Human Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

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

Good morning, everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Falk, for your opening comments.

Before we get to questions, I just want to clarify something.

In the future, if a member chooses to use their speaking time to move a motion—and they have every right to do that—the motions must be dealt with in the committee, but if they go beyond their timeline, when the committee returns to its regular business, I will move to the next questioner on the list. I gave some leniency before to a number of ones. Just for clarification, if you use your speaking time to move a motion, which you have a right to do, and it goes beyond the time allotted before it's dealt with, when we return to committee business, I will move to the next speaker on the list.

With that, we'll begin this round with Ms. Ferreri for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to Mrs. Falk not only for bringing forward this really important private member's bill but also for being here today and advocating on behalf of all parents.

Ms. Falk, we have an infertility rate in Canada of one in six couples, and I'm curious to know why you personally brought forward this bill yourself.

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

I think you bring to light and recognize the realities that infertility is a growing issue within the country, and more and more people, as technology and medicine advance, are accessing those treatments.

At the end of the day, this is just the right thing to do. If more and more people are accessing those treatments and if kids are waiting to be adopted, and we know that finances are very tight for families, especially when they're bringing a new child into their family, it's the right thing to do to make parity between how families create and form their individual families.

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

Thank you for that.

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

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

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

I was given different reasons throughout debate. Some said that it was because there was a royal recommendation that was needed. Others said that the government has done a lot of spending and that they need to restrain what they do.

I'm not sure why there wasn't unanimous support. I appreciate that I had the support of the Bloc, the NDP and the Green members, and as I said, four members from the Liberal party voted for it. At the end of the day, I think that it just comes down to petty partisan politics. It is unfortunate that something that is really of a non-partisan nature has turned into this.

It was also frustrating for me. I did reach out to all parties. I didn't get responses from anybody in cabinet to have a discussion about this until after the first hour of debate was already completed in the House.

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

Thank you for that.

Right now, obviously we have a cost of living crisis. People are paying attention to how we spend taxpayers' money, which is ultimately what the government is. It doesn't have its own money; it has taxpayers' money.

I'm curious if you could break down what the financial implications would be of your offering this program and maybe just reiterate what it would mean. It would give 15 weeks for adopted or intended parents. What does that look like to the taxpayer, and how does that impact the budget?

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

As it is right now, families that are formed through surrogacy or adoption receive 15 fewer weeks' leave, so that's 15 fewer weeks than people who chose not to go through surrogacy or adoption. What that means is that there are 15 fewer weeks of EI that can be claimed through the special benefit, so this benefit isn't labelled as a “time to attach” benefit, which would then give parity.

A lot of people don't know that when a woman says she's going on maternity leave, there are two benefits there. There's the maternity benefit and then the parental leave benefit, so this bill just mirrors that. If families want to extend their leave—because we know that this was done a few years ago—parents can then extend their parental leave if they so wish. They still have that opportunity to extend the leave in the parental portion, but it's just mirroring the maternity time.

The PBO's costing in his reports shows that there would be no impact to EI premiums for Canadians who have to pay into EI, as all Canadians do when they work for an employer, and then they remit that money.

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

To clarify, then, nothing will be impacted, because parents—whether they are intended parents, biological parents or surrogates—are already paying that into the system, so you're not adding any more new spending.

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

That's correct.

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

Thank you for that.

Why do you think this 15-week attachment is so important?

I ask you this also as the critic for families, children and social development. We have a child care crisis in this country as well. A lot of the infant programs in particular are being hit very hard, so I can also see the benefit of being able to stay home longer just from a parent's perspective.

Why do you think it is so important for these 15 weeks to be added on? What do you think it will provide for the child and the parents?

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

I think it will make a more even playing field.

I know from talking to members of Parliament who have spoken to child care providers in their respective ridings that they have been told their day cares are closing their infant rooms because there is that opportunity to take extended leave in the parental portion. What's happening is if an adoptive or an intended parent can claim the 15 weeks less, they're going to have to go back to work earlier, but there may not be space for them in an infant room because they would be needed in an infant area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Ferreri.

We'll have Mr. Long for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's great to be back. Good morning to all of my colleagues.

MP Falk, good morning. Congratulations on the efforts you've made.

I would tend to look at your private member's bill as an opportunity for you to highlight a cause. It's an opportunity for you to bring your beliefs and, obviously, your passion about this to the floor to be debated.

Obviously there's a back-and-forth, but to be frank, instead of viewing it as a.... I almost sense a bit of negativity, to be honest. I would view it as a victory for you too. I think members in this House, whether they're in opposition or sitting in government, have that opportunity to bring things forth. I was happy to support you with that vote, but I think that as MPs, it's important for us to challenge government, whether you're sitting in government or you're sitting across the House.

I thank you for the work you've done on it. Obviously it's an important issue, which is why I was happy to support you, but I'm wondering if you can give us some examples.

I can certainly talk at length about adoptive parents who came into my constituency office and had their concerns about the 15 weeks that they couldn't receive, and a time for bonding and so on and so forth. Can you give us a few examples of parents who came into your office and what they went through?

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

That's a really great question.

Thank you very much, MP Long. I really appreciate your support on this. I am glad that you are seeing that this is a common-sense piece of legislation that really is for the betterment of Canadians and Canadian families.

There are a couple of things I want to touch on.

Attachment is so important. We know that in the first year of life, generally speaking, attachment is very important for parents and baby. Also, adoption and surrogacy don't make it any less important just because it's come about in a different way. Attachment is so important for kids to feel safe, to feel secure, to grow and to have healthy coping mechanisms, especially within mental health. It's all these things. It helps with resilience. Attachment is so very important.

One thing I would like to say is with regard to negativity. I'm not being negative; I'm just being honest and stating the facts of what happened. I don't see this as a win, because it's not completed. I haven't seen any enacting legislation and I don't know if your government has the same intent with this. I don't know if things will be amended. It's been very difficult for me to have two-way communication with ministers and your government on this issue. I've been ignored. I don't want this to be perceived as me being negative; I'm just stating facts.

Also, this kind of proves the point that the Liberals are out of ideas. Numerous private members' bills have been taken from your government. We have bereavement leave; that was actually taken from the previous Parliament by your government. In this current fall economic statement, we've seen a couple of bills—namely Bill C-323 and Bill C-339—including mine, and more, that were taken from your government. I think this proves that the Liberals are out of fresh ideas and are grasping at straws.

Regarding your question about Canadians who have been through adoption and surrogacy, I absolutely think it will be powerful and impactful to hear what those Canadians have to say. I'm sure they're appearing as witnesses here.

I was surprised to find out that members of my own caucus had been adopted. I've heard their stories about how that changed the trajectory of their lives and that they were so grateful for that.

That's just to name a few. I also have adoption in my own family that has been completed and has gone through the process.

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

Thank you.

Obviously I take exception to your comment that we're out of ideas. I can't agree with you there.

Here's one thing I wanted to ask you, MP Falk. One of the significant differences between this legislation and what we as a government have announced is allowing parents to begin leave before the arrival of the child. Is there a reason you didn't include that in your bill?

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

It's a great question. Thank you for that.

The purpose of this bill was about the time to attach with a child. That could be at any age.

We did it so that it would mirror what was there already, so we didn't tip the scales and make things imbalanced at all. Again, this is about time to attach with a child to build those healthy relationships and bonds.

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

Would you agree that this is a good change?

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

I have not seen the enacting legislation, so I don't know if that's in there.

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

On the proposed change, though, would you agree with that?

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

I would like to see the enacting legislation before I agree with anything.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

What makes you think it will pass this time?

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

What makes you think it will pass this time?