Evidence of meeting #96 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
I also want to delve into the issue with the employer.
Sorry to my colleagues, but this is a very interesting line of thought: having flexibility for people in their lives, because lives are not always uniform. We don't all have nine-to-five jobs.
Are there provisions in the law that force employers to accept someone's parental leave? If someone applies for parental leave and they say they are taking 36 weeks, is the employer obliged to give them the 36 weeks?
Sébastien St-Arnaud Senior Policy Strategist, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
The employee is entitled to take the leave any time he wants if he specifies the date four weeks in advance and says, “I'll take the leave on that particular date.”
Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
The leave provisions, though, vary across the country based on the province or territory, or whether the employees are regulated by the Canada Labour Code. So at this point it remains to be seen how provinces and territories would intend to follow or not follow the federal government's lead in making changes to EI benefits.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
You mentioned Quebec as well. In that province I believe their parental leave plan also allows more people to participate, meaning, for instance, if you're self-employed, you're able to pay into the plan in order to receive a greater level of benefits. There is an increased cost, but they've also seen an increase in the number of males taking parental leave to look after their children—and they're far above, and perhaps more feminist, than some other jurisdictions. Anyway, it seems to be more encouraged there. This measure would obviously increase the level of flexibility, but there are a lot of self-employed employees who could possibly use that to their benefit.
Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
There are certainly a number of differences between the EI maternal and parental benefits program and the Quebec parental insurance plan with respect to self-employed workers. It is possible for self-employed workers in the rest of Canada to opt into the EI program to pay premiums and obtain access to maternity and parental benefits. That has existed now for about six years, but the participation is very low, whereas in Quebec participation is mandatory, including for the self-employed.
As for other aspects of the program, it's true that in the Quebec program there are dedicated paternity benefits that, I would say, are intended to encourage men as well to take parental leave. Indeed, in Quebec we see many more men, proportionally speaking, taking advantage of the paternity and parental benefits than we do in the rest of Canada, which does not have a dedicated paternity benefit.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Are there any further questions or discussion on amendment NDP-16?
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 235 agreed to on division)
On amendment BQ-7, Ms. Pauzé.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning everyone.
The amendment in front of you seeks to extend the qualifying period. Through Bill C-44, the government is making changes to maternity leave under EI and increasing the number of weeks a woman is able to receive maternity benefits. That's wonderful. The government is recognizing that helping women better integrate into the workforce and economy is beneficial to all aspects of economic life. That's the good news.
As for the not so good news, believe it or not, a mother who loses her job during, or immediately following, her parental leave does not qualify for employment insurance. It would therefore be extremely difficult for mothers who took maternity or parental leave to collect employment insurance after losing their jobs. That is already a problem in Quebec, and we have repeatedly alerted the minister. No meaningful action has been taken, and that's why I am here today. Our amendment would plug that hole in the legislation.
Let's take a closer look at the problem. Currently, in order to determine whether someone is eligible to receive EI, the government relies on the number of hours that person has worked during the last year. Even if the government extends the benefit period, however, Canadian women will experience what women in Quebec have been dealing with since parental leave was introduced: if they lose their job while on parental leave, they will not have access to EI because they won't have accumulated the number of hours required to qualify.
We need to do remedy this, because Bill C-44, which seeks to do something positive by giving women an additional right, does not extend that right to those who lose their job while on leave. They will be penalized for having lost their job and will therefore have one less right.
A government that describes itself as feminist should care about protecting women who are at the mercy of an uncertain job market. It's hard enough when one person in a couple loses their job. Imagine how hard it is for a single mother who loses her job and is left with no income.
It is outrageous for a woman to lose her job and have no income simply for having a child. That indirectly discriminates against women, and the government has an obligation to do something about it.
I fear I will be told that the amendment broadens the scope of the act and is therefore out of order. As a member of a non-recognized party, I do not have the right to a second turn in order to convince you. I therefore call on another member at the table to appeal the decision if my amendment is ruled out of order. It does not broaden the scope of the act or change the nature of the benefits. It does not create a new benefit.
All the amendment does is clarify the nature of the new benefit that Bill C-44 introduces. It is simply adding a definition, and the act already allows for this kind of thing. It is possible to go back further than the last 52 weeks in the case of preventive withdrawal, sick leave and compassionate leave. The government has made an exception in those circumstances, but not for parental leave.
The sole purpose of the amendment is to protect mothers who lose their jobs, as well as their children.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Madame Pauzé.
Yes you are correct. I will rule the amendment as inadmissible, and I'll explain why.
Bill C-44 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act to increase flexibility in the provisions of caregiving and parental benefits. The amendment would result in higher benefits being claimed beyond those that the bill provides for. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 767 and 768:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge in the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In my opinion, the amendment would extend the charge on the public treasury. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible. The amendment was for new clause 235.1, so we do not need to deal with that.
There are no amendments for clauses 236 to 244. Is there consent to deal with them as a block?
(Amendments 236 to 244 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 245)
We now have NDP amendment 17.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Chair, it's quite similar to our last one, so I won't spend too much time on it.
It's very similar to amendment NDP-16 but focuses on self-employed workers in order to give them the same flexibility I was trying to achieve with my last amendment, which, unfortunately, was not adopted. I fear the same outcome for this amendment. I would understand in this case, though, as it would ensure equal treatment for all claimants.
That said, I think self-employed workers also deserve the flexibility my amendment would give them. In terms of parental benefits, self-employed claimants should be able to change their minds and collect what would ultimately be the same amount, just spread over a different benefit period. That would be better than only having the choice between 12 months or 18 months.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any discussion on this amendment or any questions for the witnesses?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 245 agreed to on division)
The next clauses are 246 to 269. There are no amendments to them.
Is there any discussion? Are we okay with passing them as a block?
(Clauses 246 to 269 inclusive agreed to on division)
Thank you, folks.
We're waiting to connect with the witnesses from Veterans Affairs Canada and to deal with clauses 270 through to 299.
Do we have unanimous consent to stand all of those clauses, 270 to 299 inclusive, until we connect with the witnesses?
(Clauses 270 to 299 inclusive allowed to stand)
Okay. When we connect with them we'll go back to those clauses.
For division 13, there are no amendments for clauses 300 to 303. Can we see those as a block and carry them on division?
(Clauses 300 to 303 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 304)
We have NDP-18.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Page 178 of Bill C-44 deals with the new Service Fees Act, specifically in relation to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It lists the applications that will be subject to the Service Fees Act. It will apply to the processing of applications for a temporary or permanent resident visa; for a work permit or study permit; for an extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident; to remain in Canada as a temporary resident; to sponsor a foreign national as a member of the family class; to make the request referred to in subsection 25(1); for a travel document issued under subsection 31(3); and for a permanent resident card. All of those situations will be subject to the Service Fees Act. My colleagues no doubt remember quite well that the proposed service fees legislation was the subject of extensive debate, to my surprise, and included an adjustment for inflation. That means that all of the applications I just listed, which appear in subclause 304(1.2) of Bill C-44, will be subject to the Service Fees Act.
I think that's a bad idea. I believe that even the people from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada said that the changes in cost for some of these applications would likely have the biggest impact on a vulnerable clientele, specifically.
All my amendment would do is specify that only an “application for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident” was subject to the Service Fees Act. The act would apply only to those cases and not to all the other categories.
I hope my colleagues will support my amendment; that would give parliamentarians greater reassurance that the other fees covered by clause 304 would be subject to more diligent scrutiny. If the fees go up, the minister will have to take responsibility for the decision to raise the fees for these applications, and I think that should be the case. It is therefore my hope that my colleagues will support this amendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm just confirming that this is amendment NDP-18. Is that correct?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay. Thank you.
I'd just like to ask the officials a question. Currently, it's my understanding that when someone applies—let's say they've gone from one particular status on a study permit and have put in an application for something else, or for another study permit—there is something called “implied status”. Basically, until they've been turned down, they can assume that they have some standing. Is that correct?
Marie-Pier Côté Director, Express Entry Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Does the question refer to clause 304?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
It's actually just in relation to Mr. Dusseault's amendment, because—
Director, Express Entry Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
—to me, it sounds as though he's trying to establish in law something that is already done in practice. I'm just trying to elaborate whether this motion is actually necessary.
Director, Express Entry Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, I understand.
I'm very sorry to say that Madame Paré is late. I know that she is running here. I'm the expert for clauses 300 to 303, so I can't answer on clause 304. I'm really sorry about that. We're hoping that she will show up in the next few minutes.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay. I'd much rather have someone who can speak authoritatively on it, so I appreciate your saying that.
Mr. Chair, perhaps we can just wait.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Do we agree to stand that clause?
Are there any other questions for Ms. Côté on any of the other clauses prior to clause 304?
You are with IRCC.
Director, Express Entry Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. Can we have unanimous consent to stand that clause until the other witness from IRCC gets here?
(Clause 304 allowed to stand)
Director, Express Entry Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Sorry about that.