Debates of Feb. 28th, 2024

Procedure and House Affairs

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 61st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the items added to the order of precedence on Tuesday, February 13, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2) the report is deemed adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There being no motion at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

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

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before the House proceeds to Private Members' Business, the Chair wishes to remind members that pursuant to statements made on Thursday, May 4, 2023, and Monday, February 26, a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, since the bill would appropriate part of the public revenue.

Accordingly, if the bill is concurred in at report stage, the question on the motion for third reading will be put only if a royal recommendation is produced at the appropriate time.

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, as all parents know, the arrival of a new child is life-changing. It comes with great joys and excitement. It is a precious time of bonding and many firsts, but it also comes with added expenses, time constraints and new challenges. While we all know that Canada’s employment insurance program helps to ease some of those pressures, we must confront the fact that not all families are treated equally. It is not a fair program, and it does not reflect the diversity of families here in Canada.

Families formed through adoption and surrogacy continue to be entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave, and this is a disadvantage that must be rectified. My private member’s bill, Bill C-318, does that through the creation of a new 15-week time-to-attach benefit for adoptive and intended parents. It also adjusts entitlement leave accordingly in the Canada Labour Code. It is a common-sense bill; addressing the inequity in our EI system should truly be a non-partisan issue.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has instead chosen to politicize it. While it claims to support equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents, the Liberal government’s actions suggest otherwise. At second reading, the member for Winnipeg North indicated that this was not a priority for the Liberal government when he said, “We might have had to put some limitations on some of the things we wanted to do as a result of the pandemic”. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that this bill would not get a royal recommendation because his own bill did not get one. Of course, this was followed by all but a handful of Liberal members of Parliament voting against the bill at second reading.

Following the committee’s consideration of this bill, the Liberal government challenged amendments that sought to remove any ambiguity around parental benefits for indigenous peoples. The opposition to this from the Liberals raises concerns about their intentions around achieving equal access to EI benefits for indigenous families with customary care arrangements.

Now, at third reading, this bill risks being dropped from the Order Paper altogether if a royal recommendation is not provided by the Liberal government. By all indications, unfortunately, this does not seem to be forthcoming. The Liberal government’s decision to include a benefit for adoptive and intended parents in Bill C-59 was a clear declaration that it does not intend to collaborate on this issue and that it is more focused on political games than rectifying the discrimination in our EI system in a timely manner.

Bill C-59 is an omnibus budget bill that would not course correct the harmful policies of the NDP-Liberal government, which are fuelling the affordability crisis in this country. The Liberal government not only tied its proposed benefit to a costly and convoluted omnibus bill but also did not even make this legislation a priority. It is the Liberal government that sets the agenda in this place, and it has not brought Bill C-59 up for debate since January. Frankly, it has just not been a priority for the Liberals. In fact, they have never made it a priority to address the discrimination in our EI system.

They have been promising this to adoptive parents since 2019; they extended this promise to intended parents last year, after I introduced Bill C-318. Providing equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents should not be a complicated problem to solve, especially with the agreement of all opposition parties. However, the Liberal government has voted against Bill C-318, failed to provide the royal recommendation needed, refused to work collaboratively and failed to exercise the political will necessary to just get the dang job done.

Shamefully, the Liberal government’s broken promises, delays and political games are happening at the expense of families. These families are hopeful and anxiously waiting to know if they will get the time they need and deserve with their child. The children who do not get the time they need with their parents are the greatest victims.

Adoptive and intended parents are not less deserving, and they certainly do not need less time with their children. It is often the case that these families face additional challenges in bonding and attachment. Access to equal leave can go a long way to support them.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard compelling testimony from adoptive parents and adoptees about the challenges they experienced attaching. We heard repeatedly how meaningful additional time to form strong and secure attachments would have been for their families and how 35 weeks was not enough time.

We need to listen to those voices and act in a timely manner. Cassaundra Eisner, an adoptee herself, shared with the human resources committee: “Moving in with people who were recently strangers is intimidating and very scary. Time to attach is something that would have helped that 11-year old little girl.”

Shelley Rottenberg, also an adoptee, shared that, if there had been more time early on, her mother would not have had “to worry about going to work and leaving me with someone else” and that it “would have sped up that process of growing and building that trust and the bond to have a more secure attachment.”

Cathy Murphy shared that it took three and a half years for her son to call her mama instead of “Hey, lady.”

Julie Despaties shared that she ultimately did not return to work after her leave, because she needed more time to support her three adopted children.

Erin Clow wrote that, near the end of her leave, she felt “a weight which is difficult to articulate, laden with the emotions of sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach.”

There are many more examples.

Providing adoptive families with an extra 15 weeks of leave is not only fair but will also help improve their long-term outcomes and help set these children up for success.

I have also heard from a lot of intended parents who are growing their families through surrogacy. These parents need to make a decision about their leave options in the immediate term; many are expecting their child and are hopeful that they will have access to an additional 15 weeks of leave.

I have also heard from parents who have made the decision to take the extended parental leave, at a significant financial disadvantage. Often it is not because they want to take a two-year leave, but rather because they want the same opportunity to be home with their child in the first year of their life. Canadians growing their families via surrogacy face a lot of added costs, and the disparity in benefits add to those financial pressures.

Child care is another consideration. It is more costly to get child care for an infant under a year old, and the reality across the country is that there are limited infant child care spaces. These added costs are made even worse given the growing affordability crisis.

Baden Colt shared with the human resources committee: “Having a child through surrogacy poses challenges that are not faced by most new parents, and these financial obstacles are compounded by the inability to access the same 15 weeks of maternity leave that most new parents get.” She said that children like her daughter “deserve every opportunity that her peers have in life and that begins with having the same amount of time to bond with her parents as any other Canadian child.” Her daughter does deserve the same time with her parents that is afforded to other children.

The Liberal government needs to set aside the partisanship and the political games that are costing families across this country the time to attach and bond with their children. It is well past time that all families, including adoptive and intended parents, get the time they need and deserve with their child.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the speech that my friend, colleague and neighbour from Saskatchewan made regarding this issue.

I would ask the member if she could share additional stories of examples in which the practical change she has proposed would be truly life-changing to adoptive parents and the adopted children who are given that chance to form the appropriate bonds and whatnot that are required for the development of children in those essential relationships.

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

Madam Speaker, there are countless stories that I have heard from adoptive and intended parents.

I have one here from Luke, who says, “The existing leave time was insufficient to help me build an attachment relationship with my son, who had a history of abandonment and childhood trauma, and needed to have additional time with me as his new parent in order to feel secure and settle into my home...As such, I needed to take additional time off at expense to my family.”

Hearing from Canadians across the country, this is not just a regional issue, but literally from coast to coast, from every area of the country. These parents just want time to attach with their children in a safe and secure environment.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the way for her excellent speech and advocacy for this really important policy change.

Could the member talk about the importance of having leave time between parent and child before the arrival, to prepare the home and the family for the arrival of the child?

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

Madam Speaker, leave is important, as is that time to prepare for a baby or an older child to come, because a lot of children who are adopted are not necessarily infants but of ages all the way up to 18. Yes, it is important to have that time to prepare as well as the time to attach.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all of her hard work on this file and this bill. As a mom of four herself, she has done incredible work.

My question for the member is this: What is different in the member's bill versus what was in the Liberals' Bill C-59? Why is it still really important that this bill get passed and get royal recommendation, so that intended and adoptive parents will get the leave they deserve?

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

Madam Speaker, it is very important. I would actually say that this bill is more important than the provisions that are put into the FES. As I mentioned in my remarks, the Liberal government has not even brought forward that piece of legislation to debate. With my legislation, there is actually an enactment on royal assent.

We have no idea at all when this would be enacted, if it is like anything that they have done, such as child care, which is a mess, or the disability benefit, which Canadians with disabilities still have not received. It would do Canadians, especially adoptive and intended parents, a great service if they just gave Bill C-318 a royal recommendation, which would make sure that these intended and adoptive parents would know the date that they could apply for these benefits.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member knows well, because she has already made reference to it, that the changes are actually incorporated into the fall economic statement, which will in fact be passing. It does seem to cover a bit more in terms of the concerns that have been raised by parents of adopted children. We recognize the value. In fact, it was part of our election platform and part of the mandate letter.

The question I have for the member is this: Does she support that aspect of the budget, and, if so, can we anticipate that she will be voting in favour of it?

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

Madam Speaker, this promise was in the Liberal Party's 2019 and 2021 mandate letters, and nothing got done until I and my office did the work. We actually wrote legislation. Then the Liberals scooped it up.

The member across the way is being a little presumptuous—

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

We are way over time.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in this debate on the bill introduced by the hon. member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

I want to thank the member for bringing attention to an issue that matters to Canadians. Adoptive parents have been telling us that they want a new employment insurance benefit that provides them with the same number of weeks as birth parents. Currently, under the EI program, workers who are pregnant or have recently given birth, including surrogates, can receive 15 weeks of maternity benefits to support their recovery from pregnancy and childbirth. This is in addition to the 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 shareable weeks under the extended option.

Adoptive parents also have access to support under the EI program. However, parents of adopted children are eligible for only 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 weeks of support. In short, the difference lies in the fact that adoptive parents do not have access to the 15 weeks of benefits that parents who give birth do.

In 2024, this needs to change. That is why these improvements to the EI program are included in Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The measures in Bill C-59 would create a new 15-week EI benefit that would add flexibility and better address the needs of adoptive parents and parents of children through surrogacy during the weeks surrounding the actual placement of the child.

The comprehensive measures in Bill C-59 reflect what we heard during our consultations with Canadians on the EI program in 2021 and 2022. They reflect the diverse and inclusive way families are formed today, and they provide needed flexibility.

Before I go into more detail about Bill C-59, let me outline how it resonates with the consensus we heard at the EI consultations on the issue of an inclusive program. In particular, the government absolutely acknowledges in Bill C-59 that adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy have income support needs that are related to their unique processes. Time devoted to a child helps create a family bond. This is true for birth and adoptive parents.

In the case of adoptive parents, it can help the child make up for any developmental delays or health setbacks and give that child a better chance to reach their full potential. Every extra week spent with an adoptive child in the first year after adoption has an impact on their development and their lifelong relations with others.

There is no question that for any new parent, having the time and resources to welcome and care for their child or children is precious and requires support. Also, additional time for adoptive parents to be with their children can be beneficial for their employers, as it would put these parents in a better state of mind when they return to work.

There is no doubt that what the member opposite proposes, and what we propose, is important. Leave with income support for adoptive and intended parents, so they can welcome and care for their children, needs to be part of a modern and inclusive El program.

The proposal in Bill C-318 does this in part, but we consider our approach in Bill C-59 to offer the better, more flexible and more responsive solution to address this important need.

We expect that each year, the government's proposed benefit would provide approximately 1,700 Canadian families with additional time and flexibility as they welcome a new child in their home. Parents through surrogacy, including 2LGBTQI+ families, would also be eligible for this benefit, and rightly so.

The government's proposed El adoption benefit would make El benefits inclusive and reflective of families in Canada. It would support parents going through adoption or surrogacy by providing temporary income support before the child arrives at home, for example, while they are finalizing the placement or travelling abroad to bring the child or children to Canada. That support would also extend to the early weeks of the child's arrival into the new family.

This equalization was a key ask by our stakeholders. It is the right thing to do, and it is an idea whose time has come. All of this will happen if Bill C-59 receives royal assent.

I also want to note, as we were told during the EI consultations, that the profiles of children and youth being adopted are often unique. Adopted kids are typically older, have sibling groups and have special needs. Cathy Murphy, chairperson of the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada, told us this during the consultations:

Even if a youth is joining their family at age 12 or 13, it's really important for that parent or caregiver to be there, to be able to meet them after school or to maybe take them out to their favourite lunch spot over lunch hour once a week, because that's usually the only way you're going to get them out to lunch.

By continually showing up and being actively involved in their life, they are going to realize after an extended period of time that their parents are there for them.

For the past eight years, we have been busy improving important programs so that life is more affordable for Canadians. From day one, the government has kept its promise to protect all Canadians, and we are using all the tools at our disposal to do so.

Canadians want an EI system for the 21st century. The government has heard these calls. It is a long-haul commitment, but we are taking the time to get it right, and we are not waiting for a grand reveal to make improvements along the way. Let me reassure my colleague opposite that the Government of Canada is taking a thorough approach to EI to ensure its continuous improvement for the benefit of all Canadians. Adoptive parents have asked for equal treatment. They deserve equal treatment, and the government has answered.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑318, which seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with respect to adoptive and intended parents.

We know that when a child comes into our life, it is a huge moment that changes everything, but that also comes with a lot of stress. Those of us here who are parents have all been there. When we enter our home for the first time with our infant and our partner, we tell ourselves that it is time to step up to the plate.

I had the good fortune of carrying my two daughters. I had easy pregnancies. I even worked as a coach during one of my pregnancies. Not every woman is so lucky, however. Sometimes, nature forces some of us to put our dream of pregnancy aside and turn to alternatives such as adoption or surrogacy. It is not easy for these women to grieve their infertility. I have a great deal of empathy for them.

However, these women will become mothers, maybe not in a traditional way, but they will experience motherhood. They will have a chance to know what it means to love and be loved unconditionally.

At this time, women and couples in Canada who adopt a child are entitled to only 35 weeks, or eight months, of EI benefits. They have eight months to bond with their child, which does not sound like much. The bonding process needs to happen under the best possible conditions. In the case of adoption or surrogacy, the process is equally important, precisely because it is atypical. Every story is different. Every family is different.

I would like to quote Julie Despaties, the executive director of Adopt4Life, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities:

Today, children who are waiting to be adopted are often over the age of 7, and often in their teens and part of sibling groups. In fact, across Canada, we are seeing an overrepresentation of children with coexisting medical and neurodevelopmental challenges within the child welfare system.

It takes time to integrate a child into a new family environment, and it takes selflessness, compassion, kindness, patience and tenderness. The government's primary mission should be to give every child, regardless of their history or place of birth, an equal chance. This requires a solid foundation, first and foremost.

I want to read another quote, this time from Anne‑Marie Morel, president of the Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec. Here is what she said when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities:

Every extra week spent with an adopted child in the first year after adoption has an impact on their development and their lifelong relations with others.

As elected officials, we have the responsibility to make that possible. We must restore equality and fairness.

The changes proposed in the bill would also have a major impact on male couples. Although, in 2024, our society is open to the rights of members of the LGBTQ community, we still have a way to go when it comes to same-sex parenting. Gay men who want to have a family are discriminated against by their very nature. They cannot have children unless they adopt or use a surrogate. However, we know that international adoption is an extremely difficult process. I have many friends who have tried it. It is basically impossible for same-sex couples.

The countries that still allow international adoption are often ones where the mores are such that the state discriminates against members of the LGBTQ community.

Surrogacy is not the easiest option, either. When a gay couple decides to have a child, the process can be long, arduous and expensive. Although neither parent can claim to carry a child, they should not be relegated to a separate parental category. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that the parent-child bond is deep, enduring, strong and unshakable.

These new parents have the same rights, duties, feelings and questions. Most of all, they share the same desire to give their child everything.

A healthy bond helps children cope with a variety of situations as they grow, including separation from their parents—when they start day care or school, for example—co-operation with other children, and self-control. Bonding teaches children to trust others, which helps them form healthy relationships later in life.

I felt like sharing my thoughts this evening. That said, this is clearly an issue that only affects Canada, because Quebec introduced the Quebec parental insurance plan in 2006. Once again, Quebec was a forerunner; once again, Quebec took care of its people; once again, Quebec showed empathy. In 2020, Quebec went a step further by ending benefit discrimination for new parents.

Tonight, I call on my colleagues to show the same kind of compassion and kindness shown by the members of the Quebec National Assembly. We must give women and couples who use adoption and surrogacy the same rights as those who have natural pregnancies. Let us stop creating two classes of parents; stop with the injustice, inequity and discrimination; and stop basing benefits on a certain method of starting a family.

Motherhood, fatherhood and parenthood must be respected, no matter the path that is used to get there.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my thanks for your guidance today as I start my speech on Bill C-318.

This is a very important bill. I want to congratulate the member of Parliament who put forward this bill, as well as all the family members and advocates who pushed to make this a reality today.

This was a very good bill in its original form. However, I was deeply disappointed that the amendments to the bill, which I pushed forward at committee, to uphold Canadian law were thrown out. Those amendments would have ensured that this new piece of legislation, which hopefully will go forward, would be consistent with Bill C-15. That was adopted in the last Parliament, and it ensures that all legislation going forward is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Rather than upholding that law and upholding our constitutional obligations to ensure they are reflected in this current legislation, the Liberals at committee, first of all, voted against it, and then the member for Winnipeg North brought forward a point of order to throw out my amendments.

This is a pattern of behaviour I have witnessed from the government, a failure for this current government, to uphold the very law that it put forward in the last Parliament, a government bill. I want to point specifically to Bill C-15, section 5, which states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” By failing to uphold Bill C-15, the current government is wilfully not respecting Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I want to read into the record Articles 19, 20 and 21 so that we can have a permanent record of the specific human rights that the government is flippantly violating in refusing to amend this bill, even though the sponsor of the bill supported the amendments I put forward at committee and indicated that they were in the scope of the bill.

Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reads:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

I would like to remind the government that when we are talking about adoption and when we are talking about child welfare systems, in Manitoba alone, 90% of kids currently in child welfare are indigenous. Many families choose customary and kinship care arrangements. We have so many grandmothers in our communities who look after their loved ones without financial assistance, without the option of leaving work, doing double duty with no financial resources.

The Liberal government has been held in non-compliance over 14 times with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and it was to immediately stop racism against first nations kids on reserves. Once again, the government is showing a commitment to having a two-tiered system in this country: one for indigenous children and one for everybody else. The current government is demonstrating, through throwing out these amendments, that the human rights of indigenous kids are still not being respected.

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

Traditional means parenting. They need to be given the resources to be able to parent kids the way they choose. Let us not forget that there are more kids in care now than at the height of residential schools. It was well reported in the TRC report that we need systems reform in our child welfare system. The residential school system has left a legacy of intergenerational trauma and healing within our nation.

Not only did they throw out my amendments, but they are also throwing out the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. If the government is not ready to respond to the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is mainly giving our kids back, the government is far from reconciling with indigenous peoples in this country.

Article 20(2) states, “Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.” That includes financial resources so we are able to raise our kids in the way that we choose, not in poverty, so that we do not have to go to the Human Rights Tribunal and go after the government for years for it to finally settle $17 billion, more than what was asked. It is abhorrent what has happened in this House.

Article 21(2) states:

States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

I would like to remind the government, which threw out amendments to ensure that human rights of indigenous peoples would be upheld, to ensure we would be upholding Canadian law and to ensure that it is consistent with section 5 of Bill C-15, that the child welfare system has been named the pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls in this country.

We have a legacy of sixties scoop survivors who were separated from family and community, who have nowhere to return home to. However, on the very subject of our children, the government, once again, fails to take the opportunity to reconcile with indigenous peoples in Canada by giving us the resources we need to uphold our human rights to be able to raise our children in kinship and customary care arrangements.

Although the Speaker ruled my amendments as being out of scope, I would like to remind the House that they, in fact, were in scope because the government has the legal obligation to make sure all legislation going forward is consistent with Bill C-15 . I am going to urge the government because it still has the power to make a royal recommendation, with the amendments I put forward, to make sure it is consistent with human rights law. If it is serious about reconciliation, it will give our kids back.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for this incredible bill, which will bring parity and equity in mental health and attachment to adoptive and intended parents.

What we are talking about today, for folks watching, is Bill C-318, which was created by my friend and colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

I will give an overview and some compelling testimony that we heard at the human resources committee today. I am really going to hammer home how common-sense this bill is and how it should have been done long ago. However, like so many things in this House, here we are.

Bill C-318 introduces a new 15-week benefit for adoptive and intended parents through the employment insurance program, and adjusts the Canada Labour Code accordingly. A lot of people, including me, did not know this was an issue. I have biological children and just assumed that adoptive parents, or intended parents, which means parents through surrogacy, were entitled to the same amount of unemployment leave, or mat leave or paternity leave, which are the common names a lot of people know. I was entitled to 52 weeks, but the reality is that the way the current system works is that they do not have access to that. They are cut 15 weeks short.

One would ask why, which is a great question. It does not put any more financial stress on the system, and we know these parents need this time to attach. I want to tell members a bit about the politics that always bleeds into this place and why common sense often gets left behind.

It was an election platform promise by the Liberals in the last two elections that they would have this in their policy. Here we are, and it is still not here, which is not a shock. That is the reality of what we have in this country.

The bill has gone through first reading. What we are asking for in this debate today in the House is royal recommendation. Nothing will happen if we do not get that. We have had the support of the House; the bill has passed through first reading. In fact, everybody voted in favour of it except the Liberals. Four Liberals supported it. I thank those who did and parked their partisan politics for the greater good and for parity.

I want to go through this article with members, because I think it really highlights the human component of this. I think sometimes, when we talk about policy and legislation, it feels very clinical, but there are very real human consequences to the decisions made in the House. Everything does come back to policy. This is an article that was written by Erin Clow. It was posted in The Province, which is a news publication.

I want to read some of the words she has written:

At the end of my first leave in 2020, I longed for more time with our son. Nearing the end of this leave, I feel a weight that is difficult to articulate, laden with sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach. In the early days of both parental leaves, the hours, days and weeks seemed long. Honestly, we were strangers who overnight became a family. We knew very little about each other and, most importantly, we didn’t know how to trust, let alone love one another. Each day was a monumental exercise in courage. We spent our time learning about one another. Learning about routines, what they liked and what they didn’t like. Learning how to be parents. Learning to love one another.

Again, I come back to my own experience as a first-time mom, and that is exactly how it feels when one gives birth, but imagine adopting a child who has already lived in the world and formed feelings and emotions, and trying to attach and make up for all of that time. Ideally, adoptive and intended parents should have more, if we think about the biology and physiology of what they have to overcome, yet they have less under this legislation. It makes no sense.

She continues, “It took months for me to start becoming the parent they deserved.” I would challenge Erin on that. I bet she was exactly the mother they needed from the day they were born and they were meant to be together, but I know that feeling of mom guilt.

She goes on, “Now all that remains are 27 days. This supported parental leave will end in 27 days and I can say without a doubt we need more time.”

Is that not the most valuable commodity we have on this planet? She continues, “Our daughter and son need additional time. We need months, not days, to continue the process of facilitating secure, enduring attachment for all members of our family.” She has written a very powerful article that really reiterates what it is like for these adoptive parents.

I want to go through some of the testimony that we heard in committee. I want to reiterate the common sense of this, in terms of the financial piece. Parents are already paying into the system. It is not like we would be trying to find this money. It is already funded.

So many programs that we see the Liberals pushing out to people right now are not funded, such as their pharmacare program and their child care program, which are underfunded and not working. They are not funded. This is. This is a really common-sense bill that would make it easy to give the foundation for kids and families to thrive.

Quite frankly, another conversation a lot of people do not want to have in this country is that the cost of living is increasing so much. My daughter has said to me that she could not have kids, that she could never afford it. What a feeling to have. What a feeling to have in this country, to not feel like one can afford to have a house, to feed one's family or to choose to have children, which is the greatest gift in the world. For people who choose not to have children, it is totally fine, but I am saying that, to take away that choice, is a realist issue in our country.

Another quote details, “Most children adopted in Canada are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and many have a history of trauma or serious loss. Having their new parent or caregiver(s) at home longer, in the critical first year, gives them time to form attachments and begin processing their grief and loss.”

I believe the member opposite may be able to chime in, and I know that she is over my shoulder. There was one woman in particular, and I think it was Cathy Murphy, who talked about how her child did not call her “'mama'” for three years.

It was three years of just “'Hey lady'”. That is so powerful because, whether one is an adoptive parent, an intended parent or a biological parent, showing up for one's kids when they are having a hard time is tough. It is the toughest responsibility any of us parents will ever face in our lives. Their behaviour is communication. These kids need so much more time to build trust. They do not have that. They have never had that. The trauma that many of them have faced is very real.

Financial stress is one of the biggest stressors in a family dynamic. If one is sitting there worried about how one is going to pay the mortgage, pay for food, pay for groceries or put gas in the car, guess what? One cannot be the parent one needs to be to the kid who needs one.

It is so simple to say to not worry, that one's EI, which one has already paid into, is here to help one be the best parent they can be. This is a very simple bill.

Another quote is that, “Of the 63,000 children currently in care, 30,000 are eligible for permanent adoption by loving families—” and listen to this, “only 2,000 children are adopted each year.” How many of those children are out there who do not know where they fit, who do not know that they have somewhere they belong? What a feeling. Maybe if more parents knew that there were incentives and help for them to give the love that they have in them to give, that number would go up.

Kyla Beswarick was adopted at age 10 with her two siblings. She said, “It took me two or three years to form that attachment.” An article explains, “Her mom had to quit her job to take care of Kyla’s high needs, including doctor and therapist appointments and adjusting to school, and couldn’t access parental leave.” Kyla, who is now 21, and who is amazing, said, “Imagine how I perceived the world, enduring such big breaks in trust and new environments. I was so young. That extra time would have helped me”.

Ashley Bach also testified at committee.

I will read this final one into the record because I think it is most powerful. It is from Julie Despaties, executive director of Adopt4Life:

I would like to leave you with these thoughts.

If we want a stronger tomorrow for our children, we must do right by them. As my good friend Irwin Elman, a former Ontario child and youth provincial advocate, says, you can't legislate love, but you can legislate the conditions in which love can flourish.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important.

Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system.

The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill.

What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around.

When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass.

Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing.

The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it.

Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—

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

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

The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion.

Government Business No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying when I was interrupted a couple of days ago, the motion is absolutely essential to doing two things. The first is for us to work harder on behalf of our constituents, allowing more time for debate in the evenings, which is something the NDP has always called for. Also, we believe absolutely fundamentally that we need to be respectful of our employees and staff who run the bastion of democracy here in the House of Commons and who have been forced into 30-hour voting marathons by the member for Carleton.

I will just remind you, Madam Speaker, that the member for Carleton, after voting six times in person, basically bolted from this place and ran away. The kind of boss that one sees—

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

The hon. member knows that members cannot make reference to presences in and absences from the House. I know that the virtual Parliament has given some leeway on that, but I would remind the hon. member to please refrain from making references.