Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak to Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, also known as Evan's law. It is my extraordinary pleasure to be back with you at HUMA.
I want to start by acknowledging that while legislation often deals with budgets and bureaucracy, this bill is fundamentally about compassion. It is about how our government treats Canadian families in their darkest moments.
For me, this is personal. As I mentioned at second reading in the chamber, my wife and I came incredibly close to losing one of our daughters during a difficult birth. The 20 days we spent in the NICU gave us a glimpse into the heartbreak that too many families have to live through.
Sadly, for approximately 1,700 families in Canada every year, there is no happy ending. They leave the hospital without their child, but they return home to a government system that inadvertently adds to their pain.
Right now, under the Employment Insurance Act, if a child passes away while a parent is on leave, that parent legally ceases to qualify for parental benefits. Consider what that means in practice: In the midst of planning a funeral and grieving a profound loss, a parent is expected to contact Service Canada immediately, and if they don't, they begin accruing a debt to the government that the CRA will later claw back.
Parents can switch to EI sickness benefits, which offer similar financial support, but to do so they must navigate a lot of red tape. They often have to call every two weeks to prove they are still grieving to re-justify their need for support. It is a cruel, unnecessary administrative burden placed on people who are barely holding it together.
Evan's law proposes a simple, elegant solution. The bill states that if an individual qualifies for parental benefits and their child tragically passes away, they should continue to qualify for the benefits they were already promised. There would be no phone calls, no clawbacks and no questions asked. A grieving family could simply take the time they need to heal without the government looming over them.
I know that as committee members, you must consider the fiscal responsibility of any bill, so I want to address that point head-on as well.
While the Library of Parliament costing suggests a fiscal cost of several million, this figure looks at payouts in isolation. It does not account for the fact that many of these parents would otherwise simply switch to EI sickness benefits, which pay out at approximately the same rate.
Therefore, on a net basis, this measure is largely cost-neutral. In fact, it will generate savings, which are also not accounted for, by removing the need for Service Canada officers to process biweekly reports and for the CRA to chase down grieving parents for clawbacks. We're actually reducing administrative waste, helping the government run more efficiently.
Regarding the royal recommendation, when I first introduced this bill, I was honest that I needed help securing it. I am pleased to report to this committee, as I did in the House during second reading, that through positive discussions with the responsible ministers, we have found a path forward.
I acknowledge that we may need to look at minor technical amendments during the committee stage to ensure the legislation is executed properly within the EI framework, and I am open to that co-operation. It's part of the reason we have the committee process.
However, I urge the committee to keep this bill focused. This is a small but mighty piece of legislation. It targets a specific injustice faced by approximately 1,700 families each and every year. It was identified a long time ago, and for some reason it has taken way too long to correct, and we now have that opportunity.
Let's not over-complicate this. Let's pass this bill to show that our Parliament can be efficient, smart and, above all, kind.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
