Human Resources Committee on March 9th, 2026

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

You're not preparing for that when you're preparing for the birth of your child. It's the very opposite.

I will say, I was on the committee when we studied M-110. At the time, there were several recommendations, as was noted. I'm not sure how much the department or the minister of the time followed through. If not, it's high time that those be followed through on.

[Nancy Slinn]

May I add something very quickly? Thank you.

As Peter started to say, when we lose a parent, that's a connection to our past. Most of us expect we will lose a parent at some point. When we lose a sibling, that's a connection to our present. Sometimes that happens, and again, we understand. We've met this person, we've lived with this person, and we've known this person. When you lose a baby, there is not only the physical loss of the child but also the loss of all the hopes, dreams and plans you had already created for that child since you learned of their existence. They're all shattered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Falk.

Mr. Joseph, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to commend the exceptional courage of all the witnesses, especially Ms. Wu, who explained what she has been through and spoke about the administrative complexities.

I will now turn to you, Mr. Cormier. You told us that you returned to work early. Do you believe employers have a role to play? Is this also a challenge?

[Lee Cormier]

I definitely do. I'm not exactly sure how employers fit into it. There are always some rules or regulations we can impose on employers. Really, for us, it's always been to be able to have the time after, and really, it was more of a bureaucracy thing or a government route.

Definitely, both of our employers understood. They gave us extra time and were willing to work with us. For sure, not everybody has that ability. Not everybody has the kind of employer who's available for them. It's difficult in that sector when you're talking about employer-employee relationships and how that all works. I feel like this is more open to.... The funding is already there, and the promise of that time is already there, so we can keep that going.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

Ms. Spinks, I know that nothing can replace a child. In your opinion, what changes could we propose to Bill C‑222 to improve certain things or ease the burden during that extremely difficult time?

[Nora Spinks]

The bottom line is that support shouldn't be a matter of luck. We've heard about the employers that were supportive. It shouldn't be luck. If Evan's law is enacted in the way it's crafted, it would extend maternity and parental benefits to those who have lost an infant. From an employer's perspective, other than training their staff and managers and creating a warm place for people to re-enter the labour force, there's not a lot of change that needs to take place.

The job protection in employment standards is already there. The benefits and supports that the employer offers are already there. If they are tied to EI, maternity and parental, and those are extended to these families, there's a minimal requirement for employers to do anything differently from what they were already doing with their other employees on maternity and parental leave. All the mechanics for how they leave and when they come back are already there. What's important is that we make sure that there are wraparound supports in the workplace, in the community and in the home, so that the midwives, the pediatricians, the family physicians, the community mental health service providers and all of those people know how to support these families as they re-enter the workplace and as they confront yet another set of emotions as they go back to work.

This is so that they're not forced to go back too early, and when they do go back, they can stay employed instead of what usually happens, which is just quitting if it becomes unbearable and leaving the labour force altogether. It's not just cash benefits. It's labour force attachment. It's their own mental health and well-being, and it's sending a message to everybody that you're not in this alone. No matter what you're going through, there are resources and supports available to you.

I have one last comment. When you hear about 10 years, 20 years or five years, there are about 1,600 families that go through this experience every year. As Nancy so eloquently stated, you never forget. This is 1,600 cumulative, not 1,600 done and move on to the new 1,600. It's 1,600 additional every year.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to take a few seconds to acknowledge the level of empathy shown by my colleagues here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Your speaking time is up, Mr. Joseph.

Mr. Richards, you have five minutes.

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

Carmen, I said I hoped I'd get a chance to ask you the question I wanted to, and now I get that chance. Sometimes it seems like the questions get asked more of the people in the room, so I hope you don't feel like you haven't had the chance to fully participate.

I wanted to ask you—and I'll probably open it up to others as well if there's time—to speak to the impacts. You talked a bit about having to stand in that line. Sarah and Lee have talked about the horrible comment that was made to them about their child ceasing to exist and their benefits ceasing to exist as a result. I wanted to give you a chance to speak to the impacts of that.

You're already dealing with the most traumatic thing I could possibly imagine as a parent. I can't imagine anything that would be worse than experiencing what you've experienced, and then you have to go and deal with a cold, heartless bureaucracy. I wanted to give you a chance to speak to the impacts of that and what it does to a person.

[Carmen Wu]

Thank you for the question.

In terms of impacts, I would say time moves differently when you're grieving, and no one really understands that. When you are that person going through the grief and trying to manage your friends', family's and others' feelings, it does something to you. It changes you, I would say.

Looking back at my experience of going back to work within the six months, I thought at that six-month point that I was good. A year later, I looked back at the other six months and thought, “Oh, I was not good.” A year later, I keep looking back. I'm still grieving at some points.

It's hard to put the impact into words, but it certainly changes a person, and it changed those around me who had to support me at that time.

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

Thank you for sharing that.

That takes me to a couple of comments I heard from you, Nora, and I will ask you a question related to them.

You mentioned that this happens to 1,600 families every year. That means that over the last 10 years since we've been fighting for this, there have been 16,000 more families who have experienced it. That's why I spoke earlier to the importance of this getting done. We can't have this stalled again.

You also made the comment that some people, just by circumstance, are able to get the EI benefits as they exist now. That was one of the things I was alluding to earlier, when I talked about the roadblocks that were put up. Excuses were made at the time, and one of those excuses was that families can get this through what's there now. Sometimes there are families that are able to get it, but there are lots of families that aren't, and that's what I think you were referring to when you said it shouldn't be about luck. I want to give you a chance to speak to that and how important it is that there aren't excuses, or that this might work. We need to have something very clear, which I think this is.

I want to give you a chance to speak to the importance of that and not having more families go through the experiences that Carmen, Sarah, Lee, Nancy or Peter have gone through.

[Nora Spinks]

When there is infant loss in a family, everybody is affected. When there is infant loss in a workplace, everybody grieves.

We need to move this bill forward. We need to make sure people understand the essence of this bill. We know if you care for one, you care for many. If we support those parents in their grief, that ripple goes beyond, to their extended family, to their neighbours and to their co-workers and colleagues. This bill gives people not only the financial support they need, but all of the social support that comes with that.

We're never going to be able to prevent infant loss. What we can prevent is retraumatizing families. We can prevent the harm. We can prevent people being forced back too soon. The words you've heard today—heartbreak, shock, harm, trauma and cruelty—change you. We can change all of that by getting this bill out of committee, getting this bill voted on and getting this bill enacted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Ms. Koutrakis, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like all of our witnesses to chime in on this.

What message do you hope this legislation sends to families that may face this tragedy in the future?

I'll start with Mr. and Mrs. Cormier.

[Lee Cormier]

For us, just among ourselves, but working together with SIDS Calgary Society and within the political system, it doesn't have to be a political thing. The message should be that the government is looking out for us. The government is trying to take care of us and make things better. I think that's where we have to go with this: This is for everybody. There's nothing political about this. It's for everybody.

[Sarah Cormier]

I will echo that, for sure. Thank you for the question.

“We see you.” That's what I think every bereaved parent wants to hear. They want to hear that they are seen by their government, by their friends and by their family. “You're seen, you're held, you're safe and we have you.” That's what every parent wants to hear.

[Nora Spinks]

It's not the government's place to tell you when you're ready to go back to work after infant loss. You are the only one. You and your family members, your loved ones, are the only ones in a position to say, “Now's the time. I'm ready to go back.”

What this legislation does is acknowledge and recognize that no two families are alike and no two grieving processes are alike. It's very different when we're talking about a return to work after a broken leg. We know exactly how many weeks it takes for that bone to heal. Grief and loss of an infant.... It's not the government's place to say when is the right time to go back.

By enacting Evan's law, we will be in a position to say: “You're not invalid. You have access to all the benefits you would have had access to. We're here. We support you.” Those messages ripple, not just within those individual families but also within all of the other families in our communities. The more clear the message is that you matter, that we care, that we can't imagine.... We've heard that hundreds of times since this debate began decades ago: “You can't imagine it.”

What we can imagine is what it would be like for a family to know that their benefits are going to be deposited into their bank accounts as expected, that nobody is going to claw them back, and that they don't have to relive their story over and over again. That, we can imagine. That, we can control. The people in this room, at this committee, in Parliament and in the Senate can make this happen and can do this quickly and expeditiously. We can move this through so that it doesn't get lost again, since the nineties. We can get this through now. This is important.

[Nancy Slinn]

It shows that we support you. We may not know every way to support you or how to support everyone, but we are willing to learn and to help in a way that we can now, to make your life easier in the future.

[Peter Slinn]

One of the situations is in health care. For people who are in cancer care, their job satisfaction is, “I saved 25 lives this month.” We had a meeting, an Empty Cradle peer support meeting, and there were five couples there. Of them, all five found the same situation. The health care workers in maternity wards want to be in a happy place. Obstetrics is a happy place. There were glances back and forth between staff members: “Oh, this is a day I wish I wouldn't have come to work.” The way terminologies are used.... “You've had a spontaneous abortion.” Well, yes, you did. It's a miscarriage, and that's a terminology, but don't use that in front of parents. Use something sympathetic.

They're finding that banging against people who are not really on their side is an issue. Their employer says, “Oh, we just had to give you another holiday in September, and now you want how many months?” It's things like that. If they can feel that the government is there for them, that when they talk to Service Canada, it will be, “Oh, that must be horrible; we have something for you,” that would be all the help they would expect from Service Canada and Canada employment.

[Carmen Wu]

I was going to say the exact same thing that Nancy was saying. When you're going through grief, it is such an isolating experience, and everyone grieves differently. When that person is grieving and is asking for help or looking for help and resources, the system we have should be supporting them

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I would like to thank the witnesses for attending and offer them my deepest condolences.

Bill C‑222, also known as Evan’s Law, aims to ensure that humanity and dignity come before red tape. The state must not add suffering to suffering. That is why we will support this bill which, I would remind you, aims to address certain gaps in the federal employment insurance scheme.

However, we must ensure that Quebec workers under federal jurisdiction have the same protections as others. Finally, a parent should not have to choose between grieving and being able to survive financially.

Ms. Spinks, in 30 seconds, can you tell me whether certain families, such as those whose members are in precarious employment or are self-employed, risk being excluded from the planned measures? Is this something we should be considering?

[Nora Spinks]

Right now, the people who are excluded in this program are excluded in maternity and parental benefits and/or compassionate care benefits. There are two major parts to employment insurance. There are regular benefits, which people receive when they are not working. Then there are special benefits. Maternity and parental benefits fit under there, along with compassionate care benefits and others. These special benefits are there because they are compassionate, caring and nurturing benefits. As a country, we've decided that we're going to do this. What happens to families who don't have access to EI benefits is another set of issues that we need to deal with, separate from the EI benefit, but the EI benefit gives us the wedge that supports families as they are grieving and being forced to go back to work.

I'm not sure I'm answering your question, but I'm hoping to frame it by saying that this law is one of compassion, care and honouring what people are going through. It's not judging or forcing them to feel a particular way. We can't help people feel, but we can help people with some of the things they're trying to do—stay in the paid labour force, receive their benefits and not have to choose between a funeral or rent. These are some of the basics that this law allows and makes possible for families to access. The families who won't have access to this include those who experience pregnancy loss before viability. Those families would be eligible for sick leave, not maternity and parental benefits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

With that, I will thank the witnesses for appearing.

To all of you appearing today, thank you for your heartfelt testimony. Surely this time the bill will get back to the House in due haste so that it can deliver the objectives it was intended to deliver. Thank you for appearing and for being so candid with the committee members on their questions.

With that, we'll suspend for several minutes.