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.