amendments to clauses 272 to 276. I'll flag that with you for our amendments that are coming up. Thanks for clarifying.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay.
Then we will go back to questions for Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Dzerowicz.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, colleagues.
I want to thank all the officials for being here today and for all their hard work.
I know you've given us some of the statistics, Ms. Underwood, but I do think it's important to have a little bit more on record in terms of the difference in challenges faced by seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, and the challenges or the data that we have for those who are 75 and over.
I know you talked about those who are 75 and over. We know they have some more needs and challenges, but could you provide some of the data you have on those between the ages of 65 and 74, and maybe a little bit more on the 75-plus?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Go ahead, Ms. Underwood.
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:40
I'm sorry. I am having some trouble with my computer. It's jumbling as people are speaking. I think I heard the question clearly, but if for some reason I crackle out, maybe my colleague Kevin Wagdin could take over for me.
Thank you for the question. I believe you were asking for a bit more detail on the statistics regarding differences between those who are 65 to 74 and those who are 75 and older.
As we've mentioned before, close to half of those over 75 have a disability and about 56% have severe disabilities. The majority of seniors over 75 are women, and those women tend to more frequently live alone and have lower incomes. Four in 10 are widowed, six in 10 have incomes below $30,000 a year and four in 10 receive the guaranteed income supplement, which is targeted to lower-income seniors. They face higher health costs. For those who are 80 and over, health costs are two-thirds higher.
Those are just a few of the figures we have on the increased risks for those 75 and older.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
As a follow-up, Ms. Underwood, and as part of the conversation we're having today, have you any specific data that you might want to share, that you think might be helpful for us to know, regarding seniors between the ages of 65 and 74?
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:42
We did share some data earlier for the committee's special study. We could share that again for the record, but I think the information I have given you is the same as what I gave before.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Perfect. Thank you.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay.
Is there any further discussion on clause 269?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I have just a quick question, Mr. Chair.
We heard at the last meeting that 85% of Canadian seniors have incomes below $50,000 a year, so I am wondering if our witnesses have any more information now in terms of how that relates to seniors 65 to 75? These are low incomes, so what percentage of that 85% of Canadian seniors earning less than $50,000 are folks who are 65 to 75?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Yes, go ahead.
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:43
In fact, thank you very much for that question and the opportunity to clarify.
I believe during our last session you had asked for the specific age breakdown of seniors 65 to 74 versus those 75 and over. I just wanted to clarify or to make sure to clarify for the record that, according to our most recent administrative data, we had about 3.7 million OAS recipients between the ages of 65 and 74, whereas 2.8 million were 75 and over. I wanted to follow up with that just to ensure it was clear.
With respect—
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm sorry. Can I just ask you what percentage, then, of those OAS recipients are under 75?
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:44
Again, there would be 3.7 million OAS recipients in March 2021.
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:44
It is 57% of the total client group who would be between the ages of 65 to 74.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:44
With respect to income distribution, while I don't have it broken down by 65 to 74, I can say, just to supplement our previous figure, 55% of all of our OAS pensioners have incomes below $30,000. That's just to add some more precision to the previous data we provided.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
These are important figures for us to know because we have a very important decision to make. You said 55% of Canadian seniors have incomes that are below $30,000.
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:45
Again, while I don't have a specific number there, what I can say is that for our guaranteed income supplement benefit, which is our targeted income supplement, of the previous figure that I had provided for you—the 57% who are between 65 and 74—about 50% of those recipients.... Pardon me, there were about 1.1 million who were on the guaranteed income supplement, so they had income low enough for that. Of the 2.8 million seniors who are getting an OAS pension who are 75 and older, it was, again, about 1.1 million who were receiving the guaranteed income supplement.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
An argument very clearly can be made that the needs are just as great from 65 to 74 as they are from 75 and over, and in fact we're missing the majority of seniors who are living under the poverty line. Thank you for that. That helps to clarify the facts.
We have an important decision to make soon about amendments, but I think it would be clear to all members of the finance committee that clearly we can't exclude most Canadian seniors living in poverty from a budgetary measure that is supposed to help all Canadian seniors.
Thank you.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
That's it for questions on this point.
(Clauses 269 to 271 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 272)
The Chair: On clause 272 there is an amendment.
Mr. Julian, I have looked—and I know you said you'd like to block these—and the rulings for at least two of them are substantially different enough that I'm pretty near going to go clause by clause with each amendment. Your argument can be made on the whole works, but I will have to do a separate ruling at least on clauses 272, 273 and....
Go ahead, Peter, on your amendment NDP-14.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I think I will move all four of them, explain the rationale for all four of them and appeal your decisions as they come.
I'll start off by saying, of course, that this committee has the right to do the right thing in terms of this legislation. When we talk about royal recommendations, in the past in minority governments, certainly with the famous Jack Layton budget, the government provided the royal recommendation for substantial changes in the initial budget when it became clear that, without those substantial changes, it would not pass the test of getting through Parliament. I'm very confident in saying that it is up to the committee to decide whether these amendments should be voted on and carried forward.
The four amendments in question obviously address what we have just heard is a profound discrepancy, that 57% of Canadian seniors are under the age of 75, and that the majority of Canadian seniors live at what can only be stated as close to poverty level, $30,000 a year. That is a profoundly difficult income level, especially when we see the extent to which COVID and the pandemic has hit Canadian seniors.
There is simply no sense or logic to what the government is proposing, that seniors 75 and over get a 10% bump in the OAS and a $500 bonus, when Canadians under 75 need it as desperately. There's just no sense, no logic. I think we've heard from our questions very clearly that the statistics and the facts show that, for the committee to do the right thing, we must extend the OAS increase to all seniors and provide the one-time supports of $500 to all seniors.
That is a slam dunk. Canadians who are listening to us would all agree that this is the right thing to do. Canadian senior groups have all intervened, including at this committee, saying that this makes absolutely no sense or logic. It penalizes and hurts seniors who are under the age of 75. For us to force them to spend 10 years before they can get a slightly more adequate income.... It is beyond belief that a government would propose that and that a finance committee would say, “That's okay.”
I have certainly heard, from questions from my colleagues, that they understand the dynamic. We cannot discriminate among seniors. We now know that the imperative for seniors under 75, as well, is as deep and profound as it is for seniors 75 and over.
That is why these four amendments would provide the $500 support to all seniors and ensure that the OAS increase goes to all seniors. I think we've heard compelling testimony in the answers to our questions. Even if the government uses the procedural trick of saying that it's going to withhold the royal recommendation, we should be pushing it to provide that royal recommendation, as it has done in the past and as the government has the right, and I would say, the responsibility in this case to do.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. I have a couple of people online for questions.
I would ask if you know what the cost of that might be. I'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz, if you want to think about that in the meantime.
Go ahead, Ms. Dzerowicz.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I'd like to hear what Mr. Ste-Marie says first before I go, if that's okay.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
It's up to you.
Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
I thank my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz for her courtesy.
Mr. Julian, thank you for your proposed amendments. Indeed, the seniors and groups that came to the committee to testify about Bill C-30 told us that it was unacceptable to create two classes of seniors and that it was discrimination. The president of the FADOQ network, the Quebec golden age federation, reminded us that seniors aged 65 to 74 often have additional expenses. For example, these people, often women, do not have a private pension plan and are caregivers. They have to take care of their spouse, or even their parents or relatives. As a result, they sometimes have to go to the hospital, which results in additional expenses.
The statistics that senior officials have provided clearly demonstrate the importance of not creating two classes of seniors. I fully understand the opportunity for the committee to vote on these motions. Then the government can table a notice of ways and means motion based on that. So I fully support the motions that have been put forward. They are good motions.
However, I would like more clarification on amendment NDP-15. I would like Mr. Julian to explain in more detail what his amendment 15 is actually trying to do.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
To respond to that question, we'll go to Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Julian. Could you explain NDP-14 a little further?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
It's NDP-15.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
NDP-15, okay.
I'm going to give a separate ruling on each, so I'll deal with NDP-14 first, and then I'll ask....
Okay, give it now, Peter. Give your response to NDP-15 now. Although it's a different chair's ruling, we'll have all the discussion now.
Go ahead.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I thank my colleague Mr. Ste-Marie for his question.
When we consulted with parliamentary counsel, they said that yes, the age of 65 should be specified in the provisions. That is what amendments NDP-14, NDP-16 and NDP-17 do. In all three cases, the intent is to specify that the provision comes into effect at age 65. Amendment NDP-15 removes a section of the law that prevents these three amendments from actually setting that threshold at age 65. Therefore, it is a consequential amendment since it is related to the others.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are you satisfied with the answer, Mr. Ste-Marie?
Ms. Dzerowicz.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Look. Just in terms of the debate of these, there is no intention or desire to discriminate. I don't agree with the premise of what Mr. Julian has said. I think everybody knows that in every budget there are choices that need to be made when there are limited dollars. I think that we heard very clearly from our officials that half of those over 75 have a disability of which 56% are severe, and 75% of them are women, who live longer and have lower incomes. There is a desire to provide some additional support to this group.
I guess maybe I'll end with a question to officials that I hope will be helpful in this discussion. Is there research that shows how the costs for seniors increase once they pass the age of 75 and why financial assistance is useful at this moment?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
That's for whoever wants to take it.
Did you hear that, Ms. Underwood? Go ahead if you did. I know your computer is just so-so.
Kristen Underwood
View Kristen Underwood Profile
Kristen Underwood
2021-06-03 15:56
I did hear it, but I may turn to my colleague Mr. Wagdin. We have done some research.
Kevin, do you want to give it a go?
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:57
Again, some of the research that we looked at as part of this proposal I think my colleague Kristen has touched on. With respect to specific percentages, we do know that the percentage of OAS pensioners with incomes below $30,000 is about half of seniors 65 to 74, but it's actually 59% for those who are 75 and older. We know that 39% of seniors 75 and over receive the GIS, whereas only 29% of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 receive the GIS.
As we have spoken about, there are also the added issues that come into play with experience with disabilities and then the fact that older seniors are less able to supplement their incomes with paid work. The median employment income for a senior between the age of 65 and 74 is $10,000, whereas for a senior over the age of 75, it's only $720. That was the evidence that we looked at with respect to this proposal.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's excellent information.
Can I just clarify, Mr. Chair?
You mentioned something about 59%. Could you just repeat the data that you gave on the first one? I missed it.
Kevin Wagdin
View Kevin Wagdin Profile
Kevin Wagdin
2021-06-03 15:58
Sure. According to the 2018 Canadian income survey, the percentage of OAS pensioners with incomes below $30,000—so, the percentage of seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 with an income below $30,000—was 52%. That percentage increases for seniors 75 and over to 59%.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I believe we've completed the discussion on several amendments.
I will give the ruling on NDP-14. I'm bound by procedure and the rules of the House of Commons, so I may be a stick in the wheel.
The ruling is this: The amendment attempts to apply the 10% increase of pensions mentioned in the bill to people who are 65 years old, where the bill provides for the increase at 75 years old, which would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible, as it requires a royal recommendation since it does impose a new charge on the public treasury, so I rule it inadmissible.
I will deal with these one at a time.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
As I mentioned at the very beginning of this process, the government has the responsibility to apply a royal recommendation when very clearly they've erred. They have erred in this case. We have seen in the past, and precedent shows, that the government can provide a royal recommendation and can choose to do that.
It's not a question of being out of order. It's a question, I think, of the committee responding appropriately to what is a significant error in judgment. I would challenge your ruling on that basis and allow the committee to decide whether we should move and vote on these amendments.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
All right. As I said, I will have to deal with them one at a time, because they are somewhat different rulings.
Mr. Clerk, there's been a challenge to the chair's ruling. If you would like to poll the committee, go ahead.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
(Clause 272 agreed to on division)
(On clause 273)
The Chair: Is there anything more you want to say on NDP-15, Mr. Julian?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
All right.
The ruling is this: The amendment attempts to remove the limit of increase of pension that is in the Old Age Security Act. If adopted, the amendment would provide for an increase of pension for people aged 70 years old, which would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, the chair's ruling is that this amendment, NDP-15, is inadmissible.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
With respect Mr. Chair—and I haven't done this on all of the amendments, but this is a particularly egregious error in judgment by the government—the government has the ability to provide a royal recommendation. I believe our duty is to consider the amendment and to push the government to provide that.
I will challenge your ruling, with respect.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. It's a good job you're paying attention.
On NDP-16, is there anything further you want to say Mr. Julian?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Very clearly, what this would do is provide for 65 years of age. With the compelling evidence, and our witnesses have all said the same thing, it's important to adopt this amendment.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
This is the same ruling as related to clause 272. That's why I was trying to ignore it, but I will read it in any event so that we're all clear on the record.
The amendment attempts to apply the 10% increase to pensions mentioned in the bill to people who are 65 years old, whereas the bill provides for the increase at 75 years old, which would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment, as proposed, is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.
I'll go back to you, Mr. Julian.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It would be a new charge that would be welcome and that the vast majority of Canadian seniors want to see.
With respect again, this is a procedural tool the government is using to repress amendments that improve where errors were made in the legislation, so with respect I will challenge your ruling.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We're on clause 276 and there is amendment NDP-17. Do you want to add anything further on that one, Mr. Julian?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay.
This ruling is a little different but it amounts to the same result.
The amendment provides for a unique $500 payment to pensioners who are 65 years old, whereas the bill provides for the same payment for pensioners 75 years or older. This would result in increasing payments from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment as proposed is inadmissible as it requires a royal recommendation since it imposes a new charge on the public treasury.
We'll go over to you, Mr. Julian.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All four of these rulings stem from the fact that the government doesn't want to provide seniors with the equitable supports they need and wants to discriminate.
It's bad legislation. Each of the rulings you made, Mr. Chair, has the same optics—that the government is refusing to do the right thing and is withholding a royal recommendation.
In this case, as with the others, our responsibility as committee members, I believe, is to listen to the powerful testimony we've heard from seniors' groups across the country who have said that this discrimination should not be upheld. That's why I challenge your ruling.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think my colleague just said that the government made this ruling. I think it was you who made this ruling, and I just want to put that on the record.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
On a point of order, the reality is, as Ms. Dzerowicz knows very well, if the government provides the royal recommendation, the amendments are not out of order. It's ultimately a government decision that the chair has to enforce.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay, we've had a little debate on the ruling.
We will go to the clerk, and he will poll the committee on whether we uphold the ruling or not.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
(Clause 276 agreed to on division)
(On clause 277)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you, Ms. Underwood and Mr. Wagdin.
We will now turn to division 33, the Public Service Employment Act, and we have as the lead, Ms. Beattie.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you very much for coming and waiting through a couple of nights, likely.
Do you want to give a quick explanation on division 33? Then we'll see if there are any questions.
Selena Beattie
View Selena Beattie Profile
Selena Beattie
2021-06-03 16:12
I'd be happy to do that.
Mr. Chair, the Public Service Employment Act provides a foundation for staffing in the federal public service by creating a framework for a non-partisan public service where appointments are based on merit. It gives the Public Service Commission authority to make appointments, which, in practice, is usually delegated to deputy heads.
This division amends the Public Service Employment Act to reduce and remove barriers to achieving diversity in the public service and enhancing the degree to which it embodies the principle of inclusion.
I can turn to clause 277 to begin with, which amends the preamble to add a commitment by the Government of Canada to an inclusive public service that reflects the diversity of Canada's population.
Shall I continue with other clauses?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We'll start with that one and see if there are any questions.
I believe we're on page 289, for those who are following by way of the bill.
Are there any questions on clause 277?
(Clause 277 agreed to on division)
(On clause 278)
Selena Beattie
View Selena Beattie Profile
Selena Beattie
2021-06-03 16:13
Subclause 278(1) amends the act to add a definition of equity-seeking groups, which will be defined as “a group of persons who are disadvantaged on the basis of one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act.”
Subclause 278(2) amends the act by.... Did you want to pause after the subclause?
Selena Beattie
View Selena Beattie Profile
Selena Beattie
2021-06-03 16:13
Subclause 278(2) adds proposed subsection 2(5), which would include bias or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to equity-seeking groups within the meaning of error, omission or improper conduct, for the purposes of investigations by the Public Service Commission and by delegated deputy heads.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are there any questions on clause 278 by members?
(Clause 278 agreed to on division)
(On clause 279)
Selena Beattie
View Selena Beattie Profile
Selena Beattie
2021-06-03 16:13
Clause 279 amends the act by adding a subsection to section 17, so that the commission may conduct audits related specifically to bias or barriers that disadvantage persons belonging to equity-seeking groups.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are there any questions on clause 279? I hear none.
(Clause 279 agreed to on division)
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-06-03 16:15
Mr. Chair, I note that all members of this committee have received written briefing notes that effectively explain the different sections here, clause 280 all the way through to clause 287. I'd be prepared to allow this to go as a bundle.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. We'll ask Ms. Beattie to explain all of these as a bundle.
I believe Mr. Julian has a question.
Do you have a question, Peter?
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
It's not a question, just a comment, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Peter Julian: I think that's a good proposal by Mr. Fast. He's mellowing.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
It's good to see the official opposition and the NDP agreeing.
(On clauses 280 to 287)
The Chair: Could we get an explanation on the remainder of those clauses, Ms. Beattie? Then we'll go to a vote seeing them all as one.
Selena Beattie
View Selena Beattie Profile
Selena Beattie
2021-06-03 16:15
It would be my pleasure.
The remainder of the clauses will require a review of new and revised qualification standards to include an evaluation of bias and barriers, require the design and selection of assessment methods to include an evaluation of bias and barriers, broaden the preference given to Canadian citizens in external advertised appointments to include permanent residents, and provide for transitional provisions related to the timing and the coming into force of these sections.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay.
Are there any questions from committee members?
I have one myself, Ms. Beattie.
How do you see doing this? Do you have supervisors over the supervisors supervising the hiring officers? How do you do this? How do you police this?
Selena Beattie
View Selena Beattie Profile
Selena Beattie
2021-06-03 16:16
This will be done in different ways. For qualification standards, these are minimum requirements that are established by the employer. In this case, Treasury Board Secretariat's office of the chief human resources officer, when it conducts reviews, will need to conduct the evaluation.
For assessment methods, the Public Service Commission will be providing tools, supports and instructions for hiring managers about how to ensure the assessment methods have been evaluated and any barriers have been mitigated to the extent possible.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I see that Ms. Dzerowicz has a question.
Results: 901 - 1000 of 147841 | Page: 10 of 1479

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data