Evidence of meeting #52 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'm just wondering why the natural death of a child is only given three days bereavement and this is 104. What's the logic behind that?
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program - Policy, Dispute Resolution and International Affairs Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development
The purpose behind this one is to really just align the leave associated with the Canadian benefit for parents of young victims of crime. It's to ensure that job-protected leave is available for people availing themselves of that benefit.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Is there a reason why there's a difference in definition about the age of the child—under 25 as opposed to under 18?
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program - Policy, Dispute Resolution and International Affairs Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes. In fact, that goes back to a 2017 report from the federal ombudsman for victims of crime that found that one of the most common reasons that applications for the benefit were denied was that the victim was over the age of 18. They decided to extend it for the purposes of applying to the benefit. In turn, we extended the leave to match what's happening with the benefit.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I apologize, Mr. Chair.
I was in the House of Commons and I understand from a couple of my colleagues that we have bounded ahead quite remarkably. My leader, of course, was giving his speech and there were some procedural issues. I was hoping you could give me a quick update on the consideration of clause-by-clause.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
We are on division 24, dealing jointly with clauses 250 and 251. We are at page 278 in the bill.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much.
I believe that you had gone to NDP-10—
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
May I ask for unanimous consent to come back briefly to that?
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You can.
Could we finish with Ms. Moran first, and then we'll give you that opportunity?
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
One of the difficulties is that we did vote on the section that your amendment is referring to.
In any event, we are ready to vote on clauses 250 and 251.
(Clauses 250 and 251 agreed to on division)
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Julian, you're asking for unanimous consent to go back to your amendment on clause 248.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes.
I apologize to my colleagues, Mr. Chair.
This is wearing two hats, where there are procedural issues in the House of Commons and the finance committee is sitting late. Occasionally these things occur. I certainly apologize for trying to handle both at the same time.
I would ask for unanimous consent for the chance to propose the amendment.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there unanimous consent to propose the amendment?
Do I hear any objection? I guess that's the way to put it.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
There's no unanimous consent.
(On clause 252)
We'll go, then, to division 25, “Payment to Quebec”.
Mr. Cadieux.
7:50 p.m.
Benoit Cadieux Director, Special Benefits, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Benoit Cadieux. I'm the director of employment insurance, special benefits, at Employment and Social Development Canada.
Clause 252 authorizes the Minister of Employment and Social Development to enter into an agreement and make a one-time payment of $130.3 million to Quebec for the purpose of offsetting some of the costs of aligning the Quebec parental insurance plan with the temporary EI measures introduced last September 2020, ensuring that parents in Quebec receive the same level of support as parents in the rest of Canada.
Thank you. With that, I can answer any questions.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Does this request come from Quebec, or is this just another goodwill posturing gesture on behalf of the government?
7:50 p.m.
Director, Special Benefits, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
The request does indeed come from Quebec. They have identified a cost of $260 million to align the Quebec parental insurance plan with the EI temporary measures. This payment provides approximately half of that with those costs.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you very much, Mr. Cadieux.
We move on to division 26 on the Judges Act. Mr. Hoffman is the lead. There are no amendments on these two clauses. Can we see them together?
