Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 3210
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
For division 35, the lead will be Catherine Demers. It is on benefits and leave.
Ms. Demers, go ahead.
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:31
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Catherine Demers. I'm the director general of employment insurance policy at Employment and Social Development Canada.
I will present division 35 and clauses 289 to 301 with my colleague Barb Moran, who will also present some of these clauses with respect to the Canada Labour Code.
I would like, if possible, to also invite my colleague George Rae to answer questions as we go through the clauses.
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:32
Thank you.
As I was saying, division 35 would amend the Canada Recovery Benefits Act and the Canada Labour Code in order to temporarily increase the duration of the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.
For a bit of context, on September 27, 2020, as part of transitioning from the CERB, the government introduced three temporary benefits, available until September 25, 2021, to provide income support to Canadian workers affected by COVID-19: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit.
In March, just a few months ago, the government increased the number of weeks available under each. For the Canada recovery benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, this was a 12-week extension, increasing the maximum duration of the benefits from the initial 26 weeks up to 38 weeks available for claims made between September 27, 2020, and September 25, 2021.
The amendments proposed here would further extend the CRB and CRCB, the Canada recovery caregiving benefit—I will be using acronyms if that's okay—in June to ensure that those who begin to exhaust their 38 weeks of benefits would continue to have access to income supports as their recovery takes hold and would provide authority as well to make potential additional extensions in the fall, if needed.
Clause 289 relates to eligibility conditions for the CRB. Subclauses 289(1) and 289(2) would amend the CRB Act to allow EI exhaustees—those who would have used all of their 50 weeks of EI benefits—to be eligible for the CRB in the event that there should be an additional extension of the CRB after September 25—for example, by allowing their EI income from regular benefits, or a combination of regular and special benefits, to count toward the $5,000 income threshold to qualify for the Canada recovery benefit if their EI benefit period was established on or after September 27, 2020.
Subclauses 289(4) and 289(5) add a new eligibility condition for those who apply for more than 42 weeks or those who apply for the first time after July 18 to file an income tax return for the 2019 or 2020 taxation years.
Should I continue to clause 290?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Yes, you can do clause 290, and then we have an amendment on clause 291. You can do clause 290 as well.
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:35
This clause requires applicants to attest that they meet each of the eligibility conditions, including the new ones introduced in clause 289.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. Is there any discussion on these clauses? I think we have agreement to go to clauses 289 and 290 at the same time. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Fraser.
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-06-03 16:36
Yes.
It's just a nuance that I hadn't actually picked up on until your comments. I'm interested in the interplay between someone who has exhausted their EI claim and seeks to subsequently apply for the Canada recovery benefit.... One of the conditions of the Canada recovery benefit is that the applicant lost their income or work as a result of COVID-19. Is that criteria also applied to someone who has exhausted their EI, or is there a presumption that if you've run out of EI, you're eligible?
If not, I'm curious more broadly as to what mechanism is being used to investigate an individual applicant's claim that their job loss was due to COVID-19.
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:37
Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
In the context where there should be an extension of the CRB—a further extension in the fall—this amendment would allow EI exhaustees to apply. They would not be transferred automatically. They would need to apply to the CRB and attest to all of the eligibility criteria, as was the case with other applicants.
However, there would be a new flexibility applied, which would allow counting their EI income towards their income eligibility. As well, even if they have an open benefit period remaining, they could apply for the CRB, but they would still have to attest like anybody else.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay. I think that satisfies the question.
(Clauses 289 and 290 agreed to on division)
(On clause 291)
The Chair: We'll go to clause 291, if you want to give us a quick explanation. Then we have an amendment from Mr. Ste-Marie.
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:38
Mr. Chair, would you agree if I put together clauses 291 and 292, because they are related? They deal with the extension.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Catherine Demers
View Catherine Demers Profile
Catherine Demers
2021-06-03 16:38
These clauses include amendments to provide an additional 12 weeks of Canada recovery benefits, to increase the maximum weeks available from 38 to 50 weeks or 25 two-week periods.
The first four weeks of these additional 12 weeks would be paid at $500 per week. The remaining eight weeks of this extension would be paid at an amount of $300 per week claimed. This means that those who extend their weeks of CRB beyond 42 weeks, as well as new claimants who apply for the first time on or after July 18, would receive the $300 per week benefit available up until September 25, 2021.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I am not mistaken, amendment BQ-7 is exactly the same as amendment NPD-18. So I assume that Mr. Julian will be able to say more about that.
In contrast to the CERB, the Canada Recovery Benefit requires claimants to conduct a job search. This is the equivalent of what is required of employment insurance recipients. Only those who are unable to find a job continue to receive it.
In our view, therefore, there is no need to decrease the amount paid by the program. We ask that it remain at $500 per week after July.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
The two amendments are very similar, and the reality is that we can't be slashing benefits from people at this point, with a third wave hitting our shores. People who are still unable to find work should not see a massive slashing of their benefits. That's certainly something we've heard as a committee. In this respect, I think things are very clear, if we are listening to the witnesses and listening to the concerns that people have raised about the slashing of these benefits at such a critical time.
We are in the midst of a third wave, and there's the possibility, tragically, of a fourth wave. We're now seeing new variants coming in. Why would we deny people the wherewithal to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads by slashing benefits at this time?
It's no time to do a victory lap. It's no time to say everything is done and we can wrap up supports. As we've heard consistently and repeatedly at this committee, it's important to extend supports. As Mr. Ste-Marie said, these are people who are unable to find work. We're not talking about people who are not in need. We're talking people who are in need, have to put food on the table and have to keep a roof over their heads. The slashing of the benefit means that, in so many tragic cases, they will be unable to keep a roof over their heads.
We've seen growing homelessness through the pandemic. We should be providing support so that fewer people become homeless and impoverished during the pandemic, not slashing benefits in a way that puts more of them out on the street and makes more of them unable to feed their families.
There are two other points I'd like to make on this, Mr. Chair. First off, food banks are absolutely overwhelmed, which shows the magnitude of the need right now. I just heard from a food bank this week that is struggling to keep up with unprecedented demand. At the same time, Mr. Chair, as you well know, this government provided $750 billion in liquidity supports to the big banks.
The contrast I think people see is striking. Let us not be mean-spirited with people who desperately need these supports. Let's not slash supports at this critical point—the third wave of the pandemic.
Results: 106 - 120 of 3210 | Page: 8 of 214

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data