Bill C-222

Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child)

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to provide that a person to whom employment insurance benefits are payable to care for a newborn child or a child placed with them for the purpose of adoption remains eligible to receive those benefits even if the child dies during the benefit period. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend the period of bereavement leave to which an employee is entitled in the event of the death of a child of the employee or of their spouse or common-law partner.

Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law)

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

moved that Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, also known as Evan's law.

It is an incredible week for me, personally, to be introducing this legislation. Sunday represented the 10-year anniversary of my first being elected to this House, and I thank my friends and neighbours in Burnaby North—Seymour for continuing to give me their trust and support over all these years. Wednesday represented the 20th anniversary of my wife and I being together. I have to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, but mostly through the television cameras, to my wife Ravi that I love her very much. Of course, I love our two beautiful daughters, Nova and Solar, who are turning seven and five. That means I have been an MP for more than half of my relationship and a father for the majority of my time as an MP.

Why is this an important context for this bill? One of our daughters had a very challenging birth. We came incredibly close to losing her. Had it not been for the day-and-night, 24-hour service of a dedicated team of NICU nurses and doctors at the Royal Columbian Hospital over the first 20 days of her life, she would not have made it. Those 20 days in the NICU gave us a lot of perspective. There was not only a deep feeling of gratitude for everyone who works in our health care system, but an appreciation for the struggles parents of young children face every day. We met families who were both emotionally and financially devastated by the unplanned complications that so many new parents face.

Sadly, not every story has a happy ending. ln Canada, approximately 1,600 families experience the unimaginable heartbreak of losing a child during the period in which they are receiving parental benefits. ln those tragic circumstances, our system currently adds a layer of unnecessary pain and bureaucracy to families who are already facing profound loss.

Under the current rules, once a child passes away, the family technically no longer qualifies for parental benefits. This means that the family begins to accrue a financial liability that will later have to be clawed back. Families can choose to switch to EI sickness benefits, which provide similar compensation, but doing so requires them to contact Service Canada, not just for the initial application, but for every two weeks thereafter to confirm their eligibility. I think we can all agree that this is a cruel and unnecessary burden. Imagine forcing grieving parents to repeatedly explain their tragedy to strangers every 14 days. That is the unfortunate reality of our current system.

Evan's law offers a simple, elegant and compassionate solution. lt states that if an individual qualifies for parental benefits and their child tragically passes away during that period, they would continue to qualify. There would be no phone call, no questions and no clawbacks, and there would be little to no additional cost. There would be no significant incremental increase in cost because parental benefits and the El sickness benefit are nearly identical in value. Actually, this change would save government resources by reducing administrative complexity and eliminating needless red tape. Remember, every time a government official needlessly picks up the phone, it simultaneously increases costs to the taxpayer while decreasing the level of service provided to everyone else.

This is a small and technical amendment. The entire bill, fully translated, is less than one page, double-sided. While I have no delusions that this piece of legislation would change the world, I know it would make a world of difference to those 1,600 Canadian families who are directly impacted.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the many people and partners who helped make this bill possible. l would like to extend my gratitude to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Jobs and Families for their guidance and support as this proposal was developed. I want to recognize the previous members of HUMA who studied this issue in 2019 and whose work laid much of the foundation for this legislation, as well as the hon. member for Burlington, who was previously the minister responsible for Service Canada. She helped draft this legislation. She seconded it and will be speaking to it later today. Simply put, this bill would not exist without her. Also, Evan's parents live in her riding.

Evan's mother, Jennifer, was the individual who first raised this issue after enduring the loss of her child. The power of a free and democratic society is having the ability to turn a person's heartbreak into something that will help thousands of families in the future. I am thankful to Jennifer for her immeasurable contribution to this bill.

I also want to thank members from all parties who have reached out to me directly to express their support, share their personal stories and offer constructive ideas. Compassion does not belong to any one side of this House; it belongs to all of us. I truly believe the bill represents the kind of legislation we could all get behind, reflecting our shared values and shared humanity.

From my time working at Service Canada, I have seen first-hand how simple, innovative changes can make the government not only more service-oriented but also more effective and more efficient. At a time of global uncertainty, our government has expanded services to help make life more affordable and to make Canadian workers more productive. This includes such programs as child care, dental care, pharmacare and the national school food program. All of these programs help improve our quality of life in the short term while growing our economy and our competitiveness in the long term. However, they are only sustainable if we work to make our government as efficient as possible. Our Prime Minister has embodied this philosophy, challenging our government to spend less in operations so we can invest more in growing our economy and unlocking the full potential of Canada and Canadian families.

This piece of legislation aligns perfectly with this philosophy, which is important because we require a royal recommendation for the legislation to pass. I assure members that we are working diligently with the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible to get that recommendation. It is possible to modernize our government, make it more cost-effective and provide better services all at the same time when we work together. Evan's law encapsulates this principle perfectly. It is about creating a system that understands that families who are going through a hard time need compassion. It responds with effective simplicity. It is about designing government that works for people, not against them.

Bill C-222 is a small bill, but it would make a meaningful difference. It is a reminder that good government is about more than budgets and bureaucracy; it is about people and the compassion we show in the moments that matter most. This is a bill that makes sense, saves money and, most importantly, reflects the kind of Canada we want to build, one that is fair, efficient, smart and kind.

I hope all members of the House will join me in supporting Evan's law. If they have any questions or concerns, I invite anyone in this House or listening at home to reach out to me directly.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for making that speech and for bringing the bill forward.

It is going to allow me to raise my son's name: Brenton. I spent 31 days in the NICU, 37 years ago. He did not make it.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for that comment. It was difficult for him to stand up and make that comment.

I was very scared of getting through my section of the speech and had to slow down myself. That is how important the bill is.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also deeply moved. I think there can be no greater tragedy than losing a child. I congratulate the member for introducing this bill, which brings all the current limitations of the Employment Insurance Act into full view.

I would like to know whether, as a member of the government, he has verified that this humane amendment to the act will receive a royal recommendation.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am working diligently to get it.

I can tell the member that the other thing I have been diligently working on as the previous minister responsible is making sure that, if we get that royal recommendation, it could be implemented under the legacy system of EI very quickly, as well as under the BDM programme as well. Everything is aligning in the right direction, but I am going to need everybody's help to make sure that it happens.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my gratitude to the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour for bringing the bill forward.

In his speech he said that he knew this was not going to change the world, but that it would make a world of difference for the affected families. I could not agree more. For those 1,600 families who tragically experience this every year, he is making their lives a bit easier. I just want to thank him for that.

I am also a former minister of Service Canada, and my colleague is as well; we do not often get two previous ministers of Service Canada sitting beside each other. I wonder if he can talk about what this means from a service delivery point of view, why this is not only good policy that is compassionate and does the right thing but also better at delivering services.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member for Burlington, for raising the issue initially. I had never been a part of the private members' bill lottery system before, and when I was lucky enough to get the number five spot, I felt the weight of that responsibility because it was an opportunity to do something that affected people in a meaningful way. Different people use the opportunity differently.

When the member came to me and presented this idea, I thought about it for literally an entire day. I think it made sense to both of us really quickly, as previous ministers responsible for Service Canada. The fact is that there is so much good that we can do just by looking inside our current organization and asking the questions of why are we delivering something in a particular way and, given the technology and the state of our country, whether there is a way to improve upon it.

Yes, this would be a small change but a meaningful one and part of a collection of changes that, if we all work together, can make our government more efficient and more compassionate, and can certainly provide better services to Canadians, especially when they are facing the most tragic of circumstances.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today as a survivor of stage 4 cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in particular. I bring that up because it greatly shapes my perspective on the legislation we are discussing today.

When I was sick and going through chemotherapy and radiation treatment, it was taxing on me as a person emotionally, physically, mentally and spiritually, but the hardest part of it was seeing my mother endure it all. My mom is a strong woman and a woman of faith, but for any parent, seeing a child go through a serious illness hits very hard.

I remember vividly the fear and anxiety in my mother's eyes. I remember her face when I was going in for a lumbar puncture, PET scan or blood work, and saw the impact that me being in that position had on her. It was one of the haunting moments of the whole ordeal for me. What my family went through in those years was just a fraction of the pain and anguish that a family goes through when they lose a child. What my family went through was just a fraction of the pain and anguish that parents go through when they lose a young child in particular.

I am very happy to stand here today to express my complete support for Bill C-222, Evan's law. I think the government needs to do as much as it possibly can to support families, in particular to support grieving families, through difficult times. This legislation represents an important move in that direction.

I want to acknowledge the hard work that was done to get this legislation here. I will start by acknowledging the member of Parliament for Airdrie—Cochrane, who has been an advocate on this issue for years. I also want to acknowledge the member of Parliament for Burnaby North—Seymour for bringing this bill to the House. I understand that he worked closely with the member for Burlington on it. I salute them and everybody else who has gotten this legislation to this point.

To me, this is about the government fulfilling the promises it makes to families. If the government promises to provide parental leave benefits to a family, it should do so regardless of the circumstances changing, especially tragic circumstances, which I think most people would regard as deserving more support, not less.

I hope the Liberal government hears my heart on this. I say this with zero criticism or opposition to the bill. I would like to propose a change to it that would expand the protection of parental leave benefits to more grieving families. Bill C-222 is specific to families grieving the loss of a child, and that is an incredibly important part of the changes to the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. However, there are also families grieving in very similar situations but where a parent has passed away, and as a result, they are dealing with many of the same challenges that the current version of Bill C-222 seeks to remedy. Since we are having a conversation about making changes to the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, I think it opens a window for us to extend consideration, generosity and empathy to grieving families in other situations as well.

I raise this on behalf of some of my constituents in Bowmanville—Oshawa North, many of whom signed a petition on this very issue recently, a petition that was inspired by the difficult circumstances of a family that I represent. For the sake of their privacy, I will not say their names, but they brought their situation to my attention, and I believe that with an appropriate amendment, this bill could remedy the circumstances they have found themselves in.

I want to share what those circumstances are. They were brought to my attention by the surviving husband of a woman who tragically passed away while on parental leave with their first daughter.

The surviving husband contacted Service Canada to inform it of his wife's passing away. The remaining months of parental leave benefits were then promptly cut off for his family. Shortly after, the surviving husband received a bill from the CRA requiring him to repay the benefits he had received between the time of his wife's passing and the date when Service Canada was notified.

I do not believe anyone in the House wants families facing unimaginable loss to go through that. I do not believe anyone in the House wants the CRA to be sending a bill to a grieving husband or wife. I do not believe anyone in the House wants Service Canada to be cutting off benefits promised to a family at a time when they are not only facing an unimaginable loss, but also dealing with the economic uncertainty and instability that comes with a parent passing away. My hope is that, in hearing this story, we might be able to work together on expanding this very empathetic and important piece of legislation to include families in these circumstances.

At the request of my constituent, I would like to read a statement from him to help people get a better sense of how all of this impacted him and his family. He wrote to me and said, “My daughter lost her mom before her first birthday and that is a heavy weight for us to carry as a family for a lifetime. Maintaining benefit payments and extending some grace to those who find themselves in such an unfortunate position might make all the difference in the world to somehow who is already running on empty mentally, emotionally, physically and financially.”

The spirit of Evan's law would be to protect and relieve grieving parents from an additional burden, and I think it would be appropriate to provide the same consideration in cases of death of a parent who is receiving parental leave benefits. Continuing these payments to the surviving spouse for the remainder of the approved benefit period would alleviate a significant burden on the small percentage of families who face these particular tragic circumstances.

As I stand here in full support of Bill C-222, and I certainly look forward to enthusiastically voting in favour of it in this chamber, it is my belief that, by raising these important concerns about the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, we have an opportunity to extend this consideration to more grieving families.

I want to reiterate that I hope the Liberal government hears my heart on this. I say none of this as a criticism, and in fact, I look forward to the possibility of collaborating with the government on an amendment that would expand this consideration to more people. I am happy to have shared the story of some of my constituents who have been impacted by the policy status quo.

I really do believe the core of this is asking governments to live up to the promises they make to families. I think we have to see that, when the government promises EI payments, or when the government promises parental leave benefits to a family, that promise should be seen through, from the beginning to the end, for the appropriate period of time. That money should never be clawed back. There should be no expectation that grieving families have to return money paid out in that period of time and, most importantly, that families know they can count on that money they have planned for, especially in a tragic situation where there has been a loss.

I do hope we can give this amendment the consideration it deserves. I look forward to Bill C-222 supporting grieving families across our country.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for introducing Bill C-222. As we have seen in the few minutes that we have been discussing it, this bill should be something we can all agree on. Ideology and partisanship often prevail in Parliament, but in this case, we are talking about what we hold most dear, our loved ones, our children, those we have lost. That brings a whole new perspective to the debate. I am not even sure that we can call this a debate. I would therefore like to thank and recognize my colleague.

My thoughts also go out to Evan's family. This bill, which I hope will become law, bears his name. Like several members have pointed out, seeing newborns come into our lives and sometimes also having to say goodbye to them is something very human that we all share.

This is something extremely human and there is no way to avoid the human experience. I am a mother myself. As a mother and with all the empathy that we have as human beings, when we put ourselves in the shoes of these families who have to say goodbye to a newborn child, we understand the pain and suffering they experience.

I, too, have had difficult experiences. I have several children, but I have a little boy who suffered a perinatal stroke at birth. No one will ever know why these things happen. Moments like that are filled with fear. Life is fragile; it is fragile in the moment, and it remains fragile afterwards.

As my colleague so eloquently described, it is in these moments that we experience true sorrow. These may be the moments in our lives when we are the most fragile. This is when we should fight with all our strength, but it is also when we have the least strength, because we are busy trying to survive. I believe this is what bereaved families and parents are going through: They are simply trying to survive.

As my colleague said, there are anomalies, even absurdities, that would be so easy to correct. Examples include the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. Take, for example, the requirement to call in every two weeks to report on one's status. Families do not need that kind of burden.

I believe that, as legislators, it is also our duty to make laws more humane. There are often grey areas, things that we did not think of when passing legislation. Lived experience often leads us to realize that we need to improve things and take these grey areas into account, and perhaps shed some light on certain things.

That is what we are doing today. We think this situation is absurd. We have the empathy necessary to understand the need to change the law and the Canada Labour Code. I also believe that we have the means to do so.

I do not know if that argument should be made today. Personally, I think we are well beyond purely monetary considerations. Canada is a rich country. I understand that things are really tough right now, but the difficulties are cyclical and contextual. However, irrespective of that, there are still things we can do. Workers and employers pay premiums, of course, and that is what funds EI. That fund needs to be able to support families.

I wholeheartedly agree with this bill. I would say that, in Quebec, we have this protection under the Quebec parental insurance plan. Quebec has its own plan when a baby is born. People who are in mourning already benefit from this protection, from this assurance that they will be able to navigate this difficult time with dignity, respect, understanding and kindness, without having to worry about the economic and administrative side of things.

I repeat that I completely support this bill. I hope that all members of the House will be able to come to an agreement rather quickly. I do not believe that we can even call this a debate here in the House of Commons. We all want to take care of these people and we have the means to do so.

I hope my colleague will improve the employment insurance regime to make it more humane. My colleague may talk later about the bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois entitled the Émilie Sansfaçon act. When someone is unable to fight because they are fighting for their life, they need support. I think that it is a good social agreement to say that we will use the means that we have to take care of our own when they need it the most.

I would like to once again thank my colleague for his initiative. My thoughts also go out to all those in the House or outside of Parliament who have experienced a tragedy like this and who need support. I want them to know that the Bloc Québécois is with them.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank colleagues in this House for their incredibly thoughtful and compassionate interventions. This is a moment when Canadians can be quite proud of this chamber as we come together for our shared humanity. I really want to thank my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour for bringing the bill forward, because it touches all of us.

I rise today to tell everyone about Jennifer and her son Evan. Jennifer is the reason I stand here today in support of the bill, and her story is the inspiration for Evan's law. In spring 2022, a constituent called me to tell me her story. She had found her baby blue and motionless in his crib. In a panic, she called 911, and emergency services arrived soon after, confirming that he had passed. As she and her husband waited nearly six hours before a coroner came, a million questions flooded their minds. The experience was traumatizing.

Evan was four months old when he passed away. Jennifer described him as “a laughy little guy” who had the best smile. He loved to be held, and everybody loved to hold him. He was, as she said lovingly, the perfect little baby boy.

In the days that followed, Jennifer and her husband felt as though they did not know what to do with themselves, as though they were walking into walls, disoriented, exhausted and devastated. As a mother of two, I cannot begin to imagine the heartbreak and despair that comes with losing a child. I hope I never have to, but, sadly, as we all know, this happens to thousands of families each year in Canada. For about 1,600 families, it happens while they are on EI parental leave. Jennifer was one of those Canadians on EI parental leave at the time. No one told her after she lost Evan that she needed to contact Service Canada, but she did so of her own accord, which is not the case for many parents in her situation. She figured she needed to find out what this would mean.

Jennifer soon contacted Service Canada to describe what had happened. She was informed that because her child had passed, she was no longer eligible to receive parental benefits. In the eyes of the Employment Insurance Act as it is currently written, once a child passes away, the act no longer considers a person a parent. Therefore, they are no longer entitled to receive parental benefits. When I learned this, I was shocked. In my humble opinion, it is cruel and unnecessary both to define what being a parent is in this way and to cease benefits immediately if a person loses a child while on leave.

To receive any financial support or time off work, Jennifer would have to switch to EI sickness benefits, a program that is not designed with grieving parents in mind. She spent hours on the phone trying to switch her benefits. Then she was told that she would have to call back every two weeks to confirm her eligibility. This took a serious toll on her. She told me the biggest thing was that every single time she called, she spoke to a new person. She was forced to relive her trauma every two weeks and explain everything over again, every single time. Through no fault of their own, the staff picking up the phone at Service Canada were not always equipped or trained to handle the sensitivity and weight of that kind of call.

As we can imagine, contacting Service Canada is the last thing on the minds of grieving parents. Often, parents may not even realize that they have become ineligible. In too many cases, parental benefits continue to be paid in full, only for the CRA to seek repayment months or even years later. In effect, these parents find themselves indebted to the government because of the death of their child. I strongly believe this runs contrary to Canadian values and the values of this House, as we have seen today.

Like Jennifer and her husband, roughly 1,600 Canadian families face the tragedy of infant loss each year. Almost 50% of those losses occur in the first 24 hours following birth. For most who experience it, it is the darkest moment of their lives. Despite this, the current provisions of the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code cut off access to parental benefits when infant loss occurs, removing critical support that these grieving Canadians so desperately need. When families need the most support, additional bureaucratic and financial strain is imposed upon them. However, we can change that, and Evan's law would do so.

While no policy can take away the sorrow and tragedy of losing a child, it is our duty as legislators to ensure that the systems we have in place do not add unnecessary burdens to the grieving process. The essence of the bill lies in our ability to support parents during their darkest moments. For anyone who has experienced a loss, particularly the loss of a child, the pain is not just emotional; it can also be financial and logistical, and it is often overwhelming.

By removing the need for a new claim and by ensuring that the parent continues to be eligible for benefits, Evan's law would provide not only financial relief but emotional relief as well. Grieving parents would no longer be forced to prove their eligibility in the midst of their mourning. The bill would send a message that as a country, we understand the profound impact of such a loss and that we are here to support those who face it with the utmost dignity and respect.

We must also recognize that every parent grieves differently. Jennifer needed time off. She needed time to grieve. On the other hand, her husband needed to go right back to work; that is what helped him through the grieving process. The bill would give parents the permission and the flexibility to grieve how they need to in one of the worst moments of their lives. We can give them the choice: to return to work when they are ready or to take the time they need.

Just last week, I heard from two more parents, Samantha and Neil. After they had suffered through three first-trimester losses on their journey to parenthood, their daughter Lily finally arrived, safe and sound, last December. However, this past March, just days before Lily turned three months old, the family received devastating news: Lily had been diagnosed with a highly aggressive form of acute leukemia. Samantha said, “We felt like lightning had hit us for the fourth time.”

Lily began undergoing intensive treatment immediately, and her parents moved into the hospital with her. They did not know how short their time left with her would be. Due to complications with her treatment, Lily passed away on June 28. Samantha soon learned that she was no longer eligible for parental benefits. In the midst of grieving such an enormous loss, she was forced to navigate a series of burdensome administrative tasks.

Samantha told me, “had Evan's law been in place, this would have been one less thing I would have worried about. It would have provided us some relief during that unimaginable time, allowing us some peace so we could grieve the death of our daughter.”

When we speak about family, we often focus on the joy that comes with raising children and supporting parents through the milestones of life, but it is equally vital to acknowledge the pain of loss and to ensure that our social safety net does not fail people who are in their time of greatest need.

Let me conclude with some thanks. First, I thank Jennifer for having the courage to share her and Evan's story, not just with me but with all of Canada. I thank Nora Spinks, Michelle La Fontaine and Lynn Steele, and the Pregnancy and Infant Loss Network, for their collaboration and support as we developed the legislation.

Of course, I offer very deep and heartfelt gratitude to my colleague and my dear friend, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, for taking up the task and introducing Evan's law. I and thousands of others across the country are grateful for his compassion and leadership in moving Evan's law forward.

In their darkest moment, Evan's law would give grieving parents the knowledge that their benefits would not end abruptly, and the opportunity to take care of themselves. We are a nation that prides itself on compassion, and Evan's law would be a step toward ensuring that our policies reflect that compassion in the most challenging of circumstances.

In honour of Evan's life and in honour of every parent who has experienced this unimaginable loss, I am grateful to my colleagues who have expressed their support for this private member's bill. It is time to give grieving parents the space and the support they need during the most difficult time in their lives.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved and feel privileged to speak on the bill introduced by my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour.

I know exactly how my colleague must feel in introducing a bill that responds to a very obvious need expressed by the people around him, people who have experienced the tragedy of losing a child and having to return to work quickly without being able to grieve because EI is not adapted to this type of situation.

I know how he feels because when members have to enter a lottery to introduce a private member's bill. If they win, they get the privilege and opportunity to debate one of their bills. I had that privilege in 2021. I introduced Bill C‑265, which sought to increase the number of weeks of special EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50. I know how he feels because we had to convince our colleagues here that the EI program could afford it, that the fund has enough money from workers and employers to be able to offer that number of weeks to those who are battling cancer, for example.

I also had the names of people with colorectal cancer, for example. It is has been scientifically documented that getting through this form of cancer takes at least 37 weeks of special EI sickness benefits. Although treatments are increasingly effective, they take a longer period of time and can take a heavy toll on a person's health. I could name people who had to go back to work or borrow money, in short, people who had to go into debt and subject themselves to financial stress, because they did not have enough weeks of special EI sickness benefits to live comfortably and, most importantly, to be able to focus their energy on fighting their disease.

When someone is grieving the loss of a child or suffering from a serious illness, they should not have to spend time worrying about their survival or about how they are going to pay the rent. They need to muster their fighting spirit. People who lose a child in tragic circumstances need that energy to grieve and overcome their ordeal. I know of nothing worse in life than losing a child, either at birth or in the course of the child's life. In my opinion, there is no right age to lose a child.

I understand how my colleague feels. Bill C‑265 passed through all stages of the legislative process. We defended it successfully in committee, and it received virtually unanimous support from all parties in the House. However, when all the cancer patients were waiting for the news, in the end, the Liberal government in power, this same Liberal government, refused to give it a royal recommendation. People who had aggressive forms of cancer and needed their energy to fight the disease unfortunately were left with the bad news. Benefits went from 15 weeks to 26 weeks, even though we knew full well that many serious illnesses take longer than 26 weeks to recover from.

I understand my colleague and I want to reassure him. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, and our party will work hard to convince all our colleagues that it must be passed, because it is a humane response to a terrible tragedy. Most importantly, the EI fund can afford it. We are not talking about the general population or a large number of people. There is no financial reason to oppose this bill. We are not talking about a large number of deaths that could bankrupt the fund.

I hope that, this time, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc will agree to amend the Employment Insurance Act and allow these parents, who are facing a human tragedy, to focus on their grief without being forced to return to work too quickly before their wounds have begun to heal. We do not ever completely get over the death of a child. A part of us is always broken. It will always affect us. However, having a much-needed break before returning to work is important.

This brings me to the point that the Employment Insurance Act is outdated. It is not a modern piece of legislation. The Bloc Québécois has been saying for a while now that it needs to be modernized and adapted to the new labour market and new realities. For 10 years now, the government has been promising us an overhaul of the Employment Insurance Act that will take into account certain provisions whose inclusion in the act is no longer relevant.

I will share my perspective as a woman and as a mother. I am sure that members of the House are aware of what I am about to say. A person who has a child, goes on maternity leave and loses her job at the end of her maternity leave is not entitled to EI benefits because she has not accumulated the necessary hours of work to qualify for EI. This is deeply unfair. It is shocking discrimination against women.

I want to say that there are members across the way who have an opportunity to convince their government to modernize the act, or at least to remove certain sections that discriminate against women who experience motherhood and lose their jobs after maternity leave.

The act is also discriminatory with regard to seasonal employment in general. I do not like the term “seasonal workers”. It is not the workers who are seasonal; it is the jobs that are seasonal. In this case too, there is discrimination against those who work in certain regions of Quebec and who depend on seasonal employment for their livelihood.

The Employment Insurance Act needs to be overhauled and modernized. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois offers its full and unwavering support, as well as its influence in the House of Commons, to enable the passage of the bill before us, Bill C-222.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. I am pleased to add my support to Bill C-222.

I want to add some context. This issue has been around the chamber for some time, and I want to add my acknowledgement to the work put into this by my former colleague, the member for Banff—Airdrie, who put forward Motion No. 110 in a previous Parliament. Certainly, through previous governments, we have been pushing for this from this side of the table. I want to acknowledge that that effort is paying off, and today we are finding compassionate support around the chamber to address the needs of those at some of their hardest points in life.

I am going to end up speaking personally, so I will try to get there, but before I go there, Mr. Speaker, you may rule me out of order with this next statement. I know that I cannot refer to any other member by their last name, but I am unsure whether I can refer to myself.

My last name, as members all know, is Epp. I am not the first Epp who has graced this chamber floor. There have been others. In fact, going across Canada, there are at least seven different Epp families that are unrelated to each other. The former minister of health under the Mulroney government, Jake Epp, was no relation to me or my wife. Why is that important? My wife's maiden name was Epp. Before any member in the chamber jumps to any conclusions, I want to state that all six fingers on both hands of all four of our daughters are beautiful.

Why is that important? My wife was born in New Westminster, British Columbia, and was adopted. An adopted identical twin, she grew up in Calgary, went to elementary school in Calgary, went to high school in Rosthern, Saskatchewan, and then went to university in Winnipeg, where we met. She says that she must retire in Quebec, la belle province, and retire or die in Newfoundland as she works her way across this beautiful country.

We met, married and, in 1988, we were anticipating our first child. We knew from early on in that pregnancy that there would be issues, so we began the process of driving up what I now affectionately call the “bore-01”, up and down highway 401, which I have travelled innumerable times in my various capacities over my professional career. Then, it was as a young to-be father, as my wife spent a lot of time in St. Joseph's, the London hospital, preparing for the birth of a challenged child. We anticipated that he would be born with insufficiently developed lungs. That was the diagnosis because the scans had revealed intestines in his chest.

When he was born, with two surgical teams waiting, the first thing he did was scream, which was not anticipated. That gave us hope. He screamed; he lived. I had been preparing myself, throughout the last two-thirds of my wife's pregnancy, to lose him.

The member for Burlington spoke of how people grieve differently. I did a lot of my grieving prior to my son Brenton's birth to be there depending on the outcome.

In the 37 years that have followed, my wife and I continue to grieve differently. I went back to work. We were in the middle of tomato season. He was born in 9230 season, that is a Heinz variety that we were harvesting on August 13, 1988, and he died in 6203 season, September 13. He lived 31 days. As members can hear in my voice, I have lived experience with what this bill attempts to address.

My son underwent an emergency colostomy at two days old, which he survived. He then began to turn blue and actually went through open heart surgery at two weeks old, when doctors grafted his left subclavian vein. For those of us from the medical community, they grafted the vein around his aorta where the blockage was, and he survived. I am still grateful to the many friends who drove me up the “bore-01” to see my wife and child every evening, as I harvested during the daytime and saw them at night.

There was only one night that I did not make that trip. We were advised that we could take him home in two days' time, so I stayed at home and slept until 2 a.m., when I received that call to “come now”. It was obviously a difficult night because we lost him that night.

I said my wife is a twin. Her twin was flying from Alberta, and we picked her up at the airport that morning. She was coming for a dedication; she came for a funeral. We prepared for that, and still to this day, I am immensely thankful for the friends and family who supported us.

How does this relate to government bureaucratic processes and compassion? The morning of his funeral, we received a call from a government agency that said we had made a mistake in his birth certificate application. We did not know how to fill out the baby's mother's maiden name. We filled it out as “Epp” and “Epp”, of course, and obviously we had made a mistake. There are many Epps in Canada, as there are many Smiths, McDonalds, etc., from many heritage streams, but that was the call we received.

We worked our way through it that morning. The morning of my son's funeral, we were working through a government process. I do not fault or cast aspersions on the bureaucracy that made those calls. They were following through with their due diligence. However, if there are ways we can streamline our government processes to show compassion and show respect for taxpayer dollars, which is everything that this bill would do, why do we not do that?

I am very heartened by the support around this chamber. It has taken a while, but I am glad the government and all opposition parties are bringing their compassion to this chamber and addressing the opportunity to make life better for Canadians in their most heartfelt and difficult times. I have lived those times, so I want to say thanks.

We subsequently had four daughters. I mentioned them. They are beautiful. They do only have five fingers on each hand. My wife is adopted, but because of her last name, we went through some processes before we had them, given the experience we had with our son Brenton.

Sometimes people ask me about them. I am the father of four daughters, as members can see by the colour of my hair. I am immensely proud, as my wife Charlene is, of their accomplishments.

I have shared this experience with many other families that have asked me how many children I have, and whether I answer with four or five depends on how much time I have in the conversation. Today is my opportunity to acknowledge my son, because the circumstances of the day have afforded me the time to bring his name to this chamber. It is an august responsibility that we have as members to speak. It is a privilege.

I have had the chance to introduce my two granddaughters to this chamber. How many people in Canada get to do that? I want to give a shout-out to the House of Commons orientation staff who oriented me six years ago. They impressed upon those of us going through that process the unique opportunity we have as members to represent Canadians.

Boys and girls today dream of potentially becoming NHL and, maybe now, baseball players. A truly Canadian dream is to become an NHL player or PWHL player.

As we walk the tunnel between the welcome centre and the temporary home of the House of Commons, we see the plaques from the first Parliament to the 43rd. I have served in the 44th and we are now in the 45th Parliament. We see the names of all parliamentarians who have had the chance to serve. There are fewer of us who have had the chance to speak in the chamber than there are people who have played professional hockey in our country's history.

That is how special the opportunity is that we have as parliamentarians to represent our fellow citizens. Let us cherish that. When there are moments when we can come together, when we can join our voices to make life better for Canadians, let us be thankful for that opportunity.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have always considered the hon. colleague opposite to be an excellent parliamentarian, but I now put him in the category of an outstanding human being. The courage that he has shown today on the floor of the House of Commons, to share such a personal story and to relate it to a bill is indescribable. I do not think I have seen it in all my years, 10 years now, of serving as a member of Parliament. I truly commend him for that.

We have an opportunity. We have seen it today, with the spirit in the House. This is politics, and politics is naturally partisan. That is not always a terrible thing, but sometimes it prevents us from doing the work we need to do as parliamentarians to benefit the country. I would point to the bill, a private member's bill that our colleague has put forward, a private member's bill that seems to have unanimous consent, to say the least, to go forward.

This needs to go forward. I hope a royal recommendation is given, because no less than 1,600 families a year are affected by the loss of a child. The sponsor of the bill, in his initial speech on the subject, made clear that there is an elegant solution here, as he put it.

This would not require extra spending or anything like that. EI parental benefits and EI sickness benefits are almost equal. Removing the bureaucracy from the process and ensuring that we have a compassionate approach put forward is absolutely vital. It is something that we can unite on here today.

It would make clear that we also respect the House of Commons' process. In 2019, the committee that is responsible for labour matters and benefits, the HUMA committee, spoke about the need to go in this direction. If we respect Parliament, as we do, and if we respect the House and its procedures, as we do, we will give life to and go forward with this particular change.

I thank everyone who has spoken today. It is a day I will not forget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from October 24, 2025, consideration of the motion that C-222, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I acknowledge all the grieving parents across Canada who have had to endure both financial and emotional hardship at the hands of the federal government due in large part to a systemic flaw in government programming for maternity and parental benefits.

Nearly 10 years ago we began a journey together to make change in this country, to make sure that, in the future, parents who experience the loss of a child are not also subjected to that same lack of support and compassion by the federal government. We sought some of the very changes that are now proposed in the bill that is before us. However, Motion No. 110 was unfortunately repeatedly roadblocked by the current government.

Thanks to the hard work of many advocates across the country who pushed back against that heartless resistance, the motion ultimately received the unanimous support of all members of the House at that time, but when the time came for concrete action, the Liberal government deliberately delayed moving on the recommendations that were made by the human resources committee, and it voted down an amendment that we moved to its budget that would have seen positive change for grieving families happen as early as 2019.

Now, here we are debating proposed legislation based on most of the very same recommendations that were made more than six years ago. While I appreciate the member's bringing this forward now, I cannot help but wonder how many families during that time the government could have compassionately responded to in their time of greatest need. Every single case is one too many.

I would like to take us back to the year 2016. I was first made aware of this serious flaw in our employment insurance program when I was approached by two of my constituents, Sarah and Lee Cormier. They contacted me following the unimaginable tragedy of losing their daughter Quinn at just four months old. She passed away suddenly and unexpectedly due to sudden infant death syndrome. While in the midst of navigating the shock and grief of Quinn's loss, they were also informed by Service Canada that their parental benefits would be immediately cut off. To add insult to injury, the benefits they received in the week following Quinn's passing would have to be paid back.

If we were to ask anyone with an ounce of compassion if this should ever happen to a family during their darkest hours, the answer of course would be no. Unfortunately, the Cormier family is but one of thousands of families across this country that have been subjected to the same response from their government, which should be offering assistance for bereaved parents rather than adding an unnecessary burden during the most difficult period of their lives.

Over the years, I have crossed the country attending memorial events and rallies organized by broken-hearted parents supporting one another through their grief. They are asking for nothing more than some compassion from their government. Instead they are forced to fundraise, organizing walks, runs and other community events, just so they can help provide a cushion for another family that might someday experience the same kind of loss that they themselves have experienced. They honour the lives of their children by giving back, creating a safety net for anyone who has had to face the same unimaginable tragedy.

The funds these parents had received were already committed to them for the duration of their parental leave, so it stands to reason that in the event of the loss of a child during that time, those benefits could easily continue for a period to help them relieve any financial burdens the family might also be experiencing. Adapting to the loss of a child is difficult enough without having to also be worried about bills or repaying benefits they have to repay to the federal government but would have been entitled to had the unthinkable tragedy not occurred.

That was the foundation for the introduction of Motion No. 110 in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, Motion No. 110 ultimately received the unanimous support of the House of Commons when it was tabled here and was then referred to the human resources committee to be studied. In 2019, that committee tabled a report entitled “Supporting Families After the Loss of a Child”. It outlines seven recommendations. The report and those recommendations served as a blueprint to ensure that grieving parents would not have to endure both emotional and financial hardship after an unimaginable loss.

It seemed reasonable that with the unanimous support for the motion itself, these recommendations based on the motion would then see the same support. One of those recommendations was a bereavement leave that would provide income support of 12 to 15 weeks for parents grieving the loss of an infant. This would allow them some space and some time to manage their loss without forcing them back to work out of necessity to provide for their families. However, a federal election later in 2019 and another in 2021 essentially sidelined any future progress that Motion No. 110 could have made in creating a designated bereavement benefit.

During that time, however, the parents, the families and the organizations that I had come to know over the years and that had supported Motion No. 110 did not sit silently by. The government had failed them by refusing to act on the recommendations passed in the report, but these individuals continued the hard work, hoping to finally have their experience acknowledged by their government. Petitions were signed, letters were mailed and emailed, and phone calls were made. Each year the anniversary of their child's passing came and went, but rather than give up and decide to just move on, they remained steadfast in their determination to find a solution to help others like them.

Finally, after years of watching and waiting for the Liberal government to do something, anything, to implement those recommendations tabled in 2019, a small glimmer of hope came in the 2023 budget. A vague outline for a potential bereavement leave for pregnancy loss was included, but of course there was a catch. This bereavement leave would only be available to federally regulated employees, leaving scores of parents without that same assistance due to their sector of employment. For all the work that these parents had put in to finally have their experience recognized, most of them would be left without access to that leave that they had fought so hard for, and it changed nothing with respect to the flaw in the Employment Insurance Act.

After years of watching the Liberal government's inaction and seeing this announcement only apply to federal sector workers, Sarah Cormier contacted my office once again. She created a petition, which I sponsored, calling on the Government of Canada to implement a bereavement benefit for all grieving parents of pregnancy and infant loss and to implement all seven recommendations contained within the committee report tabled in 2019.

With Sarah's help and the help of organizations and individuals all across Canada, we collected signatures, and I was proud to be able to table those petitions in the House of Commons. Still we had more inaction from the government. More days, weeks, months and years went by. There were more heartbreaking anniversaries that bereaved parents observed. For all the efforts they had made in memory of their beloved child, hoping for change, still the government remained silent.

More parents each year have gone through this same unimaginable experience only to be told by the government that it is sorry for their loss, but they need to pay the money back and return to work immediately. So much time has passed since Motion No. 110 was first introduced in the House. So many parents to whom the Liberal government could have offered much-needed support have lost a pregnancy or infant since then. Why only now? Why not in 2019 when the opportunity first presented itself? Countless individuals like Sarah and Lee Cormier have waited years for change. They have done the hard work to provide support to other grieving parents, wearing their loss with courage in the hope that other families would have one less burden placed on them by their own government during their darkest hours. They have waited too long.

While I am happy to see this injustice may finally be remedied, it also leaves me angered at the thought of so many parents continuing to be subjected to this treatment when recommendations for change were made seven years ago. We have all heard the saying, “Better late than never”, but “late” in this case has caused significant emotional and financial hardship for so many parents who did not have to suffer further at the hands of the Liberal government. I sincerely hope that this bill does not see the same resistance to its implementation that Motion No. 110 did, as these parents deserve better from their government during a time of unimaginable loss. It should not have taken this long.

In closing, as the father of a son and an infant daughter myself, I can say that parenthood is one of life's greatest joys. To lose a child is an unthinkable tragedy. Although we cannot legislate away that loss, we do have the ability to assure bereaved parents that government programming will not cause them unnecessary harm and stress while navigating their loss. The Employment Insurance Act must be amended to accommodate pregnancy and infant loss and to finally give grieving parents the compassion they deserve from their government.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I get very emotional when talking about some bills, and Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, or Evan's law, is one of them. As my colleague said earlier, most parents cannot imagine what it is like to lose a child. It must be the worst tragedy a parent can experience. I am thinking of my little Naomie, and I am going to give her a big hug tonight. Our children really are what we hold most dear.

I will begin by saying that this bill puts humanity and dignity before paperwork. That is how I would sum it up, because this bill addresses a rare but truly heartbreaking reality. The loss of a child is a devastating ordeal, and no family should have to face an administrative burden on top of that. The Bloc Québécois firmly believes that, at times such as this, the government should not be adding to people's suffering, but rather alleviating it as much as possible. When a family is grieving, the priority must be time, dignity and stability, not paperwork, forms and financial anxiety. When a family is grieving a child, that is what should guide us, not bureaucracy.

In this speech, I will start by talking about the problems with the federal system that led to this bill. I will then talk about what the bill fixes. Lastly, I will close by launching a broader debate on the Liberals' inaction on EI, particularly in comparison to Quebec and its parental insurance plan.

First, the current problem with the federal EI system is that benefits can be stopped if the child passes away. The maternity or parental leave may be challenged. As a result, some grieving parents are forced to plead their case, reapply or return to work too soon when they should be healing. This situation highlights a disconnect between administrative rules and human realities, as well as the rigid approach typical of the federal EI system. This situation is what prompted the realization that led to this bill.

Second, Bill C‑222 corrects this by proposing a simple, targeted and compassionate measure to maintain EI benefits in the event of the death of a child during a benefit period. The goal is to retain maternity or parental leave under the Canada Labour Code. It is important to keep in mind that a new claim is not required and no additional reports are required. There is also a clear exception if there is a criminal conviction. That seems appropriate. It is simple. No new claims are needed and, of course, cases where there are criminal convictions are excluded.

This is a compassionate measure. It is not a financial drain on the federal government, since we know that the infant mortality rate is low and stable. Every year, approximately 380 children under the age of one pass away in Quebec. That is a rate of 4.9 per 1,000 births. We also know that Canada has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the OECD, so the political conclusion is clear. This measure does not represent a serious financial risk, but it could make a huge difference for families who are affected by this situation. The government cannot use public finances as an excuse not to act. We must also remember that compassion does not cost much and that it is essential in terrible situations such as these.

Third, we support this bill. It simply rectifies an unacceptable situation. I would like to take a moment to put this in a broader context, namely the Liberals' inaction on EI. This winter, I will be sitting on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for the first time. I have been monitoring this file from afar for a long time, working with my former colleagues who served on that committee and who championed the issue of EI. What we ultimately see is that this is part of a pattern of chronic inaction. I have seen this over the years, working in the House, because EI has not been overhauled in decades.

The government refuses, for example, to extend the duration of special EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks. These are battles that we in the Bloc Québécois have been fighting. Consider the case of Émilie Sansfaçon, which is rather shocking. This mother fought two cancers and was forced to go back to work as soon as her chemotherapy treatments were over. As a result, she did not get the recovery period she deserved. It is rare to recover from cancer in 15 weeks. She was really a victim of the Employment Insurance Act, which has not changed since 1971. I wanted to put that on the record.

We have raised this issue in the House of Commons, and we introduced a bill to increase the number of eligible weeks from 15 to 50 in cases of serious illness. However, even though we managed to get a motion adopted in the House of Commons, the Liberal members did vote against it at the time. It showed a blatant lack of humanity towards these folks. We always get panicked calls at our offices from people asking how they are supposed to heal, because they will not recover in 15 weeks. When will this change? When will people get more weeks for a dignified recovery?

I would like to commend Louise Chabot, the former member of Parliament for Thérèse-De Blainville, for reintroducing a bill in November 2024, Bill C-418. With that bill, she drew on her own experience and attempted to change the number of weeks for cases of serious illness. She extended the duration, and her bill still included the idea of increasing the benefit period from 15 weeks to 50 for cases of serious illness. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament.

Still, a number of groups that work on EI issues highlighted and welcomed certain aspects of this bill. It was a major overhaul. I will list a few highlights of the bill, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois at the time. It established a single hybrid criterion of 420 hours or 12 weeks of 14 hours. It increased the current benefit rate from 55% to 60%, based on the best 12 weeks of earnings. It increased insurable earnings to 140% of the annualized average weekly earnings. It increased the minimum benefit period to 35 weeks. It increased special sickness benefits from 26 weeks to 50 weeks. It extended the qualifying period for special benefits. Lastly, it amended the provision disqualifying people from receiving EI regular benefits if they had lost their employment because of domestic violence or because of a return to education due to family responsibilities.

It was an important bill. We had another battle to fight because that act, which has not been amended since 1971, also discriminates against women. In 2022, the courts ruled that it was unacceptable for women to be penalized for having children and that working women should be eligible for benefits if they lose their jobs, even if they were on maternity leave. A mother who loses her job during her maternity leave or shortly after returning to work cannot accumulate the number of hours needed to qualify for EI benefits. We had been calling for that reform for quite some time. In the end, the Liberal government decided to challenge the ruling.

To wrap up, the Bloc Québécois's position is clear. We support Bill C-222. However, we must point out that this bill is only necessary because the federal system is broken. Quebec workers in federally regulated sectors must have the same protections as other workers. I would like to remind everyone of something I did not have time to address earlier: With the QPIP, the Quebec parental insurance plan, Quebec made a conscious decision to maintain benefits even in the event of illness or the death of the child. It is a personal, humane and respectful approach to grief.

The Bloc Québécois supports this bill because parents should not have to choose between mourning and staying afloat financially.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act. First, l would like to acknowledge and thank the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour for bringing this bill forward.

The loss of a child is one of the most devastating experiences a parent can face. lt is a loss that reshapes a family forever. ln those moments, parents deserve compassion, stability, space to grieve and time. What they do not deserve is confusion, paperwork and bureaucracy.

As a mother of two young boys, I know how completely children shape our lives. They give us our responsibility, our purpose and our deepest vulnerabilities. Parenthood opens us up to extraordinary love, while also reminding us how fragile life can be. When that loss occurs, the role of government must be clear, to support families and not to burden them. This is something all members can agree on in this chamber.

Each year in Canada, thousands of families experience this unimaginable loss. In 2023 alone, more than 3,200 child deaths were reported, over half involving infants under the age of one, with many occurring in the first month of life. Under our current rules, while EI maternity benefits continue following the loss of a child, recognizing the physical and emotional recovery from childbirth, parental benefits stop immediately when a child dies. The only alternative is to reapply for EI, a process that involves new applications, medical documentation and biweekly reporting that forces parents to repeatedly confirm their loss.

No parent should have to prove their grief to the government. This is the gap that Bill C-222 addresses. The bill would amend the Employment Insurance Act so that parents receiving EI benefits to care for a newborn or an adopted child remain eligible for those benefits even if their child dies during the benefit period. It would also amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that parents remain entitled to maternity or parental leave without interruption in the event of a child's death.

This is a simple, compassionate fix. It would allow parents to grieve without administrative burden, prevent unnecessary clawbacks and streamline government processes without increasing overall costs. Most importantly, it would treat all families, birth parents, adoptive parents and same-sex parents, with dignity and respect.

I have been encouraged by the broad, cross-party support for this legislation. This is not a partisan issue. This is about shared values of empathy, fairness and respect for families. It is also a reminder that Parliament can come together to fix systems when we see that they are causing harm. I do believe, though, that a broader conversation about how we can modernize employment insurance and caregiving supports is needed. However, Evan's law is about acting now, where we can, to prevent harm that is both clear and avoidable.

Protecting families in moments of vulnerability is one of the most serious responsibilities we hold as legislators. When we see that rules cause harm, even unintentionally, we have a duty to change it. This bill would remove unnecessary bureaucracy. When I think of my own children, I am reminded that the decisions we make in this chamber reach into people's lives at their most fragile moments.

Bill C-222 would ensure that when families face the unthinkable, our systems can respond with care and not further complication. For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-222.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-222 deals with one of the most devastating experiences a family can face. The death of a child is a moment that reshapes everything for parents and families. It is a moment of shock, grief and profound loss, and it is not something that follows a schedule or fits neatly into administrative categories.

In moments like those, the role of Parliament should be clear. Our systems should provide stability rather than uncertainty, compassion rather than pressure, and clarity rather than confusion. When families are at their most vulnerable, government should not become another burden they are forced to carry.

Bill C-222 responds to a real and long-standing gap in federal law. Under the current rules, parents who are receiving employment insurance, or maternity or parental benefits, can lose access to those benefits if their child dies during the benefit period. In some cases, they are required to return to work immediately.

In other cases, families are required to navigate a transition to a different benefit altogether with new eligibility criteria, new documentation requirements and new timelines. That can mean completing forms, meeting deadlines and learning unfamiliar rules, all while dealing with the immediate aftermath of a loss. This issue is about not only the loss of support but also timing. These administrative demands arise at precisely the moment when families are least equipped to respond to them. That outcome is not compassionate, reasonable or what Canadians expect from a system that is meant to support families during times of hardship.

The bill before us provides a straightforward and humane response. It would allow parents who are already receiving EI, or maternity or parental benefits, to continue receiving those benefits for the remainder of the approved period, even after their child dies. It would also ensure that maternity or parental leave under the Canada Labour Code is not abruptly terminated in those circumstances.

This legislation would not create new benefits. It would not extend leave beyond existing limits. It would not expand eligibility or introduce new categories of support. It would simply allow families to continue under the framework already in place, without being forced into sudden decisions or administrative hurdles during a period of grief. That is the reasonable and compassionate approach, one that deserves the support of the House.

Conservatives support Bill C-222 at second reading. At this stage, the House is being asked to agree with the principle of the bill, not to resolve every detail. We believe grieving families should not face unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles. We believe the employment insurance system should operate predictably and fairly. We believe committee study provides the appropriate forum to ensure that the legislation is as clear, workable and compassionate as possible.

I want to pause briefly to acknowledge the work that has been done on this issue by Conservative colleagues in previous Parliaments.

In particular, the member for Airdrie—Cochrane brought forward work that helped prompt serious examination of how employment insurance and related federal programs respond when families experience the loss of a child, including through committee study and parliamentary debate.

I also want to recognize the contributions of the member for Calgary Shepard, whose voice on this issue has carried a depth and gravity that speaks to real experience, and whose work has constantly stood with families facing devastating loss.

Those efforts helped move this issue forward and contributed meaningfully to bringing it to the point where Parliament is now in a position to act.

Moments like this also remind us of the broader purpose of this place. While we will always have disagreements on policy and priorities, there are issues where our shared humanity must take precedence. When legislation speaks directly to loss, grief and compassion, it calls on all of us to respond with decency and care. Bill C-222 matters because it would remove an added burden at a moment of profound grief. It recognizes that grief does not follow administrative timelines. It recognizes that families should not be forced to make immediate employment decisions or navigate complex paperwork while they are mourning the death of a child.

Employment insurance exists for moments when circumstances beyond a person's control interrupt their ability to work. It is a system Canadians pay into with the understanding that it will provide stability when life takes an unexpected and difficult turn. At its core, the purpose of insurance is continuity. It is meant to create a measure of certainty in uncertain times and to ensure that people are not forced into immediate decisions at the very point when they are least able to make them.

In situations of profound loss, the role of employment insurance is not to introduce new complexity, but to provide predictability and breathing room while people recover and regain their footing. Bill C-222 is ultimately about ensuring that in moments of genuine hardship the employment insurance system functions as it was intended. It would recognize that there are circumstances where the rigid application of existing rules can produce outcomes that do not reflect fairness or common sense, and where modest legislative clarification can prevent unnecessary harm. There are moments when a rigid application of rules can produce outcomes that are technically correct but fundamentally wrong. The death of a child is one of those moments. In these circumstances, systems should bend toward people in crisis, not away from them.

At the same time, supporting this bill would not mean ignoring the fact that another serious gap remains. While Bill C-222 would address what happens when a child dies during a benefit or leave period, it would not address the situation when a parent dies while on maternity or parental leave. Members of our caucus have encountered cases where a family lost a parent and then faced demands from the government to repay benefits that had already been paid. In these cases, the parent had paid into the employment insurance system. The family relied on the benefits in good faith and the surviving family faced immediate financial hardship because the parent who would have returned to work was no longer there. It is difficult to justify a system that responds to such a tragedy by clawing back support. Loss in those circumstances is already overwhelming. Adding financial shock to emotional devastation does not serve the public interest.

This is not about creating open-ended entitlements or expanding benefits indefinitely. It is about fairness and predictability. When a parent pays into EI, there is a reasonable expectation that the system will operate consistently. When that parent dies while on leave, the family loses both emotional support and future income at the same time. Grief should not trigger a retroactive penalty. For that reason, Conservatives intend to work constructively to strengthen this legislation so that it responds fairly in all tragic circumstances, not just in some.

Supporting a bill and seeking to improve it are not contradictory positions. They are both part of responsible law-making. Bill C-222 would move us in that direction. It addresses a specific and identifiable gap in the law and does so in a way that is limited and focused. It does not attempt to redefine the employment insurance system or expand its scope beyond what is already intended. What it would do is remove an outcome that most Canadians would reasonably view as unfair. It would prevent families from facing sudden loss of support as a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control and would ensure that existing benefits would continue as originally approved. That is an appropriate role for legislation.

When the application of a rule produces a result that clearly conflicts with fairness and common sense, Parliament has an obligation to intervene. Doing so does not require sweeping reform. It requires attention to detail and a willingness to correct what is not working as intended. Conservatives support this bill at second reading, and we will continue to approach it with the same focus, addressing real problems carefully, responsibly and without creating new ones.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C‑222, which was introduced by the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, a riding in British Columbia that I have not had the opportunity to visit.

I assume that this bill was introduced with good intentions. We will be able to discuss the bill in more detail later. The reason I say that is because the member himself was once the minister of citizens' services in the previous government. In fact, it is the same government, although the Liberals like to say that it is a new government because they changed prime ministers. In any case, it is still a Liberal government.

The purpose of the bill is to help people who lose their child. The birth of a child is a momentous occasion, a major life event. I am a father of three, and I can say that becoming a parent is life-changing.

Usually, when a person says they are expecting a new baby, there is a lot of excitement. The individual, the couple and the whole family are happy. However, there are cases where the child passes away shortly after birth, which is incredibly difficult. I was fortunate enough not to have experienced that, but I did lose a child—well, not me personally, because I was not the one who was pregnant—before the baby was born, and I am sure that losing a child after birth must be even more terrible and difficult.

Unfortunately, under the federal EI program, if a person loses a baby, then all of a sudden, they are not a parent anymore because they no longer have a child. They are therefore no longer entitled to receive EI during the leave period that parents would normally be entitled to. Obviously, I think that is terrible and unacceptable, but that is how things currently stand in our legislation. These are archaic laws that have not been modernized in many years.

We can only applaud the initiative of Bill C-222, which shows that there are major gaps and flaws in the employment insurance program. The one we are discussing today is only one of many. That is the worst part.

I could tell you a story. When I was in CEGEP and university, there were campaigns to modernize the employment insurance fund. Since I am 37, that means it was almost 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, there were campaigns to modernize EI. There were campaigns to denounce the fact that the government was dipping into the employment insurance fund, whether it was the Liberals under Paul Martin or the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. In the end, the money was never put back into the EI fund.

The sad thing is that the famous reforms that groups defending the unemployed were calling for at the time were never implemented. This was something the Liberals promised in 2015, when they were elected. They promised the moon. They promised that they would definitely look into employment insurance. They went on tours and held consultations. They have been in power for 10 years. This is even their 11th year in power. There still has been no major change. It is as if all those promises were worthless.

We are in favour of this bill and we will support it. However, it is still disappointing to see that this is not actually a government bill. It is a private member's bill. This is not a government initiative. It is the initiative of a backbencher that may force his government to do something if the Liberals vote in favour of the bill. I am unaware of the Liberals' intentions regarding this bill.

For me, this is a clear demonstration that it is past time for a major, in-depth overhaul of EI. Labour organizations, groups advocating for the unemployed and seasonal workers have been waging these battles pretty much everywhere.

When we talk to people in eastern Quebec, in the north shore region or in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, they all say the same thing: The EI system is dysfunctional, and it is sapping the life from the regions because of the spring gap problem.

The government might say that there have been pilot projects, but pilot projects are temporary, not permanent. They do not exactly solve everything, and the solutions they do bring are only temporary. There is always the fear that the problem will return or that it is only partially solved.

The Bloc Québécois has fought other battles on the issue of EI, notably with Ms. Émilie Sansfaçon, who, sadly, has since passed away. Her father also fought for this cause. Émilie Sansfaçon would have wanted people suffering from serious illnesses such as cancer to be able to receive EI like anyone else. People with a serious illness are not well enough to go to work and have to devote all their energy to recovery.

Unfortunately, this still leaves only 15 weeks of employment insurance instead of the 50 weeks that should be offered, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois. Still, many steps have been taken, and the government promised to listen and take action. The sad part is that the Liberals are supposed to be a social democratic party that cares about needs of the people, at least in theory. In any case, that is what they claim. They are supposed to have a heart and be open to changing and improving the social fabric, and providing economic support for struggling individuals. I have a hard time understanding why these changes have not come about over the years.

I would like to go back to the time when I was in CEGEP and university, because things have not changed that much since then. I remember that advocacy groups for the unemployed were saying that about one in two people who should qualify for EI were not getting it because of extremely strict rules. I have not seen the latest figures, but knowing that no major restructuring of the EI program has taken place, I get the impression that they are roughly the same today. Meanwhile, we are living through hard economic times, marked by uncertainty and job losses in a range of economic sectors. Under normal circumstances, that should turn our attention to things we can do to make life better for people who lose their jobs.

We are a long way from the 1930s, but let us not forget that all the social programs that exist today for workers who lose their jobs were put in place in response to economic hardships experienced in the past. When we are experiencing economic hardships, it is precisely the right time to think about what we can do for others who are struggling or going through tough times themselves.

Obviously, I think everyone in the House understands that the Bloc Québécois intends to support Bill C-222. However, we think that it should have been more ambitious, especially since this government has been promising reforms for 10 years. It seems to me that, after 10 years, if the government has not taken action, it is because it never intended to do so and probably never will.

The good news is that there is currently a minority government in place, and a lot can happen with a minority government. It is a minority government for now, at any rate. We have also seen in recent years that the Conservatives have developed some virtues, being a little less anti-worker in their policies. It is therefore not impossible that certain pro-worker policies could be adopted in the future with the support of the Conservatives and New Democrats, even without the Liberals. It would be impressive, but it is not impossible. Obviously, my expectations of the Conservatives remain limited. That said, these are possibilities that we will look into, because it is important to do more for our community.

As everyone knows, the loss of a child is a major event in someone's life. The statistics show that it is not that common, however. In Quebec, there are 4.9 infant deaths per 1,000 births. When it does happen though, we obviously want to be able to help these people. In a context where the new Liberal government has shifted to the right over the last term and no longer seems to be focused on the people but on the oil companies instead, we could perhaps argue that this would represent a very low cost to society, since there are only 4.9 infant deaths per 1,000 births and few people are affected. As I said, however, those who do lose a child are deeply affected, and their whole lives change. Everyone can agree on that.

I hope that everyone in the House will vote in favour of the bill before us, but more importantly, that everyone agrees that we need to go even further this time. Quebec has already solved this problem with the Quebec parental insurance plan, or QPIP. Unfortunately, as usual, the federal government is still lagging behind. Now is the time for it to catch up.

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

The honourable member for Burnaby North—Seymour for his right of reply.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, I only have five minutes, but I am not going to take a lot of it.

I will start by saying thanks. I want to thank all of my colleagues who contributed, not just today but in the first hour. To all of my colleagues who have been working on this for several years, either at the HUMA committee or in various ways, it is hard for me to explain why it has perhaps taken this long to get to this place. However, I am going to do everything I can to make sure this bill gets across the line.

I especially want to thank the members who presented their own personal, individual stories. The fact that we have members in this House who could have benefited from this bill, who are willing to be vulnerable, get up and tell their stories, tells us how impactful this is for the more than 1,600 families this affects across Canada. I would like to thank them next.

For those families who have had this happen, I thank them for sharing their stories, which are not easy to tell. Those families told their stories not for their own personal benefit but for the benefit of the next family that may benefit from this particular legislation. For that, I say a real heartfelt thank you.

I want to thank the Minister of Jobs and Families, the Minister of Finance and all of their staff who have helped work through various iterations of this bill and who will continue to work as we go through, hopefully, to the committee process and on to what I hope is third reading and royal assent.

Of course, I want to thank the critics, both the old critic and the new critic in the Bloc and the critics in all the parties, for their communication and their work on this so far.

For the 1,600 families that would benefit from it, this bill would provide a simple and elegant fix. A Bloc member rose in the first hour and asked if this was a good measure, saying that it seems to have universal support but that they were concerned about the royal recommendation. They asked me if we had the royal recommendation. I answered honestly that I did not have it and needed everybody's help to try to get it.

I am happy to update the House and say that I believe we have found a path to get a royal recommendation. However, it will require co-operation at committee, and we have to tie up a few loose ends. The required amendments are straightforward. They do not change the purpose of the bill; they simply ensure sound legislative execution. We will work diligently to make sure that is successful. The last thing we want to do is have another bill go all the way through and then not actually help those 1,600 families.

I believe there is broad agreement in the House to move this quickly to HUMA. I do not think it will take long to study it. We could have it back in the House and actually, probably, have the bill wrapped up by February. We have the evidence and the stories. We have the solution right in front of us.

For the benefit of all Canadians and those future families who, in the most unfortunate of circumstances, might face this kind of tragedy, let us get this done. Let us use this moment to help those future families.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish you and everyone a good weekend, and I would like to request a recorded vote.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 4, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:17 p.m., pursuant to orders made on Thursday, October 23, 2025, and Wednesday, November 5, 2025, the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 2, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:17 p.m.)

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-222 under Private Members' Business.

The question is on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #64

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)