Debates of April 30th, 2024

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

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

There is no unanimous consent.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the member's comments on child care. We could have a debate about what would theoretically be a good child care system, but I think it is hard to deny that the current program from the government on child care is not delivering on the promise. We are hearing very clearly from child care providers across the country that the combination of price regulation with funding that does not match that price regulation is making it impossible for child care operators to maintain and meet the expectations. The result of this is government subsidies for some and less access for others.

Does the member acknowledge those failures, in terms of child care policy, and is she willing to hold the government accountable for them?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it does not surprise me at all that the Conservatives would stand up and try to stop access to quality, affordable child care for women. I am very disappointed that the Conservatives would stand up and say no to tabling information about British Columbia's priorities on primary care. These are Canadians across this country who want their voices heard in the House, and I am very disappointed that the Conservatives' decision not to have a simple report accepted here is the way they want to act.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, but I am not sure it is in her usual area of expertise.

We know that 90% of the francophone minority in Canada lives in Quebec. Quebec is in a minority situation, and 96% of the funding allocated by the federal government to official languages is used to support English in Quebec. For the past two years, we have heard the Liberals boast about wanting to implement measures to protect the French language, but we see nothing in the budget, which contains no financial measures to protect French in Quebec, just like there were none in the action plan for official languages.

What does my colleague think about that? Does she think it is fair that funding for official languages in Quebec is used almost exclusively to support English?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam has the largest quartier of francophones in British Columbia. The executive director of Société francophone de Maillardville is Johanne Dumas. I want to raise my hands and thank her for all the work she has done, as she is now retiring, to try to get representation of francophones in Maillardville, trying to get some physical space. What I do not think is fair is that the government has been very lax in assisting those who move outside Quebec to keep their language, culture and community. It is very disappointing.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and address the 2024 budget.

I want to start with a few words about the truly shameful display that we saw today during question period. I was thinking back to my time, just a few weeks ago, on Haida Gwaii, where we celebrated the signing of a historic agreement. The president of the Haida Nation spoke about the Haida concept called yahguudang, or respect. It is about a respectful way that we govern our communities, that we engage with our neighbours and that we lead. The Wet'suwet'en, whose land is part of the territory where I live, have a similar word: wiggus.

I was thinking about those words and just how far from the spirit of those concepts this place was during question period today. Looking up in the gallery, I saw Canadian citizens looking at the governance of this country, embarrassed and ashamed of what it has become. As a member of Parliament, I too was embarrassed.

I do not speak to individual Conservative members, because there are many good Conservative members whom I respect, some of whom are in the chamber right now. However, the party and the leader are working not to try to change policy in this country, using the institution, but to erode public trust in the institution itself. We have seen that happen in other parts of the world and other parts of North America, and it is not a road that we want to go down as a country.

Turning to the budget before us, I want to start with the context. The context, of course, as many Canadians know, is that we are in a very difficult time. People across the country are struggling with increased costs in terms of skyrocketing rent, groceries, home heat and just about everything. In these times, the government has choices. We all have choices to make. As New Democrats, our vision is that we must come together more than ever during difficult times. We must lift each other up and bring in programs that support each other and support the people who are struggling. Therefore, it is in that context that we are very proud that there are things in this budget that we fought hard for. These things have long been a part of NDP policy, and we are finally seeing steps toward their implementation. I will speak about a few of them, and they have been raised.

I want to thank my wonderful colleague for her words just prior, but I will start with pharmacare. This is obviously such an essential extension of universal health care in Canada. It has been five years since the Hoskins report laid out a very clear path for the government to take to implement universal single-payer pharmacare. We are finally seeing steps toward that, with the recent pharmacare legislation that has been tabled and, in this budget, a commitment of $1.5 billion over five years for the first phases of a national pharmacare program, starting with two essential classes of medication. One is diabetes medication, which affects thousands and thousands of Canadians. I was noticing statistics from Diabetes Canada that the out-of-pocket cost of type 1 diabetes is as high as $18,000 per year. People living with type 2 diabetes are paying as much as $10,000 a year, and this is precisely the kind of cost that the first tranche of a national pharmacare program would cover. We are very proud to see that in the budget and to see the legislation that is before this House.

A national school food program is something that would lift up so many students across Canada who are going to school hungry, and the idea is that having at least one meal per day of healthy food would help those students so much. It goes without saying. I was thinking back to my experience in Terrace with the wonderful community volunteers, such as Gurjeet Parhar, with the Kalum Community School Society, as well as Helene Fleury, of the group Groundbreakers in Smithers.

These folks have been advocating for years for a national school food program. A billion dollars over five years in the budget is going to be a huge step forward, helping deliver meals to over 400,000 students across the country.

With regard to the firefighter tax credit, I want to give credit to my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his hard work ensuring that this is in the budget. This is going to double the tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue personnel in our communities from $3,000 per year to $6,000 per year.

Certainly, in the region I represent, which is a huge rural region, volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers play a critical role. I was in Houston the other day, talking with their search and rescue team. One figure that the individual shared with me was that, in British Columbia, search and rescue teams provide $200 million per year of value. If we think about all the volunteer fire departments and add that to the search and rescue teams, the figure would be a staggering one.

I think about folks in Bela Coola, Fort St. James, Bella Bella, Houston, Smithers, Telkwa and all the way up to Dease Lake. There, these small volunteer fire departments are made up of individuals who donate their time, contribute their personal time to keeping their neighbours safe.

This is a way we can recognize that contribution. It is going to help with recruitment and retention, and I think it is a huge step forward for our country.

Liberal budgets are often a bit of a mixed bag. There are things in this budget that are half measures and worse. There are policies that, on the surface, look as though they are heading in the right direction. However, when one looks at the financial commitment in the budget, it is hard to see how we are going to make marked progress on critical issues.

One that has received some debate already today is the government's approach to the Canada disability benefit. We were very hopeful when we saw the legislation pass that created the foundation for this benefit. However, people living with disabilities waited month after month, year after year, to find out what the amount was going to be, because the important thing here is the amount that was going to supposedly lift people out of poverty.

What we saw in the budget amounts to about $200 per month, or six dollars per day. That is a far cry from what is required to really improve people's lives in the way that is needed and to lift people out of poverty.

One of the most troubling aspects of that is that this number was arrived at without consultation with the disability community, without talking to the people who need this benefit most. It really contravenes the government's commitment to “nothing about us without us”, which is one of the promises that it made to people living with disabilities.

I want to mention the red dress alert, which is something we have been pushing hard for. I want to honour the work of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who has been a fierce advocate for that service, but it is $1.3 million over three years. It is hard to see how we are going to build an effective program and ensure that a red dress alert is available to families in northwest B.C. and right across Canada with such a modest investment. Much more needs to be done. We are going to keep pushing on that front.

I will end with the concept of fairness. This is how the government has framed the budget, with the idea of working towards a more fair approach to the way we govern this country. While there are some very modest changes in this budget to address inequities in the tax code, it is clear that there is much more that needs to be done.

TD just released a report showing that wealthiest third of Canadians in the country increased their wealth by 6% in the last year alone. The rest of Canadians either saw their income stagnate or go down, as a result of inflation, when it comes to their real buying power.

We need to do much more. I welcome the concept of fairness, which is something we have long spoken of, but this budget is only a very small step in that direction.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to get the member's thoughts on the idea of co-operation and working together.

We do have a national situation with housing. I was very pleased to participate in a press conference where we had the Prime Minister, the premier of the province and the mayor of Winnipeg all together talking about how we are going to get more homes built in the city of Winnipeg.

Looking at the national issue of housing, would the member not agree that Ottawa does play the critical role of leadership, but it is going to take the different levels of government coming together to deal with and get optimum solutions on the housing situation?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I suppose if the parliamentary secretary considers us dragging the Liberal Party, kicking and screaming, to be working together, then I am all for it.

His question was about housing. Of course, we need to see jurisdictions work together. My concern is that I represent a riding entirely made up of rural and remote communities. The government's focus on housing has predominately been in the larger urban centres where it can make commitments of tens of thousands of housing units.

Communities in the region I represent need infrastructure. They need a commitment to building drinking water systems and waste water systems. That is what would enable housing development in small communities, and it is something that we see is sorely lacking in the budget before us.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my fellow British Columbian about the Canadian disability benefit he talked about.

First of all, Bill C-22, which was the enabling legislation, simply delegated to the minister responsible, so the minister could introduce regulations that would define who was considered disabled, who would be eligible and for what amounts. Here we are, and the government is now saying it up to $200. It is not even a guarantee of $200. Does the member think we, as parliamentarians, did our job in accepting, basically at surface value, that the government was going to help persons with disabilities with this benefit?

For people who are on the Canadian pension plan disability, often times they are at a lower rate on that particular program than they would be, for example, in British Columbia, on social assistance. To me, it would make sense to at least help those individuals first, instead of telegraphing it to everyone. People had such high expectations and have only come to find out that persons with disabilities feel left out completely by this particular budget.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member makes some good points. His first question was whether we did our job in essentially giving the minister responsible carte blanche to determine the amount. I think there are reasons the amount of the benefit was not codified in the legislation.

Where the government has let us down is that the minister did not consult with the disability groups that are so important in this whole equation. If the government would have consulted on the actual amount, if it would have looked at what is required to lift people out of poverty, the benefit would have been a higher amount.

The member's second question is about prioritizing funding to those who need it most. I think, regardless of whether we are talking about CPP, disability or people on social assistance, the reality is that folks need what they need to get by and cover their basic costs. We need to ensure that this benefit, for everyone who is living with a disability and who needs it, is raised to a level where they are able to cover the basic cost of living. There are many details in ascertaining what those levels are, but the key thing is the outcome, which is whether people getting what is required to lead a decent life.

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

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #743

The Budget

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), be read the third time and passed.

Employment Insurance Act

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

Madam Speaker, one thing I have witnessed over the years is a general attitude toward how we can improve our EI system and how benefits are ultimately paid out. We often talk about what is being proposed in this legislation. For adoptive parents to have 15 weeks, from my perspective, with the child or infant is really important. Members should be aware that it was incorporated into the minister's mandate letter. We know the government was taking action on the issue. That is something members opposite would have been aware of.

When I think of Bill C-318, one of the things that crosses my mind is the economic statement from last year. Incorporated within the budgetary legislation is the change that Bill C-318 would achieve. I question whether this legislation is even required. Some issues have been brought forward as to whether it would require ministerial involvement or a general recommendation, because it would require additional funds.

At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the government has recognized the need to look at ways to improve the EI system. Legislation exists that we would like to pass. On the one hand, opposition members say what the bill would do and, on the other hand, they frustrate and filibuster government legislation that would ultimately do what the member wants to take place with this bill.

It is important to recognize that the connections that are made by adoptive parents, in particular, are just as significant as those of natural parents. The love between a parent and a child is something that I believe justifies the government taking the type of action it has. It is one of the reasons it was incorporated, as I said, in the ministerial mandate letter. It is one of the reasons we incorporated it into the budget implementation legislation.

We are on the right track and moving forward on an important issue. I only wish the Conservative Party would have recognized that and demonstrated a desire to, at the very least, allow the legislation that already exists and would make a difference in a much quicker fashion to take effect. In order for that to happen, the Conservatives, at least in part, have to stop the filibustering on all government legislation and agenda items.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to once again speak to this bill. I may not use up all of my 10 minutes. Sometimes when I say that, however, I end up running over my time. I therefore say it at my peril or the peril of the House.

Bill C-318 is a private member's bill that made its way to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I forget the name of my colleague's riding, but I want to commend this bill for its single focus, which is to ensure equity in maternity and parental leave by providing adoptive parents with a system equitable to that available to biological parents. I think that equity is what this bill seeks to achieve. In committee, we had the opportunity to meet with Adopt4Life several times—I commend Ms. Despaties, by the way—and it was recognized and shown that when it comes to the bonding experience of adopted children, regardless of their age at adoption, the child's origin or any accompanying difficulties, bonding time is very important.

This bill has to do with children's rights, but also with the time that should be granted to parents to ensure that they are available to welcome a child into the family properly and that the child gets all the services and care they need from their parent. I think that is self-evident. I heard the parliamentary secretary when he rightly said that the economic statement included a commitment to add 15 weeks. I would go even further than that and say that the former employment minister was on board with that. It is still part of the minister's mandate letter to add 15 weeks of parental leave for adoptive parents.

I think the only thing missing now—this is the first hour of third reading—is the royal recommendation. That is what is needed to move forward and fully enact this bill. I think that is what the government needs to do. My understanding is that it intends to do so. At least we hope so. Although when I hear the government, specifically the parliamentary secretary, say that the government plans to reform EI, I have to pinch myself. We are all a little ashamed—including workers, unemployed workers' groups and the members of the Bloc Québécois who are advocating for a comprehensive reform of employment insurance—that we thought the government was actually going to do it. The government promised this in 2015, 2019 and 2021. According to the minister's mandate letter, this reform was supposed to be implemented in the summer of 2022. It is almost summer 2024, and still nothing has been done. There has been nothing in either the economic statements or the budget to address the reality of workers and initiate a reform to strengthen EI.

Instead of this piecemeal approach, EI reform could have already included 15 weeks for adoptive parents. It could have already included 50 weeks of sickness benefits instead of 26 weeks, as the government did. It also could have specifically fixed the situation of mothers on maternity leave who have the misfortune of losing their job while on leave and end up no longer having access to regular employment insurance benefits. We need to correct these discriminations, provide better access and better benefits to the workers in the seasonal industry. It was all hot air and broken promises from the government. What is more, the current Minister of Employment had no qualms about telling workers and the unemployed at a meeting that this was not on the agenda.

In that respect, the government's actions—and its eight years of broken promises—are deeply disappointing. This mainly affects workers, but it also affects the unemployed. This government has admitted that it took too long to reform the system when the pandemic hit and that the system was full of holes. Not giving adoptive parents fair treatment in terms of parental leave, not giving them the 15 weeks of benefits under the guise of ensuring equivalency, is akin to discrimination or having two different levels of benefits in very similar situations.

Quebec has managed to address this. Since 2021, the Quebec parental insurance plan, which provides far more coverage than federal EI plan, has allowed for benefits to be adapted so that adoptive parents are treated the same as non-adoptive parents.

This reality has been acknowledged. Now what we need is a commitment from this government, a royal recommendation so this bill can see the light of day.

The people I am really thinking of here are adoptive parents. I met with some of them and their kids to learn more about how life-changing it is to be able to be with their kids from the start and have enough weeks of benefits to be with them. Adoption is a choice that comes from the heart, a choice parents make because they believe in it. We want to do everything we can to ensure that these children have the best parents in the world. In order to give them every opportunity, we have to recognize the challenges that parents may encounter during an adoption. Sometimes things go very well, but people should never give up the right to the same amount of parental leave that biological parents get.

I hope this bill will see the light of day as soon as possible.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I rise to speak to Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding adoptive and intended parents. Qujannamiik to my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for this important piece of legislation, which would help bring equity to adoptive and intended parents.

I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for all of her hard work on the file. I highlight that at committee the NDP proposed several amendments that would have improved the bill significantly. Regrettably, the amendments were rejected. I am especially disappointed that the amendments to uphold Canadian law were rejected. Those amendments would have ensured that Bill C-318 would be consistent with Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Unfortunately we have seen the pattern with the current Liberal government, when it comes to indigenous people's rights, that it is going to go below what the expected standards are, including what it has tabled in the first nations clean water act as well as in the amendments to the Indian Act. By failing to uphold Bill C-15, the current government is willfully disrespecting articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is part of a disturbing pattern for the current Liberal government, which consistently fails to follow its own laws, including obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. If the government is serious about reconciliation, which is a word it loves to use, it must do better and commit to upholding UNDRIP.

Overall, Bill C-318 has merits, and New Democrats support the bill. It would create a 15-week attachment leave benefit for adoptive and intended parents through the employment insurance system. During my speech, I will describe the bill's benefits for children, parents and overall Canadian society. I will also describe the troubling realities substantiating the need for Bill C-318 to be passed.

It is unfortunate that the issue has reached the House through a private member's bill and not as a government bill, given that in 2019 and again in the last election the Liberals promised to introduce legislation in this area. I note that since the proposed bill's introduction, the Liberals have announced changes to the employment insurance program as part of the fall economic statement. These changes would create a new 15-week El benefit that adoptive and intended parents would finally be eligible for. This is a step in the right direction.

New Democrats will continue to hold the Liberal government accountable to its promises by passing Bill C-318. The NDP is committed to ensuring that all parents and caregivers, whether biological, adoptive, intended, customary or kinship, can spend time at home with their children in the critical first years. Research shows that the quality of a child's attachment impacts the overall health and development of the child. The benefits of passing the bill would be most prominent for children. Children with strong attachments are more likely to form strong relationships, be better able to regulate their emotions and be less dependant on their caregivers.

Parents who are adopting, and those intending to be parents, need to receive the same benefits as biological parents. Adopted children must have the same sense of coping for their future. I have seen the benefits of ensuring those strong bonds early in life, through watching my grandchildren bond with their parents in the time spent together early in their lives. Adoption is an important practice in Nunavut, and providing this benefit would help many of my constituents.

Unfortunately Bill C-318 does not reflect our customary adoption practices. While the bill is an important step in the right direction, it does not include kinship and customary caregivers, who are particularly important for Métis, first nations and Inuit. Kinship and customary care reflect indigenous culture and traditions. Respecting indigenous peoples' practices could result in many more children not being forced into foster care or group home placements. We must ensure that an attachment leave benefit is extended to kinship and customary caregivers in a similar manner as to adoptive and intended parents. I hope this will be added sometime later.

Providing parents or caregivers with an additional attachment leave benefit so that they can develop these strong attachments is crucial for the well-being of children. This benefit would provide adoptive and intended parents with much-needed financial security and would improve outcomes for children, many of whom are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and have a history of trauma and loss.

Providing a 15-week paid attachment leave would ease the burden being placed on women who are adoptive or intended parents, or who are kinship and customary caregivers. Providing them with the financial supports they need would help to ensure stronger attachments with their adoptive or intended children.

The societal benefits would be a healthier Canada, and children who would be able to enter the school system, who would be prepared and ready to adjust to a world where they could learn to have friendships and who could realize the importance of becoming contributing members of society.

The need to pass Bill C-318 is evident in the disproportionate amount of unpaid caregiving work that takes place in this country, mostly on the part of women. Indeed, more than half of the women in Canada give care to children and dependent adults, and almost one-third give unpaid care to children.

I conclude by sharing what we, as New Democrats, have heard from important agencies across Canada. The Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada and Adopt4Life are calling for the passage of this bill. I very much appreciate their Time to Attach campaign, which has been effective in building public support for this change. I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who had a petition on the 15-week attachment leave benefit, which garnered so much support by many.

New Democrats support this bill. We will continue to hold the Liberals accountable to deliver on their promises. Bill C-318 would help many adoptive and intended parents across Canada. These are positive and necessary changes; although, it is not comprehensive and does not recognize the important work of customary and kinship caregivers in indigenous peoples. I hope that this is not the end of these discussions and that more work will follow to provide financial attachments to more forms of caregiving. We owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to ensure they have the care they need.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this private member's bill. My friend, the member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster, is an amazing person and I have the opportunity to sit with her at our committee. I must say I never really imagined that I would have the opportunity to speak about this kind of thing in the House of Commons, but here we are talking about something that has the potential to have a profoundly positive impact on the lives of parents and children.

I guess I come back to this point, which I have been thinking about over and over again: I know, from my own personal experience in life, that families are families. They are created in many different ways, and how their government treats them should be the same. There should be fairness in how we treat families and in how those families come to be.

I speak of my own personal experience a bit in that I left home when I was pretty young and I was taken in by a family. I was never formally adopted or anything, but they are absolutely my family. They are my siblings and all their kids call me “uncle” now, for sure. It took time for us to develop that bond, but it is a bond that is as strong as any bond. They are my family, and I consider myself incredibly lucky to have that family.

I have to say that, when we were at committee, we heard testimony from a number of families who came to speak and share their stories. It was among the most beautiful, heartwarming, compelling stuff I had ever heard. It was emotional. When we hear the stories of adoptive parents, some of the circumstances around which an adoption occurs and the life that adopted children sometimes lead until the point of adoption, there are some tragic stories.

For parents who make that choice to adopt kids who maybe have been in and out of foster care and have witnessed horrible, terrible circumstances in their short lives, it takes a long time to build trust. We heard about a number of young people who were adopted, and it took them a long time to feel like they were safe and that this would not be just another place they would be bounced through and on to the next place. It took a long time to know that they were loved.

I ask members to think of that for a moment. I find it so hard to imagine a kid existing in this world who is not sure if they are loved. I do not think it is hyperbole to describe as heroic those parents who take that choice to rescue young children out of horrible circumstances and make them part of the family. It may be a word that gets bounced around a bit too much, but in this circumstance it is absolutely accurate. It is nothing short of heroic to take a life and build that self-worth and that love, and create a family in a different way than maybe is traditionally done.

To me, this would be a really common-sense, simple change to our EI system that would offer a little more assistance and support to all families. Talking about the bill, now the Liberals are talking about having it in their own legislation and adopting parts of it, and I fear that it may not happen. There is an awful lot of talk all the time on that side and the results are not always delivered, so I really wish we would just adopt this bill. We have heard from other parties in the House that there is lots of support for it. There is lots of support in the country for this move. It makes common sense, especially now in a circumstance where the cost of living is really hurting all families.

Mortgage rates have doubled and rents have doubled. Families are struggling to heat their homes and to put food on their tables. This is an impact that adds one more burden and one more stress on families of all kinds. However they are created, those families deserve the same level of support, and I do generally believe this is a disadvantage that is very easy for us to fix.

I am really grateful to my colleague for coming forward with such a simple yet important bill that is, as we can see, easily supported by everyone. It is just a common-sense thing that makes complete sense. If we were to adopt this, it would give 15 weeks to adoptive or surrogate parents, who are shorted 15 weeks of support when they start their families. It is fundamentally unfair, and this is a very simple way to make sure all those families are treated equally by their government.

I do not have a lot more to say. I am really touched by what this is. I am touched by the parents and the families who came to talk to us and who shared their stories, and they did that even when it could be difficult. They are passionate, and their passion is infectious. Members have maybe heard that in the House from other colleagues on all sides. I could ramble on, but it seems unnecessary. This makes complete sense, and I remain grateful to my colleague for bringing it forward and for the opportunity to speak briefly to it today.

I salute all those families across this country, however their families are started. In the House, I believe that we need to have their backs, and this is a great way to do it.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly. Passing Bill C‑318 would be a small step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for many years. We have been saying that employment insurance must be reformed as soon as possible to improve accessibility for taxpayers, review the eligibility criteria, formulas and funding, and optimize service delivery.

Government leadership on EI as a whole has been lacking. We need more leadership on this issue. In 2021, the Liberals campaigned on a promise to modernize EI. They promised to expand the program to cover self-employed workers and address gaps made obvious during the COVID‑19 pandemic. After the last federal election, the Prime Minister gave the then minister of employment, workforce development and disability inclusion a mandate letter instructing her to bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system by summer 2022. It is fair to say that the Liberal government missed that deadline, since it is now 2024.

The Liberals say they are committed to modernizing the system, but their communicative action is clearly lacking. The government is not walking the talk. Since I spoke at second reading, the bill has changed somewhat, with two amendments adopted. I will not read them, but the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of these two amendments because they broaden the scope of the bill. The categories I mentioned earlier were initially not included in the scope of the bill, but I believe they are in the spirit of respecting indigenous traditions and knowledge and, more broadly, in the spirit of reconciliation.

The arrival of a child is a complex and challenging time for the whole family, all the more so when the child is adopted or conceived through surrogacy. The bond created with the child is an important part of parenthood. Again, in the case of adoption or surrogacy, the process of forming attachments can be tricky because there is no biological connection to the parents, which is why it is important to pass this bill.

We know that international adoptions are becoming less frequent and that children adopted by Canadian or Quebec families are often older than in the past or have special needs. As a result, we can be sympathetic to the desire of these new parents to receive a special benefit to foster attachment.

Another important thing about Bill C-318 is that it provides for an extension when the child is hospitalized. Given that the hospitalization of a child is an emotionally difficult ordeal, this extension seems necessary, especially if we take into account the emotional factors that are added when a child is adopted or born through surrogacy. The extension would be equivalent to the number of weeks the child receives care in a health care facility.

We also know that the attachment process is complex and time-consuming, particularly for adopted children, and that it is part of an equation that also involves the so-called “normal” needs of a baby or toddler. That is why it is a good idea to create this new benefit. John Bowlby's attachment theory states that, from birth, children turn to adults for protection. If the adult adequately meets the basic needs of the child, an attachment relationship that is necessary for the development of the child's psyche will form between them.

I remember relating a bit of my story during second reading stage, but I would like to remind the House that I myself was adopted at the age of two months. Since I was not receiving any affection at the orphanage, I was wasting away. For seven years, my adoptive parents tried in vain to have a biological child before finally deciding to turn to adoption. They chose me. How lucky I was. They gave me the chance to be loved, coddled, reassured, protected and educated, and to become the person I am today. They took care of me and I will be grateful to them for the rest of my life.

Currently, in the adoption process, the long-awaited arrival of a new child is a very emotional time for the parents. The meeting often takes place in a context of lengthy travel, time differences, fatigue, and changes in culture and climate.

However, the children do not experience the same feelings of anticipation as the new parents. Naturally, they may mourn the loss of familiar people and places and be frightened by people who are often of a different ethnicity and who do not speak their mother tongue. It is an emotional transition. There are, however, several things that can help relieve the pressure on everyone involved in the process.

As we know, in Canada, the EI program provides 17 weeks of maternity leave for pregnant women, which can begin at any time during the period starting 13 weeks before the expected date of birth and ending 17 weeks after the actual date of birth. The Canadian program also provides up to 63 weeks of parental leave for biological and adoptive parents.

If both parents work for federally regulated employers, they can share their parental leave, entitling them to an additional eight weeks of leave. Parents who share parental leave are entitled to 71 weeks of leave. They can take this leave at any time during the 78-week period that starts on the day of the child's birth or on the day the child comes into their care. The code contains no provision for paid parental leave.

Let us compare that to how it works in Quebec. In the case of a birth, parental leave can begin the week of the child's birth. It is in addition to the 18 weeks of maternity leave or the five weeks of paternity leave. In the case of an adoption, each adoptive parent is also entitled to 65 weeks of parental leave. The leave may begin no earlier than the week the child is entrusted to the adoptive parents or when the parents leave their work to travel outside Quebec to pick up their child. The leave ends a maximum of 78 weeks after that.

In a same-sex couple, both parents are entitled to parental leave if the child's relationship to his or her mothers or fathers was established in the birth certificate or adoption judgment. At the parent's request, the parental leave can be suspended, divided or extended if required by the parent's or child's health. In other situations, at the parent's request and with the employer's consent, the leave can be divided into weeks.

Up until December 2020, Quebec's parental insurance plan did not offer the same benefits to all workers. Adoptive parents had 18 fewer weeks to spend with their children. Eventually, the tide turned following a battle waged by the Association des parents adoptants du Québec, which represents adoptive parents in Quebec.

Bill 51, which was passed on October 27, 2020, and assented to on October 29, gave equitable treatment to adoptive parents as of December 1, 2020, through the creation of welcome and support benefits, as well as adoption benefits for the second parent. All in all, this means adoptive parents are entitled to the same duration and level of income replacement as biological parents. For the time being, neither the Canadian nor the Quebec plans provide for any attachment benefits such as those proposed in this bill. It is therefore important to pass Bill C-318 to fill this gap.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster has five minutes for her right of reply.

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

Madam Speaker, as has been said, Canada's current parental benefit system puts adoptive and intended parents at a disadvantage. With access to 15 fewer weeks of leave through the employment insurance program, families formed through adoption and surrogacy are robbed by our parental benefit system of precious time together, time that is needed to care for their child, to bond and to form healthy attachments, and time that is critical in the first year of a child's life or placement with a family. The purpose of Bill C-318 has always been to fix that disparity in our system, to recognize the unique challenges faced by these families and to ensure that they have equal access to leave benefits.

Unfortunately, without having received a royal recommendation from the Liberal government, the bill's journey is coming to an end today. The bill had cross-partisan support and should have been an opportunity for collaboration, but the Liberal government opposed the bill throughout the process. At second reading, the Liberal government voted against the bill. At the committee stage, Liberals fought against amendments that would have removed any ambiguity in the bill around customary care arrangement for indigenous families. The amendments were challenged again in the House by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Canadians who are following the issue closely would know that after opposing Bill C-318, the Liberals then introduced a benefit similar in principle. This provides cause for cautious optimism. The proposed benefit would help close the parental leave gap. That section of the bill received unanimous support in the House at second reading, but it is not across the finish line yet. The Liberal government has tied the changes to an omnibus bill, making it impossible to ensure its quick passage. The definition of “placement” in the Liberal bill is not entirely clear either, leaving it, in parts, to regulation. The Liberals' fight against the inclusion of customary care arrangements in Bill C-318 raises more questions than answers.

The Liberal government has given Canadians reason after reason to distrust it. The disability benefit is a stark example that is top of mind for so many Canadians across the country. The Liberal government refused to do the work at the front end to tell Parliament and Canadians what the benefit would look like. The so-called framework legislation has no concrete dates, eligibility requirements or benefit amounts.

The then minister of employment, workforce development and disability inclusion repeatedly said that the new benefit would lift persons with disability out of poverty. We also heard that the benefit would roll out in about a year's time. It has been just about a year since the bill received royal assent, and Canadians with disabilities who have been desperately waiting for the rollout of the benefit were hit with massive disappointment when the budget was announced. The six dollars a day will not pull anyone out of poverty, much less in the current cost of living crisis. To receive the benefit, persons with disabilities will have to wait until July 2025.

It is very difficult to trust the Liberal government to deliver what it has promised to Canadians. The Liberals have refused to work collaboratively on this meaningful and straightforward policy change, but every day that passes without fixing the inequity in our parental leave system means another family that is left without the time it needs to attach. It means more parents who will have to return to work prematurely to make ends meet or who are forced to take the extended parental leave at a significant financial disadvantage. Adoptive and intended parents deserve equal access to parental leave. More importantly, their children need the additional time with their parents. These families are faced with unique challenges, and the time to attach is truly crucial.

As the House ends its consideration of Bill C-318, I would like to express how truly grateful I am for all those who have supported the bill. I thank the thousands of Canadians who have signed petitions and written to their MPs and to the minister, and all those who have shared their personal stories and advocated tirelessly for the changes.

While the Liberal government has ensured that Bill C-318 will not cross the finish line, I remain deeply committed to ensuring that adoptive and intended parents get the time they need and deserve with their children.