House of Commons Hansard #225 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-49.

Topics

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting in favour.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and the Conservatives are voting no.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP also agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and is voting against.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and votes no.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Independent

Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in this fashion?

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

Vote #382

Transportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House.

(Bill S-236. On the Order: Private Members' Bills:)

September 18, 2017—second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation—Mr. Easter.

Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Malpeque is not present to move the order as announced in today's Notice Paper. Accordingly, the item will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, my constituent, Willow, in April told me of a situation that she was faced with. It was a heartbreaking ordeal that she and her nephew, Dash, had been undergoing. Her case made national headlines. I have risen in this House to ask the minister to intervene. I have written several letters to him to that effect as well.

Willow and Dash's case exposes a gap in the legislation that could affect thousands of families across Canada. When Dash's parents both tragically passed away, his aunt Willow became his legal guardian. It was a family decision to honour Dash's family name and the history to not legally adopt him. This would have forced a change and reissuance of his birth certificate. What Willow did not realize was that by not being Dash's biological or adoptive parent, it made her ineligible for parental leave benefits.

Given Dash's difficult situation, Willow wanted to take a leave from work to give Dash the support that he needed. Like many Canadians, Willow could not afford to take unpaid leave. Therefore, she applied for parental benefits under EI, a system that she had spent 22 years paying into. Willow was denied because she is not the adoptive parent or the biological parent of her nephew. She was only the legal guardian.

After months of being denied with no effect, she came to me. Finally, after we brought this to the government, Willow's EI claim was accepted in September. Remember that she applied in April and it was finally accepted in September. At that time it was also recommended to Willow that she file a formal complaint.

Throughout this whole ordeal, Willow's focus on the broader impact of what she was doing was never lost. To quote her complaint letter, “Although I am personally relieved to finally be granted this leave, it is unacceptable that it took five months, a media campaign, and a question in the House of Commons. I am an educated person with a great deal of support and this has been draining on me financially and emotionally. The EI regulations are antiquated and discriminatory. Parental leave must be available to all new parents who qualify. It is discriminatory to state that permanent guardianship is not equivalent to other types of legal parenting. Ultimately, I have been granted parental leave which means that a precedent has now been set.”

If the government fails to change the legislation, it is continuing to discriminate against an estimated 11,000 children in B.C. alone. It is also discriminating against indigenous children who are in homes where legally recognized alternative customs and kinship care arrangements exist.

I have been in contact with the minister throughout this entire process and even outlined the legislative or regulatory approaches that could remedy these problems. However, in response to my latest letter to the minister, his policy director writes, “I am pleased to learn that there has been a resolution to Ms. Yamauchi's case with respect to her EI claim. I am also concerned with the delays experienced in her case. The department will make efforts to improve and be more responsive in the future.”

Then it goes on with a boilerplate about budget 2017 EI changes, completely ignoring what my letter was asking and what Willow's complaint is actually about, which is legislative changes.

When will the government close this unfair gap in the EI program so that families like Willow will not be hurt by it?

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne Québec

Liberal

Sherry Romanado LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, the question the member from Vancouver East asked the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development on May 29 was in fact very relevant. Her question was about a specific case that touched us all deeply. However, the question went further. It also touched on much larger social issues. The member asked how the various government measures and programs in place could respond to this individual who was declined employment insurance parental benefits.

Under the current regulations, employment insurance parental benefits are provided to parents taking care of a newborn or a newly adopted child. There are also certain circumstances where parental benefits could be provided to claimants when they can demonstrate that they have been granted permanent, legal custody by the court because it was in the child's best interests not to proceed with an adoption. As the minister said, we are all saddened when Canadian families go through difficult times such as this. However, each case is unique and has to be assessed on an individual basis, according to the EI Act and regulations.

Service Canada has reached out to the individual, encouraging her to share any additional information to support the reconsideration of her application.

I will give three concrete examples of improvements that will be made to the employment insurance program.

The improvements announced in the last budget will come into effect this fiscal year and will make the employment insurance program more flexible, accessible, and inclusive. We will create a new employment insurance benefit for a duration of up to 15 weeks for people who take care of a critically ill or gravely injured adult family member. Additionally, the new measures will allow parents to choose to either receive employment insurance parental benefits for a period of 12 months or for an extended period of up to 18 months. This choice will be available to both birth and adoptive parents.

Finally, pregnant workers will be able to apply for employment insurance maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their expected delivery date, increased from the current maximum of eight weeks, if they choose.

In the meantime, our government is taking action on a number of fronts to help Canadian families.

For example, in July 2016, we replaced the previous child benefit with an all new Canadian child benefit. This new benefit is simpler, non-taxable, better targeted, and more generous. In fact, nine out of 10 Canadian families now receive more support than ever.

I invite my colleague to do as the minister suggested and, if she has not already done so, send Employment and Social Development Canada all information relevant to an in depth review of this file.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, the talking points the member just offered have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I am very well aware of the changes made in budget 2017 and to the EI program. As I stated, I have been sharing with the minister the legislative and regulatory changes that could have been included in budget 2017 to fix this problem. As the parliamentary secretary knows, those provisions were not included.

Budget 2017 changes will not fix this. The changes have no impact on legal guardians, because legal guardians remain ineligible for EI parental leave benefits. This is not fair. I think the member agrees with that. I think the government is in agreement with that. It requires legislative change or regulatory changes.

I am happy to provide those documents to the government again, as I have done for a number of different ministers. However, I am happy to do that if we can in fact get those changes made so no Canadian has to go through what Willow and Dash have had to go through.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to assure my colleague that we are all working for the same cause on this file.

We want the best for all Canadians.

As I mentioned, the Government of Canada does provide Canadians with a wide range of programs and services for families, particularly for those in the middle class and those working hard to join it. We are committed on this matter, and we will continue to improve the social services to which Canadians are entitled.

Our government looks forward to working with the member opposite to bring this file to conclusion.

Canadian Coast GuardAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Madam Speaker, last time we were debating this issue, it was June, the government had quietly announced the phase-out of the Coast Guard's only team of emergency rescue divers on the British Columbia coast.

The Liberal government's plan to disband this specialized search and rescue dive team came as a great shock to B.C. mariners who had already lived through this once before. In 2001, when the Liberals were previously in federal government, they had cancelled the dive team as a cost-saving measure, but two days later a man crashed his vehicle into the Fraser River and the Coast Guard was unable to rescue him from the waters. People died.

On the same day in June of this year, the government also announced the ending of funding for the stream to sea salmon program. This program had provided over a million students with hands-on learning experiences around B.C. salmon, the province's fisheries, ecology, and the role of history of salmon in British Columbia's culture and particularly in indigenous culture.

Here is an example of the kind of mail that everybody was getting in June regarding a deep concern about the cancellation of the salmonid program. This is from Nina Evans-Locke, from Nanaimo, where I was elected. She writes:

I cannot imagine why DFO decided to cut the very successful salmon education programs from our schools here in BC. It is beyond belief. So many children are affected, as are thousands of streamkeeper volunteers and other volunteers who come out in droves to support these programs, including me.

...

The Salmon in the Classroom program is an important educational project where Coho eggs from the local hatchery are placed in aquariums in schools.... Departure Bay Eco School, one of our important partners in our projects to restore Departure Creek, is involved in this program.

...

These cuts involve 0.02% of your overall budget. Thanks for rescinding these cuts for this next year and please do not go ahead and cut these programs the following year.

Just weeks later, we were really pleased that the federal government, under great pressure from the NDP and fisheries critic, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, announced a reversal of its decision to cut the B.C. salmon enhancement program and the salmon education program, and the restoration of funding for the search and rescue dive teams.

My question is, first of all, why were these cuts ever proposed? It was a deep mistake, a blunder. Second, public pressure worked. It was a real win for coastal communities.

We also had public pressure applied to other decisions of the federal government, the fish farm bill, the transition to close containment, and closure of the Comox Coast Guard base, which happened just 18 months ago under the Liberal government's watch. In that case, there was tremendous public push-back. That was not a win for coastal communities. The Liberal government went ahead, despite that opposition.

That is my question to the member across, why are you not listening to coastal communities, despite the fact we got a win with salmon and the Coast Guard dive team? When will you listen to coastal communities in relation to other Coast Guard closures?