Bill C-318

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, we know employment insurance maternity and parental benefits provide parents with critical financial support while they care for and bond with their children. Adoptive and intended parents are at a disadvantage under the current EI system, whereas all parents deserve equal access to parental leave benefits.

Bill C-318 would deliver equitable access to parental leave for adoptive and intended parents. The Speaker of the House has said that the passage of Bill C-318 needs a royal recommendation. Therefore, the signatories of this petition call upon the Government of Canada to support adoptive and intended parents by providing a royal recommendation for Bill C-318.

Indigenous Affairs

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the legacy of Canadian policies designed to kill the Indian in the child still impacts our families. There are more indigenous kids in child welfare today than there were at the height of residential schools. In Manitoba, over 90% are indigenous. That is why I was proud, along with my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam and the NDP, to amend Bill C-318 to provide EI benefits for kinship and customary care. I was concerned that the Liberal members abstained from voting but not surprised, considering they voted against our amendment to affirm the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous parents in the national child care legislation.

If the current government is not ready to give our kids back, then its words of reconciliation are empty. The government must uphold Bill C-15, which mandates the government to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights—

Bill C-59—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

According to the House leader of the official opposition, Bill C‑59 is an omnibus bill and therefore he asked the Chair to apply Standing Order 69.1(1), which provides as follows:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

The member relied on Speaker Regan's decision of November 8, 2017, to argue that Bill C-59 should not benefit from the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2). This exception stipulates that section 1 does not apply if a bill “has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.”

The House leader of the official opposition contended that the implementation of measures announced in the economic statement of November 21, 2023, is not enough of a common element to justify grouping them for voting purposes. He also asserted that an economic statement is not, properly speaking, a budget. The member said that Bill C-59 should be divided in 16 for the purpose of voting. He further stated that two of the 16 pieces, which are similar to bills C‑318 and C‑323, should simply not be put to a vote at all, given that the House has already passed those bills at second reading.

In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader pointed out that Bill C-59 mainly contains provisions implementing measures announced in the 2023 budget, along with some measures announced in the fall economic statement, whose common theme is addressing the affordability challenges facing Canadians. Consequently, he concluded that the measures included in the budget and those announced in the fall economic statement should be voted on together.

The Chair must first determine whether the main purpose of Bill C-59 is to implement the budget and whether it therefore falls within the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2).

The Standing Orders place very specific conditions on the consideration of budgets. For instance, a particular order of the day must be designated. Debate lasts a certain number of days, and votes take place at certain points in time. From start to finish, budgets are an integral part of the business of ways and means.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, defines financial statements as follows on pages 901 and 902:

On occasion, the Minister of Finance makes an economic statement to the House, generally referred to as a ‘mini‑budget’, that provides basic economic and fiscal information that will be the subject of policy review and public debate leading up to the next budget. Unlike a budget presentation, these statements are delivered without notice and do not precipitate a budget debate. Notices of ways and means motions are also tabled on these occasions.

Budget presentations and economic statements are therefore related concepts, but each has its own unique characteristics.

Both the economic statement of fall 2023 and the budget of spring 2023 are very long and complex documents. As indicated in its title, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”, Bill C-59 indeed contains many measures; some stem from the budget documents, others from the economic statement.

However, some measures are not to be found in either. The Chair takes the view that the main purpose of the bill is not the implementation of a budget, and the exception provided in Standing Order 69.1(2) does not apply in this case.

The Chair must now determine whether a common element connects the various provisions of Bill C-59 and, if not, to what extent all or some of the provisions are closely related. A broad common theme is not sufficient. As explained on November 7, 2017, at page 15095 of the Debates, the Chair must decide “whether the matters are so unrelated as to warrant a separate vote at second and third reading.”

In deciding whether a link exists, the Chair may consider several factors. Different measures may have a single objective or common elements, as the Chair found in its decision on Bill C‑4 on September 29, 2020, whose common element was a public health crisis. Cross-references between parts of a bill, or a lack thereof, may also be an indicator.

After completing this analysis, the Chair believes that Bill C‑59 should indeed be divided for the purpose of voting. As my predecessor noted on November 28, 2022, on page 10087 of the Debates, “[t]he objective here is not to divide the bill for consideration purposes, but to enable the House to decide questions that are not closely related separately.”

First, the measures in clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317 appear in the 2023 budget. Since their purpose is to implement certain budget proposals, they would be grouped based on this unifying theme and voted on together.

Second, the measures that can be grouped under the theme of affordability, clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, will be subject to a different vote. Clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 will also be grouped for voting because they amend the Canada Labour Code. Clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 will be subject to a separate vote because they relate to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.

The remaining divisions of Bill C-59, consisting of clauses 219 to 230, 273 to 277, 318 and 319, 320 to 322, and 323 to 341, will each be voted on separately because they are not linked to any of the common themes mentioned earlier. In all, nine votes will be held. The Chair will remind members of this division when the bill comes to a vote at second reading.

Finally, I would like to remind members of the Chair's ruling on December 12, 2023, which also dealt with Bill C-59. The Chair found that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 can continue through the legislative process.

I thank all members for their attention.

Employment Insurance

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I present a petition. Whereas employment insurance, maternity and parental benefits provide parents with critical financial support while they care for and bond with a new child, and having a parent at home longer in the critical first year of a child's life or placement within a family better supports healthy attachment and the well-being of a child, adoptive and intended parents are at a disadvantage under the current EI system.

All parents are deserving of equal access to parental leave benefits. Bill C-318 would deliver equitable access to parental leave for adoptive and intended parents. The Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled that the passage of Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation. The undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to support adoptive and intended parents by providing a royal recommendation for Bill C-318.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee has agreed, has reviewed the bill and has adopted several amendments. The bill will be brought to the House.

That concludes the consideration of Bill C-318.

At this stage, is there other business before the committee?

Go ahead, Mrs. Gray.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Before the amendment is brought to debate, as chair, I again must give a ruling on the admissibility of said amendment.

Again, Bill C-318 amends the Canada Labour Code to introduce a new type of special benefit to extend parental leave in the case of the transfer of a child through adoption or a child born through surrogacy.

The amendment attempts to create another benefit whereby an indigenous child could be placed with an employee other than the child's parents, following processes different from the provincial adoption process that was indicated in the bill, and the employee could be entitled to an extended parental leave. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as agreed by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

My responsibility as chair is to rule on the admissibility of all amendments before the committee.

Bill C-318 amends the Canada Labour Code to introduce a new type of special benefit to extend parental leave in case of the transfer of a child through adoption or a child born through surrogacy. The amendment attempts to create another benefit where an Indigenous child could be placed with an employee other than the child's parents, following different processes than the provincial adoption process as indicated in the bill, and the employee could be entitled to an extended parental leave.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any debate on the amendment referenced, NDP-2?

Oh, I'm sorry; before we get to debate, again it's my responsibility as chair to follow the procedure adopted by the House, which requires me to rule on the admissibility of amendments.

Again, Bill C-318, as it was presented to the committee and debated by the committee, introduces a new type of special benefit, an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. This amendment attempts to create another benefit, whereby an indigenous child could be placed with a self-employed person different from the child's parents, following processes that are different from the provincial adoption process indicated in the bill. The claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and therefore it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. My ruling is not subject to debate but can be challenged.

Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

The substance of the amendment we are debating right now is to ensure that kinship and customary care will be added to this bill.

I find it very frustrating when MP Kusmierczyk makes the accusation that consultations weren't done, that they weren't completed and that the committee didn't hear. I've met with many stakeholders in the drafting of this bill. We also had many witnesses come here to testify. Does the excuse of an abstention due to lack of consultation mean there was no consultation put into Bill C-59? That would be my question.

We're voting in favour of this amendment to ensure that it is put into Bill C-318.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we are all encouraged to vote in favour of Bill C-318, which fundamentally seeks to recognize the equity between adoptive and biological parents. I don't think this is the only inequity in the EI system that we need to address, but that's another issue.

That goes without saying. Adoptive parents, in particular, have testified very accurately about what an adoption can mean. I must say that I am quite proud because this has been done in Quebec since 2021.

In all fairness, we shouldn't have any reservations about passing this bill. I also agree with the amendments proposed by Ms. Gazan of the NDP. Beyond all the studies that will have to be done, the purpose of these amendments, according to the principle of the bill, is to take into account the culture based on the group's customs and traditions, as well as the children who are being placed who are not with their parents. I think that's the spirit of the wording. This can indeed lead to recognition so that, according to customs and traditions, those who welcome a child can benefit from the benefits we are about to adopt.

I think it's a matter of principle. I think it is well worded in each of the provisions where it is necessary. I completely agree with that. I don't think another meeting is required to weigh the pros and cons.

I urge us to vote in favour of this amendment.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by thanking the committee for bringing this debate forward on Bill C-318. I specifically want to thank the MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster for her work in bringing this study forward. I also want to say thank you to all the witnesses who testified and to all the parents and the adoptive parents for the incredible love and commitment they demonstrate. I believe the discussion we're having here....

The government bill that will be coming forward as well, which has already been tabled under Bill C-59, also recognizes that selflessness, commitment and love of adoptive parents.

I also want to thank my colleague Ms. Gazan for bringing this very thoughtful amendment forward. We want to do everything possible to make sure not only that the federal laws and policies that we bring forward align with and are consistent with UNDRIP and our responsibilities under UNDRIP, but that our policies, programs and laws also reflect the priorities of first nations, Inuit and Métis people in our country.

This is an important amendment that has been brought forward, and I believe it's an amendment that ought to be studied further. I believe it requires additional research and thoughtful conversation, and above all careful and considerate consultation with first nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada. This is important.

Obviously, children are at the very centre and heart of the work of this government, and so for that reason I do believe there are questions about this amendment that need to be answered. There is information that needs to be brought forward. I believe that there ought to be a process in place whereby that information can come forward to members of this committee as well as to members of government in designing these policies.

I do believe we are skipping an important step of consultation here, first and foremost, as well as deliberation and information, and so for that reason I will be abstaining from voting on this amendment.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to also personally thank MP Gazan for moving this amendment.

I introduced Bill C-318 to address the current discrimination that exists in our employment insurance program. I want it on the record that because this bill does not explicitly include claimants in a customary care arrangement, it was my expectation that they would have access to it, as is generally the case with the current parental benefits. I recognize that this amendment will ensure their inclusion, which I believe to be in the same spirit and intent as my private member's bill, so I will be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Procedure does not allow for debate on the amendment of Ms. Falk because I have to first rule on whether it's admissible before we can go into debate, so at this time I thank Ms. Gazan for her comments.

Bill C-318 introduces a new type of special benefit, an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The current amendment attempts to create another benefit, whereby an indigenous child could be placed with a claimant different from the child's parents, following different processes from the provincial adoption process as stated in the bill, and the claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme, one that imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and as such it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Ms. Gazan, there's no debate. You can challenge my ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Gazan.

As chair I must rule on admissibility of amendments. My responsibility is to ensure that the procedure of the House of Commons that has been adopted by all parties is followed.

Before I give a ruling on the amendment moved by Ms. Gazan, I'm going to ask whichever official feels it is appropriate to speak briefly to the issue.

Does Bill C-318 infringe on Bill C-15? You heard the concern outlined by Ms. Gazan. Could you briefly address that before...?