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.

Employment Insurance Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out by congratulating Adopt4Life, the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada and the time to attach campaign for their tireless advocacy, which has led to Bill C-318 today.

I also congratulate my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for putting this bill forward. It is an important first step in providing adoptive parents with the parental time they need to attach to adoptive children.

This is a critical first step in improving the outcomes for children being adopted, many of whom are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and have a history of trauma and loss. I, along with my NDP colleagues, support this change as we recognize that building relationships between children and adoptive families is vital for the success, not only of the child, but also for the adoptive family.

The first year that children are with their adoptive parents or caregivers is crucial for bonding and creating a foundation for strong relationships. The extension of this parental leave is crucial.

Unfortunately, one of the areas where this bill falls short is the recognition of kinship and customary care arrangements. This is strongly supported by Adopt4Life and Time to Attach campaign, which are also fighting for an additional 15-week leave for children who are receiving customary and kinship care.

The province of Manitoba defines “kinship care” as an arrangement in which the child is placed with extended family, such as a grandparent or someone with whom they have a significant relationship. Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions defines “customary care” as care through an individual's lifespan in which the community takes care of its own members according to its customs, traditions and norms.

Both kinship and customary care arrangements are common within indigenous nations as we struggle to reclaim our families and children. This is a serious omission in the bill that needs to be addressed, especially because, in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 90% of all children in care are indigenous. There are more children in the child welfare system today than at the height of the residential school system.

We know the harmful implications of separating children from their families and communities. One only has to look at the impacts of residential schools, where children were forcibly removed from their families and shipped off to residential schools, and at the sixties scoop, where indigenous children were removed from customary care structures and placed in non-indigenous foster homes, disconnecting them from their familial and community structures, to see the lasting damage that has caused.

In both instances, physical, sexual, emotional, psychological and spiritual abuse were rampant. This has resulted in lasting trauma and loss for individuals, families and communities. This was acknowledged in the 2015 report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Moreover, the omission of customary and kinship care is contrary to our international obligations, including UNDRIP and Bill C-15, which is now a law in Canada. It is also in violation of article II of the UN convention on genocide.

I want to share a story about my mother. My mother, Marjorie Gazan, was a street kid and a child welfare survivor who ended up in the system after my grandmother abandoned her and her younger brother in a hotel room in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, when she was five years old.

My grandmother had to leave them to earn money. There were no supports for indigenous women in the 1930s. There were no human rights. There was no one to turn to, especially for indigenous single mothers, and my grandmother was not an exception.

Since my mother was the eldest child, my grandmother left her in charge of her younger brother with specific instructions. She said, “Here is a loaf of bread, peanut butter and jam. It needs to last five days.” I remember my mother telling me how she, along with my uncle, gleefully ate the loaf of bread and ran out of their food ration in only one day. Hungry, scared and alone, my mother decided to call the Children's Aid Society.

It is beyond most people's imagination, especially those who have been privileged with human rights, what a five-year-old girl would have to have endured to understand who to call and how to work with the bureaucratic child welfare system to relieve her and her brother's hunger. It was not that my grandmother did not love her, but she had grown up as a street kid, who later in life became a serious alcoholic to deal with the violent genocide she had experienced throughout her life. Dislocated from her family for reasons directly correlated to the Indian Act and other institutional and colonial disruptions, including residential schools, she did not have anyone or anywhere to turn to. In fact, under the former Indian Act, a “person” is defined as “any individual other than an Indian”. This made it impossible for my grandmother.

When my mother and uncle were apprehended into care, my late great auntie Stella Goodwill offered to take them into her house on Standing Buffalo reservation. However, this did not occur. As a result, my mother ended up being switched between 15 different placements between the ages of five and 18. It was not until I was 13 years old that my mother reconnected with her family and her community of Wood Mountain Lakota first nation. My mother had to endure a life alone in the world, and as a result, I was brought up almost completely devoid of extended family. I often envied my friends having big family dinners with their relatives. This was robbed from our family by the child welfare system and residential schools, as well as the intergenerational impacts of institutionalization, colonialism and systemic racism.

I sometimes wonder why I was brought to the House of Commons, an often racist, misogynistic, classist and neocolonial environment, where talk of reconciliation is cheap and the discomfort demonstrated when the residue of trauma caused by colonial violence rears its head is received with assumptions and judgments. Maybe that is why I am here, to tell these stories, to speak these truths so that they will forever be recorded in the Hansard, to fight for justice for families and communities, and to bring our children and women home.

Customary and kinship care is one way to achieve this. Although the NDP will be supporting this bill, it is my hope that extending the benefits to customary and kinship caregivers will be addressed at committee to truly reflect reconciliation.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome everyone back. I can sense everyone's excitement. Let us hope that our parliamentary work will be very productive. I hope you had a good summer, Mr. Speaker. You are looking very well indeed.

In speaking to Bill C‑318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents, which would introduce an attachment benefit, I recognize that this is a sensitive issue.

I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑318. The arrival of a child is a complex and challenging time for the whole family, all the more so when the child is adopted or conceived through surrogacy.

I will talk about that very briefly in my speech while emphasizing the need for attachment. Then I will talk about the need for employment insurance reform and, lastly, I will talk about how the governments of Canada and Quebec need to be on the same page.

First, I would like to remind the House that the bond created with the child is an important part of parenthood. Again, in the case of adoption or the arrival of a child from a surrogate, this process can be a delicate step since the link with the parents is not biological. We know that international adoptions are becoming less frequent and that children adopted by Canadian or Quebec families are often older than in the past, or have special needs. As a result, we can be sympathetic to the desire of these new parents to receive a special benefit to foster attachment.

We also know that the attachment process is complex and time-consuming, particularly for adopted children, and that it is part of an equation that also involves the so-called normal needs of a baby or toddler. That is why it is a good idea to create this new benefit.

The bill also provides for an extension when the child is hospitalized. The extension would be equivalent to the number of weeks the child receives care in a health care facility. We know that hospitalizing a child is an emotionally difficult ordeal. This extension therefore seems necessary, especially if we take into account the emotional factors that are added when adopting or welcoming a child from a surrogate.

We should also bear in mind that this legislation will require royal recommendation. Adding this new benefit to the existing EI program would involve approximately $88 million in spending between 2023 and 2028.

Second, there is also the government's lack of leadership on employment insurance in general. In 2021, the Liberals had campaigned on the promise to modernize employment insurance and had committed to expanding the program to cover self-employed workers and address the gaps highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. There is still nothing in the latest budget, however. The Liberals say they are committed to modernizing the system, but we can see that their communication is lacking; they do not walk the talk.

The only changes announced by this government in the budget are two small reforms. The first is to extend a temporary change to employment insurance introduced in 2018 that increases the number of weeks of coverage available to seasonal workers. The second is to strengthen the prohibitions for misclassification of federally regulated gig workers. That is a far cry from the major structural changes that we, my colleague from Thérèse-de-Blainville in particular, have been seeking for so long.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for greater leadership on this issue. The government must review the current formula, the structure of the program, its eligibility requirements, its funding and its administrative technology.

This bill proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act to add a new type of special benefit, namely a 15-week attachment benefit for adoptive parents and and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.

In Canada, the EI program provides 17 weeks of maternity leave for pregnant women, which can begin at any time during the period that starts in the week before the expected date of delivery and ends 17 weeks after the actual date of delivery. The Canadian program also provides parental leave of up to 63 weeks for natural and adoptive parents. Parents who both work for federally regulated employers can share the parental leave, which entitles them to eight additional weeks of leave.

Parents who share parental leave are entitled to 71 weeks of leave. They can take the leave at any time during the 78-week period that starts on the day of the child's birth or on the day the child is entrusted to them. There is no provision in the Code for paid parental leave. Longer parental leave under an employer's policy, a collective agreement or an employment contract may also apply.

Third, let us compare this with what is currently being done in Quebec. In the case of a birth, parental leave can begin the week of the child's birth. It is in addition to the 18-week maternity leave or five-week paternity leave. In the case of an adoption, each adoptive parent is also entitled to 65 weeks of parental leave. The leave may begin no earlier than the week when the child is entrusted to his or her adoptive parents or when the parents leave their work to travel outside Quebec to receive their child. Leave ends a maximum of 78 weeks afterwards. In a same-sex couple, both parents are entitled to parental leave if the child's relationship to his or her mothers or fathers has been established in the birth certificate or adoption judgment. At the parent's request, parental leave is suspended, divided or extended if the parent's or child's health requires it. In other situations, at the parent's request and if the employer agrees to it, leave may be divided into weeks.

Up until December 2020, Quebec's parental insurance plan, the QPIP, did not offer the same benefits to all workers. Adoptive parents had 18 weeks less to spend with their children. It was ultimately at the end of a battle by the Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec, or FPAQ, that the tide turned. Passed on October 27, 2020 and assented to on October 29, Bill 51 gave equitable treatment to adoptive parents as of December 1, 2020 through the creation of reception and support benefits, as well as adoption benefits for the second parent. In total, adoptive parents are entitled to the same durations and income replacement levels as biological parents. For the time being, both the Canadian and Quebec plans do not provide any attachment benefits such as those proposed in this bill.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has studied the spending that Bill C‑318 would entail. The current proposal is that beneficiaries would receive a benefit equal to 55% of their average weekly insurable earnings for 15 weeks, up to an amount determined using the maximum annual insurable earnings received in the affected year. The maximum weekly benefit for 2023 is $650. For each child, those 15 weeks of benefits could be divided between the two parents. The cost of the program would be approximately $88 million over five years, from 2023 to 2028. However, it is important to keep in mind that the forecasts for the number of adoptions and births of children conceived through surrogacy are not robust and create some uncertainty as to the final real costs of implementing this new benefit.

To conclude, allow me to steer the discussion back to attachment theory, which is generally credited to John Bowlby. Bowlby drew attention to the fact that children turn to adults for protection from the time they are born. Stability, consistency and adequate basic care are key components of attachment theory. Depending on the child's disposition and the adult's approach to meeting the child's needs, the child-adult relationship develops into a mutual partnership.

A comforting, healthy attachment provides children with an important starting point for exploring the world, secure in the knowledge that safety is never far away. Attachment plays a critical role in teaching children to organize their feelings and behaviours, confident that they can rely on the person who cares for and comforts them. Forming attachments is also vital to a child's long-term psychological health. Attachments teach children to trust others, which makes it easier for them to form healthy relationships later in life. Most attachments, however, depend on two basic factors: proximity and time. The long-awaited arrival of a new child is an emotional time for parents, and this new benefit could help them adjust to their new parental role and give it their full attention.

As we know, EI is part of our social safety net. It is a proven fact that the pandemic has exacerbated the current problems with the EI system. We are asking for these changes to be made simply out of compassion and because EI is the tool we gave ourselves. It is our safety net to help people through hard times. We are asking for these specific benefits, but, as I heard a lot over the summer, especially from women's groups, and as we are resuming our work here in the House, I can tell members that a comprehensive reform of the whole EI system is badly needed to help people get through these challenging times.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to note I will be splitting my time this evening with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

We know, and there is no doubt, that child care is an important conversation to be had. We know it is a conversation that parents are also having on a regular basis across this country. Child care needs can look different, not just from one region to another, but also from family to family.

Public policy and the development of a national program should respect and take into consideration those differences. It has been very disappointing that, throughout the deliberations of this bill, whether in the chamber or in committee, the approach of the NDP-Liberal coalition has been narrow and exclusionary. The Liberal government has sought to divide and disparage child care solutions outside of their own prescribed form. This is even more disappointing given many reports would suggest in some regions, such as Saskatchewan, most families do not have access to child care.

The demand for child care remains far greater than the available spaces. Child care providers, in all streams right across the country, have long wait-lists. Access remains a main concern when it comes to child care, but it is not solved by the existing agreements, nor is it resolved in Bill C-35.

We have heard accusations from members opposite that Conservatives have tried to obstruct this legislation. In reality, Conservatives have been working to elevate the voices of parents who are raising serious concerns with the government's child care program.

We have articulated those concerns from child care providers. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that this, in any way, is hindering the delivery of the Liberals' program. The facts are that the child care agreements are already signed with the provinces, and the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care is already formed.

If anything, this should be an opportune time to examine the delivery of the program so that we can understand its shortcomings and take stock of its limitations and its potential reach. However, that was never the goal for the Liberal government. It put forward this legislation to pat itself on the back.

However, the bill, like many of the policies put forward by the Liberal-NDP government, creates winners and losers. The Liberals' self praise is an insult. It is an insult to the moms and the dads who are left out. They are left out in the cold and find themselves on the outside looking in with no spaces for their children in child care facilities.

Let me highlight some of the testimony and voices the government seems very eager to ignore. This includes voices of child care providers who find themselves excluded from the program and the Liberal government's vision for child care in Canada.

Amélie Lainé, representing indigenous friendship centres in Quebec, told the HUMA committee, “funding is only administered through indigenous political institutions, and it does not give service organizations like the indigenous friendship centres in Canada access to funds to develop early childhood and family services.”

Krystal Churcher from the Association of Alberta Childcare Entrepreneurs told the committee, “Bill C-35 does not sufficiently recognize that Canada's current child care system still very much depends upon thousands of private operators despite directional preference for the non-profit business model.”

With wait-lists surging across the country, it is only logical that we use every tool at our disposal to meet the needs across this country from coast to coast to coast, and that we not purposely shut out child care providers who are providing quality care currently. In fact, in the study of this bill, the HUMA committee heard about how the exclusionary structure of the program could actually be to the detriment of the quality of care. We heard about a parent who felt that she now had to choose between the quality of care for her daughter and more affordable costs. It is a decision that she was faced with because her preferred care provider falls outside of the current agreements and would not be captured by the vision laid out in this bill.

The rollout of this program has not even provided much of a choice for many families and more often even less of a choice for lower-income families. We heard in committee that more often lower-income families that cannot afford child care costs are wait-listed because they do not have children enrolled. Excluding child care providers is in the exact opposite spirit of achieving accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all children.

To really tackle child care in Canada, our approach should be comprehensive. The passage of my private member's bill, Bill C-318, would support that goal. Allowing adoptive and intended parents equal access to EI leave to care for their new child would give those parents more time to bond with their child and more time to find a child care solution. It could also help to alleviate some pressure on the child care system. I would hope that, if not the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development would herself see the merits of her government's keeping its promise to these parents and offering the royal recommendation that is needed for Bill C-318.

It is also clear that any hopes of making real progress toward accessible, affordable, inclusive and high-quality child care for all will require a labour force strategy. There is a clear crisis in the childhood educator workforce. There needs to be a plan to recruit and retain labour. The success of a national child care program will depend on this. We cannot flick a switch to create more spaces if there is not a workforce to handle it.

That is why it is particularly frustrating that the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected amendments put forward by Conservatives in committee to address these particular shortcomings. They rejected an amendment that would have explicitly directed the national advisory council to support the recruitment but also the retention of a well-qualified workforce. It would have given the council the mandate to track availability, wait-lists and the progress made in improving access, which is one of the pillars of this bill. It is not clear why the NDP-Liberal coalition would oppose this being a core function of the council. Similarly, the NDP-Liberal coalition rejected an amendment that would have explicitly required the minister to report annually on a national labour strategy.

The rejection of these amendments tells parents and those in the child care sector that the Liberals are not taking this workforce crisis seriously. It certainly does not give them confidence that the recruitment, education and retention of early childhood educators are a priority for them. Just as the recommitment to their exclusionary vision for child care does not give parents on wait-lists hope that universal access is within reach, the rejection of these amendments to include all types of child care providers in the program and to have a more fulsome representation at the table ensures that there will continue to be winners and losers. The reality is that there will be parents who receive no support and there will be qualified and quality child care providers who will continue to be vilified because of their business model by the NDP-Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I had a conversation yesterday with an intended mother who was telling me about the difficulties when it comes to surrogacy and the lack of time that surrogate mothers and fathers have with their children after the baby is born. She also talked about how this difficulty is compounded because they have a shorter amount of time to access child care, as they only get nine months of leave.

I am sure the minister knows that I have a private member's bill, Bill C-318, that would address this issue for adoptive and intended parents. My question, through you, Madam Speaker, is this: Is the minister willing to lobby at the cabinet table for a royal recommendation for it so that intended and adoptive parents do not have to wait to have time with their children? In essence, we know there are still wait-lists when it comes to child care, and this bill would give them that extra time. Is the minister willing to assist with the royal recommendation for Bill C-318?

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

Parents of adoptive children should not have to continue to wait for parity when it comes to our benefits system. I have put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-318, which will deliver parity.

Minister, will you provide the royal recommendation for this bill to pass and to finally give adoptive and intended parents the time they need and deserve with their child or children, and not do it on your own timeline, because we already have something before the House? Will you do that for adoptive and intended parents by providing that royal recommendation?

Employment Insurance Act

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country and an honour to speak in favour of the legislation brought forward by my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

Bill C-318 is an essential piece of legislation because it would allow this House to ensure equity in our laws for every Canadian family, especially and specifically for adoptive and intended parents. Just to be clear, intended parents are parents who, for varying reasons, may need to engage with a surrogate in order to have a child, and there may be various scenarios around this. They often go to great lengths to have a child and welcome a child into their home.

The challenges all new parents face are too many to count. That is why it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to do all we can to ensure fairness and equity for all parents in the employment insurance program and the Canada Labour Code.

Today, any new parent will receive parental benefits, but adoptive and intended parents do not receive maternity benefits and, therefore, fewer weeks of benefits. We rightfully recognize that time for attachment is vital, and it is just as needed for intended and adoptive parents. Forming a loving bond can come with extra challenges, especially when it has been estimated that most children adopted in Canada are over the age of 10 at the time of placement.

The lack of a specific benefit to provide parents the time to attach with a child adds extra burden on the ability of these children in need of love to bond with the family they can make a home with. Intended parents need just as much time to care for and bond with a child as well. Any time there can be an opportunity for a parent and child to bond, we should embrace it, and any time we can support adoptive parents or intended parents and their children, we should embrace it.

I recall someone saying to me almost 10 yeas ago, “Find your voice,” and I did not know what that meant at the time, but with an opportunity like this today, on this legislation, I can be a voice not only for my life’s journey, but for others.

I am going to talk about something extremely personal right now, and I feel the context of this legislation warrants me bringing some of my life’s experience, through my voice, into this conversation and into the discussion around this legislation.

I was adopted at birth. I was born in Edmonton, and my parents drove to Edmonton from Lethbridge to pick me up and bring me back to their home in Lethbridge, Alberta, which is where I grew up. I tell part of my life story in this place today with the utmost honour, respect and love for my mom and dad.

My dad passed away in 2014 and my mom passed away in the middle of the pandemic lockdowns in 2020. My dad was a firefighter and my mom was a teacher. Choosing to adopt when they found out as a newly married couple that they could not have kids must have been a big decision for my parents. When my parents started building their family, my mom had to step back from teaching for many years.

I knew from as early as I could remember that I was adopted. My parents never hid this within the family, but they also never, ever, called me their adopted child, and I never saw my parents as my adoptive parents. They chose to adopt. They chose to devote their lives to having a family, to mentor and raise. They chose to be parents, and they are my parents. I say this at the same time with respect also for my birth parents, who, as a young unwed couple, chose to give me up for adoption.

This legislation would make equal the ability for parents, whatever that looks like, to be on equal footing and receive equal benefits. I am proudly supporting, and am actually the official legislative seconder of, this legislation, Bill C-318. It would support and be inclusive for all those who choose to be intended or adoptive parents. It would treat everyone equally.

Whether someone is part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, whether they have children from other partners that they are bringing together under one roof as a family, whether they had to have a child through a surrogate, whether they adopt domestically or internationally, or whether they have a combination of the above or different family scenarios that I have not mentioned, all family dynamics and scenarios are embraced in this legislation. If we truly want to be inclusive, that means equity. Currently, if someone is an adoptive or intended parent, they do not have equity in the benefits they may receive in order to allow them time to bond with their child.

Let us talk about circumstances with some adopted children who may require extra levels of attention, care and compassion. Some children can come from places of trauma, loss or grief. Some children have complex medical or mental health challenges. Without that early care and attachment, these issues can alter their lives into adulthood. It is important to provide the time for the parent and child not only to bond but also to work on the needs of the child. For parents who adopt internationally or are caring for a child within Canada from a different linguistic background, that additional time can be used to help bridge linguistic or cultural barriers. For a family that adopts a child with special needs, the extra time for attachment will provide not just the chance to connect with their new child but also the time they need to learn more about the resources and services that may be available to manage their child’s unique needs.

Parents of adopted children, or intended parents, already take this time today. However, they often take unpaid leave to do it. That is simply not fair. Government policy must treat all new families fairly and equitably. Supporting the benefits that Bill C-318 would extend to all families will make Canada a better place.

According to a report from the Adoption Council of Canada, in the 2017-18 fiscal year, 2,336 children were adopted. However, the council admits that these numbers do not reflect customary care placements. Even if we assume that those placements would double this number, it would pale in comparison to the 30,000 Canadians eligible for permanent adoption, a number given in a 2021 report from the Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada. These children are waiting for good homes. Benefits like the ones Bill C-318 seeks to create will ensure that we fully respect all families.

In closing, I would like to refer back to the report from the Adoption Council of Canada. Specifically, there is a quote that provides context to this debate from the point of view of an anonymous adoptive parent. The life experience it refers to is very similar to mine. It says, “It is incredibly important for not just the federal government but society in general to recognize all parents”. It goes on to say, “My daughter is my daughter. She is not my ‘adopted’ daughter. I am her mother. I am not her ‘adoptive’ mother. There is still much that needs to change.”

These families are Canadian heroes, providing loving homes to children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. We should erase any dividing lines in our laws or support systems by which they are not entirely recognized as the families they truly are.

I sincerely hope that all members of the House can put their partisanship aside to support this wonderfully positive and family-focused bill, which was put together by a caring mom and seconded by a mom who was adopted at birth and who has an incredible son. Let us ensure equitability for adoptive and intended parents and pass this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-318, which basically gives adoptive parents the same rights as biological parents by providing adoptive parents with the same 15 weeks of benefits that biological parents get. The Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of this bill, which will ensure fairness for all parents.

I can think of many arguments to support this cause. One is the importance of having time to bond with the child. This bond is important from the beginning. Adoptive parents also need time to prepare for the child's arrival. Children from newborn to six months old bond as strongly with adoptive parents as with biological parents. After the age of six months, it is more complex.

The average age of children waiting to be adopted is now six years. How effectively that bond develops will depend very much on the past experiences and traumas that adopted children may have had. If the bond does not develop properly, it can lead to many behavioural problems. On average, adopted children have more problems in this area. In many cases, adoption can also be seen as a healing and recovery process for the child.

We also know that children may need professional services, and adoptive parents must have time to arrange that. There are legal standards and international standards. I believe that all levels of government must fight discrimination against adoptive parents.

The important thing is that children's rights be at the centre of this debate. We know that in many other countries, adoptive parents get the same rights, services and benefits as biological parents. The government side has already announced that this private member's bill will need a royal recommendation. I will come back to that.

With respect to the right to equal and equitable treatment of both biological and adoptive parents in relation to bonding time, the Government of Quebec announced in December 2019 that the amount of parental leave granted to adoptive parents would be brought in line with the amount granted to biological parents, and that measure came into force in 2020.

I sincerely want to commend those responsible for the Time to Attach campaign, as well as Ms. Despaties, founder and executive director of Adopt4Life, for their determination. I also salute Mrs. Falk of the Conservative Party for introducing this bill. Finally, a petition sponsored by Ms. Gazan that collected more than 3,000 signatures was tabled on January 30, 2023.

As stated earlier, this is an issue that goes beyond partisanship. I would like to recall for members, and Mrs. Falk will remember—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am pleased to represent Nunavut regarding Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, as introduced by the hon. member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster. Qujannamiik to the member for introducing this bill.

New Democrats support this bill. It would create a 15-week attachment leave benefit for adoptive and intended parents, through the employment insurance system. During my speech, I will describe benefits for children, parents and overall Canadian society. I will describe troubling realities substantiating the need for Bill C-318 to be passed.

It is unfortunate that it has reached the House as a private member’s bill, given that in 2019, and again in the last election, the Liberals promised to introduce legislation in this area. Regardless, we will continue to hold the Liberal government accountable to its promises brought by this bill. The NDP is committed to ensuring that all parents and caregivers, whether biological, adoptive, intended, customary or kinship, can spend time at home with their children in the critical first year.

Research shows that the quality of a child’s attachment impacts the overall health and development of the child. The benefits of passing this bill will be most prominent for children. Children with strong attachments are more likely to form strong relationships with peers, be better able to regulate their emotions and be less dependent on their caregivers.

I have personal experience. I strongly believe that, because of the strong bonds that were created in the early years of my life, I have been able to cope with the adversity I was forced to experience later in my life. Parents adopting and those intending to be parents need to receive the same benefits, so that adopted children can have the same sense of coping for their future. I have seen the benefits of ensuring those strong bonds early in life, through watching my grandchildren bonding with their parents in the time spent together early in their lives.

Adoption is an important practice in Nunavut, and providing this benefit will help many of my constituents. Unfortunately, Bill C-318 does not reflect our customary adoption practices. While the bill is an important step in the right direction, it does not include kinship and customary caregivers, which are particularly important for Métis, first nations and Inuit.

Kinship and customary care reflect indigenous culture and traditions, and are an alternative to foster care or group home placements. We want to ensure that an attachment leave benefit is inclusive of kinship and customary caregivers, as well as adoptive and intended parents.

Providing parents or caregivers with an additional attachment leave benefit so that they can develop these stronger attachments is crucial for children’s well-being. This benefit would provide adoptive and intended parents with much-needed financial security and improve outcomes for children, many of whom are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and have a history of trauma and loss.

Providing a 15-week paid attachment leave would ease the burden being placed on women who are adoptive or intended parents or kinship and customary caregivers. Providing them with the financial support they need would help ensure stronger attachments with their adopted or intended children.

The societal benefits would be seen with a healthier Canada, in children who are able to enter the school system prepared and ready to adjust to a world where they can learn to have friendships and learn to realize the importance of becoming contributing members of society.

The need to pass Bill C-318 is evident in the disproportionate amount of unpaid caregiving work that takes place in this country, mostly on the part of women. Indeed, more than half of women in Canada give care to children and dependent adults, and almost one-third give unpaid care to children.

New Democrats will support this bill, work to improve it so that it includes kinship and customary caregivers, and hold the Liberals accountable to deliver on their promises to ensure that adoptive and intended parents get the benefits they deserve.

I would like to conclude by sharing what we as New Democrats have heard from important agencies across Canada. The Child and Youth Permanency Council and Adopt4Life are calling for the creation of a new, paid, 15-week attachment leave benefit to adoptive and intended parents and kinship and customary caregivers. I very much appreciate their Time to Attach campaign, which has been effective in building public support for this change.

I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who had a petition on the 15-week attachment leave benefit. It garnered so much support by many.

Julie Despaties, from Adopt4Life, has said:

Canada’s current parental leave program does not recognize the unique attachment needs of children and youth joining adoptive families and is creating avoidable harms. We need this change, so families are no longer disadvantaged because they are formed through adoption.

Finally, Cathy Murphy, the chairperson of the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada, said:

The Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada is pleased to see Private Member's Bill C-318 from [the member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster] brought to first reading. Equitable attachment leave for adoptive parents, customary and kinship caregivers is long overdue, and we look forward to seeing these EI revisions.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise a second time on this issue, because it gives me another opportunity to thank my colleague across the way for raising this important issue in the House. On March 8, 2023, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster introduced the bill before us, Bill C-318, to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code.

We understand that EI maternity and parental benefits need to be fair for all workers, and that is why we are committed to providing adoptive parents with an additional 15 weeks of leave, to ensure that they receive the same level of support to care for their children as all parents do. We know that adoptive parents have advocated for this. They have rightly noted that all new parents need time with their children to help them grow and to create a meaningful and lasting bond. There is no question that the arrival of a new child is a precious time for all parents, and that is why we remain committed to providing adoptive parents and intended parents with the time that they need to bring their children home and create a sense of attachment with their children. The question is not whether we do this, but how we do this. Simply put, what is the best way to get it done?

We know that EI is a critical program that serves millions of Canadians each year. Canadians rely on it when they find themselves out of work, when they want to start a family or when they need to take time to care for a loved one or to get better themselves. We can all agree that EI benefits need to be fair, more responsive and more adaptable to the needs of Canada's evolving workforce.

Work is already under way to modernize the program. Our intent is to build a simpler EI program that meets the needs of Canadians for decades to come. The hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has led more than 35 national and regional round tables with stakeholders representing workers, employers, unions, industry groups and academics. The minister also heard from individuals, including parents and soon-to-be parents, through an online survey that had more than 1,900 respondents. Furthermore, we received over 160 written submissions and held three technical workshops.

During these consultations, we considered the needs of parents who create their families through adoption and surrogacy. We talked about making EI maternity and parental benefits more inclusive of the way families are formed. The consultations found enthusiastic support for providing adoptive parents with an additional 15 weeks of leave. Canada's current EI program provides parental benefits to parents who need to take time away from work to care for a newborn or a newly adopted child. When parents share benefits, they can receive up to 40 weeks of standard parental benefits, or 69 weeks under extended parental benefits. Workers who are pregnant or have recently given birth, including surrogates, can receive 15 weeks of maternity benefits to support their recovery from pregnancy and childbirth.

I am pleased to say that budget 2023 proposes continued prudent investments in Canada's EI program, including and extending financial supports for workers in seasonal industries. Budget 2023 also proposes establishing a new, independent board of appeal to hear cases regarding EI claims. As a tripartite organization, the new board of appeal would put first-level EI appeal decisions back into the hands of those who pay into the system.

Since 2015, our government has promised we would have the backs of Canadians, and we have kept that promise every step of the way. From the middle-class tax cut to the Canada child benefit, affordable child care, and incentivizing shared leave, our government has delivered real results for Canadians. Canadians and parliamentarians have expressed the strong need to reform the employment insurance program. As the minister has said, EI reform is a priority for our government, and we will get it done. We look forward to delivering on our commitment to provide adoptive parents with an additional 15 weeks of leave to ensure that they receive the same level of support to care for their children as other parents receive.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to participate in this important debate.

On March 8, 2023, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster introduced the bill before us, Bill C-318, to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. We understand that EI maternity—

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

moved that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, the arrival of a new child into one's family is a precious and exciting time for parents. As a mom of four, I know first-hand how important, demanding and wonderful that time truly is. For adoptive and intended parents, that time is equally meaningful and critical for the well-being of their new child, yet Canada's parental benefit system does not treat families who grow their families through surrogacy and adoption equally.

Canada's employment insurance program provides critical financial supports to new parents through maternal and paternal benefits while they care and bond with their new child. However, adoptive and intended parents are entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave. That is because they cannot access maternity leave benefits. It is about time that all parents have access to the time they deserve and need with their children.

It is for that reason that I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-318. This bill delivers parity through the creation of a new 15-week employment insurance benefit for adoptive and intended parents. It also makes necessary adjustments to the Canada Labour Code's leave entitlement provisions. Mirroring the maternity benefit in terms of the dollar amount and weeks of leave, this benefit will deliver parity while supporting attachment and bonding for families formed through adoption and surrogacy. At its core, this legislation is about the well-being of the child.

Attachment and healthy child development go hand in hand. Healthy attachments form over time as a parent bonds and cares for their child. As parents respond to the needs of their child, their child feels safe, protected and loved. That foundation of security is critical to the long-term health and development of a child.

When a child has healthy attachments, there are countless benefits. They help build their confidence and self-esteem and contribute to their self-control and self-regulation. Healthy attachments help a child build relationships with others and have trust in those relationships. They encourage exploration and learning. When a child experiences failures or challenges, healthy attachments help build resiliency and stability.

These attachments are formed between a child and their parent in the early stages of life, including in utero, but also throughout their childhood and adolescent years. The benefits of healthy attachments are lifelong. The quality of the relationship between a child and their parent or caregiver will significantly impact their social, emotional and cognitive developments.

Bill C-318 recognizes the complexities of attachment for families formed through adoption and surrogacy. Adopted children have experienced an attachment disruption in some form. When they are placed with their new families, they are building new attachments, and that process is informed by a child's life experiences, including possible past traumas.

An absence of healthy attachments in their life prior to their placement can present unique challenges. Time is so critical for adoptive parents and their children to form healthy attachments. For families formed through surrogacy, time to bond is also critical for the successful emotional transfer from a surrogate to the parents. Allowing parents to be present for 15 more weeks with their child will help them form healthy attachments, and ultimately, it will have a positive impact on the long-term outcomes of the family.

Every child is valuable and deserving of the safety and security that come with healthy attachments. This legislation will ensure that our system of parental benefits in Canada does not discriminate against certain families. We owe that to the children impacted by this policy. They all deserve time to attach.

Shortly after I was first elected, I met with a group that was advocating for a time to attach for adoptive families. Kyla was among that group. She sat in my office and shared her adoption story. She shared the challenges she experienced in connecting with her new parents. Adopted as a sibling set when she was 11 years old, Kyla highlighted the unique challenges and pressures that her mom faced in balancing the care of her and her siblings. Kyla made a compelling case for more time to attach.

Since that first meeting, I have had the opportunity to hear from many more adoptive families about how meaningful 15 more weeks together would have been for them, how 15 more weeks would have eased the pressure and how it would have better supported their families. I have also had the opportunity to hear from intended parents about how much it would mean to them to spend a full year with their newborn. They have talked to me about the challenges of having 15 fewer weeks of leave when it comes to finding child care. They have also expressed the heartbreak and concern about potentially missing some of their child's firsts when they are forced to go back to work earlier than other parents.

Simply put, having equality in our benefits landscape and a time to attach benefit is good policy. It is why it has been in the last two Conservative election platforms. However, let me be clear: This is a non-partisan issue. In fact, we have seen some form of support from all sides of the aisle.

The NDP member for Winnipeg Centre sponsored a petition last fall for a time to attach benefit that garnered over 3,000 signatures. The Conservative member for Calgary Shepard previously sponsored a petition for parity in parental benefits that garnered thousands of signatures. The human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities committee recommended that the government explore the attachment benefit in a 2021 report entitled “Modernizing the Employment Insurance Program”. The Liberals have also introduced this attachment benefit for adoptive parents in their last two election platforms, and it was included in the 2019 and 2021 mandate letters for the minister.

Despite all of this support, the Liberal government has failed to bring it home for adoptive parents. The Liberals have not prioritized delivering this benefit to them. Most recently, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion publicly alluded that a benefit for adoptive and intended parents would be included in her government's budget, yet when the budget was delivered it was nowhere to be found.

It has already been years since the government first promised this benefit. Adoptive and intended parents should not have to keep waiting. There are families today who need and deserve this benefit. There are children today whose development would be better supported. The longer this common-sense policy is delayed, the more families will miss out on precious time together.

Beyond the undeniable developmental benefits of additional time together, these families deserve to have an additional 15-week benefit. Like the existing maternity and parental benefits, only parents who have contributed to the employment insurance program would be eligible to receive the proposed benefit. The adoptive and intended parents are already contributing equally to our employment insurance program, as are their employers, but other families are receiving more in return for the same level of contribution.

Adoptive and intended parents should be treated fairly, but the reality is that our current system discriminates against them. Bill C-318 addresses that discrimination. In terms of dollars and weeks of leave, it would deliver parity to them.

It is also worth noting that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has costed the implementation of this bill. The impact of this proposed benefit on the employment insurance fund would be very minimal. In fact, it would be so minimal that it would not require an increase to employer or employee premiums.

While the cost of this proposed benefit in the context of the employment insurance program may not be immense, the impact of the proposed benefit for the families who would have access to it is truly priceless. It would afford them more time together as a family. It would foster healthy attachments. It would ease some of the pressures faced in the critical first year of a child's life or placement with family. It is difficult to fully measure what it would mean to each of the families impacted by this policy.

While I am proud and honoured to have introduced this bill, I would like to recognize and thank Julie Despaties, Cathy Murphy and the countless other Canadians who have tirelessly advocated for a time to attach benefit. I offer my thanks to each and every Canadian who has added their voice to the call for parity in our parental benefits landscape, and thank those who have signed the many petitions, shared their personal stories and championed this issue for the sake of the thousands of Canadians and all the families who would be directly impacted by this proposed benefit.

I truly hope that not only does Bill C-318 find support from all sides of this House, but the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion provide the royal recommendation needed for this legislation to pass. Together, let us give adoptive and intended parents the time they need and deserve with their children.

Private Members' Business—Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 19, by the deputy House leader of the government regarding Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents.

On March 30, in a statement on the management of private members’ business, the Chair pointed out that Bill C-318, standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, may infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. The Speaker then invited members to make arguments regarding the need for the bill to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In her point of order, the deputy House leader of the government noted that Bill C-318 would add a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. This benefit is not currently contemplated in the act and would result in a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 838, and I quote, “Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.”

The Chair has reviewed Bill C‑318 and found that clause 5 adds new section 22.1 to the Employment Insurance Act to create a new type of special benefit, namely, a 15-week attachment benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The bill also provides for the duration of this new benefit to be extended for various reasons.

Implementing Bill C-318 would create a new type of benefit, and therefore, lead to increasing public expenditures for purposes not currently authorized by the act. As a result, a new royal recommendation is required for the bill to receive a final vote in the House at third reading.

In the meantime, the House is about to start debate on the second reading motion of the bill. This motion will be allowed to be put to a vote at the conclusion of that debate.

I thank all members for their attention.

Private Members' Business

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to your statement of March 30, 2023, respecting the 15 new items of Private Members' Business added to the order of precedence on March 10, 2023.

In particular, I am rising to raise two arguments respecting the financial prerogative of the Crown and whether two Private Members' Business bills infringe upon the Crown's prerogative in this regard.

Without commenting on the merits of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents, sponsored by the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, and Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding amount of full pension, sponsored by the member for Calgary Shepard, I submit that both of these bills require royal recommendation.

Bill C-318 seeks to add a new type of special benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy through the Employment Insurance Act, as well as making corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code. Since the bill would add a new type of benefit under the Employment Insurance Act, it would need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. These new benefits are not currently contemplated in the Employment Insurance Act and would authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund for purposes and in a manner not authorized by any statute. I therefore submit that, absent of royal recommendation, the bill should not be put to a third reading vote.

Bill C‑319 proposes to increase the amount of the full pension for Canadians aged 65 to 74 by 10%. This increase is not provided for under the Old Age Security Act, and the charge against the consolidated revenue fund for this purpose is not authorized by that act or any other. I therefore maintain that, without a royal recommendation attached to the bill, Bill C‑319 should not be put to a vote at third reading.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The Chair would like to make a statement concerning the management of Private Members' Business. As members know, certain constitutional procedural realities constrain the Speaker and members insofar as legislation is concerned.

Following each replenishment of the order of precedence, the Chair reviews items so that the House can be alerted to bills that, at first glance, appear to infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views on the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Following replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items on Thursday, March 16, two bills concern the Chair. One is Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents) standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

The other is Bill C‑319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), standing in the name of the member for Shefford. The Chair is of the view that these bills may need a royal recommendation.

Members are therefore invited to make arguments regarding the requirement of a royal recommendation for Bills C-318 and C-319 at the earliest opportunity.

I thank the members for their attention.