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

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

Madam Speaker, as has been said, Canada's current parental benefit system puts adoptive and intended parents at a disadvantage. With access to 15 fewer weeks of leave through the employment insurance program, families formed through adoption and surrogacy are robbed by our parental benefit system of precious time together, time that is needed to care for their child, to bond and to form healthy attachments, and time that is critical in the first year of a child's life or placement with a family. The purpose of Bill C-318 has always been to fix that disparity in our system, to recognize the unique challenges faced by these families and to ensure that they have equal access to leave benefits.

Unfortunately, without having received a royal recommendation from the Liberal government, the bill's journey is coming to an end today. The bill had cross-partisan support and should have been an opportunity for collaboration, but the Liberal government opposed the bill throughout the process. At second reading, the Liberal government voted against the bill. At the committee stage, Liberals fought against amendments that would have removed any ambiguity in the bill around customary care arrangement for indigenous families. The amendments were challenged again in the House by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Canadians who are following the issue closely would know that after opposing Bill C-318, the Liberals then introduced a benefit similar in principle. This provides cause for cautious optimism. The proposed benefit would help close the parental leave gap. That section of the bill received unanimous support in the House at second reading, but it is not across the finish line yet. The Liberal government has tied the changes to an omnibus bill, making it impossible to ensure its quick passage. The definition of “placement” in the Liberal bill is not entirely clear either, leaving it, in parts, to regulation. The Liberals' fight against the inclusion of customary care arrangements in Bill C-318 raises more questions than answers.

The Liberal government has given Canadians reason after reason to distrust it. The disability benefit is a stark example that is top of mind for so many Canadians across the country. The Liberal government refused to do the work at the front end to tell Parliament and Canadians what the benefit would look like. The so-called framework legislation has no concrete dates, eligibility requirements or benefit amounts.

The then minister of employment, workforce development and disability inclusion repeatedly said that the new benefit would lift persons with disability out of poverty. We also heard that the benefit would roll out in about a year's time. It has been just about a year since the bill received royal assent, and Canadians with disabilities who have been desperately waiting for the rollout of the benefit were hit with massive disappointment when the budget was announced. The six dollars a day will not pull anyone out of poverty, much less in the current cost of living crisis. To receive the benefit, persons with disabilities will have to wait until July 2025.

It is very difficult to trust the Liberal government to deliver what it has promised to Canadians. The Liberals have refused to work collaboratively on this meaningful and straightforward policy change, but every day that passes without fixing the inequity in our parental leave system means another family that is left without the time it needs to attach. It means more parents who will have to return to work prematurely to make ends meet or who are forced to take the extended parental leave at a significant financial disadvantage. Adoptive and intended parents deserve equal access to parental leave. More importantly, their children need the additional time with their parents. These families are faced with unique challenges, and the time to attach is truly crucial.

As the House ends its consideration of Bill C-318, I would like to express how truly grateful I am for all those who have supported the bill. I thank the thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions and written to their MPs and to the minister, and all those who have shared their personal stories and advocated tirelessly for the changes.

While the Liberal government has ensured that Bill C-318 will not cross the finish line, I remain deeply committed to ensuring that adoptive and intended parents get the time they need and deserve with their children.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend 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. Passing Bill C‑318 would be a small step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for many years. We have been saying that employment insurance must be reformed as soon as possible to improve accessibility for taxpayers, review the eligibility criteria, formulas and funding, and optimize service delivery.

Government leadership on EI as a whole has been lacking. We need more leadership on this issue. In 2021, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to modernize EI. They promised to expand the program to cover self-employed workers and address gaps made obvious during the COVID‑19 pandemic. After the last federal election, the Prime Minister gave the then minister of employment, workforce development and disability inclusion a mandate letter instructing her to bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system by summer 2022. It is fair to say that the Liberal government missed that deadline, since it is now 2024.

The Liberals say they are committed to modernizing the system, but their communicative action is clearly lacking. The government is not walking the talk. Since I spoke at second reading, the bill has changed somewhat, with two amendments adopted. I will not read them, but the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of these two amendments because they broaden the scope of the bill. The categories I mentioned earlier were initially not included in the scope of the bill, but I believe they are in the spirit of respecting indigenous traditions and knowledge and, more broadly, in the spirit of reconciliation.

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. The bond created with the child is an important part of parenthood. Again, in the case of adoption or surrogacy, the process of forming attachments can be tricky because there is no biological connection to the parents, which is why it is important to pass this bill.

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.

Another important thing about Bill C-318 is that it provides for an extension when the child is hospitalized. Given that the hospitalization of a child is an emotionally difficult ordeal, this extension seems necessary, especially if we take into account the emotional factors that are added when a child is adopted or born through surrogacy. The extension would be equivalent to the number of weeks the child receives care in a health care facility.

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. John Bowlby's attachment theory states that, from birth, children turn to adults for protection. If the adult adequately meets the basic needs of the child, an attachment relationship that is necessary for the development of the child's psyche will form between them.

I remember relating a bit of my story during second reading stage, but I would like to remind the House that I myself was adopted at the age of two months. Since I was not receiving any affection at the orphanage, I was wasting away. For seven years, my adoptive parents tried in vain to have a biological child before finally deciding to turn to adoption. They chose me. How lucky I was. They gave me the chance to be loved, coddled, reassured, protected and educated, and to become the person I am today. They took care of me and I will be grateful to them for the rest of my life.

Currently, in the adoption process, the long-awaited arrival of a new child is a very emotional time for the parents. The meeting often takes place in a context of lengthy travel, time differences, fatigue, and changes in culture and climate.

However, the children do not experience the same feelings of anticipation as the new parents. Naturally, they may mourn the loss of familiar people and places and be frightened by people who are often of a different ethnicity and who do not speak their mother tongue. It is an emotional transition. There are, however, several things that can help relieve the pressure on everyone involved in the process.

As we know, in Canada, the EI program provides 17 weeks of maternity leave for pregnant women, which can begin at any time during the period starting 13 weeks before the expected date of birth and ending 17 weeks after the actual date of birth. The Canadian program also provides up to 63 weeks of parental leave for biological and adoptive parents.

If both parents work for federally regulated employers, they can share their parental leave, entitling them to an additional eight weeks of leave. Parents who share parental leave are entitled to 71 weeks of leave. They can take this 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 comes into their care. The code contains no provision for paid parental leave.

Let us compare that to how it works 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 weeks of maternity leave or the five weeks of 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 the child is entrusted to the adoptive parents or when the parents leave their work to travel outside Quebec to pick up their child. The leave ends a maximum of 78 weeks after that.

In a same-sex couple, both parents are entitled to parental leave if the child's relationship to his or her mothers or fathers was established in the birth certificate or adoption judgment. At the parent's request, the parental leave can be suspended, divided or extended if required by the parent's or child's health. In other situations, at the parent's request and with the employer's consent, the leave can be divided into weeks.

Up until December 2020, Quebec's parental insurance plan did not offer the same benefits to all workers. Adoptive parents had 18 fewer weeks to spend with their children. Eventually, the tide turned following a battle waged by the Association des parents adoptants du Québec, which represents adoptive parents in Quebec.

Bill 51, which was passed on October 27, 2020, and assented to on October 29, gave equitable treatment to adoptive parents as of December 1, 2020, through the creation of welcome and support benefits, as well as adoption benefits for the second parent. All in all, this means adoptive parents are entitled to the same duration and level of income replacement as biological parents. For the time being, neither the Canadian nor the Quebec plans provide for any attachment benefits such as those proposed in this bill. It is therefore important to pass Bill C-318 to fill this gap.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I rise to speak to Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents. Qujannamiik to my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for this important piece of legislation, which would help bring equity to adoptive and intended parents.

I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for all of her hard work on the file. I highlight that at committee the NDP proposed several amendments that would have improved the bill significantly. Regrettably, the amendments were rejected. I am especially disappointed that the amendments to uphold Canadian law were rejected. Those amendments would have ensured that Bill C-318 would be consistent with Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Unfortunately we have seen the pattern with the current Liberal government, when it comes to indigenous people's rights, that it is going to go below what the expected standards are, including what it has tabled in the first nations clean water act as well as in the amendments to the Indian Act. By failing to uphold Bill C-15, the current government is willfully disrespecting articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is part of a disturbing pattern for the current Liberal government, which consistently fails to follow its own laws, including obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. If the government is serious about reconciliation, which is a word it loves to use, it must do better and commit to upholding UNDRIP.

Overall, Bill C-318 has merits, and New Democrats support the 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 the bill's benefits for children, parents and overall Canadian society. I will also describe the troubling realities substantiating the need for Bill C-318 to be passed.

It is unfortunate that the issue has reached the House through a private member's bill and not as a government bill, given that in 2019 and again in the last election the Liberals promised to introduce legislation in this area. I note that since the proposed bill's introduction, the Liberals have announced changes to the employment insurance program as part of the fall economic statement. These changes would create a new 15-week El benefit that adoptive and intended parents would finally be eligible for. This is a step in the right direction.

New Democrats will continue to hold the Liberal government accountable to its promises by passing Bill C-318. 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 years. Research shows that the quality of a child's attachment impacts the overall health and development of the child. The benefits of passing the bill would be most prominent for children. Children with strong attachments are more likely to form strong relationships, be better able to regulate their emotions and be less dependant on their caregivers.

Parents who are adopting, and those intending to be parents, need to receive the same benefits as biological parents. Adopted children must 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 bond with their parents in the time spent together early in their lives. Adoption is an important practice in Nunavut, and providing this benefit would 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, who are particularly important for Métis, first nations and Inuit. Kinship and customary care reflect indigenous culture and traditions. Respecting indigenous peoples' practices could result in many more children not being forced into foster care or group home placements. We must ensure that an attachment leave benefit is extended to kinship and customary caregivers in a similar manner as to adoptive and intended parents. I hope this will be added sometime later.

Providing parents or caregivers with an additional attachment leave benefit so that they can develop these strong attachments is crucial for the well-being of children. This benefit would provide adoptive and intended parents with much-needed financial security and would 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 who are kinship and customary caregivers. Providing them with the financial supports they need would help to ensure stronger attachments with their adoptive or intended children.

The societal benefits would be a healthier Canada, and children who would be able to enter the school system, who would be prepared and ready to adjust to a world where they could learn to have friendships and who could 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 the women in Canada give care to children and dependent adults, and almost one-third give unpaid care to children.

I conclude by sharing what we, as New Democrats, have heard from important agencies across Canada. The Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada and Adopt4Life are calling for the passage of this bill. 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, which garnered so much support by many.

New Democrats support this bill. We will continue to hold the Liberals accountable to deliver on their promises. Bill C-318 would help many adoptive and intended parents across Canada. These are positive and necessary changes; although, it is not comprehensive and does not recognize the important work of customary and kinship caregivers in indigenous peoples. I hope that this is not the end of these discussions and that more work will follow to provide financial attachments to more forms of caregiving. We owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to ensure they have the care they need.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to once again speak to this bill. I may not use up all of my 10 minutes. Sometimes when I say that, however, I end up running over my time. I therefore say it at my peril or the peril of the House.

Bill C-318 is a private member's bill that made its way to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I forget the name of my colleague's riding, but I want to commend this bill for its single focus, which is to ensure equity in maternity and parental leave by providing adoptive parents with a system equitable to that available to biological parents. I think that equity is what this bill seeks to achieve. In committee, we had the opportunity to meet with Adopt4Life several times—I commend Ms. Despaties, by the way—and it was recognized and shown that when it comes to the bonding experience of adopted children, regardless of their age at adoption, the child's origin or any accompanying difficulties, bonding time is very important.

This bill has to do with children's rights, but also with the time that should be granted to parents to ensure that they are available to welcome a child into the family properly and that the child gets all the services and care they need from their parent. I think that is self-evident. I heard the parliamentary secretary when he rightly said that the economic statement included a commitment to add 15 weeks. I would go even further than that and say that the former employment minister was on board with that. It is still part of the minister's mandate letter to add 15 weeks of parental leave for adoptive parents.

I think the only thing missing now—this is the first hour of third reading—is the royal recommendation. That is what is needed to move forward and fully enact this bill. I think that is what the government needs to do. My understanding is that it intends to do so. At least we hope so. Although when I hear the government, specifically the parliamentary secretary, say that the government plans to reform EI, I have to pinch myself. We are all a little ashamed—including workers, unemployed workers' groups and the members of the Bloc Québécois who are advocating for a comprehensive reform of employment insurance—that we thought the government was actually going to do it. The government promised this in 2015, 2019 and 2021. According to the minister's mandate letter, this reform was supposed to be implemented in the summer of 2022. It is almost summer 2024, and still nothing has been done. There has been nothing in either the economic statements or the budget to address the reality of workers and initiate a reform to strengthen EI.

Instead of this piecemeal approach, EI reform could have already included 15 weeks for adoptive parents. It could have already included 50 weeks of sickness benefits instead of 26 weeks, as the government did. It also could have specifically fixed the situation of mothers on maternity leave who have the misfortune of losing their job while on leave and end up no longer having access to regular employment insurance benefits. We need to correct these discriminations, provide better access and better benefits to the workers in the seasonal industry. It was all hot air and broken promises from the government. What is more, the current Minister of Employment had no qualms about telling workers and the unemployed at a meeting that this was not on the agenda.

In that respect, the government's actions—and its eight years of broken promises—are deeply disappointing. This mainly affects workers, but it also affects the unemployed. This government has admitted that it took too long to reform the system when the pandemic hit and that the system was full of holes. Not giving adoptive parents fair treatment in terms of parental leave, not giving them the 15 weeks of benefits under the guise of ensuring equivalency, is akin to discrimination or having two different levels of benefits in very similar situations.

Quebec has managed to address this. Since 2021, the Quebec parental insurance plan, which provides far more coverage than federal EI plan, has allowed for benefits to be adapted so that adoptive parents are treated the same as non-adoptive parents.

This reality has been acknowledged. Now what we need is a commitment from this government, a royal recommendation so this bill can see the light of day.

The people I am really thinking of here are adoptive parents. I met with some of them and their kids to learn more about how life-changing it is to be able to be with their kids from the start and have enough weeks of benefits to be with them. Adoption is a choice that comes from the heart, a choice parents make because they believe in it. We want to do everything we can to ensure that these children have the best parents in the world. In order to give them every opportunity, we have to recognize the challenges that parents may encounter during an adoption. Sometimes things go very well, but people should never give up the right to the same amount of parental leave that biological parents get.

I hope this bill will see the light of day as soon as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, one thing I have witnessed over the years is a general attitude toward how we can improve our EI system and how benefits are ultimately paid out. We often talk about what is being proposed in this legislation. For adoptive parents to have 15 weeks, from my perspective, with the child or infant is really important. Members should be aware that it was incorporated into the minister's mandate letter. We know the government was taking action on the issue. That is something members opposite would have been aware of.

When I think of Bill C-318, one of the things that crosses my mind is the economic statement from last year. Incorporated within the budgetary legislation is the change that Bill C-318 would achieve. I question whether this legislation is even required. Some issues have been brought forward as to whether it would require ministerial involvement or a general recommendation, because it would require additional funds.

At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the government has recognized the need to look at ways to improve the EI system. Legislation exists that we would like to pass. On the one hand, opposition members say what the bill would do and, on the other hand, they frustrate and filibuster government legislation that would ultimately do what the member wants to take place with this bill.

It is important to recognize that the connections that are made by adoptive parents, in particular, are just as significant as those of natural parents. The love between a parent and a child is something that I believe justifies the government taking the type of action it has. It is one of the reasons it was incorporated, as I said, in the ministerial mandate letter. It is one of the reasons we incorporated it into the budget implementation legislation.

We are on the right track and moving forward on an important issue. I only wish the Conservative Party would have recognized that and demonstrated a desire to, at the very least, allow the legislation that already exists and would make a difference in a much quicker fashion to take effect. In order for that to happen, the Conservatives, at least in part, have to stop the filibustering on all government legislation and agenda items.

The House resumed from February 28 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 third time and passed.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

We're talking about children and reconciliation. I asked you a number of questions about Bill C-92 and monies attached.

Recently, the Conservatives put forward a bill, Bill C-318. I offered up amendments that were supported by the sponsor of the bill to include kinship and customary care in the new EI funding regime for adoption, to ensure that this government is upholding the rule of law, which now includes clause 5 of Bill C-15, which states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”. Bill C-318 passed in committee, making the bill now consistent with articles 19, 20 and 21 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was thrown out by the Liberal government, even though they have the ability to provide royal consent. I wrote a letter, in fact, to the government on February 27, 2024. The government still has an opportunity to uphold the rule of law.

If we're talking about reunifying kids, and we know that 90% of kids in care, certainly in Manitoba, are first nations kids, often in kinship and customary arrangements, does this government have any plan to uphold the rule of law and amend that legislation?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Whetung-MacInnes.

In the last Parliament, we passed Bill C-15 to make sure that all legislation going forward is compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Since its passing in the last Parliament, at every angle the current government has tried to fight against it. The first example was with the child care legislation, to include free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples on all decisions or matters impacting indigenous children. We managed to get that through committee in spite of the Liberals.

The most recent example actually happened this week. It was with a private member's bill, Bill C-318, which I attempted to amend so that it would be consistent with Bill C-15. It was to change the adoption framework to include kinship and customary care. In Manitoba, for example, 90% of kids who are currently in the child welfare system are indigenous. Many of them are cared for in kinship and customary care arrangements, such as by grandmothers or aunties.

How is supporting kinship and customary care through EI regimes, and including that as part of shifts in EI regimes, important to supporting indigenous women in the workplace?

Government Business No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Maybe on another day, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to talk about the motion we have before us, which one would think every member of the House of Commons would support. People who are following the debate should have an appreciation of what the motion would do, which is fairly straightforward.

On the one hand, we are seeing a lot of legislation. The government has a very healthy and progressive legislative agenda, and there is a limited amount of time during normal work hours, because the hours are set. The motion would give the opportunity, where there is a great level of interest, to have more debate on specific legislation or an agenda item from the government by allowing an extended sitting. This means we would have the evenings to continue debate.

Why would anyone believe having more debate is not a good thing here on the floor of the House of Commons? When we factor in all the whining and complaining we hear from the Conservatives at times about wanting more debate time on legislation, we would be giving them what they want. However, I suspect the Conservatives are likely going to be voting against that. When they take their time to stand or register their vote on the hybrid system, they will likely be voting against having more time for debate.

This is one important thing that the legislation would do.

The other thing it would do is provide the opportunity for us to prevent 24-hour voting sessions. The last time this happened, back in December, I can recall coming into the House early in the morning, starting debates and so forth and then the Conservatives saying that they wanted a standing vote and were going to force everybody to vote for the next 20 hours or so. I am going to go into this in a bit and talk about some of the things we voted on.

At a workplace where one is literally dealing with billions and billions of tax dollars and is expected to be aware of the content being voted on, or at least I would like to think members are aware of what they are voting on, it would be reasonable to expect one would not have to vote around the clock.

I had seen a nice graph provided by the member for Kingston and the Islands. If one looks at the graph, one sees there is fairly good participation until it became bedtime for the Conservatives. All of a sudden, instead of having 90% participation, it starts to drop. Once 11 o'clock hit, or getting close to midnight, it really plummets on the Conservatives' side. The good news is I think they stayed just above the 50%. I am not 100% sure of that, but I think it was just above. It might have dipped below, but I do not know for sure.

The point is the Conservatives saw the light back then, because at least half of them did not have a problem taking a health break so they could be more awake for the remaining votes. What we are proposing is to put in place a rule that would enable not only the Conservative Party members to have their sleep time but all members of the House to have a health break. I see that as a good thing. At least half of the Conservatives should be voting in favour of that one; otherwise, they may have a tough time looking in the mirror because that is exactly what they did the last time we had a voting marathon.

The other thing it provides for is for third reading to take place on the same day for which report stage is approved. That is an important aspect. Let me make it relevant to something that happened today where we had a sense of co-operation. There was, for example, a Conservative private member's bill that came up for report stage. All it would have taken was for any group to stand up when report stage was called, and say they would like a recorded vote. In fact, that happens. As a direct result, debate ends, or technically, does not even start, and then it is dropped until the next time it appears for third reading.

Instead of doing that, because we understood that the member wanted to have the private member's bill, Bill C-318, debated, we agreed, and then debate started at third reading. If we as a government recognize the value of that, and if private Conservative members recognize the value of it, then one would think there has to be a good percentage of Conservatives who would agree that the government should be able to have the same sort of treatment. It is a common courtesy. It was in the best interest of all concerned to have that take place.

From my perspective, those are the three big things taking place in the motion. It begs the question why any member of the House of Commons would vote against the measures being proposed. The short answer is that there is, I will not say a hidden agenda, because it is actually quite obvious, but a tactic that the Conservative Party has been using for years. I often refer to it as a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. There are some people, especially from the far right, and we can call them the MAGA element or whatever we want, who at times have a disdain for institutions like the House of Commons. They want to show as much as possible that it is dysfunctional, believing they benefit by that.

I want people to think about this: There is an opposition party that criticizes the government for not getting its legislation through, but the reason we cannot get it through is that the Conservative Party, the opposition party, is playing games and preventing it from going through. It does not take much to prevent legislation from going through in the normal process. We could allow 12 students from Sisler High School, Maples Collegiate, R.B. Russell, Children of the Earth or St. John's High School, any school in my riding, to sit in the chamber, and that could prevent legislation from passing. It does not take much at all.

I remind my Conservative friends to realize what a majority of members in the chamber have realized, and that was that in the last election, a minority government was elected. That means that the government has to, as there is no choice, work on consensus and build with at least one willing partner in order to get things through. Otherwise it is not going to happen. That is one of the things the government should take away from the last election.

The official opposition also has a role to recognize. The official opposition, in particular its current leader, has not recognized the responsibility given by the people of Canada back in 2021. That member has a responsibility that I have not witnessed. I have seen the games by members of the Conservative Party. They do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing and then criticize the government for not getting legislation passed. There are so many examples of that. We just finished an hour of debate on Bill C-318. In fact, I was the last to speak to it. There is no doubt that Bill C-318 is a very important piece of legislation. Listen to what people actually say about Bill C-318. Is there anyone in the chamber who does not support the principles being proposed? I would argue no.

We understand the value of Bill C-318. That is why, as a political party, with the Prime Minister, we made an election promise to follow through with the principles of Bill C-318. Let us look at the last budget. There was some preliminary work a year ago on this same issue about adoptive parents and how we could ensure they would get EI benefits. If we look at the mandate letters the Prime Minister gives to ministers, we can see that those principles are incorporated in them. Everyone knows that the government is moving forward on the issue.

The kicker is that it is actually in legislation today, Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. It is a very important piece of legislation that would support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Where is that legislation today? It is still in second reading. The Conservatives refuse to pass it. When we call it forward, they come up with games. They do not want that legislation to pass.

Let us look at what happened during the previous fall economic statement. We were debating the budget of 2023-24 while we were still on the 2022 fall economic statement. That is bizarre. The Conservative Party members refused to pass the legislation. They would rather filibuster, knowing full well that there is a limited amount of time. Any group of grade 12 students would be able to do what they are doing, so it is no great achievement, unless, of course, they are trying to prove something. They are trying to say that the government is ineffective because the institution is broken.

The problem with this institution is that we do not have an opposition party that recognizes its true responsibilities. Conservative members' major objective is to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. What is the impact of that? Let us go back to the private member's bill, Bill C-318. If they had passed the fall economic statement when it should have been passed, then Bill C-318 would be virtually redundant and not be a necessary piece of legislation. In fact, it would have provided even more for adoptive parents in a family unit than Bill C-318.

However, it is not the first time, if we think of the types of legislation we have brought through. Sometimes, Conservatives will even filibuster legislation they agree with, as well as legislation they oppose. I remember my first speech on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I was very generous with my comments. I honestly thought everyone was going to support it. It is a trade agreement that even the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party supported. For the first time ever, Conservatives voted against a trade agreement and slowed down the debate on that legislation. Here we have a country at war, whose president came to Canada in September to sign the first trade agreement for Ukraine, sending a powerful message during a time of war, and the Conservative Party turned their backs on Ukraine and ultimately prevented the bill from passing as soon as it can—

Employment Insurance Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important.

Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system.

The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill.

What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around.

When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass.

Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing.

The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it.

Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for this incredible bill, which will bring parity and equity in mental health and attachment to adoptive and intended parents.

What we are talking about today, for folks watching, is Bill C-318, which was created by my friend and colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

I will give an overview and some compelling testimony that we heard at the human resources committee today. I am really going to hammer home how common-sense this bill is and how it should have been done long ago. However, like so many things in this House, here we are.

Bill C-318 introduces a new 15-week benefit for adoptive and intended parents through the employment insurance program, and adjusts the Canada Labour Code accordingly. A lot of people, including me, did not know this was an issue. I have biological children and just assumed that adoptive parents, or intended parents, which means parents through surrogacy, were entitled to the same amount of unemployment leave, or mat leave or paternity leave, which are the common names a lot of people know. I was entitled to 52 weeks, but the reality is that the way the current system works is that they do not have access to that. They are cut 15 weeks short.

One would ask why, which is a great question. It does not put any more financial stress on the system, and we know these parents need this time to attach. I want to tell members a bit about the politics that always bleeds into this place and why common sense often gets left behind.

It was an election platform promise by the Liberals in the last two elections that they would have this in their policy. Here we are, and it is still not here, which is not a shock. That is the reality of what we have in this country.

The bill has gone through first reading. What we are asking for in this debate today in the House is royal recommendation. Nothing will happen if we do not get that. We have had the support of the House; the bill has passed through first reading. In fact, everybody voted in favour of it except the Liberals. Four Liberals supported it. I thank those who did and parked their partisan politics for the greater good and for parity.

I want to go through this article with members, because I think it really highlights the human component of this. I think sometimes, when we talk about policy and legislation, it feels very clinical, but there are very real human consequences to the decisions made in the House. Everything does come back to policy. This is an article that was written by Erin Clow. It was posted in The Province, which is a news publication.

I want to read some of the words she has written:

At the end of my first leave in 2020, I longed for more time with our son. Nearing the end of this leave, I feel a weight that is difficult to articulate, laden with sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach. In the early days of both parental leaves, the hours, days and weeks seemed long. Honestly, we were strangers who overnight became a family. We knew very little about each other and, most importantly, we didn’t know how to trust, let alone love one another. Each day was a monumental exercise in courage. We spent our time learning about one another. Learning about routines, what they liked and what they didn’t like. Learning how to be parents. Learning to love one another.

Again, I come back to my own experience as a first-time mom, and that is exactly how it feels when one gives birth, but imagine adopting a child who has already lived in the world and formed feelings and emotions, and trying to attach and make up for all of that time. Ideally, adoptive and intended parents should have more, if we think about the biology and physiology of what they have to overcome, yet they have less under this legislation. It makes no sense.

She continues, “It took months for me to start becoming the parent they deserved.” I would challenge Erin on that. I bet she was exactly the mother they needed from the day they were born and they were meant to be together, but I know that feeling of mom guilt.

She goes on, “Now all that remains are 27 days. This supported parental leave will end in 27 days and I can say without a doubt we need more time.”

Is that not the most valuable commodity we have on this planet? She continues, “Our daughter and son need additional time. We need months, not days, to continue the process of facilitating secure, enduring attachment for all members of our family.” She has written a very powerful article that really reiterates what it is like for these adoptive parents.

I want to go through some of the testimony that we heard in committee. I want to reiterate the common sense of this, in terms of the financial piece. Parents are already paying into the system. It is not like we would be trying to find this money. It is already funded.

So many programs that we see the Liberals pushing out to people right now are not funded, such as their pharmacare program and their child care program, which are underfunded and not working. They are not funded. This is. This is a really common-sense bill that would make it easy to give the foundation for kids and families to thrive.

Quite frankly, another conversation a lot of people do not want to have in this country is that the cost of living is increasing so much. My daughter has said to me that she could not have kids, that she could never afford it. What a feeling to have. What a feeling to have in this country, to not feel like one can afford to have a house, to feed one's family or to choose to have children, which is the greatest gift in the world. For people who choose not to have children, it is totally fine, but I am saying that, to take away that choice, is a realist issue in our country.

Another quote details, “Most children adopted in Canada are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and many have a history of trauma or serious loss. Having their new parent or caregiver(s) at home longer, in the critical first year, gives them time to form attachments and begin processing their grief and loss.”

I believe the member opposite may be able to chime in, and I know that she is over my shoulder. There was one woman in particular, and I think it was Cathy Murphy, who talked about how her child did not call her “'mama'” for three years.

It was three years of just “'Hey lady'”. That is so powerful because, whether one is an adoptive parent, an intended parent or a biological parent, showing up for one's kids when they are having a hard time is tough. It is the toughest responsibility any of us parents will ever face in our lives. Their behaviour is communication. These kids need so much more time to build trust. They do not have that. They have never had that. The trauma that many of them have faced is very real.

Financial stress is one of the biggest stressors in a family dynamic. If one is sitting there worried about how one is going to pay the mortgage, pay for food, pay for groceries or put gas in the car, guess what? One cannot be the parent one needs to be to the kid who needs one.

It is so simple to say to not worry, that one's EI, which one has already paid into, is here to help one be the best parent they can be. This is a very simple bill.

Another quote is that, “Of the 63,000 children currently in care, 30,000 are eligible for permanent adoption by loving families—” and listen to this, “only 2,000 children are adopted each year.” How many of those children are out there who do not know where they fit, who do not know that they have somewhere they belong? What a feeling. Maybe if more parents knew that there were incentives and help for them to give the love that they have in them to give, that number would go up.

Kyla Beswarick was adopted at age 10 with her two siblings. She said, “It took me two or three years to form that attachment.” An article explains, “Her mom had to quit her job to take care of Kyla’s high needs, including doctor and therapist appointments and adjusting to school, and couldn’t access parental leave.” Kyla, who is now 21, and who is amazing, said, “Imagine how I perceived the world, enduring such big breaks in trust and new environments. I was so young. That extra time would have helped me”.

Ashley Bach also testified at committee.

I will read this final one into the record because I think it is most powerful. It is from Julie Despaties, executive director of Adopt4Life:

I would like to leave you with these thoughts.

If we want a stronger tomorrow for our children, we must do right by them. As my good friend Irwin Elman, a former Ontario child and youth provincial advocate, says, you can't legislate love, but you can legislate the conditions in which love can flourish.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my thanks for your guidance today as I start my speech on Bill C-318.

This is a very important bill. I want to congratulate the member of Parliament who put forward this bill, as well as all the family members and advocates who pushed to make this a reality today.

This was a very good bill in its original form. However, I was deeply disappointed that the amendments to the bill, which I pushed forward at committee, to uphold Canadian law were thrown out. Those amendments would have ensured that this new piece of legislation, which hopefully will go forward, would be consistent with Bill C-15. That was adopted in the last Parliament, and it ensures that all legislation going forward is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Rather than upholding that law and upholding our constitutional obligations to ensure they are reflected in this current legislation, the Liberals at committee, first of all, voted against it, and then the member for Winnipeg North brought forward a point of order to throw out my amendments.

This is a pattern of behaviour I have witnessed from the government, a failure for this current government, to uphold the very law that it put forward in the last Parliament, a government bill. I want to point specifically to Bill C-15, section 5, which states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” By failing to uphold Bill C-15, the current government is wilfully not respecting Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I want to read into the record Articles 19, 20 and 21 so that we can have a permanent record of the specific human rights that the government is flippantly violating in refusing to amend this bill, even though the sponsor of the bill supported the amendments I put forward at committee and indicated that they were in the scope of the bill.

Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reads:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

I would like to remind the government that when we are talking about adoption and when we are talking about child welfare systems, in Manitoba alone, 90% of kids currently in child welfare are indigenous. Many families choose customary and kinship care arrangements. We have so many grandmothers in our communities who look after their loved ones without financial assistance, without the option of leaving work, doing double duty with no financial resources.

The Liberal government has been held in non-compliance over 14 times with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and it was to immediately stop racism against first nations kids on reserves. Once again, the government is showing a commitment to having a two-tiered system in this country: one for indigenous children and one for everybody else. The current government is demonstrating, through throwing out these amendments, that the human rights of indigenous kids are still not being respected.

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

Traditional means parenting. They need to be given the resources to be able to parent kids the way they choose. Let us not forget that there are more kids in care now than at the height of residential schools. It was well reported in the TRC report that we need systems reform in our child welfare system. The residential school system has left a legacy of intergenerational trauma and healing within our nation.

Not only did they throw out my amendments, but they are also throwing out the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. If the government is not ready to respond to the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is mainly giving our kids back, the government is far from reconciling with indigenous peoples in this country.

Article 20(2) states, “Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.” That includes financial resources so we are able to raise our kids in the way that we choose, not in poverty, so that we do not have to go to the Human Rights Tribunal and go after the government for years for it to finally settle $17 billion, more than what was asked. It is abhorrent what has happened in this House.

Article 21(2) states:

States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

I would like to remind the government, which threw out amendments to ensure that human rights of indigenous peoples would be upheld, to ensure we would be upholding Canadian law and to ensure that it is consistent with section 5 of Bill C-15, that the child welfare system has been named the pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls in this country.

We have a legacy of sixties scoop survivors who were separated from family and community, who have nowhere to return home to. However, on the very subject of our children, the government, once again, fails to take the opportunity to reconcile with indigenous peoples in Canada by giving us the resources we need to uphold our human rights to be able to raise our children in kinship and customary care arrangements.

Although the Speaker ruled my amendments as being out of scope, I would like to remind the House that they, in fact, were in scope because the government has the legal obligation to make sure all legislation going forward is consistent with Bill C-15 . I am going to urge the government because it still has the power to make a royal recommendation, with the amendments I put forward, to make sure it is consistent with human rights law. If it is serious about reconciliation, it will give our kids back.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑318, which seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with respect to adoptive and intended parents.

We know that when a child comes into our life, it is a huge moment that changes everything, but that also comes with a lot of stress. Those of us here who are parents have all been there. When we enter our home for the first time with our infant and our partner, we tell ourselves that it is time to step up to the plate.

I had the good fortune of carrying my two daughters. I had easy pregnancies. I even worked as a coach during one of my pregnancies. Not every woman is so lucky, however. Sometimes, nature forces some of us to put our dream of pregnancy aside and turn to alternatives such as adoption or surrogacy. It is not easy for these women to grieve their infertility. I have a great deal of empathy for them.

However, these women will become mothers, maybe not in a traditional way, but they will experience motherhood. They will have a chance to know what it means to love and be loved unconditionally.

At this time, women and couples in Canada who adopt a child are entitled to only 35 weeks, or eight months, of EI benefits. They have eight months to bond with their child, which does not sound like much. The bonding process needs to happen under the best possible conditions. In the case of adoption or surrogacy, the process is equally important, precisely because it is atypical. Every story is different. Every family is different.

I would like to quote Julie Despaties, the executive director of Adopt4Life, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities:

Today, children who are waiting to be adopted are often over the age of 7, and often in their teens and part of sibling groups. In fact, across Canada, we are seeing an overrepresentation of children with coexisting medical and neurodevelopmental challenges within the child welfare system.

It takes time to integrate a child into a new family environment, and it takes selflessness, compassion, kindness, patience and tenderness. The government's primary mission should be to give every child, regardless of their history or place of birth, an equal chance. This requires a solid foundation, first and foremost.

I want to read another quote, this time from Anne‑Marie Morel, president of the Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec. Here is what she said when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities:

Every extra week spent with an adopted child in the first year after adoption has an impact on their development and their lifelong relations with others.

As elected officials, we have the responsibility to make that possible. We must restore equality and fairness.

The changes proposed in the bill would also have a major impact on male couples. Although, in 2024, our society is open to the rights of members of the LGBTQ community, we still have a way to go when it comes to same-sex parenting. Gay men who want to have a family are discriminated against by their very nature. They cannot have children unless they adopt or use a surrogate. However, we know that international adoption is an extremely difficult process. I have many friends who have tried it. It is basically impossible for same-sex couples.

The countries that still allow international adoption are often ones where the mores are such that the state discriminates against members of the LGBTQ community.

Surrogacy is not the easiest option, either. When a gay couple decides to have a child, the process can be long, arduous and expensive. Although neither parent can claim to carry a child, they should not be relegated to a separate parental category. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that the parent-child bond is deep, enduring, strong and unshakable.

These new parents have the same rights, duties, feelings and questions. Most of all, they share the same desire to give their child everything.

A healthy bond helps children cope with a variety of situations as they grow, including separation from their parents—when they start day care or school, for example—co-operation with other children, and self-control. Bonding teaches children to trust others, which helps them form healthy relationships later in life.

I felt like sharing my thoughts this evening. That said, this is clearly an issue that only affects Canada, because Quebec introduced the Quebec parental insurance plan in 2006. Once again, Quebec was a forerunner; once again, Quebec took care of its people; once again, Quebec showed empathy. In 2020, Quebec went a step further by ending benefit discrimination for new parents.

Tonight, I call on my colleagues to show the same kind of compassion and kindness shown by the members of the Quebec National Assembly. We must give women and couples who use adoption and surrogacy the same rights as those who have natural pregnancies. Let us stop creating two classes of parents; stop with the injustice, inequity and discrimination; and stop basing benefits on a certain method of starting a family.

Motherhood, fatherhood and parenthood must be respected, no matter the path that is used to get there.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in this debate on the bill introduced by the hon. member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

I want to thank the member for bringing attention to an issue that matters to Canadians. Adoptive parents have been telling us that they want a new employment insurance benefit that provides them with the same number of weeks as birth parents. Currently, under the EI program, 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. This is in addition to the 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 shareable weeks under the extended option.

Adoptive parents also have access to support under the EI program. However, parents of adopted children are eligible for only 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 weeks of support. In short, the difference lies in the fact that adoptive parents do not have access to the 15 weeks of benefits that parents who give birth do.

In 2024, this needs to change. That is why these improvements to the EI program are included in Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The measures in Bill C-59 would create a new 15-week EI benefit that would add flexibility and better address the needs of adoptive parents and parents of children through surrogacy during the weeks surrounding the actual placement of the child.

The comprehensive measures in Bill C-59 reflect what we heard during our consultations with Canadians on the EI program in 2021 and 2022. They reflect the diverse and inclusive way families are formed today, and they provide needed flexibility.

Before I go into more detail about Bill C-59, let me outline how it resonates with the consensus we heard at the EI consultations on the issue of an inclusive program. In particular, the government absolutely acknowledges in Bill C-59 that adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy have income support needs that are related to their unique processes. Time devoted to a child helps create a family bond. This is true for birth and adoptive parents.

In the case of adoptive parents, it can help the child make up for any developmental delays or health setbacks and give that child a better chance to reach their full potential. Every extra week spent with an adoptive child in the first year after adoption has an impact on their development and their lifelong relations with others.

There is no question that for any new parent, having the time and resources to welcome and care for their child or children is precious and requires support. Also, additional time for adoptive parents to be with their children can be beneficial for their employers, as it would put these parents in a better state of mind when they return to work.

There is no doubt that what the member opposite proposes, and what we propose, is important. Leave with income support for adoptive and intended parents, so they can welcome and care for their children, needs to be part of a modern and inclusive El program.

The proposal in Bill C-318 does this in part, but we consider our approach in Bill C-59 to offer the better, more flexible and more responsive solution to address this important need.

We expect that each year, the government's proposed benefit would provide approximately 1,700 Canadian families with additional time and flexibility as they welcome a new child in their home. Parents through surrogacy, including 2LGBTQI+ families, would also be eligible for this benefit, and rightly so.

The government's proposed El adoption benefit would make El benefits inclusive and reflective of families in Canada. It would support parents going through adoption or surrogacy by providing temporary income support before the child arrives at home, for example, while they are finalizing the placement or travelling abroad to bring the child or children to Canada. That support would also extend to the early weeks of the child's arrival into the new family.

This equalization was a key ask by our stakeholders. It is the right thing to do, and it is an idea whose time has come. All of this will happen if Bill C-59 receives royal assent.

I also want to note, as we were told during the EI consultations, that the profiles of children and youth being adopted are often unique. Adopted kids are typically older, have sibling groups and have special needs. Cathy Murphy, chairperson of the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada, told us this during the consultations:

Even if a youth is joining their family at age 12 or 13, it's really important for that parent or caregiver to be there, to be able to meet them after school or to maybe take them out to their favourite lunch spot over lunch hour once a week, because that's usually the only way you're going to get them out to lunch.

By continually showing up and being actively involved in their life, they are going to realize after an extended period of time that their parents are there for them.

For the past eight years, we have been busy improving important programs so that life is more affordable for Canadians. From day one, the government has kept its promise to protect all Canadians, and we are using all the tools at our disposal to do so.

Canadians want an EI system for the 21st century. The government has heard these calls. It is a long-haul commitment, but we are taking the time to get it right, and we are not waiting for a grand reveal to make improvements along the way. Let me reassure my colleague opposite that the Government of Canada is taking a thorough approach to EI to ensure its continuous improvement for the benefit of all Canadians. Adoptive parents have asked for equal treatment. They deserve equal treatment, and the government has answered.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very important. I would actually say that this bill is more important than the provisions that are put into the FES. As I mentioned in my remarks, the Liberal government has not even brought forward that piece of legislation to debate. With my legislation, there is actually an enactment on royal assent.

We have no idea at all when this would be enacted, if it is like anything that they have done, such as child care, which is a mess, or the disability benefit, which Canadians with disabilities still have not received. It would do Canadians, especially adoptive and intended parents, a great service if they just gave Bill C-318 a royal recommendation, which would make sure that these intended and adoptive parents would know the date that they could apply for these benefits.

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, as all parents know, the arrival of a new child is life-changing. It comes with great joys and excitement. It is a precious time of bonding and many firsts, but it also comes with added expenses, time constraints and new challenges. While we all know that Canada’s employment insurance program helps to ease some of those pressures, we must confront the fact that not all families are treated equally. It is not a fair program, and it does not reflect the diversity of families here in Canada.

Families formed through adoption and surrogacy continue to be entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave, and this is a disadvantage that must be rectified. My private member’s bill, Bill C-318, does that through the creation of a new 15-week time-to-attach benefit for adoptive and intended parents. It also adjusts entitlement leave accordingly in the Canada Labour Code. It is a common-sense bill; addressing the inequity in our EI system should truly be a non-partisan issue.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has instead chosen to politicize it. While it claims to support equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents, the Liberal government’s actions suggest otherwise. At second reading, the member for Winnipeg North indicated that this was not a priority for the Liberal government when he said, “We might have had to put some limitations on some of the things we wanted to do as a result of the pandemic”. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that this bill would not get a royal recommendation because his own bill did not get one. Of course, this was followed by all but a handful of Liberal members of Parliament voting against the bill at second reading.

Following the committee’s consideration of this bill, the Liberal government challenged amendments that sought to remove any ambiguity around parental benefits for indigenous peoples. The opposition to this from the Liberals raises concerns about their intentions around achieving equal access to EI benefits for indigenous families with customary care arrangements.

Now, at third reading, this bill risks being dropped from the Order Paper altogether if a royal recommendation is not provided by the Liberal government. By all indications, unfortunately, this does not seem to be forthcoming. The Liberal government’s decision to include a benefit for adoptive and intended parents in Bill C-59 was a clear declaration that it does not intend to collaborate on this issue and that it is more focused on political games than rectifying the discrimination in our EI system in a timely manner.

Bill C-59 is an omnibus budget bill that would not course correct the harmful policies of the NDP-Liberal government, which are fuelling the affordability crisis in this country. The Liberal government not only tied its proposed benefit to a costly and convoluted omnibus bill but also did not even make this legislation a priority. It is the Liberal government that sets the agenda in this place, and it has not brought Bill C-59 up for debate since January. Frankly, it has just not been a priority for the Liberals. In fact, they have never made it a priority to address the discrimination in our EI system.

They have been promising this to adoptive parents since 2019; they extended this promise to intended parents last year, after I introduced Bill C-318. Providing equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents should not be a complicated problem to solve, especially with the agreement of all opposition parties. However, the Liberal government has voted against Bill C-318, failed to provide the royal recommendation needed, refused to work collaboratively and failed to exercise the political will necessary to just get the dang job done.

Shamefully, the Liberal government’s broken promises, delays and political games are happening at the expense of families. These families are hopeful and anxiously waiting to know if they will get the time they need and deserve with their child. The children who do not get the time they need with their parents are the greatest victims.

Adoptive and intended parents are not less deserving, and they certainly do not need less time with their children. It is often the case that these families face additional challenges in bonding and attachment. Access to equal leave can go a long way to support them.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard compelling testimony from adoptive parents and adoptees about the challenges they experienced attaching. We heard repeatedly how meaningful additional time to form strong and secure attachments would have been for their families and how 35 weeks was not enough time.

We need to listen to those voices and act in a timely manner. Cassaundra Eisner, an adoptee herself, shared with the human resources committee: “Moving in with people who were recently strangers is intimidating and very scary. Time to attach is something that would have helped that 11-year old little girl.”

Shelley Rottenberg, also an adoptee, shared that, if there had been more time early on, her mother would not have had “to worry about going to work and leaving me with someone else” and that it “would have sped up that process of growing and building that trust and the bond to have a more secure attachment.”

Cathy Murphy shared that it took three and a half years for her son to call her mama instead of “Hey, lady.”

Julie Despaties shared that she ultimately did not return to work after her leave, because she needed more time to support her three adopted children.

Erin Clow wrote that, near the end of her leave, she felt “a weight which is difficult to articulate, laden with the emotions of sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach.”

There are many more examples.

Providing adoptive families with an extra 15 weeks of leave is not only fair but will also help improve their long-term outcomes and help set these children up for success.

I have also heard from a lot of intended parents who are growing their families through surrogacy. These parents need to make a decision about their leave options in the immediate term; many are expecting their child and are hopeful that they will have access to an additional 15 weeks of leave.

I have also heard from parents who have made the decision to take the extended parental leave, at a significant financial disadvantage. Often it is not because they want to take a two-year leave, but rather because they want the same opportunity to be home with their child in the first year of their life. Canadians growing their families via surrogacy face a lot of added costs, and the disparity in benefits add to those financial pressures.

Child care is another consideration. It is more costly to get child care for an infant under a year old, and the reality across the country is that there are limited infant child care spaces. These added costs are made even worse given the growing affordability crisis.

Baden Colt shared with the human resources committee: “Having a child through surrogacy poses challenges that are not faced by most new parents, and these financial obstacles are compounded by the inability to access the same 15 weeks of maternity leave that most new parents get.” She said that children like her daughter “deserve every opportunity that her peers have in life and that begins with having the same amount of time to bond with her parents as any other Canadian child.” Her daughter does deserve the same time with her parents that is afforded to other children.

The Liberal government needs to set aside the partisanship and the political games that are costing families across this country the time to attach and bond with their children. It is well past time that all families, including adoptive and intended parents, get the time they need and deserve with their child.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before the House proceeds to Private Members' Business, the Chair wishes to remind members that pursuant to statements made on Thursday, May 4, 2023, and Monday, February 26, a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, since the bill would appropriate part of the public revenue.

Accordingly, if the bill is concurred in at report stage, the question on the motion for third reading will be put only if a royal recommendation is produced at the appropriate time.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting this morning is with regard to Bill C-318. Adoptive and intended parents are at a disadvantage under the current EI system, and all parents are deserving of equal access to parental benefits. Bill C-318 would deliver equitable access for parental leave for adoptive and intended parents alike.

Actually, the Speaker has ruled that the passage of Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation. These petitioners, citizens of Canada, call upon the government to support adoptive and intended parents by providing the royal recommendation that is needed for Bill C-318.

Motions in amendment

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of this bill, Bill S-205, which was first introduced by Senator Boisvenu in 2021. First, I want to acknowledge his hard work and effort in putting this bill forward, as well as his courage in sharing his story about how gender-based violence impacted his own family. With that in mind, I think it was critical for him to ensure this bill passed through the House.

In general, this bill sets out to protect survivors of intimate partner violence through various amendments to the Criminal Code. These include ensuring judges consult the accused's intimate partner about their safety and security needs; allowing judges to consider the use of an electronic monitor for interim release; and establishing a new type of recognizance order, or peace bond, for survivors of intimate partner violence. If granted, the peace bond would allow the judge to impose conditions that could include electronic monitoring and a treatment or domestic violence counselling program.

Given that this bill is of great importance, especially because we know that rates of gender-based violence have increased since the pandemic, I can affirm the committee worked very hard to ensure that this bill was reviewed promptly so it could be passed into law. I am very excited to be here for the debate today and to keep this bill moving along. The committee also worked to make necessary amendments to address concerns expressed by the study's witnesses.

While discussing the bill, it is important to emphasize that intimate partner violence is a national crisis. We certainly know, as I indicated, that rates of violence within the home have increased since the pandemic. We also see a connection between intimate partner violence and the mental health crisis we are currently witnessing in Canada.

In fact, every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. Given the severity of intimate partner violence, some Canadian cities, including Ottawa, Toronto and Kitchener, have gone so far as to declare it an epidemic. Therefore, we know that we need to address this crisis of violence. It is critical to put in place laws to ensure the safety of those who are experiencing violence.

Rates of intimate partner violence have been on the rise in recent years, especially, as I said, since the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 2014 and 2022, intimate partner violence rates increased by an alarming 20%. Intimate partner violence overwhelmingly impacts women, particularly young women. Forty-four per cent of women, or 6.2 million women aged 15 and older, have reported some kind of abuse in their intimate partner relationship. We often think about intimate partner violence in terms of those who are cohabiting, but even when we look at the impact on youth, the rates of intimate partner violence are alarming.

Women are similarly overrepresented in intimate partner homicides, which make up nearly one-fifth of all solved homicides in Canada. We also know that intimate partner violence disproportionately impacts low-income and indigenous women, as well as women who are visible minorities, disabled or 2SLGBTQ+. Particularly, there has been a rise of anti-trans hate happening in the country. We saw the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, fuelling the fires of anti-trans rhetoric last week when talking about safe places that will now exclude trans women.

We need to be vigilant in all areas of society to protect women. We know that the consequences of intimate partner violence are also very costly. The Department of Justice, for example, estimated the cost of intimate partner violence to be roughly $7.4 billion. It not only costs dignity and safety, it also costs us financially by turning a blind eye to the crisis of intimate partner violence.

One of the biggest concerns I had with this bill was the impact it might have on indigenous peoples. We know that the Liberal government throwing out the amendments to Bill C-318, as we heard this morning, is certainly not committed, but in the last Parliament, we did pass Bill C-15, which includes clause 5. It states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.”

Today, for example, it could have taken all the measures necessary to pass Bill C-13 and provide royal assent with the amendments to make sure it was consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It did not, but we know the Liberal government is not a champion of indigenous rights in this country as it continues to willfully violate our rights.

When we were amending Bill S-205, one of the concerns I had was related to indigenous peoples due to the ongoing legacy of colonial-state policies and laws. Indigenous people, as a result, are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system. We must make sure that our criminal justice system is consistent with Bill C-15, which affirms all legislation going forward. I know that this is a Senate bill, but, just as a matter of principle, it should be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In 2018, indigenous adults made up 30% of admissions to provincial and territorial custody and 29% of admissions to federal custody, while representing 4% of the population. Indigenous women made up an even greater share of those admitted into custody, at 42%. I moved an amendment in committee to add cases involving indigenous people to enable judges to consider alternative, culturally appropriate indigenous support services rather than imprisonment. This type of amendment is not only morally necessary, it is legally necessary as well. Again, Bill C-15 requires all Canadian government legislation to be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes requirements to prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions.

The Gladue principles in Canadian law compel judges to recognize the unique experiences of indigenous peoples, including prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions. Given these considerations, judges must consider alternatives to prisons while sentencing, such as, for example, alternative restorative justice.

I would like to thank everybody and congratulate Senator Boisvenu. I am looking forward to seeing this bill move quickly through the House. I would also like to thank the committee for the hard discussions we had getting this bill through committee.

Amendments to Bill C-318 at Committee Stage—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised February 8, 2024, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning the admissibility of amendments made to Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents, by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary stated that the four amendments adopted by the committee during its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill not only exceeded the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading, but also required a royal recommendation, since they seek to authorize new and distinct spending not authorized by the Employment Insurance Act or any other statute or appropriation.

In response, the member for Winnipeg Centre noted that since the adoption in the previous session of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, all federal legislation must be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a goal her amendments sought to achieve. She also indicated that the government had the power to provide the royal recommendation required for these amendments.

The House will recall that on May 4, 2023, the Chair ruled that Bill C‑318 required a royal recommendation when it stated at page 14043 of Debates, and I quote:

...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.

During the clause-by-clause study of the bill by the committee, four amendments moved by the member for Winnipeg Centre were adopted. The amendments to clause 1 and clause 8 apply to the Employment Insurance Act and the amendments to clause 14 and clause 17 apply to the Canada Labour Code.

The amendments to clauses 1 and 8 modify the bill to include, for the purposes of the new benefit created by the bill, a situation where one or more indigenous children could be placed with a claimant, other than the child’s parents, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the indigenous group, community or people to which they belong. With the new provisions, the claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury, a notion which is not currently provided for in the bill as adopted at second reading.

Both amendments had been ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee since they would create a new and distinct charge on the public treasury and as such would require a royal recommendation. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at 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.

Bill C-318 also proposes amendments to the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave in the case of the transfer of a child through adoption or a child born through surrogacy. The amendments to clauses 14 and 17 create a new corresponding extended leave of absence to match the benefit established by the first two amendments to clauses 1 and 8. Here, the committee chair deemed both amendments to be beyond the scope of the bill and thus also ruled them inadmissible.

In the case of all four amendments, the committee chair’s rulings were challenged and overturned, and the amendments ultimately adopted.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, the admissibility of any amendments adopted by a committee may be challenged on procedural grounds in the House after a bill is reported back. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 779:

The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on the Speaker’s own initiative.

When called upon to deal with such matters, the Chair is guided by Speaker Fraser’s explanation of April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates, and I quote:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

In light of the arguments presented by both the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for Winnipeg Centre, the Chair has examined the four amendments at issue. The amendments to clause 1 and clause 8 do indeed propose a charge upon the public revenue and therefore infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.

While the Chair recognizes that challenges may arise when a committee must examine a bill where the Speaker has previously determined that a royal recommendation will be required before putting the question at third reading, a committee must still carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. As explained by Speaker Milliken in his ruling from November 19, 2009, at page 6939 of the Debates:

In my view, by adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, even when it is directed at a clause itself needing a royal recommendation, a committee ventures beyond its mandate.

As previously stated, the bill aims to create a new benefit and corresponding extended leave for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The amendments to clauses 8 and 14 provide that one or more indigenous children could be placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a person other than the child’s parents. This person could be entitled to an extended leave, which introduces a new concept not found in the bill as adopted at second reading. Thus, these amendments do go beyond the scope of Bill C-318.

Consequently, I must order that all four amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

In addition, I am ordering that the reprint of Bill C-318, as ordered by the committee, be cancelled. The text of the bill as adopted at second reading will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.

Given that the bill is now reported back from committee without amendment, the requirement for a royal recommendation, as explained in the Chair's ruling from May 4, 2023, stands. Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading unless a royal recommendation is received.

I thank all members for their attention.

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

Mr. Fragiskatos, thank you for this opportunity and I invite you to offer us your support when we adopt Bill C-319 during clause-by-clause consideration.

Like my colleague Ms. Larouche, I'm not supporting this cause just because I belong to the Bloc Québécois. Other colleagues around the table have noted the importance of fairness in various aspects of society, as Ms. Falk did when she introduced her Bill C-318 to provide leave for adoptive parents in the same way as biological parents.

We're in the same situation here. This is a fairness issue. Canada made the choice to establish an old age security pension plan. It decided that Canadians could receive benefits under the plan starting at age 65. Bravo! Many people in our society live solely on the assistance of public plans. We have heard extensive testimony on the subject.

Ms. Larouche, fairness is one of the values you advocate in Bill C-319, which is also based on the recognition of seniors' dignity, and I'd like to hear you discuss that aspect.

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

Yes, it's really interesting. I think, too, that when we actually look at the history and the facts in the most recent years, it's this Liberal government that increased OAS pension amounts for seniors aged 75 and older. Really, the Liberals are the ones who created two classes of seniors when it comes to the OAS, and your bill will help rectify that division and discrimination that some seniors are experiencing.

However, as it was said by my NDP colleague Bonita, your bill requires a royal recommendation in order to go forward.

My PMB also requires royal recommendation, and I know that if this royal recommendation is not given, because the Liberals decide not to give it, which seems to be their trend.... There are other bills—extending sick leave, for example, for Canadians to be able to access EI via sick leave— that they have voted for but failed to give royal recommendation on. They showed that they really don't care what they do or say in the House. They'll give the facade that they care, but at the end of the day, they don't.

It's the same with my bill, Bill C-318, which would give an adoption benefit for intended and adoptive parents, which they also voted against. They spoke very positively here but will not give it royal recommendation.

When that royal recommendation isn't given by third reading in the House, it just drops off the Order Paper. Our bills just disappear.

Madame Larouche, what are your thoughts? Why do you think the Liberals don't care? Clearly, they don't care about seniors, and we can look at the other bills in which we see holes. I could argue....

We're talking to Canadians and we're hearing what their concerns are. That's why we do all this work for private members' bills. It's to make life better for Canadians.

Why do you think they're just so hell-bent on not working collaboratively and are so arrogant and proud, and not a little humble and saying, “You know what? You're right. Let's collaborate. Let's make this work. This is better for Canadians”?

Children and Families

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table my last petition regarding Bill C-318. We know that adoptive and intended parents in our country are at a disadvantage under the current EI system, and all parents deserve equal access to parental leave benefits. Bill C-318 delivers equitable access to parental leave for adoptive and intended parents.

The undersigned of this petition, the residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to support adoptive and intended parents by providing a royal recommendation for Bill C-318.

Amendments to Bill C-318 at Committee Stage

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to intervene on a point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg North this morning respecting Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents.

My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, mentioned the committee process, where I tabled crucial amendments to this legislation that would bring the bill into compliance with Canadian law, specifically with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Let me remind the government that it is the government that passed Bill C-15, which affirms that all legislation going forward has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Not including these important amendments means that the legislation now is not compliant with articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member of Parliament for Winnipeg North talked about the amendments being out of scope, but even the sponsor of the bill said that the amendments were absolutely within the scope of what Bill C-318 was trying to do.

My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, also pointed out the need for a royal recommendation for these amendments. I would like to encourage him to reconsider this, considering he has the highest number of kids in care in an urban area in the whole country, 90% who are indigenous.

What my colleague failed to mention is that the Liberal government has the power to allow the amendments to proceed by giving notice of a royal recommendation for Bill C-318. In fact, Bosc and Gagnon, at page 839, states the following:

...since Standing Order 79 was changed in 1994, private Members’ bills involving the spending of public money have been allowed to proceed through the legislative process on the assumption that a royal recommendation will be submitted by a Minister of the Crown before the bill is to be read a third time and passed

The only ones who can act right now are the Liberals. On their watch, they are not upholding Canadian law, which includes Bill C-15. We are meeting about the red dress right now, about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. The child welfare system is called the pipeline for becoming murdered and missing. The government's failure is not addressing the 90% of kids in care.

It is only the Liberals who can save the lives of indigenous children who are being dropped off at shelters, separated from their families and communities. I am asking them to table a royal recommendation to do the right thing to ensure that Bill C-318 can go to a vote at third reading with the amendments adopted by committee. Although they have mentioned they are putting forth Bill C-59, a similar bill, once again it is not consistent with upholding Canadian law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is in the hands of the Liberals. Lives are in their hands. They need to put forward a royal recommendation. This is a life and death matter. They have to stop playing with indigenous lives and do what is needed now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting the committee consideration of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with respect to adoptive and intended parents, standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

Now that the bill has been reported from committee and is now in the possession of the House, I would like to draw the attention of the Speaker to amendments made at committee that should be ruled inadmissible.

During the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities' consideration of the bill, amendments were made to clauses 1, 8, 14 and 17 that exceed the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. Moreover, the amendments infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. Without commenting on the merits of the amendments, I will say that each of the four amendments seeks to add a new concept to the bill and therefore exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading.

I would also add that, in addition to exceeding the scope of the bill, the amendments would seek to authorize new and distinct spending for purposes not authorized by the Employment Insurance Act or any other statute or appropriation.

During clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the chair ruled as follows in relation to the amendment to clause 1. He stated:

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.

The member for Winnipeg Centre moved a motion to challenge the ruling of the Chair. The committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair, and the clause was adopted as amended.

Since the same amendment was moved on clauses 8, 14 and 17, the chair ruled these amendments inadmissible on the same grounds as the amendment to clause 1. The decision of the chair was then challenged for each of these amendments and the—

Employment Insurance

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, my second petition is with regard to maternity and parental benefits when couples have a child. However, adoptive and intended parents are at a disadvantage under the current system and they should have equal access as new parents. Bill C-318 would deliver equitable access to parental leave for adoptive and intended parents.

I know there is support for this bill across the House, and the petitioners are calling for a royal recommendation on Bill C-318.

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

Mr. Speaker, adoptive and intended parents are at a disadvantage under the current EI system here in Canada. 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 undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to support adoptive and intended parents by providing a royal recommendation to Bill C-318.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise once again to 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.

Bill C-318 would deliver equitable access to parental leave for adoptive and intended parents, and 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, which was just presented in the House.

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...?

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, departmental officials, I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 96 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members may attend in person or remotely by using the Zoom application. Today everybody is attending in person.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of all participants.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For interpretation, those in the room will use the earpiece that you have and select the official language of your choice. Interpretation services will be provided. You have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. If there is a problem with interpretation or translation, please get my attention by raising your hand. We'll suspend while the issue is being clarified.

For the benefit and protection of the translators, I advise you to please keep your earpiece away from the microphone and to make sure the “vibrate” function on your telephone is not on while it is close to the mic because it will cause an issue with the translation.

Again, I remind you to direct all comments through me, the chair.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 20, 2023, the committee will begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code relative to adoptive and intended parents.

I will provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-318. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will consider and vote on the preamble, the short title, the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of adopted amendments as well as an indication of deleted clauses.

We have appearing with us this afternoon witnesses from the Department of Employment and Social Development. We have Madame Nandy, director general, employment insurance policy, skills and employment branch; Madame Field, executive director, employment insurance benefits processing; Soojin Yu, director, special benefits; Magalie Brochu, manager, special benefits; and Neil Burron, manager, strategic policy and legislative reform.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of of the preamble is postponed.

I, the chair, call clause 1.

(On clause 1)

Ms. Gazan, go ahead.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to provide the House with an explanatory ruling on the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. On November 29, 2023, I ruled that the order for consideration of the motion, and the subsequent bill based thereon, be allowed to proceed further.

On November 28, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition challenged the admissibility of the motion. He pointed out that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), both currently in committee, were substantially the same as provisions covered in Ways and Means Motion No. 19, tabled earlier that day.

Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill based on the provisions of the motion. This is indeed what happened with the subsequent introduction of 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.

The House leader argued that the two private members’ bills had already been the subject of decisions of the House at second reading. The ways and means motion and Bill C-59 would violate a procedural concept, the rule of anticipation, which he described as the “same question rule”. Quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 568, the member seemed to suggest that a ways and means motion could not anticipate a matter already standing on the Order Paper and which was contained in another form of proceeding. He asserted that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 were more effective tools to accomplish the desired intent than Ways and Means Motion No. 19. As such, both these bills should have priority over the motion.

He also cited precedents in relation to bills that could or could not proceed further, based on the fundamental principle that the same question cannot be decided twice within a session.

The member further suggested that Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be put in abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, based on the rule of anticipation.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that further consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 19, as well as subsequent proceedings on an associated bill, was in order. He referenced past precedents about similar bills. He made the point that the provisions in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contained numerous elements that are not found in Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, which indicates that the principle and scope of the ways and means motion are broader than what is found in either of the bills. As such, Ways and Means Motion No. 19, and the bill based thereon, constituted different questions.

In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition quoted from page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the rule of anticipation. The Chair would like to read, from the same page, prior to the quoted passage. It states:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

Further down on the same page it says, “While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.”

Even though the notion of anticipation is described in our procedural authorities, and the expression is sometimes colloquially used in points of order and even some past rulings dealing with similar items, it is indeed a very difficult concept to apply in our context.

Establishing a hierarchy between bills and motions, or between categories of bills, and giving precedence to some, may prove difficult, except in very specific cases, detailed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Bills and motions are different by nature and achieve different ends.

What the Chair is seized with in reviewing the current matter is the rule forbidding the same question from being decided twice in the same session. It is different from the concept of anticipation and, in the view of the Chair, the one that should apply.

In his submission, the House leader of the official opposition cited various recent precedents, and the Chair thinks it pertinent to describe some of their procedural subtleties.

The first example, from the last Parliament, pertained to two bills not identical, but substantially similar: Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting, a private members' bill, and Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding single event sport betting, a government bill. Both were at second reading and both were very short bills touching the same section of the Criminal Code.

By adopting Bill C‑218 at second reading, the House had agreed to the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C‑13 also sought to amend. This sequencing left the House with a situation where Bill C‑13 could not move forward as long as Bill C‑218 continued its course.

The second example, from earlier this session, described a budget implementation bill, Bill C-19, and a votable private members’ bill amending the Criminal Code regarding the promotion of anti-Semitism, Bill C-250. The latter, introduced on February 9, 2022, contained provisions that were subsequently included in Bill C-19, introduced on April 28, 2022. However, of the two bills, the government bill was the first to be adopted at second reading and referred to committee. One of the key differences was that the two bills were not substantially identical. Bill C-19 was much broader in scope than Bill C-250. By agreeing to Bill C-19, the House de facto agreed with the principles presented in C-250. No decision having yet been made on Bill C-250, the Chair ordered that it be held as pending business until such time as royal assent be granted to Bill C-19.

Finally, the member referenced rulings dealing with two votable Private Members’ Business items, Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, and Bill S-211, an act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff. The two bills had the same objective and only one was allowed to proceed further. The Chair indicated at the time that the case involved an unusual set of circumstances, since normally one of them could have been designated as non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business had the sequence of events been different.

The House leader's main argument hinged on the question of whether provisions contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and therefore Bill C-59 are similar or identical to Bills C-318 and C-323.

Bills C‑318 and C‑323 have been both read a second time and referred to committee, while no decision has yet been made on Bill C‑59. An exhaustive review of its provisions shows that it does contain some similar provisions found in the two aforementioned private members' bills. However, Bill C‑59 cannot be described as substantially similar or identical to them.

Its scope is vastly broader, containing many more elements than what is included in Bills C-318 and C-323, including taxation legislation and provisions requiring a royal recommendation

The bills are similar in part, but are not substantially the same. The principles of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, as adopted at second reading, are indeed included in the broader Bill C-59, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the decision the House will take on Bill C-59 will not be the same. Accordingly, there is no procedural reason to stop the bill from continuing its journey through the legislative process.

To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first.

I note that the House leader of the official opposition rose earlier today on a different point of order considering the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59. I wish to inform the member and the House that I am reviewing the matter closely and I do intend to come back with a ruling in a timely manner.

Nonetheless, for the time being, the Chair sees no reason to rule that Bill C-59 be put in abeyance. As for the two Private Members' Business items currently in committee, it seems premature for the Chair to intervene at this time.

I thank all members for their attention.

Bill C-59—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, to ask that you treat 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, as an omnibus bill, and divide it for voting purposes at the second and third reading stages.

This argument is, of course, without prejudice to the arguments which were made last week by me in respect of the rule against anticipation and Ways and Means Motion No. 19, which preceded the introduction of Bill C-59, for which the House is still awaiting a ruling from the Speaker.

Section (1) of Standing Order 69.1 provides that “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". Section (2) of the same standing order makes an exception for budget implementation bills, stating, “if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation”.

As Speaker Regan ruled on November 8, 2017, at page 15143 of the Debates, where a budget bill contains measures which were not part of the budget, this budget bill exemption applies only to those elements which were in the budget itself. The non-budget elements can be divided under the provisions of Standing Order 69.1(1).

In the case of Bill C-59, calling it a budget implementation bill would be exceedingly generous. While reference to the March budget can be found in the long title, the short title ignores this, calling the bill the “fall economic statement implementation act, 2023”. Not even the government House leader, the manager of the government's parliamentary program, used it as a budget implementation bill, judging by her remarks in the last two weekly business statements. On November 23, she told the House, “it is the intention of the government to commence debate next week concerning the bill relating to the fall economic statement”. This past Thursday, she said that priority will be given to the second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement. Therefore, I would argue that the evident treatment given to Bill C-59 by its own proponents, would mean that its main purpose is, indeed, not the implementation of a budget. Accordingly, it would follow that the exemption found in Standing Order 69.1(2) cannot apply here.

I would further argue that Speaker Regan's November 2017 ruling can be distinguished from the facts at hand today, namely that he dealt with a budget bill with a few extra add-ons. Here, we have a bill that is not even being treated, in the main, as a budget implementation bill and that, therefore, cannot even benefit from a partial exemption, since the main purpose of Bill C-59 is not to implement a budget.

Having addressed that matter, I now wish to turn to the matter of treating the bill as an omnibus one, “where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked”. In my respectful view, the fact that a series of measures may have been previewed in a fall economic statement does not amount to a so-called common element. Given that fall economic statements are often popularly dubbed “mini-budgets” and that the House itself recognizes that budgets often string together otherwise unrelated things by creating the budget implementation bill exemption in Standing Order 69.1, it is my submission that the mere inclusion of an item in a fall economic statement cannot be sufficient to overcome the treatment required for an omnibus bill.

Even if the Chair might be persuaded that all of the measures are, in one form or another, a matter of broad economic policy, I would refer you to Speaker Regan's March 1, 2018, ruling at page 17551 of the Debates:

In presenting arguments relating to Bill C-63, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard raised an interesting concept from the practice in the Quebec National Assembly. Quoting from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, he stated:

“The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.”

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

In this particular instance, I have no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-69 relate to environmental protection. However, I believe there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated that they warrant multiple votes.

Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton dealt with another similar situation when he ruled on June 18, 2018, at page 21163 of the Debates, in respect of a former Bill C-59, stating it:

...does clearly contain several different initiatives. It establishes new agencies and mechanisms for oversight of national security agencies and deals with information collection and sharing as well as criminal offences relating to terrorism. That said, one could argue, as the parliamentary secretary did, that since these are all matters related to national security, there is, indeed, a common thread between them. However, the question the Chair must ask itself is whether these specific measures should be subjected to separate votes.

He goes on to state, “In this particular case, while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question.”

Therefore, I would suggest that today's bill, Bill C-59, should also be divided for voting purposes at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

After a brief review and analysis of the bill's contents, it seems that it could actually be divided into several groupings: clauses 1 to 95, proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act and consequential amendments to other enactments, as well as the bill's short title; clauses 96 to 128, proposing the creation of a digital services tax; clauses 129 to 136, 138 to 143 and 145 to 167, proposing amendments concerning the excise tax, other than the exemption of GST for mental health services, which is also contained in Bill C-323, a matter to which I will return later; clauses 168 to 196, proposing amendments to the laws governing financial institutions; clauses 197 to 208, proposing to create a leave entitlement related to pregnancy loss and to amend the law concerning bereavement leave; clauses 209 to 216, proposing the creation of a Canada water agency; clauses 217 and 218, proposing amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act; clauses 219 to 230, proposing amendments to the Canadian Payments Act; clauses 231 to 272 proposing various amendments to competition law; clauses 273 to 277, proposing amendments exempting post-secondary schools from the laws concerning bankruptcy and insolvency; clauses 278 to 317, proposing various legislative amendments concerning money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasions; clauses 318 and 319, concerning the information which is published by the government respecting certain transfer payments to the provinces; clauses 320 to 322, proposing amendments concerning the Public Sector Pension Investment Board; and clauses 323 to 341, proposing the creation of a department of housing, infrastructure and communities.

Additionally, I would propose that clauses 137 and 144, concerning the exemption of GST for mental health services, mirroring the provisions of Bill C-323, as well as clauses 342 to 365, creating employment insurance and job protection benefits for adoptive and surrogate parents, replicating the substance of Bill C-318, should also be separated out from Bill C-59. However, in this instance, I would suggest that, instead of a separate vote, these provisions would simply not proceed further given that the House has already taken a decision on the principle of those matters when it adopted the common-sense Conservative private members' bills at second reading.

Approaching it in this fashion might be an elegant solution to squaring the circle in the ruling that remains pending on Ways and Means Motion No. 19.

In short, Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation bill, is an omnibus bill under Standing Order 69.1. It qualifies in no way for the budget bill exemption in that rule. It can and should be divided into separate votes, about 14 or so based on the thematic groupings of the bill's clauses. It would, if so divided, offer an elegant solution for a pending Speaker's ruling to reconcile the long-standing rules and precedents of the House respecting multiple decisions on the same question that, for reasons we are awaiting, did not apply to Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and that saw the House vote, yet again, on the principles found in two Conservative private members' bills that had already been adopted at second reading.

Employment Insurance

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition that I am presenting is in support of Bill C-318, for my colleague. Petitioners want to see the government support this bill and provide a royal recommendation to allow all parents to have equal access to parental leave benefits, including adoptive families.

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

Madam Speaker, in my final petition, the undersigned understand that adoptive and intended parents are at a disadvantage when it comes to leave and time with their children. All parents deserve equal access to parental leave benefits, and Bill C-318 would deliver this equitable access.

The Speaker has said this bill needs a royal recommendation, and the undersigned are asking that the government provide that royal recommendation to Bill C-318.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition recognizing that maternity and parental benefits provide parents with critical financial supports and that adoptive and intended parents are currently at a disadvantage under the EI system.

The petitioners are calling on the government to support the adoption of a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-318, which would deliver equitable parental leave for adoptive and intended parents. This must be done by way of royal recommendation.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, my fifth petition calls for the Government of Canada, and the Speaker specifically, to give royal recommendation to Bill C-318 so that adoptive and intended parents are able to better support their families.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed.

I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business.

The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill.

Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails.

Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day.

Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).

With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown.

The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation.

As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19.

Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with.

The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial.

The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same.

The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills.

The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider.

In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.

[Carolyn McLeod, Professor, Western University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

My name is Carolyn McLeod, as was said. I'm a professor of philosophy at Western University. I'm pleased to be able to speak to the standing committee on the value of the sorts of benefits laid out in Bill C-318.

The relative credentials that I have are that I'm the lead author of a report you may have seen called “Time to Attach: An Argument in Favour of EI Attachment Benefits”.

I'm an adoptive parent of two children who came to us at ages three and six. I was the founding chair of the board of directors for Adopt4Life. I am an expert, academically, on the ethical dimensions of forming families through adoption or through assisted or unassisted reproduction, and I've contributed to public policy in these areas.

I was recently recognized for this work by the Royal Society of Canada, of which I am now a fellow.

My brief comments will centre on the “Time to Attach” report, which discusses the need for attachment benefits. We argue in favour of having these benefits for the sake of children who find permanency through adoption, kinship or customary care.

Unlike Bill C-318, we do not touch on surrogacy, which is not to say that our argument could not be extended to children born of surrogacy. I won't comment one way or another on that issue. Rather, I just want to summarize our main argument that children in adoptive, kinship or customary care families need more time to attach.

Among those families, we're focused on those who provide permanency to children, and so obtain permanent, legal custody of their children. Many of these families do legally adopt their children, but some don't, and some who do adopt them don't identify as adoptive families.

Regardless, for simplicity, we use the language of adoption to refer to all of them, and we acknowledge how imperfect that language is.

Just to summarize our main argument, I'm going to read here from the executive summary.

[The Time to Attach] report highlights a problem in Canada’s system of parental leave benefits, which is that it fails to recognize the unique challenges that tend to accompany an adoption.... Consider that adoptive parents are eligible only for what the government calls ‘parental benefits,’ whereas biological parents are eligible for parental benefits plus ‘maternity benefits.’ The purpose of maternity benefits is to respond to the special challenges that accompany pregnancy and birth. But there are no comparable benefits for adoptive parents, none that respond to needs that are unique to their families compared to biological ones.

What the system does, then, is treat adoption as though it is parenting minus pregnancy and birth. On this view, there is nothing special about adoption; it is like any other form of parenting except that it didn’t begin with a pregnancy and birth. But such claims about adoption are patently false.

[Our] report advocates for the introduction of attachment benefits for adoptive parents. Our main argument in favour of these benefits proceeds as follows. Central among the unique challenges that adoptive parents face is that of encouraging their child to attach to them as their parent or primary caregiver. While all parents can experience difficulties with attachment and bonding...the difficulties are heightened and much more common with adoption than with biological reproduction. That is true even when the adoptive parents have a kinship relationship to the child, because children tend to lack the kind of attachment we’re focused on with kin who are not their biological parents.

Adopted children often have trouble forming secure attachments to their new parents, understandably so given the kinds of experiences they tend to have before being adopted. Relevant experiences include the loss or disruption of their connection to birth parents, maltreatment by parents or caregivers, and multiple placements from foster care. The result is often an ‘insecure pattern of attachment,’ as it is called in the psychological literature. This condition affects not only one’s ability to form attachments with others, but also one’s overall social, emotional, and cognitive development.

Despite these difficulties, adoption has been shown to be effective in helping children develop more healthy patterns of attachment. This outcome takes time, however, as well as patience and commitment on the part of adoptive parents. It is particularly important that adoptive parents have time at the beginning of an adoption placement to help their child grieve the loss of previous attachments or minimize [that loss] through openness to kin, where appropriate. At the same time, they need the child to start attaching to them as their parent, which in turn will help them bond to the child.

Attachment is therefore a challenge with most adoptions, which makes adoption unique compared to biological parenthood....

...adoption is not parenting minus pregnancy and birth. Instead, it involves providing love and security to a child who once had these things but lost them or who may have never had them before. The Canadian government needs to recognize this fact and also value adoption. It therefore should create a whole new category of benefits: attachment benefits....

That's our central argument in the report, which we defended in various ways. For example, we draw on social scientific literature on attachment and adoption to show that adopted children need more time to attach than they're currently given in Canada. We also argue that legal, moral and international standards support giving the children this time and having equal leave benefits for adoptive and biological families.

Interestingly, our research shows that Canada is an outlier among comparator nations like Australia, the U.K. and Germany in not offering the same or very similar leave entitlements to adoptive parents as it does for biological ones.

Finally, our report summarizes the result of a survey we did of 974 adoptive parents in Canada. Those results were overwhelmingly positive in favour of attachment benefits.

At this point, I'm happy to answer questions you have about the research or related matters. I'll do that to the best of my ability without my co-authors by my side. Some of them have more expertise than I in certain aspects of the report.

Thank you for this opportunity to highlight the work we did on “Time to Attach”.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, the clerk has advised me that there is a quorum present and that all witnesses and members appearing virtually have had their sound quality verified, so I will call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 30, 2023, the committee will continue its consideration of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members and witnesses are attending in person in the room and virtually as well.

I will remind those in the room and those attending virtually that you have the option to choose the official language of your choice. If there is a disruption in the translation, please get my attention and I will suspend while it's being clarified. Those of you attending virtually can use the globe symbol on the bottom of your Surface screen. Click on it, and choose the official language that you wish to participate in. Those attending in the room, please keep your earpiece away from the microphone for the protection of the interpreters.

Appearing with us today, in the room, we have Cathy Murphy, chairperson and adoptive parent, for the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada. Then, by video conference and as an individual, we have Shelley Rottenberg, instructional assistant.

We will begin the first hour with an opening statement from Ms. Rottenberg.

Ms. Rottenberg, you have five minutes for your opening statement.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order challenging the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 concerning the fall economic statement implementation bill, which was tabled earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is my submission that the motion offends the rule against anticipation, sometimes also known as the “same question rule”. That rule is described on page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with...If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.

The rule against anticipation has been building a significant number of precedents in the past few years in light of the NDP-Liberal government's growing pattern of stealing common-sense Conservative private members' bills to add to their own legislative agenda. While our authorities suggest that such points of order should be raised only when the second question is actually proposed from the Chair, I recognize that in light of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 being an omnibus proposal, exceeding 500 pages in length, you, Madam Speaker, might appreciate having the evening to reflect on the issues I am about to discuss before the government intends to call it for consideration tomorrow.

In the present case, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 includes provisions that the House has already adopted in principle at second reading through two private members' bills.

On September 20, the House passed second reading Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by the Conservative hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. The summary printed on the inside cover of the bill reads:

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.

Last week's fall economic statement on pages 43 and 42 states that:

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes to introduce a new 15-week shareable EI adoption...Surrogate parents will also be eligible for this benefit.

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement also proposes to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, as well as corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving the EI adoption benefit.

Those provisions appear as clauses 342 to 365 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. While the legislative language used varies, the ultimate policy objective and therefore the principle of the matter remains the same as a close examination of the two passages I quoted reveals.

The second private member's bill stolen by the government this week is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, mental health services, sponsored by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, which the House passed at second reading on September 27. My colleague's bill would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling from GST. Clause 137 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 would do the exact same thing, except that the government refers to “counselling therapy” instead of Bill C-323's “mental health counselling”. That is, I would submit, a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, I would draw the Chair's attention to clause 144 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 that makes coordinating provisions if each is enacted, which demonstrates the government also sees these as identical measures, but what is especially galling is subclause 144(5), “For greater certainty, if this Act receives royal asset then the other Act [Bill C-323] is deemed never to have produced its effects.” The government would prefer to toss my colleague's important bill down the memory hole. That is just shameful.

Your predecessor, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates, ruled that government Bill C-13 could not be proceeded with further following the House's adoption of Bill C-218, citing the rule against anticipation. In so ruling, the Chair said:

The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.

The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes....

Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with.

As for the technical differences between those two bills, the Speaker offered a common-sense solution to reconcile them: “the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study.”

I would respectfully submit that if the government has any concerns about the drafting of Bill C-318 or Bill C-323, the solution is to bring amendments to committee, not to bigfoot them by throwing them into an omnibus budget bill, but that is exactly what happened here. It is what happened last year when Bill C-250, sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, was scooped up by the government and placed in Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill.

In a May 11, 2022, ruling at page 5123 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker held:

Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions....

The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.

However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.

Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

In the case of Bill C-250, the Deputy Speaker directed that it be held as pending business until the final fate of Bill C-19 could be determined. On September 20, 2022, your predecessor ordered Bill C-250 to be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper, given that Bill C-19 had by then received royal assent. A similar pair of rulings occurred on June 6, 2022, and May 11, 2023, in respect of Bill C-243 in light of its overlap with Senate Bill S-211.

While these rulings are all quite recent, they were not novel. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, reached the same conclusion for managing this sort of legislative traffic jam:

Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Standing Order 94(1) empowers and directs the Speaker to, “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”. That standing order, I would submit, behooves you to safeguard the process of Private Members' Business as much as possible by drawing a firm and bright line for the government to stop poaching common-sense Conservative bills and claiming them as their own.

One final consideration I want to place before the Chair is one that did not arise in the context of the pairs of bills and the precedents I have cited. We are dealing here with a ways and means motion, not a bill. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 568, explain the relevance of this distinction in the role against anticipation:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding.

The associated footnote points readers to other authorities for a fuller explanation, such as the U.K.'s Erskine May. That book's 25th edition, at paragraph 20.13, explains:

...a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated, but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion....

This principle was explained matter-of-factly by Speaker Casgrain on February 24, 1936, at page 68 of the Journals: “A Bill has the right-of-way and cannot be sidetracked by a Motion.”

In the circumstances, if the precedents and procedural authorities of this House are to be applied consistently, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 must be put into abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323. I would urge you, Madam Speaker, to so rule.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, the credibility they have is zero. We see this with my private member's bill, Bill C-318. They voted against it and then they scooped it up and put it in the fall economic statement. It just proves that the Liberals are out of touch and out of ideas and that it is time for a Conservative government.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that Bill C-318, which would amend EI and the Labour Code for adoptive and intended parents to give them time to attach, needs royal recommendation.

I am presenting a petition today in which citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to support adoptive and intended parents by providing a royal recommendation for the bill so parents can have time to attach to their children.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Despaties and Ms. Morel. Thank you for your testimony this afternoon on this important private member's bill.

I'm thrilled about what's happening, obviously, with MP Falk's Bill C-318, and I am thrilled to see this in the FES, the fall economic statement. I know through social media.... I believe you had a meeting with Minister Boissonault. Ms. Morel, I believe you also had a meeting with the minister.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today to chat about Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents). It was put forth by my colleague MP Falk, and it's very important legislation.

Ms. Despaties, do you have any data on how long it takes older children to bond or attach to their adoptive parents? Do you have that data?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The three minutes have passed and we're ready to resume with the second hour and witness testimony on Bill C-318.

We have with us, in person in the room, Julie Despaties, executive director of Adopt4Life.

We also have with us Ms. Anne‑Marie Morel, president of the Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec.

Ms. Despaties, you have the floor for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Falk.

With that, we will suspend for a few moments while we prepare for the second hour of witness testimony on Bill C-318. We'll suspend for three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

With that, thank you, Mrs. Falk, for appearing for the first hour as a witness on Bill C-318. Do you have any closing comments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll have a recorded vote on the motion of Ms. Gray as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Actually, we only have three minutes left of the first round. I will go to Mr. Van Bynen to conclude the first hour with Ms. Falk on Bill C-318.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Bynen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague for introducing Bill C‑318.

As time goes by, the ground rules for Canada's federal employment insurance program have become inequitable. My understanding is that one of the objectives of this bill is to give equitable treatment to biological parents, adoptive parents and the parents of children from a surrogate mother. The latter would be allowed an additional 15 weeks to make the system equitable.

What makes you think it will pass this time?

I'll give you another example. Previously, Bloc Québécois and Conservative Party members introduced bills on the number of weeks of sick leave. We are proposing 50 weeks of leave, and the Conservative Party had proposed 52 weeks. In both instances, we had the approval of all the opposition parties. Even all the committees were unanimous. However, at the end of the line, we were told that these bills would require a royal recommendation.

What makes you think it will pass this time?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you for that.

When you look online, you see that many advocates are calling infertility a crisis in Canada, so I think your private member's bill, Bill C-318, is really critical.

From your perspective, it was a little bit shocking in the House of Commons that Bill C-318 did not have unanimous support at the second reading. Can you tell us why you think that was?

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Colleagues, today we're considering legislation that would have a significant impact on many families in each of our ridings right across this country.

We know that bringing home a child is an exciting and life-changing event. Canada's system of special benefits, through the employment insurance program, is intended to provide parents with critical financial support during this special time in their lives.

A paid leave allows parents to have the time that they need to bond with and care for their child. All Canadian families are deserving of equal access to these benefits, but that is not the current reality.

Our employment insurance program does not reflect the diversity of families in our country. The program discriminates against adoptive and intended families. They cannot access maternity benefits and are therefore entitled to 15 weeks' less leave.

Correcting that inequity is the purpose of my private member's bill, and it is a correction that has been long overdue. While this bill is, without question, about equity and delivering parity to adoptive and intended parents, at its core it is also about the well-being of the child. A sense of security and belonging contributes to a child's healthy development. These healthy attachments form over time as a parent bonds with their child and cares for them. The benefits of attachment are lifelong. Adoptive and intended families are no less deserving of time with their child, nor is that time less needed.

For families formed through adoption and surrogacy, attachment can be more complex. The first year together is incredibly important in fostering healthy attachments. I have heard from countless families across the country that have expressed what 15 more weeks' leave would have meant for their families. The committee will have the opportunity to hear from just a few of these families. Unfortunately, every delay and every broken promise from this Liberal government means that there are more and more families that find themselves in this group.

Providing all families that have paid into our employment insurance program equal access to benefits is a common sense policy, and it should be a non-partisan issue. In fact, every political party in the House of Commons has, in some form, expressed support for this policy. My private member's bill, Bill C-318, was an opportunity for collaboration across all parties.

Unfortunately, this Liberal government chose not to collaborate and instead decided to make this a partisan issue, which has been truly disappointing for me. More importantly, it has been devastating for the families across this country that have spent years advocating this policy.

For all the families that would be directly impacted and all those following the progress of this bill, despite promising to deliver a new benefit for adoptive parents in 2019 and again in the 2021 elections, the Liberals failed to act on their promises.

When it came to Bill C-318, with the exception of four Liberal members of Parliament, the Liberals voted against this bill at second reading. In debate, one Liberal MP said that they might have to put some limitations on some of the things they wanted to do as a result of the pandemic, which from a government that has shown zero control in spending taxpayers' money simply sends a message to families that they are not a priority.

That argument also does not compute. The Parliamentary Budget Officer had calculated the minimal impact of this benefit on the EI fund, confirming that premiums would not be impacted. Of course, we all know that these parents have already paid into the system.

The Liberal member went on and said in debate that this bill won't get a royal recommendation because his bill did not get a royal recommendation. This is probably a more accurate reflection of the petty and partisan strategy of this Liberal government, but Mr. Chair, it is the Liberals who will answer for their vote and now their apparent flip-flop.

A new benefit supposedly identical to the one proposed in Bill C-318 and rejected by the Liberal government was announced in last week's fall economic statement. It offers adoptive and intended parents renewed hope.

It is not the first time the Liberals have made promises to them. These families can't afford more broken promises and political games. It's time to give them the time they need and deserve with their families.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good morning, everyone.

The clerk has advised that we have a quorum; therefore, I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 20, 2023, the committee will commence its consideration of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, meaning that members as well as witnesses are appearing in the room and virtually for this meeting.

I would advise that everybody participating can choose to speak in the official language of their choice. In the room, interpretation services are available when using your headset. If appearing virtually, please click on the globe icon on the bottom of your Surface device. Choose the language of your choice.

If there is an interruption in interpretation, please get my attention by using the “raise hand” icon, or by raising your hand if you're in the room. We'll suspend while it's being clarified.

I would also like to remind those participating in the room to please make sure their earpiece is away from the mike. That's for the protection of our interpretation personnel.

I also remind you to please address your comments through me, the chair.

If there is an issue, again, get my attention. We'll suspend while it's being corrected.

Today, in the first hour, we have appearing as a witness a very distinguished witness in the person of Madame Falk, our committee member and member of Parliament.

I take it you're doing a five-minute statement, Mrs. Falk. We will begin with your statement for five minutes, please.

Consideration of Government Business No. 30

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and represent the amazing people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, as well as all Canadians.

It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it is breathtaking just how desperate the Liberals have become. In the House of Commons, we are witnessing a curious trend: imitation disguised as Liberal innovation.

The recent flurry of activity from our Liberal counterparts presents a spectacle. It is desperation masquerading as originality.

It is really fascinating. The Liberals have hastily adopted common-sense Conservative strategies to cloak their actions as a remedy for affordability, all the while seeking recognition for ideas that were not theirs to begin with.

Unfortunately, their replica has flaws, and the Liberals know that they need to ram this legislation through before Canadians realize that it is nothing more than a cheap knock-off.

If the government is looking for another idea to steal from Conservatives, maybe it could finally decide to repeal the carbon taxes, which are the real reason Canadians are facing the soaring cost of living.

First, let us dissect the fabric of the Liberals' imitation. The Liberals’ newfound fascination with affordable living appears more as a last-ditch effort to mirror our common-sense Conservative initiatives, although it lacks the authenticity and the understanding required to genuinely address the woes of everyday Canadians.

This sudden adoption reeks of desperation. Maybe they have seen the polls. Maybe they are hearing in their ridings that the Conservatives are the only party putting forward common-sense ideas.

Maybe the Conservative message of common sense sounds good to them too, but their leadership comes down heavy-handedly when they vote in favour of our legislation, like the Liberal member for Avalon, who tried to do the right thing for his constituents initially, although he eventually betrayed them and caved to his master like a typical Liberal always does.

The government's thievery of Conservative ideas seems relentless. Were members aware that the fall economic statement contained no less than four Conservative private members’ bills?

For example, there is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act with respect to mental health services, from the good doctor from Cumberland—Colchester. There is Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code for adoptive and intended parents, from my friend, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. There is Bill C-294, an act to amend the Copyright Act, on interoperability, from my riding neighbour to the east, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. There is Bill C-365, an act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians by the amazing member for Bay of Quinte.

While the Liberals eagerly snatch concepts from our playbook, they turn a blind eye to the actual root cause of the economic pains faced by Canadians: their out-of-control debt and deficits, out-of-control spending, a carbon tax that does not do anything for the environment, a rapid housing initiative that cannot build homes and inflation that results from all of their financial mismanagement.

These are the real culprits behind the soaring cost of living, behind escalating interest rates and the burdensome grocery store bills and fuel prices that burden the citizens of this country every day. Our Conservative blueprint for affordable living, particularly our Conservative leader’s building homes not bureaucracy act, stands as a testament to our commitment to the welfare of Canadians.

Our messaging, like the “bring it home” initiative, encapsulates not just slogans but a genuine drive to resolve the housing crisis plaguing our nation.

In contrast, the Liberals’ response to this crisis they partly crafted lacks the depth and innovation required for a lasting solution. Their plan, often confined within the boundaries of existing programs and reannouncements, fails to project a path forward. It is a patchwork of recycled notions rather than a blueprint for real, sustainable change, and they have no problem announcing the same promises over and over again with the same pompous Liberal attitude that most Canadians have grown tired of.

The question remains: Are the Liberals truly addressing the housing crisis or merely engaging in performative arts to mitigate the damage that their policies have caused and the fact that the vast majority of Canadians desire to see them removed from office? Their sudden attempt to provide solutions and then force them on Canadians seems more reactive than proactive, a calculated response to evade accountability rather than an earnest effort to rectify the havoc they created. I can only hope it means they are getting ready for an election.

Liberals may tout their actions as responsive and comprehensive, but in reality, they bear the marks of limited vision and failure of leadership.

The building homes not bureaucracy act, as presented by our Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, is not just a set of words—

Employment Insurance

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

Madam Speaker, November is Adoption and Permanency Education Month. With that in mind, I am honoured to take this opportunity to present a petition from Canadians who are calling on the Liberal government to provide a royal recommendation for my private member's bill, Bill C-318.

The current EI system discriminates against adoptive and intended parents, so recognizing the importance of time to attach, the petitioners are urging the government to deliver equitable access to all parents for EI leave and to follow through with the Liberals' 2019 and 2021 campaign commitments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Zarrillo

Thank you, committee members.

Just before we adjourn, I want to advise the committee that I'm setting a deadline for the AI study witness list for 4 p.m. on Monday, October 23.

Could we agree to accept written briefs for Bill C-318, with a maximum length of 2,000 words? Is that agreeable to the committee? This is on the legislation.

I see that the committee agrees to accept written briefs for Bill C-318, the legislation, with a maximum length of 2,000 words.

Thank you, committee members. Thank you, department staff. You can see that this is a program that engages members of Parliament, and we thank you for your input today.

With that, the committee is adjourned.

The House resumed from September 18 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.

Employment Insurance Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been said today and throughout the course of this debate, the arrival of a new child is one of the most important times in a parent's life. It is a time of great joy and excitement; however, a growing family also presents added pressure on parents. Parenting demands time, energy and attention. It also adds financial costs to household budgets.

The employment insurance program provides important supports for new parents. Maternity and parental benefits help to offset some of the pressures they face. These benefits provide parents with critical financial support so that they can afford to take time off work to care for and bond with their child.

The leave entitlement provisions in the Canada Labour Code and provincial labour codes ensure that when parents take leave, their jobs are protected. Unfortunately, the current reality is that the employment insurance program does not treat all families equally. Those who grow their families through adoption and/or surrogacy are entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave. These families are no less deserving of time with their new child, and that time is no less needed.

Bill C-318 is a common-sense piece of legislation that rectifies the existing gap in our system. It delivers parity for families formed through adoption and surrogacy. However, at its core, this legislation is about the welfare and well-being of our children. This is why the preamble of this bill intentionally acknowledges that families formed through adoption and surrogacy can face unique attachment challenges. Overcoming these challenges requires time, patience and dedicated effort.

The first year of a child's life in placement within a family is a critical time to form secure and healthy attachments. With the opportunity for families to have more time together, the proposed benefit in this bill would nurture healthy attachment and ultimately contribute positively to a child's social, emotional and cognitive development. The benefits of healthy attachment are lifelong, and they support the long-term outcomes within a family.

It has been encouraging to hear comments from all sides of the House in support of a parental leave system that treats all families fairly. Canadians across this country are now eagerly waiting for those supportive comments to translate into the passage of this bill.

I have heard directly from many parents. Some are hopeful that this bill will pass in time to deliver them the supports they need. So many more know first-hand how meaningful 15 more weeks of leave would have been for their own families, and they do not want other families to miss out on that precious time together. It is time that we support all families equally, honour the diversity of families in Canada and ensure that government policies and programs are inclusive.

Bill C-318 provides every member of this House the opportunity to support adoptive and intended parents. Together, we can take a meaningful step toward parity. With the stated support of my parliamentary colleagues from across partisan lines, it can now be anticipated that this bill will live or die based on the provision of a royal recommendation.

Just as his predecessor avoided taking a position on this bill, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages has not yet provided the royal recommendation needed or even acknowledged my correspondence to him. This issue is truly non-partisan. In fact, the Liberal government has been promising to deliver parity to adoptive parents since 2019, and it made the same promise to intended parents earlier this year. However, it has failed to act and deliver on these promises. These families are owed more than just broken promises from the Liberal government. Adoptive and intended parents should not have to keep waiting for parity in our benefit system.

I sincerely hope that a royal recommendation is forthcoming from the minister and the Liberal government, particularly from the cabinet. It is time that we give all parents the time with their children that they need and deserve.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to welcome you and all my colleagues from every party back to the House.

I rise today on Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, regarding a very specific topic: adoptive and intended parents.

The Liberal government has demonstrated a severe lack of leadership on that file. As a quick explanation for those who might not be familiar with the bill on this first sitting day after the summer break, it introduces a new type of special EI benefits, specifically, an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy.

The bill would also amend the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly. It would also extend the benefit period while the child is hospitalized. I do not think anyone here in this House is questioning the need for a parent to take time off work to properly welcome a new baby home.

Whether we have children of our own or not, we all know that the arrival of a new child in a home is an intense and challenging time: cries, tears, nightmares, anxiety, colic pain, possible health or feeding issues, and so on. I see members smiling. We have all been there. We have to remove from the house everything that can possibly be dangerous for the little one and arrange the space so as to maximize the baby's mental and physical development.

An important part of being a parent is creating that special bond with the child. Parents have to make sure that their kids are happy, that they have everything they need, and that they feel safe and can develop trusting relationships with their new family.

There is no question that all new parents go through a complex adjustment period that is full of challenges and is different for each child. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there is no manual or piece of legislation that can really prepare us for that. Believe me, I too have been through it.

However, there are measures the government can put in place to make things a little easier and give new parents the tools they need—and I do mean all new parents. As it is often said, adoptive parents do not have it any easier than biological parents.

In fact, the opposite is often true, and this relates to the notion of attachment mentioned in the summary of Bill C-318. The literature indicates that the attachment theory referred to earlier by my colleague has emerged as a decisive factor in determining the best interests of the child.

John Bowlby's theory highlighted the fact that, from birth, children turn to adults for protection. The elements of attachment theory are based on the need for stability, consistency and adequate basic care in terms of both quantity and quality. Forming attachments is essential to children's long-term psychological health.

That said, in the case of adoption or surrogacy, the process of forming attachments can be tricky because there is no biological connection. The relationship needs to be developed, and that takes time.

It is worth noting that the meeting between parents and child often involves long-distance travel in different time zones, fatigue and changes of culture, language and climate. The children themselves obviously do not share the same excitement as their new parents. They have to say goodbye to the places they know and to everyone who has cared for them since they were born, people they have formed bonds with.

The impact of the overall decline in international adoption must also be factored in. I say this because it is increasingly difficult to adopt young children here in Canada. The process takes longer and is more complex than it used to be.

As for parents adopting a child conceived through surrogacy, certain factors may differ, but the challenges of creating a bond are quite similar. They need enough time with their child to foster attachment and create a strong, lasting parenting bond. I would also like to remind the House that, currently, neither the Canadian nor the Quebec maternity and parental leave plans contain an attachment benefit as proposed in the current bill.

Considering all this, the Bloc Québécois obviously and firmly supports creating a 15-week attachment benefit—yes, 15 weeks—for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. This is not an onerous measure. I therefore invite my colleagues to vote with the Bloc Québécois in support of Bill C‑318.

However, what is somewhat disappointing to the Bloc Québécois right now is the Liberals' lack of leadership in the whole EI file overall. Need I remind the House that two years ago, in 2021, the Liberal Party campaigned on the promise to modernize employment insurance? It promised to extend the system to cover self-employed workers and to address the shortcomings brought to light by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here we are now in September 2023 and, based on the Liberals' last budget, we can see that there is still nothing. Nothing has been done except for two small reforms, if we can call them that. We are far from the major structural changes that were promised to Canadians and Quebeckers. What guarantee do we have that this bill, even if it is passed, will be implemented by the Liberals? As my colleague was saying, the Liberals need to walk the talk. The talk does not seem to be a problem, but the walk is not getting us very far.

In closing, I invite my colleagues yet again to vote with the Bloc, and me, of course, in favour of Bill C‑318. This could help many families in dire need.

I thank my colleagues for listening and I wish them a good return to Parliament.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this legislation, which is extremely well intentioned and certainly is in line with where our government wants to go with respect to employment insurance.

We understand that EI parental benefits need to be fair for all workers. That is why we are committed to adopting legislation that would 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 do.

When we look at the various different measures we have brought in, whether they are the Canada child benefit, affordable child care or incentivizing shared leave, our government has delivered in many regards with respect to providing for Canadian parents. We will continue to do that at every opportunity.

I do note that there are some flaws with the legislation, in particular, perhaps not a flaw but a major hurdle, the issue with respect to royal recommendation. My colleague who spoke before me certainly indicated that it was possible to contact the minister, but the minister does not have ultimate jurisdiction over what is awarded royal recommendation. It is an extremely difficult process to overcome that hurdle of a royal recommendation, and I would be more than interested to hear of examples that former Conservative governments did with respect to allowing for royal recommendation when similar legislation came forward.

I know of the issue of royal recommendation very well. Back in 2016. I brought forward a bill that I did not believe required a royal recommendation. However, after the bill had been tabled, the Speaker determined that it did. Needless to say, the government certainly did not support my request for royal recommendation. My bill was on the same topic of EI and maternity benefits for women who worked in hazardous conditions. The point is that this hurdle of royal recommendation is indeed an extremely tall one that requires an incredible amount of consideration, and it is very rare that royal recommendation is given by cabinet.

There are some other challenges with the bill that I would like to address.

Under the current EI regulation, adoptive parents and parents of children conceived by surrogacy are entitled to up to 40 shareable weeks of EI parental benefits to care for and bond with their children. Adoptive parents do not, however, as the bill tries to address, have access to EI maternity benefits of 15 weeks, which support the recovery of claimants who are pregnant or who have recently given birth.

Bill C-318 would create a new 15-week EI benefit for the attachment and caring for adoptive children or those conceived by surrogacy that is available from the week of placement up to 52 weeks. This is an attempt to mirror the 15 weeks of maternity benefit, which can start as early as 12 weeks before the expected date of birth and can end as late as 17 weeks after the actual date of birth. However, the proposed 15-week benefit would only commence at the time of “placement”. In other words, it would not support the individuals during the time they need to prepare for the arrival of a child, for example by preparing their home and other lifestyle changes that are required to take in a new addition to their family.

In addition, the bill would provide 17 weeks of leave; that is two additional weeks to the proposed benefit's 15 weeks of income support, which is an outdated practice from when the EI waiting period used to be two weeks rather than the current one week.

I absolutely applaud the member for bringing this forward. I think most members in the House agree, and I certainly do, that we need to move in the direction that would allow for this type of implementation, but there are some issues with it.

The problem the bill faces right now is whether it receives that royal recommendation, because it will not be able to proceed much further from this point until that occurs. As I indicated previously, it is very rare that this occurs.

Nonetheless, I applaud the member for the initiative. It is a very important one. I think there will be opportunities in the future, if not through this bill specifically, to continue to collaborate together in the House to ensure that maternity and parental benefits are widely available to all those who have children. We continue to see different forms of that happening throughout the country as families are growing.

I thank the member for bringing the bill forward. Unfortunately, because of the reasons I outlined, I will not be able to support it, but I look forward to seeing where the issue goes in the future.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of my constituents of Peterborough—Kawartha. I am very honoured to be supporting my colleague and friend from Battlefords—Lloydminster and her Bill C-318, which I will be speaking to today.

I am the critic for families, children and social development. Since being elected, I have had the opportunity to speak to thousands of people across the country. There is something that I hope everyone in the House knows, and that is that our children are in a mental health crisis. There is no doubt about it and there is no denying it. It is everywhere we go. The increase of neurodivergence and the increase in the needs of our children are increasing as the cost of living is increasing and putting stress on parents.

There are huge issues across this country in affordability, housing and mental health. It is a spider web, and none of it can be separated. None of it can be treated without the other. As happens so often in government, at all levels, it is hard to start. How do we fix such significant, giant problems?

For people who do not know, a private member's bill is when a member of the House, in this case it is my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster, puts forward a bill to pass through the House. It is a tangible item that we can all work together on in the House, across all party lines, to approve and make sure it happens. It is something that starts the ball rolling. It is a tiny thing that would change the crisis we are in.

What is this? It is a bill that pushes for adoptive and intended parents to have extended EI benefits. Many people do not know this, but adoptive and intended parents do not get the same EI benefits that other parents do. Why is that? I do not know the answer. It seems pretty silly when we say it out loud. It seems like a very common sense thing.

One in six families in Canada is suffering from infertility. That number is going up. There are 20,000 children across this country who are members of the state, which means they are not with a family. The majority of those kids are over 10 years old. Those first years of life are when the brain is developing, and anybody who has any neuroscience background knows that the brain is a little playdough that gets mapped. If children are not loved or attached, or are in an environment that is not safe, that is going to cause long-term issues. There might be mental health issues, addiction issues or trouble forming healthy relationships. These are all things that we have studied in the FEWO committee.

We have an equity bill that offers that same amount of EI benefits for adoptive and intended parents. It is a compassionate, common sense bill that I think could get support throughout the entire House.

I am going to go into some of the details. Up to 15 weeks of additional leave allows a parent to stay home to care for their child, bond and form healthy attachments within the critical first year of their life or placement in a family. Bill C-318 also recognizes the unique needs and complexities of attachment for adoptive families by better supporting healthy attachments, and it will of course help improve long-term outcomes and strengthen families.

Carolyn McLeod, a professor and chair of the department of philosophy at Western University, did a survey of 974 adoptive parents and found that 94% of these parents would find additional benefits very beneficial and roughly 75% said that they did not have enough time to bond with their children. She stated that a significant portion of them said that the current benefit system was a barrier to them adopting a sibling group or children with complex needs. They did not feel that they would have enough time with a child in those circumstances, so they simply did not choose to adopt a child in those circumstances.

Every child and youth needs time to adapt and adjust to their new family. Trust is the foundation for attachment. Many of these kids, as we said earlier, are over 10 and are going to desperately need that time. Every person deserves to belong to a family, feel safe and know that they have somebody who has their back.

The Liberal government has long promised to deliver 15 additional weeks of parental leave for adoptive families, but it has repeatedly failed to deliver on that promise. Back in 2019, the Prime Minister campaigned on fixing this problem; yet another broken promise.

Despite overseeing the file and being mandated to fix this problem for four years, the former minister of employment, workforce development and disability inclusion would not commit to providing the necessary royal recommendation for this bill. It was within her mandate as minister to introduce a 15-week leave for adoptive parents. Most recently, the former minister publicly alluded to a benefit for adoptive parents included in the 2023 budget, yet when the budget was delivered it was not there.

I will give a call to action for everyone watching at home, because sometimes it just sounds like there is a lot of talk in the House. People can directly message the minister and say that they need the minister to approve the royal recommendation, because if it does not happen, this bill dies. That is what needs to happen; that is what we are calling on today.

We have heard from all parties and they have given great speeches. I thank my colleagues from the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party. They see the value in this bill. How can they not? However, there has to be action attached to the words or they are just empty promises.

I want to read for members a lovely story from Kyla Beswarick, who has gone through the process herself. She stated:

35 weeks is simply not enough time for a youth like me to feel comfortable with an entirely different family, let alone build trust with these unknown parental figures. I believe, we, who through no fault of our own, have experienced significant losses, deserve equal if not more time to heal and attach to our new family.

These are the stories we need to hear, and this is all members need to know to support my colleague's, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, bill today.

Canada is an outlier in not providing equal leave for all families. If we look at comparator countries such as Australia, New Zealand and U.K., we see that they all provide equal leave to these families. Moreover, it would not be a huge cost burden.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimate, the proposed new EI attachment benefit for adoptive and intended parents would cost $88 million over 2023-24 to 2027-28. When we look at fiscal responsibility, this is it. It is how money is spent. It is where it is directed. It is the return on investment. I would challenge anyone in the House to tell me what better return on investment there is than building healthy families, than teaching children that they are loved and supported, than helping parents not stress about being with their children when they need it most.

Again, I will leave with this. I call on the Minister of Employment and Workforce Development today to provide royal recommendation, because if he does not, the bill will die. I encourage every single member in the House to start off this session showing Canadians that we mean what we say and we say what mean, and that we care about children and families in our country.

I want to congratulate my colleague on Bill C-318. I thank everyone for supporting it.

[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.

Employment Insurance Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents).

Mr. Speaker, the arrival of a new child is a precious time for all parents, and our system of parental leave benefits provides critical financial support to parents while they care for them. Adoptive and intended parents are, however, at a disadvantage under the current parental benefit system.

All families are deserving of equal access to parental leave benefits, so it is an honour to introduce my bill, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, for her support and for seconding my bill today.

Through a new 15-week EI period for adoptive and intended parents, this bill would ensure greater parity in the parental benefits landscape. It would also acknowledge the unique needs and complexities of attachment for adoptive families. Time is truly a precious commodity. I hope all members of the House will afford adoptive parents and intended parents the time they deserve with their child.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)