Evidence of meeting #53 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Ms. Hall and her team for their hard work.
My question is around negotiations with provinces and territories. How will that be set up?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you for the question.
The intention is that the federal government will enter into negotiations with provinces and territories at the earliest opportunity to begin to implement the Canada-wide child care system.
I should underline that there is already a foundation that has been laid for those agreements. There are three-year bilateral agreements that were signed in 2017-18 with all provinces and territories, with a unique agreement for Quebec. Those agreements were extended last fiscal year and are actually in the process of being extended again as we speak. We will build on that foundation as we begin negotiations with provinces and territories to begin to implement these commitments that the government has made.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you.
The Minister of Finance set up a task force on women in the economy. Could you relay what role it plays in informing the government's strategy on child care moving forward?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I can speak a bit about the support for the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. Certainly the Minister of Finance has created the task force for women in the economy, but at this point in time I am not familiar with its work on child care. I will work with my Department of Finance colleagues and undertake to come back to the committee with a written response with more information on that.
What I can tell you is that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has had an expert panel on early living and child care data and research for about the past two years, which has studied the evidence base that's in place for early learning and child care. It has also provided other advice related to a Canada-wide child care system.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
Ms. Hall, I happened to be around when the negotiations were going on between Ken Dryden and the provinces in 2004-05. Those negotiations are never easy, but we did have an early learning and child care program at the time.
Mr. Fraser.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Chair, I think you were around as a member of Parliament when Ken Dryden won the Conn Smythe Trophy before he won rookie of the year. We can learn from your experience.
Ms. Hall, I want to follow up on the investment in child care.
The economic argument behind the policy is essentially that the return on investment is greater than the cost of making the investment. There's obviously a social argument as well in terms of equitable participation in the economy, should parents and women, who have been disproportionately impacted by a lack of access to care, choose to access it.
This is a lot of money—nearly $3 billion for the next year. I had an interesting exchange with Nick Leswick, from the Department of Finance, earlier in the study of this bill. He indicated that depending on who you ask, some folks have the view that the revenue for government could be greater than the cost. I think there are few who would argue that the increase in GDP would be less than the cost of making the investment.
I'm curious if you can offer insight on the economic impact of this proposed investment, and whether we should expect to see returns, either through an increased GDP or through increased revenue to government, as a result of more people contributing to the economy and paying taxes.
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
The budget did outline the economic and fiscal returns on investments in child care and pointed to a range of studies indicating that for every dollar invested in child care, the return can be anywhere from about $1.50 to I think $2.80. There are a range of studies out there. Many are based on the experience in Quebec, but others take a different perspective or are grounded in different work.
These studies look at both the GDP growth and the revenue growth that this translates into. As more affordable child care is provided, there are secondary earners within families who are able to be drawn into the labour force. As child care is less expensive, they are able to make the decision to work, and as a result, increased tax revenues come about. With those, the investments in child care are set off by the return on investment.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I see no further questions on clause 288.
(Clause 288 agreed to on division)
(On clauses 289 and 290)
Before you're gone, Ms. Hall, thank you very much.
June 3rd, 2021 / 4:30 p.m.
Director General, Social Policy Directorate, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
For division 35, the lead will be Catherine Demers. It is on benefits and leave.
Ms. Demers, go ahead.
4:30 p.m.
Catherine Demers Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Catherine Demers. I'm the director general of employment insurance policy at Employment and Social Development Canada.
I will present division 35 and clauses 289 to 301 with my colleague Barb Moran, who will also present some of these clauses with respect to the Canada Labour Code.
I would like, if possible, to also invite my colleague George Rae to answer questions as we go through the clauses.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Alexandre Roger
Everybody is already in the meeting room, sir.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you.
As I was saying, division 35 would amend the Canada Recovery Benefits Act and the Canada Labour Code in order to temporarily increase the duration of the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.
For a bit of context, on September 27, 2020, as part of transitioning from the CERB, the government introduced three temporary benefits, available until September 25, 2021, to provide income support to Canadian workers affected by COVID-19: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit.
In March, just a few months ago, the government increased the number of weeks available under each. For the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, this was a 12-week extension, increasing the maximum duration of the benefits from the initial 26 weeks up to 38 weeks available for claims made between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021.
The amendments proposed here would further extend the CRB and CRCB, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit—I will be using acronyms if that's okay—in June to ensure that those who begin to exhaust their 38 weeks of benefits would continue to have access to income supports as their recovery takes hold and would provide authority as well to make potential additional extensions in the fall, if needed.
Clause 289 relates to eligibility conditions for the CRB. Subclauses 289(1) and 289(2) would amend the CRB Act to allow EI exhaustees—those who would have used all of their 50 weeks of EI benefits—to be eligible for the CRB in the event that there should be an additional extension of the CRB after September 25—for example, by allowing their EI income from regular benefits, or a combination of regular and special benefits, to count toward the $5,000 income threshold to qualify for the Canada recovery benefit if their EI benefit period was established on or after September 27, 2020.
Subclauses 289(4) and 289(5) add a new eligibility condition for those who apply for more than 42 weeks or those who apply for the first time after July 18 to file an income tax return for the 2019 or 2020 taxation years.
Should I continue to clause 290?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes, you can do clause 290, and then we have an amendment on clause 291. You can do clause 290 as well.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
This clause requires applicants to attest that they meet each of the eligibility conditions, including the new ones introduced in clause 289.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. Is there any discussion on these clauses? I think we have agreement to go to clauses 289 and 290 at the same time. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Fraser.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Yes.
It's just a nuance that I hadn't actually picked up on until your comments. I'm interested in the interplay between someone who has exhausted their EI claim and seeks to subsequently apply for the Canada recovery benefit.... One of the conditions of the Canada recovery benefit is that the applicant lost their income or work as a result of COVID-19. Is that criteria also applied to someone who has exhausted their EI, or is there a presumption that if you've run out of EI, you're eligible?
If not, I'm curious more broadly as to what mechanism is being used to investigate an individual applicant's claim that their job loss was due to COVID-19.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
In the context where there should be an extension of the CRB—a further extension in the fall—this amendment would allow EI exhaustees to apply. They would not be transferred automatically. They would need to apply to the CRB and attest to all of the eligibility criteria, as was the case with other applicants.
However, there would be a new flexibility applied, which would allow counting their EI income towards their income eligibility. As well, even if they have an open benefit period remaining, they could apply for the CRB, but they would still have to attest like anybody else.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. I think that satisfies the question.
(Clauses 289 and 290 agreed to on division)
(On clause 291)
We'll go to clause 291, if you want to give us a quick explanation. Then we have an amendment from Mr. Ste-Marie.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Mr. Chair, would you agree if I put together clauses 291 and 292, because they are related? They deal with the extension.
