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.

Speaker's Rulings on Decorum

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are looking for some consistency in the Speaker's rulings.

On March 31, 2023, in this House, the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities said:

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely disgusted that the member opposite would outright lie, and yes, I am saying “outright lie”.

Later on, when asked by the Speaker to withdraw that statement, the same parliamentary secretary said:

Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the word but the sentiment remains, that it absolutely did not—

She was then cut off because of the noise in the room.

The point is that there should be consistency in rulings from the Chair. That member was not sanctioned, nor was time taken away from the Liberal Party. That person was not threatened with being kicked out of this House or any similar type of sanction. We want consistency in the rulings from the Chair so that we understand how we can and are able to conduct ourselves in this place.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will clarify, and perhaps this would help the members opposite. The Speaker's office asked me to withdraw and apologize. I respect the rules and decorum of this place, so I did just that. I would suggest that the members opposite follow the same suggestions and rulings.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many times in this place that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly. By saying that she withdrew the word but not the sentiment, she doubled down on what she was saying and on the remark she had made.

I need no lessons from the parliamentary secretary—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I am trying to hear what the opposition whip is saying. There is a discussion going back and forth.

Please start from the top so that I can hear everything.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am conflicted as to whether the parliamentary secretary was saying that I do not know my job or do not know how to address the Speaker. I am talking to the Speaker, the Chair of these proceedings. My statement is that one cannot do indirectly what one should not do directly. Saying “I withdraw the word but not the sentiment” is doubling down on those words.

We all know it. However, this member was in no way sanctioned for the comments made on March 31, 2023.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby wants to rise on this point.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we empower you to ensure that there is order in this House and that there is a respect for all members at all times, including the speakership. I have said this before. I think it is appropriate for every member now to understand that if there is disorder and they do not heed the Speaker, they may end up losing a question. That applies to all parties, and that is a fair and appropriate way to proceed.

When you ask for members to withdraw their remarks and apologize, Mr. Speaker, they should do so. You have asked this quite rightfully. This is appropriate, this is right and these are the powers that we have granted to you as Speaker.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. government House leader.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities was actually informed by the Speaker that if she was not to apologize, then she would not be able to speak in the House. She did then go the next week and apologize, unequivocally, in the House.

I understand that the opposition whip may not have been present when the member was in the House and did apologize, but the Speaker was very clear that if the member did not apologize, she would not be able to speak. Subsequent to what the member quoted, many days later, she rose in her place at the first opportunity, and she clearly and unequivocally apologized. I believe this was after we returned from a time in our constituencies.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

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

Mr. Speaker, as to the matter of consistency, I would like to bring something to your attention for consideration.

On Tuesday, I had to start a question again twice, so a total of three times. I appreciate having the opportunity to be able to do that, but it was due to a vocal uproar from NDP and Liberal members. However, I want to note that at the time, the Speaker did not insinuate to the NDP or Liberals that their questions could be taken because of their excessive disruptions.

I would just like you to take that as part of your consideration as well.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for her input. I will be coming back to the House. I will look at what was done and what was asked. I know we have a record of everything. I want to make sure that I come back with the appropriate response to what happened in the past.

As of right now, I can speak for today. If someone uses unparliamentary language, I will ask them to withdraw it. If they do not withdraw it, I will not recognize them, because they are not recognizing the Chair's authority. I think that is fair. That is from now on. I am escalating this because the insanity in this place has been escalating since we got back from the break. I do not want to go into June with a “nuthouse”. I am sorry if “nuthouse” is not a parliamentary word, but that is exactly what it looks like.

As far as the questions go, it is really unfortunate—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. If you want to speak to each other, please just cross over and go see each other. Do not shout back and forth.

Now, let me finish. As far as the questions go, if one group is getting rowdy or trying to drown out the other side, it is no better than bullying in a schoolyard where a group is picking on one or another group. That is not acceptable in the House.

I will continue to do what I have done today. It is unfortunate that it was the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, because he was not a part of the problem. He just happened to be the victim of exchanging his question with a member at the back.

What will happen is that we will be using that as a tool to calm things down in the chamber. I hope people take it to heart and start respecting each other.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, on the same point of order.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone needs to calm down and, above all, trust the Speaker that the House elected. We need to keep things civil.

While you were speaking, Mr. Speaker, I heard the House leader of the New Democratic Party yelling at a female member in an improper tone, telling her to sit down. I encourage everyone to calm down. We have a Speaker who is capable of making decisions. We must be polite.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

On the same point of order, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that part of the issue today is the inconsistency with which this type of behaviour has been handled in the House across party lines, as well as inconsistencies in how it is handled by whoever happens to be in the chair. I would ask for consistency.

It is really important that we do not escalate responses to a particular behaviour in the House in a way that looks to be very partisan. The member across was allowed incredible latitude for a long time before she was required to do what you instituted in a second in this place. I am just asking for consistency.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Actually, it was instituted instantly for her part. I do not want to start an argument, but it takes a while for people to come around. That is human nature, and we have to deal with human nature in this House.

The hon. opposition whip.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, we do respect your authority. I agree that you are here in this place to bring order, sometimes from chaos, and we respect those decisions. The issue was about consistency, so I leave it at that.

This point of order that I rise on is another serious point of order to address two incidents that took place during the course of debate on the opposition day motion earlier today. As the Chair knows, the House is debating a Conservative motion that addresses the serious threats made against the family of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

The statements I am about to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, centre around one defensive briefing provided by CSIS to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills about foreign interference two years ago. The member was actually in the House today during question period. It is important to note that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has been clear in his public comments that the threats made to his family were never made known to him in the briefing two years ago. The only specific briefing he received happened this week and only after the matter became news reported by The Globe and Mail. However, during the debate, both parliamentary secretaries to the government House leader engaged in misinformation and disinformation in a blatant attack on the reputation of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said about the threats, and I quote, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills had a defensive briefing on this two years ago, so he knew about this when it actually happened.” This same member went on to say, “it is true that I said that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills received multiple defensive briefings.... He did. He received multiple defensive briefings and it is absolutely true that I have absolutely no idea what he was told.”

These comments are outright disinformation. The member for Kingston and the Islands ought to know that there was only one briefing two years ago and that it was a general defensive briefing. It did not contain information about specific threats. However, he has allowed his false statements to stand on the record, although he has been given many opportunities to withdraw.

To make matters worse, the member for Winnipeg North said, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years.” He went on to accuse the member of doing nothing about these threats.

The accusations made by the members for Kingston and the Islands and for Winnipeg North are false; worse, they amount to victim blaming. I demand that these members rise to correct the misinformation and disinformation they provided to the House and that they apologize for their attempts to impugn the reputation of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on this point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to what I had indicated previously when I said that the member was aware of this, I apologize for the choice of words. What I was trying to imply was that he was aware that there were some threats that were out there, which was the reason he received the defensive briefing. I apologize unreservedly for my choice of words because I have led people to believe that he knew about what was being talked about today specifically.

I have a ton of respect for that member. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, through you, to that member, to all Conservatives, to you, to the Chair and to this House, I apologize.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Okay, we can put that to rest.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, again, for those who are here or not here when members stand up, just for clarification purposes, I will quote what I had indicated. Earlier today, I said this: “Mr. Speaker, it was never my intention to say that the Prime Minister and the member had the same briefing. If that is in fact what I said, I would apologize for saying that it was the same briefing.”

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean, on the same point of order.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is only my second term and I have not even been here four years yet, so I would like to ask you a question.

Throughout question period, the Conservative Party rightly asked members who had just spoken to apologize. Question period is now over and those members, who did not stand up once during question period, are suddenly apologizing now that everyone else has left.

I want to know how this works. Should the members have answered those questions during question period rather than waiting for all the reporters to leave before answering them?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is getting into debate.

I would like to remind the member that the House is always full of people who are working.

The hon. opposition whip is rising on the same point of order.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, I have the quotation from earlier today by the member for Winnipeg North, and he said, “The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has known for two years.” Then he went on to accuse the member of doing nothing about these threats.

We are not talking about the briefing this week, the one the Prime Minister and the member had. We are talking about not just a suggestion but an assertion that the member has had information about the threats to his family for two years, which is false, and has done nothing about them.

He was blaming the victim. There should be a proper apology, and that was not it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I was not here; there was another person in the chair. We will take a look and see what the scripts are, because this is turning into a “he said, she said”. I want to make sure we have everything down and that Hansard is in place, and I will come back to the chamber should I see fit.

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.