Evidence of meeting #27 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was families.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Again, Mr. Genuis, can you clarify for the committee what you're seeking?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm just seeking to know whether there's agreement by the committee to convey the message to the ministers that we would prefer it if they appeared separately as opposed to concurrently. Is that agreeable to the committee?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Just so we're clear now, the committee has agreed to convey a message to the two referenced ministers to appear separately.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay.
With respect to this motion, there are a couple of questions I wanted to respond to—
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
I’m sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Genuis.
Mr. Chair, before we discuss the motion, I would like to ask a brief question to clarify matters.
Finally, does the committee agree to remind the two ministers concerned that we would like them to appear separately for two hours each, as proposed in the motion, or will the ministers appear together for one hour, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair?
I just want to clarify the committee’s position before we move on to something else.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
What I read was that there was unanimity to express to the ministers that they appear separately.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
With respect to this particular motion, we are dealing with two different cases of bereavement.
There is the case in which a child dies, and there is a provision for bereavement leave for families in that case. There is also the case of where a parent dies. There are grieving families in which a parent passes away and the death of that parent immediately ends the eligibility for that EI parental leave. This was brought to my attention by a colleague. Mr. Jivani spoke about this in the House during debate on this bill. I
'm not sure how to read the comments from the other side. Mr. Jivani spoke about a situation in his constituency in which a parent who was receiving EI parental leave benefits passed away, and immediately there was a loss of those benefits.
Our proposal has been to add that element to this bill. We've also been very clear that if that addition would prevent the bill from getting a royal recommendation, we won't proceed with it. In order to be able to do this, there are a number of procedural steps that we would have to follow that take some time. It is precisely in the interest of avoiding delay that I suggest we adopt this motion, which refers it to the House. The House can then empower the committee to make those amendments if there's a will to make those amendments.
We are eager to pass this bill as quickly as possible and to make this bill help as many families as possible. We are not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good, but we want to put this forward as an idea for including more grieving families that would be affected.
Having said that, it's after 5:30, so if members feel that they're not ready to resolve this matter now, I want to put this on the table, because I want to be clear that this is something that we are going to work towards doing. At the same time, if the government clearly signals that this would be an impediment for getting a royal recommendation, we'll accept that. We want the bill to pass, and we want the bill to help as many families as possible.
This procedural motion requests the authorization of the House to allow the committee to make those changes if it so wishes. Adopting this motion now allows those follow-up steps to happen in a timely fashion. We can adopt this now, or we can decide to park it until a future point, or members can defeat it, which would, I suppose, be a clear signal as well on what they wanted to do. Any of those three options are available to the committee.
I did want to make sure this was clear and on the table, and that we were identifying our intention to try to provide some support for families who are also dealing with the loss of a parent.
Liberal
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We heard earlier today how Parliament works best when we have one party, say, putting an idea forward and there is an accepting of other ideas from other parties to the greater benefit of Canadians.
I do want to remind Madam Desrochers that when this committee did its recommendations on motion M-110 back in 2018, it was up to her party and the Liberal government at the time to enact those recommendations. Have they been done? Have they not been done? I lean to the “have not been done”, because it seems that there are parents experiencing the same thing.
When the other side is talking about delays, and I mean a delay because they're allowing or making a delay happen, I see the amendment being proposed as helping more people who are in the most difficult time of their lives, where they have maybe lost a child and a spouse at the same time and now have no recourse in getting financial benefits, (a) which they have they paid into, and (b) where they are now dealing with expenses.
I've seen this with my own bill, Bill C-318, which my office and I did a lot of work on. It was then taken by the Liberals and nothing was done with it. It was not enacted.
Ms. Desrochers, through you, Chair, I don't appreciate the lecturing about delays. We are literally here trying to make life better for Canadians when they are in the most difficult time of their lives. I do not appreciate, Chair, through you, the comments from Ms. Desrochers on delays.
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you for your comment.
I'd like to remind my colleague, MP Genuis, that he does have a motion on notice in the House on this very topic, and it's already on the Order Paper. He is absolutely welcome to raise it in the House today or tomorrow, as he sees fit.
I don't think we should take additional time on this on this committee. We have a very heavy agenda ahead of us. In addition, I don't think we should be doing anything to jeopardize the swift passage of this bill. We've heard today from witnesses and we've heard from your colleague, Blake Richards, who has worked on this issue for 10 years, that they don't believe we should expand the scope of this, and they want us to move forward swiftly with this bill.
I would say, through you, Mr. Chair, that the member is also welcome to present a private member's bill on this topic if he so wishes, but again, this bill has received....
I don't know what's so funny, Mrs. Falk. You're saying this is a serious issue. It is a serious issue.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK
You're contradicting yourself. That's what's funny.
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers Liberal Trois-Rivières, QC
I don't think we should delay this further. The bill has a royal recommendation, and we know that changing the scope of the bill will put this at risk. Are we really there for those grieving families, or are we just saying we are?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
I don’t wish to prolong the debate, Mr. Chair, but we have just received the text of the motion, and I want to fully understand the impact it could have.
The aim is not to be disrespectful to anyone, but I simply want to analyze the situation. If I understand correctly, this could prolong the study, because it would require the House to agree to debate a report and then issue broader instructions. However, the House is currently holding very few debates on committee reports. So I do not know where this could fit in.
Mr. Genuis, I understand your intention to broaden the scope of the bill. The aim is very noble, but today we have seen the importance of this bill. It is a long-awaited bill. Please understand me correctly: I am not saying this in a negative sense. I am simply wondering to what extent this might delay the clause-by-clause consideration.
I am putting forward an idea for consideration: Perhaps this would be best examined by the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. There might even be an agreement between the various parties.
As we have only just received the text of the motion, I have not yet had time to form an opinion on the consequences it could have.
Liberal
Natilien Joseph Liberal Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I listened to the witnesses the whole time they were here. That was not the case for Mr. Genuis, who was going in and out. I do not know if he missed anything, but the witnesses were clear. His colleague was also clear: he wants Bill C‑222 to be passed as quickly as possible.
During the testimony, my colleague expressed a great deal of empathy. I am not saying that he was not sincere. However, can my colleague tell us what point is served by delaying the adoption of this bill? Let us show a little respect for the witnesses who were here a few minutes ago.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, Chair, I think we're venturing into some not good territory here, and I'm sorely tempted to respond to Mr. Joseph's comments, but I think that in the spirit of being constructive it would be better if we.... It seems that members need a bit more time to understand what this motion is, and that's fine, so I'd move that we adjourn the meeting now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?
I'm seeing nods, so yes, with that, the committee will adjourn.