Human Resources Committee on April 16th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you. I am inclined to give some latitude here, and I will expect the members to please take it into consideration.

Could we have a brief explanation on the question put forward by Madame Larouche?

[Magalie Brochu, Manager, Employment Insurance Policy Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development]

As we understand the amendment, the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid could be increased. What this provision does is very complicated. Parental benefits can be shared between parents. When applying for parental benefits, the first parent has to choose between two options: standard parental benefits, in which case they receive 55% of their earnings, and extended parental benefits, in which case they receive 33%. The other parent has to choose the same option. That is the rule when parents are sharing benefits.

Benefits can also be shared between insured persons, who are covered by part I of the Employment Insurance Act, and self-employed persons, who are covered by part VII.1 of the act. The provision is necessary so that, if one parent is an employee and the other is self-employed, the first parent who chooses the parental benefit option can also receive additional weeks if they're sharing benefits with a self-employed person, and so that their standard or extended parental benefit choice is respected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, members.

That amendment was withdrawn.

Shall clause 3 carry?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Are we still on clause 3, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'd like—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I was asking and I recognized that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I just have a question about clause 3, before we go any further. It's missing flexibility, because parents could lose weeks depending on when the death occurs. I'd like to hear what the witnesses have to say.

Would it be possible to split it up or to have more flexibility?

[Magalie Brochu]

You're referring to clause 3 of the bill. Is that right?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes.

[Magalie Brochu]

Clause 3 of the bill would have to be amended or other amendments would be necessary to increase the number of benefit weeks. Clause 3 provides that the parental benefits will continue until the end of the period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I have Ms. Goodridge on clause 3.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's probably important. I would assume that we have some families following along at home. We have a number of amendments that were put forward in a package and haven't been moved, but could potentially be moved at some later point in time. What we're trying to figure out is.... They're very technical and we're trying to make sure that whatever changes could potentially be made—not necessarily just the ones that are going to be made—are going to actually serve the families we are setting out to serve. Mr. Beech has worked on the legacy that was built and started by Mr. Richards. This is about making sure that these families are brought to the least bad place that they can possibly be. This is very commendable work.

The amendments that were brought forward, that we got at the very last minute, are exceptionally technical and exceptionally complex. They are longer than the legislation itself. I do think it is incumbent on us.... We're not trying to slow this down in any capacity. Having an explanation as to what each of these amendments is trying to set out should not be difficult, but it is difficult. We're wondering if we could have a bit of an explanation as to what these amendments are seeking to try to fix, just so we have a better understanding of how this is going to help make this bill better.

I think everyone paying attention would benefit from this, and all parliamentarians, as they're making their decisions, would benefit.

If that could be done, if Mr. Beech, perhaps, is the person who could explain it, or if one of the analysts could explain what each proposed change in each of these proposed amendments that were not moved meant, that would be really helpful for me, at the very minimum.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I thank my colleague for that explanation. Typically, I would be 100% on board with her, but given that these amendments were not moved, they remain confidential. I don't think we can go into a discussion at this stage here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's correct, but I would allow Mr. Beech to opine on the comments of Ms. Goodridge and the importance of how we're proceeding to allow Bill C-222 to achieve what the intent is.

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

I appreciate the ability to comment at a high level. I appreciate the work of everyone at the committee, from all sides and all party members, and I appreciate the complexity that has been brought upon all of us because of the unprecedented way that this is going through, as described by the chair when we started.

At a high level, the way that I think about these amendments is that they fall into three categories: technical, timing and money.

Technical are things.... Despite the wonderful drafting abilities of our wonderful Library of Parliament, it is impossible when you first start into this process—before the department has had its ability and the justice department has had its ability to look deeply into it—to understand exactly what it will affect and what unintended consequences there might be. Those are the technical amendments. Hence, we get a situation where the amendments can be larger than a one-page, double-sided bill.

The second is to do with timing. We wanted to make sure that the department was given a specified time to be able to execute this as it goes through. This ensures that it's going to be within a six-month timing. I'm hoping that it's going to be faster, but if we do this today, we get it done before Christmas.

The third is specifically to do with money and the requirements of the royal recommendation and to make sure that what is financially encapsulated in this bill falls inside what was already proposed in the annex of budget 2025. That gets us the royal recommendation. That gets this passed. That gets it to the Senate and, hopefully, gets it done before Christmas.

From a high level, that's what we're doing today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay.

I'll entertain one more, but it's the will of the committee. Either we get through it or we do not.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate that.

My question is perhaps for the clerk or perhaps one of the analysts. Will there be an opportunity for any of these amendments that are not moved now to have a technical answer as to what each amendment actually means should those amendments happen to be moved at some later point in some later space?

Maybe the legislative clerk could answer or maybe the clerk. It's just so we have some understanding as to whether, if we have questions specific to these amendments that have not currently been moved, there is a space.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Goodridge. That is a good question. Yes, it would be at the report stage in the House.

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

Will there be all of the same people to explain? I'm curious.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I'll ask the legal counsel to speak to it.

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

Perhaps the legislative clerk could answer.

[Michelle Legault, Legislative Clerk]

There is a debate at report stage. However, it's not the same forum as a committee. I'll leave it at that.

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

What we're hearing is that we have to trust that every single one of these amendments is going to achieve what it's trying to achieve. We have no ability to ask any of the experts who drafted these and worked so hard on these very technical amendments exactly what those changes will be in any of these amendments that don't get moved.

I think the families deserve a bit more clarity. I'm a little disappointed by this, but I don't want to hold this up. I'm going to move on, but I wanted to state my displeasure. Families have been waiting for this for over a decade. We're trying to make sure that any proposed change that happens now, or at some later point, is going to get them to that goalpost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll get a brief response from the department.