Human Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2024

[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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

I'm a visitor at the committee. I know that you've spoken and reviewed these amendments prior. Are we at proposed subsection 1.2? Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I'm sorry, Ms. Gazan. No, the committee did not meet and review the amendments.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay, so we did not.

Are we at proposed subsection 1.2, though? Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's correct, yes. We're at proposed subsection 1.2.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay, we're at proposed subsection 1.2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, and there is an amendment, NDP-1.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Do you wish to move the amendment, Ms. Gazan?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I wish to move the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have the floor.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

I feel it's like The Twilight Zone. I'm back here again having to justify why these amendments are relevant in terms of being able to amend the bill.

We'd like to change it to “For greater certainty, in this part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a claimant for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions...to which they belong, with a claimant, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the claimant primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.”

In the last Parliament we passed Bill C-15, which means that all legislation going forward has to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I'd like to read into the record the eighth paragraph the preambular paragraphs in Bill C-15 specifically, which states the following:

Whereas the implementation of the Declaration must include concrete measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence, racism and discrimination, including systemic racism and discrimination, against Indigenous peoples and Indigenous elders, youth, children, women, men, persons with disabilities and gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons;

I'd also like to refer to preambular paragraph 18 of Bill C-15, which states:

Whereas the Declaration is affirmed as a source for the interpretation of Canadian law;

We knew that well before Bill C-15, so moving on, we see that section 5 of Bill C-15 speaks specifically to consistency. It reads:

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.

I want to start out by first commending MP Falk for putting forward this bill and for working with stakeholders who pushed to get this bill forward. One of the areas stakeholders were concerned about was that kinship and customary care were not included, which is something that MP Falk and I had an opportunity to speak about before and which is something that is critical.

Before I refer to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I'll give you a couple of reasons that this bill is not only not consistent with Bill C-15 but that it also does not uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly articles 19, 21 and 22, which I'll read into the record.

Ninety per cent of all kids in care in Manitoba are indigenous. There are more kids in child welfare now than at the height of the residential schools. There is no secret about it. The fact that we're even debating whether this falls out of scope is disturbing to me, quite frankly, when we passed Bill C-15 in the last Parliament and when we know that almost all kids in care in this country—over 90%, certainly, in my province—are indigenous.

If you look at article 19 of the UN declaration—I'm going to read it into the record—you'll see that it states that “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions”—which includes child welfare institutions—“in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

Article 21 states that:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

2. 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.

We know the child welfare system is a direct pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women.

Article 22 reads:

Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.

It's something that this bill, in its current iteration, does not do.

I want to commend other parties in the House that understood the importance of ensuring that Bill C-15 was compatible with the child care legislation.

Once again I'm here to talk about the very essence of reconciliation, which is giving our kids back. We need to have the decision-making power and the financial resources to be able to care for our kids in the way we choose to care for our kids, which is primarily through customary and kinship care arrangements.

In terms of child care, which is outside of the scope of the bill, the last time I was at this committee all members, including one Liberal, voted in favour because they understood that the government has a legal obligation to ensure that all legislation going forward is consistent with the United Nations declaration. This bill needs to be amended so that it does just that, so I'd like to keep this amendment on the floor.

[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...?

[Anamika Mona Nandy, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Yes, we did hear the brief description of Bill C-15 with regard to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That said, we are not here to speak to the content of that particular bill, so we would not be able to make a direct comparison.

I will say, though, that in terms of kinship and customary care, the issue is with regard to the temporary nature of those placements, and that's the focus.

[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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's time to give our kids back, so I'm going to challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The ruling of the chair has been challenged.

Madam Clerk, I call a recorded vote on the challenge to the chair's ruling. Does the committee support the chair's ruling or not?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

Committee members, that brings us to debate.

Ms. Falk, we're on the 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]

We go to Ms. Ferreri and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Ms. Ferreri, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague Ms. Falk for bringing this private member's bill forward, because equity is really what this comes down to. That's what this bill is all about. A parent is a parent, and a caregiver. It's a critical bill and it's something to be extremely proud of.

In relation to Ms. Gazan's amendment and what she's brought forth, I can't stress enough how vital this is. We worked together on Bill C-35, which is the child care bill, and we've worked together on the status of women. When this was put forward in Bill C-35 to support the rights of Indigenous parents, the Liberals voted against it. We saw this again, and it just doesn't make sense.

I sense her frustration greatly today. I can feel it from her. I think that if we want to have a great country, we have to have healthy kids, and kids need to be cared for. This is a no-brainer amendment, and quite frankly, I'm shocked, especially when the person who has put forward the bill says that yes, this is well within the scope of what she had hoped for.

I fully support my colleague Ms. Gazan today, and I would deeply encourage.... We see article after article come forward in the news about this marketing slogan of $10-a-day child care crumbling in each province because the Liberal government did exactly what we said they would do: They set the provinces up to fail.

Do you know who's losing? It's children.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Ferrari, we're on the amendment.

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

I want to bring it back, because what this all comes back to is parents having choice, parents having flexibility, however they choose to have a child. I just want to fully support my colleague Ms. Gazan today on her amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, we're on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, can I just ask for a five-minute suspension?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Sure. We'll suspend for five minutes.

We're suspended.