Human Resources Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

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

Thank you very much for the question, and thank you for your and your party's support on this very important initiative.

I think this proves the point that.... I was very surprised. I don't recall what the bill number was, but a bill from one of our colleagues came to this committee to extend sick leave to 52 weeks. I was actually surprised that it passed this committee. All the members voted for it to go back to the House. We continued debate, and then it just dropped off because it didn't receive a royal recommendation.

Again, we've seen the Liberals say, “Well, we're going to offer 50 weeks.” I think this again speaks to the fact that they are out of ideas. I understand the optics maybe with the royal recommendation, but I think it is a wonderful opportunity for parties to collaborate and to get things done for Canadians.

It's unfortunate that this happened in that scenario. This is why I responded maybe pragmatically or cautiously to the announcement of this in the fall economic statement, because I won't believe it's done until I see that it's done.

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

Our party will definitely support this bill, because we've been working hard from the outset to improve the employment insurance system. Don't forget that the system is essentially funded by worker and employer contributions, which means that people contribute to the program.

The parental system, if I can use that expression, is considered more favourable to women. We, however, believe that everyone who contributes should be treated equitably. We are in 2023. Acknowledging the same rights for everyone, whether it's a biological birth, an adoption or a child from a surrogate mother, should be a no‑brainer.

What arguments could be added to ensure that it actually happens? It would be one of several measures to improve the employment insurance program. Which do you believe are absolutely essential for us to be able to say that we have finally got there?

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

Collaboration may be nice if.... What's super-frustrating for me is that it was for sure in the Liberals' 2019 and 2021 platforms, so given the fact that it's taken this long for it to be started on their end, it seems as though the Liberals waited until somebody did the work. Drafting legislation is hard work, especially when it has such an impact on Canadians. It takes a lot of work to do the research to make sure that we're not missing things that could impact Canadians. At the end of the day, it's families that it would impact. Then they scooped it up.

I'm grateful for having gone through this process and getting it this far. I hope that each one of us will vote for this and send it back to the House, and that ultimately it does receive a royal recommendation so that we can make sure that Canadians are able to access “time to attach” benefits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is that all, Ms. Chabot?

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

Do I have any speaking time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have five seconds.

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

In 2015, 2019 and 2021, the Liberals promised and made a commitment to comprehensively reform employment insurance. I hope that by the time we've got to the end of our discussions, we will have succeeded in at least making some progress, although I'd like to see an even broader overhaul.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus, for six minutes, please.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair. It's an honour to be here.

Thank you, Madam Falk, for this legislation.

When we talk about adoption and surrogacy today, it's a very different pattern from what would have been adoption in the 1960s. We see children who are in the foster care system who may be transitioning into families, and many children who may be older. Then, of course, there's the issue of more and more families raising children through surrogacy.

Do you have a percentage, a pattern, of what we're looking at in terms of the children and their ages and who would benefit from this legislation?

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

Thank you.

First of all, Charlie, let me start by thanking you for supporting this initiative. I think it's very important, and I appreciate your party's support for this as well.

As for statistics, I don't have that on me, but there are so many children.... There are different veins, so to say. There are different types of adoption. We do know too that when kids are placed—and they may or may not be in foster care—sometimes they sit there for a while waiting and waiting, and it gets harder as kids get older. We have to also take into account that sometimes it's not just a single child; sometimes it's a family group. There are families out there who really want to make sure that the family is still together, and they are able to raise that sibling group together.

I would say that this reaches different veins within Canadian society. I'm especially thinking of something MP Ferreri brought up earlier about infertility. I think that's something that needs to be acknowledged. Many Canadians are struggling with infertility issues, and they will go to whatever extent they can. For some families, it's quite an investment not just in time but also in money to form their family.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you for that.

I certainly know many young people who've grown into wonderful adults and were able to be adopted into families. I'm still in touch with many of them.

Certainly in our region, in Treaty 9, adoption in indigenous communities still has a very negative and dark.... The issue of kinship and customary caregivers isn't covered in the bill. Is that right? What were you thinking in terms of the decision around that?

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

Thank you very much for that question.

It isn't excluded in the bill. We mirrored the wording that was in the EI act. From our understanding, the way that parental leave is currently applied through regulations allows those who are in a customary care relationship the opportunity to still apply for this benefit. It would be my expectation and also my intent that the department would mirror those regulations and how they're applied, I guess.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We just had Bill C-92 pass, which gives the legal right for indigenous first nations to establish their own child and family policies, and particularly to address the inequities that were caused by the adoption of children who were taken out of their communities and lost their identity. Quebec, Manitoba—maybe not now, but then—and Alberta and the Northwest Territories are going to the Supreme Court to oppose this legislation. Have you looked at the potential impact of Bill C-92 and the challenge against first nations communities having the right to set their own adoption and family and child practices in terms of your bill?

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

In regard to this bill, the intent I had was to make sure that all families had time to attach. That was parity across lines. It didn't matter how they wanted to form their families.

It doesn't matter about the culture, ethnicity or race; attachment is so important for the safety, well-being and development of any child. That's the heart and intent of this bill—to make sure these kiddos can have that time to attach and also, I think, to work through some trauma.

I think that every child, and it doesn't matter.... Actually, I would argue that every single one of us around this table has gone through some type of trauma in our life. It doesn't matter what that was.

With some kids getting adopted into families, sometimes there's trauma. I think it's just so important that we make sure there is that time and an opportunity for healing. Working on oneself is always really hard and really messy, especially when you're a younger person and your brain hasn't fully developed. Experiences shape the things you do and say. The intent with this bill is to make sure there's that time to attach.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

In terms of a strategy moving forward, I've been in opposition for 20 years, so I've lived my life trying to force government to do stuff they didn't want to do. Are you expecting this to get a royal recommendation, or are you expecting it to get blocked on a royal recommendation, and would you then try to force the Liberals to just adopt it anyway?

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

That's a very good question.

I assume that they will not give a royal recommendation, even though they have been petitioned by Canadians for a royal recommendation on this bill. As I said in my opening remarks, one of the members said, “Well, my bill didn't get a royal recommendation, so your bill isn't going to get a royal recommendation.” That's the intent behind it, which is really unfortunate.

Again, as I said previously to MP Long, not until I see the enacting legislation will I know what their intent is with this moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

We'll have Mrs. Gray for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our colleague for bringing this private member's bill forth. It was a true privilege of mine to be the seconder of this bill.

As someone who was adopted at birth, it really means a lot. I spoke about it. It was a very personal speech that I gave. I also have another sister who was adopted at birth, and I know that in our family's case, my mom didn't work. She was a teacher, and she had to take quite a bit of time off. It did put a lot of personal financial strain on our family. That's just a personal note.

I'm really glad to see something like this come forth, and I think it's really important.

Someone who wrote into the committee—and you touched on it really briefly—spoke about child care spaces, but her comment had to do with the extra expense of children under 12 months, which I thought was a really interesting comment from her.

Is that something that you've heard as well?

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

Absolutely. I have heard from family members and constituents, Canadians, that when infants have to go into an infant room in day care, they have to pay more money for them just because they're little infants. They need a little bit more caring and a little bit more attention because of that lack of ability to communicate with adults. It does cost more money to put an infant child in care, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it ends at 12 months, either. It kind of goes on milestones for that child.

Based on milestones met and the needs and the time that the child needs, the day care or day home that they would be in would decide when that child could be moved to the toddler room, for example, as opposed to the infant room, which does sometimes come with a decrease in child care price.

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

Thank you very much.

I know that we're going to hear from some witnesses over the coming days, but for now I want to bring us to other important committee business.

I would like to move the following motion:

Given that,

the committee received a letter on November 9th from the Auditor General of Canada offering to appear on her Reports looking into the Inclusion in the Workplace for Racialized Employees, Modernizing Information Technology Systems and Benefits Delivery Modernization programmes,

the committee immediately invite the Auditor General of Canada and relevant officials to appear for two hours on these reports, subsequently followed by the appearance of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages; the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities; the Minister of Citizens’ Services; and the President of the Treasury Board, separately, accompanied by all relevant officials, for 1 hour each.

This is in reference to our last meeting, when we were discussing a similar motion; however, there was an amendment and a subamendment. This is to clean that motion up and to bring consensus for some of the comments that were made at that committee. This motion is to take into consideration some of the discussion from all members at the last committee, so I'm hoping that this is an easy motion that we can approve today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

The motion is in order to be debated. We have a motion before the committee.

Go ahead, Mrs. Gray.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to ask the clerk for clarification as to the comment that the chair made earlier about the timing for having resolution to a motion that's brought forth at the committee, when the debate and vote would happen and how that works into the committee timing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I'm sorry, Mrs. Gray; you must have misunderstood me.

I said that the motions are non-time limited and only can be dealt with when they come to the end, but if a member moves it in their time slot and the debate proceeds beyond that, and the committee dispenses with the motion, I would continue on with the next questioner in the committee. It had nothing to do with the timeline under the motion.

Right now, when you moved it, you had about two minutes left in your timeline. If the timeline to dispense with the motion moves beyond that and the committee is still in committee timeline, I will return to normal business with the next speaker on the list.

Just so we're clear, there is no restriction on the timeline to debate your motion or who participates.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos, on the motion of Mrs. Gray.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I will move an amendment to the motion so that it reads.... I'm looking at the last sentences. This is the change, and I'll speak slowly for the clerk: “appear before the Committee for no fewer than one hour each, in two panels of three, to consider the supplementary estimates”, and the date would be stricken as well. The motion would be amended to end after the “(B)”.

We should proceed to a vote, Mr. Chair, unless you have others....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The member has called for a vote on his amendment.

Go ahead, Ms. Ferreri, on the amendment from Mr. Fragiskatos.