Human Resources Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2026

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

It reminds me of the last time I was at HUMA, in a previous role. We were talking about the good work that can be done as provincial health authorities work more closely with a modernized federal government system.

Part of the disconnect in this case specifically is that when an incident happens, provinces and territories are reporting at some time in the future—it's different for every province and territory—as to when the event occurred, and then that initiates the federal process, which is inconsistent. Realistically, we would want this to be consistent across the board.

With regard to rural ridings specifically, a lot more work can be done not just in cleaning up legislation like this, but in making sure that individuals have real-time access to their government, whether it be on their phone or on their computer, wherever they happen to be in Canada. We need to make sure that citizens in the most remote parts of this country can access their government 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Terry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Fancy.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague for introducing Bill C‑222, which is very important. It's something crucial and important, so I'd like to thank my colleague for his work on this file.

Basically, it's about showing humanity and dignity before worrying about paperwork when such a tragedy happens. Losing a child is an ordeal that I think flips everything upside down. No one should have to deal with all the government's red tape on top of that. Ultimately, it's important not to add suffering to suffering. That's how I see this bill.

Basically, we also want to align this bill with the Quebec reality. In Quebec, we have already made the choice with the Quebec parental insurance plan to maintain benefits even in the event of the child's death and to adopt a personalized approach that's humane and respectful of grief. We believe this is something really crucial, so it goes without saying.

I know my Conservative colleagues proposed an amendment to the bill. We'll analyze it. We can receive this amendment and take a look at it before voting. We're going to do so with the rigour that we need when we're studying a bill, but this bill has to move forward.

Mr. Beech, can you explain in concrete terms what parents experience when they have to interrupt or change their benefits immediately after the death of a child? As you said, this is an experience that troubled you. Would you say that the employment insurance system is designed mainly around administrative criteria rather than around the human realities experienced by claimants? You talked about this, but it's the crux of the bill. I would like to hear your comments again.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you for your question.

I spent 180 days studying French.

To be precise, I'll have to answer in English.

Maybe we'll be able to speak in French afterward.

To answer your question, it is unfortunate that if you were to follow the trajectory of the current rules and you're a parent who did this perfectly, you would go through the following experience. You would have some difficult circumstance. You would receive awful news. Under the current system, you would be expected to contact Service Canada immediately because you no longer qualify for your parental benefits. You would have the option—the option exists—for you to switch to EI sickness benefits. If you did that, you would receive access to similar financial compensation, but you would be within a system that is designed for someone seeking employment. You would be calling a service desk and talking to a new person, whoever happens to be picking up the phone that day, every couple of weeks, potentially, to justify your current situation.

It's also important to share with the committee that the average experience for a parent is different. It's personalized. Some people just want to go back to work. Other people need time. Often it depends on the type of work they're doing. If they're working with children every day, they might have a much different circumstance than if they're working with their hands, as an example. This takes care of all of those situations, and it doesn't make it perfect—my colleague has talked about the wraparound services that are required—but it makes it significantly better at no significant increase in cost.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Of course.

Do you think that ad hoc changes like Bill C‑222 show that the employment insurance system needs a much more comprehensive reform instead?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I have learned through this process that a lot of colleagues in the House have a lot of ideas about different things they would like to do with regard to the EI system, despite the fact that Canadians enjoy a robust system. I almost said that better is always possible, to quote a previous prime minister, but there are, obviously, always ways we can improve a system.

There are significant ways to do that that have been identified at various committees through various reports by the government and all parties of the House. There is no doubt in my mind that there is room for improvement, and this is a significant one.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

However, we have just done a study on seasonal workers. There were so many recommendations concerning employment insurance that we're thinking there probably should have been a more comprehensive reform.

In 30 seconds, can you tell me how this measure could apply to self-employed or non-standard workers, who are often less well protected by the employment insurance system?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

That's a really good question. Obviously, whether you are seasonal workers, self-employed or otherwise, this particular legislation depends on you qualifying for parental benefits in the first place.

It does not solve the problem of individuals who do not qualify for parental benefits because they haven't banked enough hours or for some other reason under the current system. It simplifies the problem by saying that if you have qualified for parental benefits, you will benefit from this clause and this change. It does not address any discrepancies or weaknesses that someone might feel about what it takes to qualify for parental benefits in the first place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Beech.

Madame Goodridge, you have five minutes.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Beech, for bringing forward this bill.

As a fellow NICU parent, I know it's a challenge you go through when all of a sudden you're carrying a child and you think everything's going well, and then you end up in a space where your child has challenges and needs medical assistance. On top of that, you're seeing the death of other kids in the NICU around you. At least, that was my circumstance when I went through it almost three years ago with my youngest son.

Until you're going through that space, I don't think most people would ever contemplate it, because most people don't imagine that they would lose a child, so they don't even know what steps to take. The fact that there are steps you have to take when you lose your child seems ludicrous to me.

I know my colleague Mr. Genuis has already talked about the amendment the Conservatives would like to move forward. If a royal recommendation was still possible, would you be open to the idea of amending the bill so that if a parent that had qualified for EI were to die, EI would be able to continue as if that parent had not died?

I understand that the royal recommendation is a whole other conversation, but I'm just trying to figure this out. As the sponsor of this bill, would that be something you would be willing to endeavour to do?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I'm going to say two things on this.

The first is that I struggle to not talk about being a NICU parent, only because I get so emotional when I think about it. One of the most striking things about having that experience was, in fact, listening to other parents. You're in very close quarters, and hearing families who could not afford to be there and were trying to figure out that dynamic was very tough to hear.

With regard to your question, on this particular bill, I have done a ton of research, including into the costing. On the surface, from the amendment and the discussions I've had with the previous member who discussed this, it seems like a reasonable idea. I'm not outright opposed, but I have not looked at the costing. I have not looked at unintended consequences. I have not heard what the department might have to say about this particular amendment, nor have I examined it in any great detail.

My biggest concern, which I've been very up front about, is not putting the royal recommendation, which is a very rare thing, for this particular part of the bill at risk.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

My son and I were actually airlifted out. We got airlifted to another community so that he could be in a NICU, because there was no NICU in our community. We shared a bathroom with the room beside us. In the week we were there, the room constantly had a new parent. Often, it was because the child died, or in some cases because the parent had died. While that is not common for most people—most people have a baby, it's healthy and they go home—it is something I experienced when I was there.

I implore you to try to seek out whether there's any assistance we can offer. I think it is something that all members of the Conservative caucus are interested in seeing. This is critically important. This is well beyond politics; this is about the right thing to do. I can't imagine the amount of stress someone would be under in those circumstances.

We have a few minutes. When you were doing your consultations, what were some of the common statements you heard from parents who had gone through the horrific circumstances with the communications they had with Service Canada when they had to do their check-in every couple of weeks?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

The primary feedback that is most memorable is the disbelief. It just seemed that nobody had followed through the extent of what would happen in this particular situation. For years now, parents have just kind of dealt with it and moved on.

The reason the bill is called Evan's law—that's a real person—is that his mother raised this issue with a member of Parliament and said that what she had gone through was unbelievable. She told a very specific story about how she and her husband grieved very differently and required very different things, and how disconnected the process seemed from any sense of fairness or humanity, given her specific situation.

She did the right thing. She called her member of Parliament and said that this should not happen to another person. Sadly, it's still happening today. We have a chance to stop it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Goodridge.

Mr. Joseph, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague for introducing this bill.

As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to pass bills to support Canadians and Quebeckers during vulnerable times. We all know that the loss of a child is an unimaginable ordeal for a family. In moments of immense grief, parents should be able to take the time to mourn and support each other without having to immediately navigate complex administrative procedures or face the sudden loss of financial support.

Could my colleague explain in simple terms how this bill ensures that parents don't lose their benefits after such a tragic loss? How does this legislation simplify the process so that grieving parents don't have to worry about paperwork, overpayments or complex administrative procedures during this difficult time?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

The benefit of having a small but mighty bill is that it's very simple to contrast.

Under the current measure, if your child dies, [Technical difficulty—Editor] somewhat urgent. If you don't do it, it leads to a lot of administrative backlog and a bunch of other processes that actually have a real cost outside of what you're expecting the parents to do.

With this measure, that disappears. It basically says that you continue to be entitled to your benefits. If this happens to you and you don't pick up the phone and don't contact the government for an extended period of time, you're going to be okay.

Most parents have a very well-thought-out, sophisticated plan. There are negotiations they have with their employer. There are negotiations they have with their spouse and with other family members who are going to be there for support. They have a room painted and a crib built. A lot of planning goes into this.

Nobody plans for this particular circumstance. This allows us to ease the burden for parents who unfortunately have to face this a little too often.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Okay.

By proposing to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, Bill C‑222 seeks to enable parents who receive parental benefits to continue to be entitled to them, even in the tragic event that the child dies during the benefit period. This is a simple but profoundly human measure that aims to bring more compassion and dignity to our family support system.

Mr. Beech, why is it important to ensure that parents don't have to submit new claims or repeat painful information? How does this bill address those challenges?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

There are situations where parents switch over to EI sickness benefits and then cease to access the benefits. It's because they don't want to explain to a stranger what happened to them. How individual parents grieve is so unbelievably unique and personal. The last thing you want, in that state, is to be dealing with any bureaucracy at all. As I stated previously, a number of resources are situated in the index of the budget—it's not yet passed, but it's there—specifically pointing to this measure.

As I was proposing the private member's bill, I was also just trying to.... How it passes doesn't really bother me; I just don't want it to be another 10 years that we're talking about this. I think there's a will, and given the two hours of debate, I think there's a way. It sounds like we might try to do some things with it and maybe try to expand it. That's at the will of the committee. I would just double down on my insistence that at least this part gets passed. We can all commit to ensuring that this passes and we can get the royal recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Joseph.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Beech, earlier, I talked about Quebec's unique situation and the difference with, among other things, the Quebec parental insurance plan, which recognized this bereavement. Do you know if any Quebec groups or families have notified you of any specific inconsistencies between human support and administrative rules? Have you heard this point of view from Quebec groups?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

In fact I have, and with great support. I have also been approached in Quebec specifically about various challenges in ensuring that if this law is passed, there be time for the system—specifically in Quebec, because it is integrated and intertwined with the federal system—to be implemented correctly.

I will take this opportunity, because this is Quebec-specific, to say that I don't think we should give them unlimited time, but my original drafting said that it would be enacted immediately. I certainly am in favour of giving adequate time for the federal government, ESDC, to make the changes they need to in their systems and for the provinces to adjust as well, but overall, federally, provincially and across jurisdictions, this has been very well received.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

In 30 seconds, can you tell me whether it would be appropriate for the committee to study a more comprehensive approach to family bereavement in employment insurance?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

The work that was done at the previous HUMA committee pointed to several instances.... I'm sure there are other good ideas out there. I certainly wouldn't say this is the be-all and end-all. I hope we can get this passed. I'm sure there's still more good work to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Larouche, you have 20 seconds left.