Human Resources Committee on April 16th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Although these amendments aren't being moved, are we still able to ask the officials questions about them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

If they're not moved on the floor, no, there won't be debate, but if you have a general question....

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

I'm not looking to debate, but I would certainly like some clarity to try to help me understand the impact the amendments would have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, I will entertain that, but in general, because we are on the clause and not the amendment.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

This might apply to a number of the amendments, but for this one in particular, would it require new paperwork? Would there be forms that have to be filled out? Would applications have to be made by the parents in these cases? Is there a possibility claims could be denied under—

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

On a point of order, my colleague has withdrawn this and we've asked for a suspension. I don't know why we're debating something that's been withdrawn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I allowed a general comment on the clause, not the amendment.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

We're just trying to understand all of these amendments that were provided at the eleventh hour. That's all.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

We have the officials here. It's simply an effort to try to understand the amendments. This is an opportunity for us to ask them questions. That's all it is. I want to be clear about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Right, and I'm prepared to entertain that, Mr. Richards, if it sticks generally to the clause and not the amendment.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Is the question clear? I'm not sure who should be responding, but do you understand the question I'm asking?

Would this require new paperwork? Would it require application forms to be filled out on the part of the parents in these cases? Is it possible that claims can be denied? Is it an approval process?

I think what all of these parents are looking for in this situation is the ability to have the bereavement leave continue and to not need to deal with bureaucracy with forms and the paperwork. You can appreciate that when they've just lost a child.... This is something that many witnesses told us during this study and during the previous study on M-110 years ago. One of the biggest things was the idea that they had to go and deal with all of this stuff when they're trying to grieve and they haven't had a chance to even bury their child.

The question is, does this create a need...? Whether it's in the clause itself or the amendment that was not moved, would it require paperwork? Would it require those forms? Would it be an application process, where the claim could actually potentially be denied?

Are those things that someone could answer for us?

[Benoit Cadieux, Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Would it be possible to clarify exactly which amendment you are referring to? We don't have them in front of us.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

What we're talking about right now is new clause 2.1. I think that's related to amendment G-4.

I would actually ask that question about the other three amendments, which haven't been moved either. Particularly in this section, I identified an area that certainly reads.... I'm curious to know whether that's what would be required.

There's definitely some lack of clarity there, and I think it's an important thing for parents who are in this situation to know they wouldn't be facing a situation where they have to make an application and fill out a bunch of paperwork. Obviously, the provision of the benefit is important. Regardless of that, it would be a good thing to see, but it would be even better if parents can see that this is automatic and not have it be that situation.

That's what I'm trying to clarify here, if that gives you better clarity.

[Benoit Cadieux]

My understanding is that the proposed amendment would have extended or allowed parental benefits to continue for eight weeks. Is that correct? In that case, parents would have had to notify, in some shape or form, Service Canada to let them know the child had passed away.

Obviously, we completely agree that we want to find a compassionate way for that to happen and not create any unnecessary burden on the parents in a time that's very difficult for them. That is why one of the amendments proposed a regulatory authority to put in place a process that is extremely compassionate and minimizes the amount of communication that needs to happen. It's so that the parent can inform Service Canada in as minimal a way as possible that the child has passed away.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Can I follow up on that? It's appreciated that there's an effort being made to try to minimize it. Obviously, we'd greatly prefer to avoid any process that's required on the part of the parents, because it's a very difficult time. Many parents have said one of the biggest stressors they face is having to deal with that paperwork and the bureaucracy.

I have a couple of follow-up questions.

First of all, can you give us a sense of what that process would actually look like for those parents at this point?

Second of all, could the idea be explored, at least, of some kind of agreement with provincial health systems so that they could be the notifying body, rather than requiring the parents to do that? Obviously there's a record, a death certificate and all of these things that are produced provincially. Could that not somehow be transferred through agreements with the provinces?

Those are the two follow-up questions.

[Benoit Cadieux]

Those are great questions.

That's why that regulatory authority would be there. It would allow us to find the best way possible to minimize that reporting burden on parents in this very difficult situation. We would explore, obviously with our partners at Service Canada, a very humane and compassionate way to allow for those benefits to continue while minimizing that need to report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

If I can finish, I would really, strongly encourage—and this is just advice, I suppose—that every effort be made to ensure that some kind of agreement can be come to with the provinces and territories that wouldn't require that notification to come from the parents. I think that's an incredibly important part if we want to be compassionate about this.

I'll just put that out there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Richards, for that good intervention.

Go ahead, Ms. Goodridge, and then I want to get back to clause-by-clause.

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

Thank you.

To reiterate a bit what my colleague Mr. Richards said, it was clear from a lot of the testimony that it was a very challenging part for a lot of these families. If there is any way of working with funeral homes so that the death certificates the funeral homes already produce, which are legal documents, could be transmitted directly to Service Canada and it becomes a process that way, I think that could be the most seamless process. Funeral homes have to provide those certificates of death. They are legal documents. This could happen relatively quickly and take a lot of burden off families.

When someone dies, you have a lot on your plate to begin with. You don't need an extra step, an extra phone call, an extra email or just another conversation oftentimes. Anything that could be done, I think, would absolutely be in the best interests of the families.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you for those thoughtful interventions.

(On clause 3)

We're now moving to G-5.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

It's declined.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Larouche, go ahead.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Since we've finally decided to ask questions, I have just one, on the amendments that were withdrawn. I know we're moving on to G‑5, but I think we're realizing that we can take the time to ask a few questions to make sure we understand everything properly.

I want to go back to G‑2 and one of the paragraphs it would've added, paragraph (4.011). It's the part that starts, “If benefits are payable for deemed care”. I'd like Ms. Koutrakis to perhaps explain that a bit more or the officials to provide their assessment.