Debates of Jan. 29th, 2026

Protecting Victims Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.

Today we are debating Bill C-16, which means we are talking about court delays, sexual violence and protecting victims. I am speaking today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

First of all, my party and I would like to extend our deepest condolences to those affected by what is already the fourth femicide in Quebec in 2026. I want to express my sympathy to the family and loved ones of Véronic Champagne, a mother who was killed in Rougemont, in the riding of Shefford.

I was especially moved by the vigil organized by the municipality of Rougemont. Times like these make it clear that it is more than just the loved ones and family members of a victim of femicide who are affected. The entire community is in shock. I have seen that for myself, and I wish Rougemont, a close-knit community, a collective healing. At least this vigil, this moment of gathering, allowed us to begin the mourning process for the entire Rougemont community and the region.

What we want to see with Bill C-16 is a justice system that truly protects victims. This bill seeks to address a crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system. All too often, victims, most of whom are women, children, and even seniors, experience violence and then are revictimized by the justice system. I get messages about that. That means that our justice system is failing to protect victims and letting them down. This system reproduces the violence that it claims to combat.

I want to give a few statistics and then I will talk about the positive measures included in this bill. I will also point out a few concerns that I have near the end of my speech.

Let us look first at a few statistics. We see that some criminals are never brought to justice because of court delays. As a result of the Jordan decision, serious criminal cases have been dismissed because of unreasonable delays. Here are some actual numbers: Thirteen cases were dismissed in 2021, 18 in 2022, 96 in 2023 and 62 in 2024, and that is just looking at partial data. These cases included sexual assault, domestic violence, crimes against children and criminal harassment. That has a direct impact on victims, who are retraumatized by this and by the fact that offenders get to enjoy a form of judicial impunity.

That is why action had to be taken. The Bloc Québécois made several requests. Bill C-16 now makes corrections, particularly with regard to the Jordan decision, which the Bloc Québécois strongly supports, clearly. During the previous Parliament, we even introduced a bill that sought to provide a framework for the Jordan decision. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, our justice critic, spoke about it and worked on this issue.

Bill C-16 clarifies the criteria for determining the complexity of cases. Certain time limits are excluded from the calculation, judges have the option of ordering remedies other than discontinuing proceedings and there is a new key element, namely that the court will have to consider the impact on victims of public confidence. We welcome these positive steps.

Now, I want to focus our attention on violence against women. I am going to present some more figures that compel us to act. Sexual violence is massively under-reported. Almost 90% of sexual assaults are never reported. In 2024, femicides in Canada took the lives of 81 women killed by an intimate partner, 25 of them in Quebec. A number of cases have already been reported since the start of 2026. I talked about that earlier. I also want to acknowledge the loved ones of Susana Rocha Cruz, Mary Tukalak Iqiquq and Tajan'ah Desir. That is already far too many.

Now I want to address a new critical piece of information. I received a letter from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability. Fifty-five per cent of senior women killed by a family member were killed by their own sons. This statistic comes from a letter sent to us by the observatory explaining its position on Bill C-16.

In terms of coercive control, although the bill is making significant progress, there is room for improvement. In fact, I launched a study in committee to look into the possibility of criminalizing coercive control following a request from elected representatives who had worked on the report “Rebâtir la confiance” in the Quebec National Assembly and who told us that they could not take action because the matter fell under the Criminal Code. I then proposed a study on the subject. I have been pushing for this for several months, if not years. We therefore welcome the creation of the offence of coercive control. This recognition is key because violence is not just physical. It can be psychological, financial, social and invisible. Violence, in these forms, often starts much earlier.

I also want to mention an interview I heard following the murder of Véronic Champagne. One of her friends said that femicide was one of the most preventable crimes; she was referring to coercive control. There are often warning signs of what is to come, but unfortunately, as long as it is not included in the Criminal Code, the police do not have the tools they need to act sooner, to act upstream. That is really what the recognition of coercive control is for.

Again, the Elder Justice Coalition report states that coercive violence also affects seniors, dependant individuals, and women living with cognitive disorders. According to this organization, domestic violence against seniors has increased by 49% since 2018 in Canada. Our position is that recognizing coercive control is a real step forward, but we must ensure that no victim is left behind. That needs to be the next step, so we will be monitoring its implementation.

When it comes to sexual violence, deepfakes and cybercrime, it is clear that AI does have an impact. The Bloc Québécois supports the ban on pornographic deepfakes. We also support broadening the definition of intimate images. We also want to see tougher penalties and we would like to point out that, ultimately, young women and teenage girls are the main targets of these new forms of violence. I hope that a study will be conducted. In fact, it is possible that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will soon be studying the impact of AI on violence against women. A motion to that effect could be presented in the near future. It might be worthwhile in terms of proposing other possible solutions. We know that legislation is an important step, but it is rarely the last one. We will need to continue to monitor its implementation and the consequences of all this.

Bill C-16 addresses another interesting issue, namely young people being recruited into organized crime. We know that organized crime is recruiting more and more young people, at increasingly younger ages, using social media to exploit their vulnerabilities. We in the Bloc Québécois support the creation of a specific offence to target the real perpetrators. It is important to remember that many of these young people are unfortunately being killed after having been recruited, as was the case with Mohamed-Yanis Seghouani, who was 14 years old. That is unacceptable. The message is that young people must be truly protected, not used as cannon fodder, which is what is happening right now. Regarding the recruitment of young people into organized crime, I know that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has also advocated for this measure and lamented the fact that too many young people are still being recruited into organized crime.

Nevertheless, I would like to raise a few concerns. When it comes to victims' rights and restorative justice, we have to be careful about the means used. The Bloc Québécois welcomes, among other things, strengthening the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Quebec strongly supports restorative justice mechanisms, but has issued a clear warning: Without judges, resources and adequate funding, these rights will remain theoretical.

In closing, we support the bill, but we must still remain vigilant. If Bill C-16 is passed, we will have responsibilities regarding its implementation. We support Bill C-16 because, as we said, it reflects several of the Bloc Québécois's positions. It strengthens victim protection and finally recognizes forms of violence that have long been ignored. However, we will remain vigilant to eliminate any blind spots and ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected. We will be vigilant in committee and elsewhere.

I would like to quickly come back to something. The appointment of judges is a federal responsibility. We need judges for this bill to be implemented properly, but the appointment process is slow. Quebec is responsible for the administration of justice, but the problem is the fiscal imbalance. We therefore need to see how much funding will be transferred to Quebec because, obviously, the administration of justice costs money. The federal government needs to provide funding for that. Finally, the government also needs to improve protection for seniors and vulnerable people.

In closing, we need to keep the following in mind when it comes to this bill, which is so important and contains so many measures: The justice system must not only punish crime; it must also protect the victims of crime. That is what should and will guide us when we study this bill in committee. Then, we will have to see how Bill C-16 will be implemented to determine whether it really meets victims' needs.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank our colleague who has just summarized so well the challenge posed by this terrible situation in our ridings. These are exactly the same realities we are experiencing throughout Quebec, and the concerns she raised are also the same in my own riding.

I also thank her for her collaboration in committee, because we need to work together to advance legislation like Bill C-16. We must prevent and reduce the risks.

In that line of thought, could she reiterate how best to enhance prevention and reduce the risks in order to improve what we should be doing with regard to Bill C-16?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I noted some of our concerns and some of the progress made, which we will support. However, in terms of prevention, I would like to remind members that Bill C-16 will not fix everything. Criminalizing coercive control is really something that groups on the ground are calling for. I had a conversation with people from the shelter in my riding, Maison Alice Desmarais, who shared some truly devastating stories. As I said, these crimes are often predictable and can be prevented if we give the justice system the tools it needs.

I want to conclude by saying that, when we talk about tools, that includes financial tools. As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned, the issue facing the justice system is really the fiscal imbalance. Ottawa passes laws, but Quebec needs money to enforce them.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a passionate and hard-working member. Indeed, that is the point of my question.

In the limited time she has, I would like her to summarize the work that the Bloc Québécois has done regarding what is included in Bill C-16 and what it means to be a passionate and hard-working member like her.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. However, this bill was a team effort. Bloc Québécois members prefer to work as a team. I want to reiterate the active involvement of our colleague and fantastic critic from Rivière-du-Nord, who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He worked very hard on the issue of the Jordan decision, in collaboration with our former colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Denis Trudel. I can mention him by name because he no longer sits in the House.

As I said, for years, the government refused to listen to Quebec's demands to criminalize coercive control. After conducting a study at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with my Conservative colleagues and holding a press conference that even Liberal MPs attended, the issue I raised became non-partisan. The entire committee held a press conference last November to call for the criminalization of coercive control. Finally, just before we left for the holiday break, the government introduced this bill, incorporating this concept.

I would also like to highlight the work that has been done with regard to young recruits, to ensure that it will no longer be possible to recruit them from the age of 14. This work was led by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.

There is something else that I did not talk about much in my speech. My colleague also called for mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes only.

We helped make all these things happen. It was high time that action was taken on behalf of victims.

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

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate many of the comments the member has put on the record. When I think of the legislation, Bill C-16, I think about how it is dealing with the issue of deepfakes and also in regard to elevating femicide to first-degree murder. I think we are in a good position to see the bill go to committee so there can be further discussion.

Can the member provide any further thoughts she may have on the two specific issues I raise?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am running out of time.

First, on the issue of deepfakes, as I mentioned earlier, I hope that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women can conduct a study on this issue. We now know that AI and deepfake images disproportionately affect women. The consequences of that are huge.

Second, with respect to elevating femicide to first-degree murder, I know that some stakeholders called for this in committee. Once Bill C-16 is studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we will see how this aspect will be addressed. Members should stay tuned.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-16, omnibus legislation brought forward by the government.

There are some measures in the bill that are supportable to the extent that they strengthen Canada's criminal justice system and take into account and strengthen the interests of victims. Many of those measures were literally copied and pasted from private members' bills introduced by Conservative members. If the government wants to take good Conservative ideas, we welcome it doing so. There are also some additional measures in the bill that we wholeheartedly support.

That is where my compliments to the government end, because there are serious concerns and problems with the bill, starting with how the government has responded to the troubling and problematic Supreme Court decision in Senneville, which struck down the mandatory minimum sentencing law for the distribution and possession of child pornography.

The facts in Senneville are truly appalling and horrific. They involve two sadistic sexual predators who had hundreds of images of small children, made from the sexual brutalization and defilement of these innocent children. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, applying a so-called reasonable hypothetical, determined that the one-year mandatory minimum for the distribution and possession of child pornography was grossly disproportionate and therefore contravened section 12 of the charter, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

While the Supreme Court thought it was cruel and unusual punishment to impose a measly one-year mandatory jail term for child sexual predators, I think most Canadians find the sexual exploitation, rape, brutalization and defilement of children to be cruel, unusual, evil and sadistic.

It should be noted that the Senneville decision was far from a unanimous decision of the court. There was a strong dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Wagner and a five-four split on the court. The dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Wagner laid out, in very clear terms, the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum with respect to the distribution and possession of child pornography specifically. More broadly, in no uncertain terms, it reaffirmed Parliament's constitutional authority to pass laws with respect to sentencing, including fashioning mandatory and maximum jail time.

In the face of a problematic and unjust decision by the Supreme Court, a strong dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Wagner, and the Supreme Court specifically pronouncing that child sexual crimes are among the most immoral, Conservatives called on the Liberals to do the right thing and invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the decision and reinstate the mandatory minimum with respect to the distribution and possession of child pornography. Not surprisingly, given their soft-on-crime record, the Liberals did not do that.

Failing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, they could have come back with a bill that brings in a modified mandatory minimum sentence by clarifying the definition and the application of the offence, but the Liberals did not do that either. Instead, they endorsed and gave the green light to the Supreme Court's Senneville decision, completely washed their hands clean of responding legislatively and, once again, surrendered the law-making power of this place to the courts.

Even worse, the Liberals have very conveniently and very deliberately used a divided court decision as a pretext to dismantle virtually every other mandatory minimum law in the Criminal Code, save for murder and treason. They have done so with a so-called escape valve that would apply to every mandatory minimum in the Criminal Code except murder and treason.

The escape valve, as it is drafted, is broadly worded. It is not targeted. It does not contain, for example, an exceptional circumstances provision. It does not clarify or provide direction to the courts on how Parliament believes mandatory minimums should be treated. Instead, it invites judges to disregard mandatory minimum laws that, I would add, have not been found to be unconstitutional. Therefore, what this will almost certainly result in is that mandatory minimums and their application at sentencing will be litigated as a matter of course. This bill completely eviscerates mandatory minimum sentences.

The Liberals will say they had no choice as they have these court decisions. They had a choice. No court has said that, writ large, mandatory minimums are unconstitutional. Certainly, the Supreme Court has not said that. Indeed, mandatory minimum penalties have been on the books since the 1890s, when the Criminal Code was passed. Mandatory minimums reflect the constitutional authority of Parliament to make laws with respect to criminal justice, including sentencing, and reflect Parliament's judgment that certain offences are sufficiently serious to warrant a minimum floor, while having regard for long-standing sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence and the need to separate certain offenders from society.

Indeed, Justice Cory wrote, as recently as 2010, in the Supreme Court Nasogaluak decision, that mandatory minimums are “a forceful expression of governmental policy in the area of criminal law.”

Back in 1990, the same Justice Cory held that a mandatory minimum sentence would only be disproportionate as to violate section 12 on “rare and unique occasions”, and that the test would be “stringent and demanding.”

It is true that in recent years we have seen that mandatory minimums have been subject to greater constitutional challenge in the face of the Nur decision, for example, of 2015, which constitutes, in my opinion, judicial overreach. I say that because the first time the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum was in the Smith decision in 1987. For nearly 30 years, until 2015, not a single mandatory minimum had been struck down by the Supreme Court. It was not until 2015. Therefore, a government worth its salt, a government that was committed to standing up for victims and putting away violent offenders, would have reasserted Parliament's constitutional authority in this domain, including in egregious instances such as in the Senneville decision and the Bissonnette decision, which struck down the discretion afforded to judges to impose mandatory consecutive parole and eligibility periods to mass murderers, and invoked the notwithstanding clause.

Of course, the current government has not done that. It has refused to do that. Now, through the back door, it has brought in this bill on the pretense of saving mandatory minimums, when in fact what it is doing is completely dismantling them. It demonstrates that the government is blinded by ideology. It is a government that time and time again puts the rights of criminals ahead of public safety and the rights of victims. This bill is a total disgrace in that regard.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree completely with the member opposite. In fact, if he were to give the bill a chance, he would see there is a reinstatement of mandatory minimums. I would highly recommend that he read of those that would be reinstated as a direct result of this legislation.

What upsets me most about the Conservative Party of Canada today is that its members like to talk tough. They like to raise a lot of money on the crime file, but we have a Prime Minister who was just elected nine months ago, along with 70 new Liberal members of Parliament. It is a new government with a very aggressive crime agenda, a series of legislation, and the Conservative Party has done nothing but stand in the way of the legislation passing. Even Canadians in Conservative ridings are getting upset with the ongoing filibustering that the Conservative Party continues to put in on crime bills.

Will the member not at least give us some sort of a commitment to see this crime legislation pass before the end of February?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader ignored or did not listen to my resuscitation of pronouncements of the Supreme Court as it pertains to mandatory minimums and their constitutionality.

If the government saw the need to bring forward an escape valve, then it ought to have done it in a careful and tailored fashion. However, it has not done that. The Liberals have drafted the bill in such a way that it would invite judges to effectively disregard mandatory minimums, hence eviscerating them. That is the problem.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge the passing of Ernie Fage. Ernie was an MLA and cabinet minister who served ably in Nova Scotia. Our condolences go to his family at this time.

I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. He mentioned putting the rights of criminals over the rights of everyday Canadians, and that is a theme I hear over and over in my own riding of Fundy Royal. I would ask my colleague to expand on that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have a government that has put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims. The government is now touting bail reform, but it had weakened Canada's bail laws, which has resulted in a massive crime wave. This is a government that, according to the parliamentary secretary, supports mandatory minimums, while the bill it has brought before us eviscerates them. This is a government that, of course, has a track record of not waiting for the courts to strike down mandatory minimums but proactively removing mandatory minimums from the Criminal Code, including those for some very serious offences, including serious firearms offences.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit shocked by my colleague's comments.

My constituents, like his I am sure, say that online predation, manipulation, cyberstalking, the distribution of intimate images and even the use of AI, including deepfakes, are very real threats and that our laws need to reflect today's realities.

Why are the Conservatives dragging their feet when it is time to support this bill?

I would like to ask my colleague whether he will try to persuade his party to work with us to get this bill passed in February.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the government copied and pasted the member for Calgary Nose Hill's Bill C-216 into the bill before us with respect to criminalizing non-consensual sexual deepfakes. That is a positive.

I do not know what the member is talking about when she says that we are being obstructive. There is such a place called the House of Commons where we actually debate bills. The last time I checked, we have only had a few hours of debate on this very large bill, an omnibus bill, which has many moving parts. I do not know what the member is talking about.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to rise as the representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and speak to the government's Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters.

All of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to those citizens who depend on us to do their bidding in Parliament. Canadians need us to see the challenges and dangers they face and to do our jobs to make necessary amendments to federal statutes in order to make life safer and more secure for Canadians.

It is no coincidence that we are here in Parliament. The word “Parliament” was derived from an 11th-century Old French word, parlement, which means “discussion” or “discourse”, and from the French verb parler, which means “to talk”. We spend a lot of time talking in this place because our forebears resolved to use words rather than swords and cannons to resolve disagreements, to establish consensus for common good and to deliver solutions for the citizens represented by every member of Parliament.

Yes, Parliament can be raucous and adversarial, but we can never let the friction and heat deter us from the duties we owe the people of Canada: our duty to represent our constituents, and our duty to engage in discussion and discourse in this place, not for the sake of merely speaking or engaging in verbal scrums but to contribute to progress for the people. Constructive discussion in Parliament can certainly lead to collaboration, and this can include the governing party adopting proposals from opposition members and including those proposals in government bills, as the government has done in Bill C-16.

On September 17, 2025, just last year, I tabled my private member's bill, Bill C-221, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, disclosure of information to victims. Currently, victims of crime can request that they be informed of the eligibility dates and review dates for the temporary absence, release or parole of the offender who victimized them. My bill, Bill C-221, proposes that when the victims are provided with such dates, they are also provided with an explanation of how the dates were determined. When Canadians are victimized by crime, they often carry psychological and emotional burdens for life. My private member's bill proposes common-sense, realistic measures aimed at reducing the stress victims experience in dealing with the parole and release processes of those who have victimized them.

After six and a half years of Conservative efforts to pass these proposals into law, it is good to see that the government has finally acknowledged the merit and necessity of these proposals and included them in a government bill, Bill C-16. My bill, Bill C-221, follows three previous Conservative bills that carried the same proposal. Those bills were Bill C-466, sponsored by the Hon. Lisa Raitt in the 42nd Parliament, Bill S-219, sponsored by Senator Boisvenu in the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C-320, sponsored by Dr. Colin Carrie in the 44th Parliament.

The legislative proposals of our bills are now included in a government bill, Bill C-16. They were initially developed and advocated for by Ms. Lisa Freeman of Oshawa, Ontario. Ms. Freeman suffered a tragic loss when her father was brutally murdered. Then she endured years of dealing with Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board while trying to keep track of the offender who murdered her father. Lisa Freeman's experience dealing with these government processes was painful and added to the burden she already carried.

I thank Lisa Freeman for her determination and bravery in persevering through the pain and trauma of losing her father to fight for the measures that increase respect for victims of crime navigating government processes. I am pleased that the Liberal government has finally recognized this as an issue and has chosen to prioritize my private member's bill's proposals by including them in Bill C-16. This means that much-needed changes could happen sooner for Canadians. This is a good thing.

Victims of crime and the people who advocate for them have stated for years that these measures are necessary, and I am glad the Conservative leadership has caused the government to finally adopt these proposals. What is important to me and to victims is that these measures get passed in order to ease the experience victims of crime have in dealing with corrections and parole processes.

Canadians count on parliamentarians to make Parliament work, and until the government passes Bill C-16, I will continue to work to move my private member's bill toward completion, because these changes are worth pursuing through all avenues possible.

Bill C-16 is an omnibus bill, and I think some proposed measures are long overdue but other clauses of the bill require amendments to be strengthened to deliver results and relief for Canadians facing real dangers. Here are some hard facts on the dangers Canadians, including my constituents in Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, are facing: Since 2015, human trafficking has increased 84%, sexual assaults are up almost 76% and violent crime is up almost 55%.

Bill C-16 has incorporated other pieces of Conservative legislation that was drafted. Bill C-16 proposes to ban deepfakes of intimate partners, and this would help keep Canadians, especially women, safe from non-consensual intimate images being created and shared.

Conservatives are glad that in Bill C-16 the government has adopted the proposal of Bill C-216, which was sponsored by the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill. Bill C-16 also incorporates Bill C-216 provisions for establishing mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material. This would help protect our children from despicable crimes and exploitation.

In Bill C-16, the government has also answered calls from my Conservative colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, whose private member's bill proposed that murder of an intimate partner be automatically treated as first-degree murder. I am glad that the Liberal government has heard the calls of my hon. colleagues and incorporated these proposals in Bill C-16.

These parts of the government's Bill C-16 are long overdue and are relevant to Canadians today. However, other components of Bill C-16 miss the mark because they simply do not go far enough to be relevant to the problems Canadians face today. For instance, Bill C-16 proposes to allow judges to ignore literally every mandatory prison sentence in the Criminal Code, other than murder and treason.

The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for crimes such as aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violence with firearms, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings and more.

I call on the government to hear the voices of Canadians who are living with a 55% increase in violent crime and want peace and security restored in their communities. Bill C-16's proposed elimination of mandatory sentence requirements must be split and removed from the bill so that it may be thoroughly debated and allow the solid parts of Bill C-16 to proceed expeditiously for the safety of Canadians.

I call on the government to listen once again to the voices of Canadians who oppose light sentences for serious and violent crimes, and split the bill so we can advance the solid parts and work on the elements that need to be reworked.

The House resumed from October 24, 2025, consideration of the motion that C-222, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law)

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

Madam Speaker, today I acknowledge all the grieving parents across Canada who have had to endure both financial and emotional hardship at the hands of the federal government due in large part to a systemic flaw in government programming for maternity and parental benefits.

Nearly 10 years ago we began a journey together to make change in this country, to make sure that, in the future, parents who experience the loss of a child are not also subjected to that same lack of support and compassion by the federal government. We sought some of the very changes that are now proposed in the bill that is before us. However, Motion No. 110 was unfortunately repeatedly roadblocked by the current government.

Thanks to the hard work of many advocates across the country who pushed back against that heartless resistance, the motion ultimately received the unanimous support of all members of the House at that time, but when the time came for concrete action, the Liberal government deliberately delayed moving on the recommendations that were made by the human resources committee, and it voted down an amendment that we moved to its budget that would have seen positive change for grieving families happen as early as 2019.

Now, here we are debating proposed legislation based on most of the very same recommendations that were made more than six years ago. While I appreciate the member's bringing this forward now, I cannot help but wonder how many families during that time the government could have compassionately responded to in their time of greatest need. Every single case is one too many.

I would like to take us back to the year 2016. I was first made aware of this serious flaw in our employment insurance program when I was approached by two of my constituents, Sarah and Lee Cormier. They contacted me following the unimaginable tragedy of losing their daughter Quinn at just four months old. She passed away suddenly and unexpectedly due to sudden infant death syndrome. While in the midst of navigating the shock and grief of Quinn's loss, they were also informed by Service Canada that their parental benefits would be immediately cut off. To add insult to injury, the benefits they received in the week following Quinn's passing would have to be paid back.

If we were to ask anyone with an ounce of compassion if this should ever happen to a family during their darkest hours, the answer of course would be no. Unfortunately, the Cormier family is but one of thousands of families across this country that have been subjected to the same response from their government, which should be offering assistance for bereaved parents rather than adding an unnecessary burden during the most difficult period of their lives.

Over the years, I have crossed the country attending memorial events and rallies organized by broken-hearted parents supporting one another through their grief. They are asking for nothing more than some compassion from their government. Instead they are forced to fundraise, organizing walks, runs and other community events, just so they can help provide a cushion for another family that might someday experience the same kind of loss that they themselves have experienced. They honour the lives of their children by giving back, creating a safety net for anyone who has had to face the same unimaginable tragedy.

The funds these parents had received were already committed to them for the duration of their parental leave, so it stands to reason that in the event of the loss of a child during that time, those benefits could easily continue for a period to help them relieve any financial burdens the family might also be experiencing. Adapting to the loss of a child is difficult enough without having to also be worried about bills or repaying benefits they have to repay to the federal government but would have been entitled to had the unthinkable tragedy not occurred.

That was the foundation for the introduction of Motion No. 110 in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, Motion No. 110 ultimately received the unanimous support of the House of Commons when it was tabled here and was then referred to the human resources committee to be studied. In 2019, that committee tabled a report entitled “Supporting Families After the Loss of a Child”. It outlines seven recommendations. The report and those recommendations served as a blueprint to ensure that grieving parents would not have to endure both emotional and financial hardship after an unimaginable loss.

It seemed reasonable that with the unanimous support for the motion itself, these recommendations based on the motion would then see the same support. One of those recommendations was a bereavement leave that would provide income support of 12 to 15 weeks for parents grieving the loss of an infant. This would allow them some space and some time to manage their loss without forcing them back to work out of necessity to provide for their families. However, a federal election later in 2019 and another in 2021 essentially sidelined any future progress that Motion No. 110 could have made in creating a designated bereavement benefit.

During that time, however, the parents, the families and the organizations that I had come to know over the years and that had supported Motion No. 110 did not sit silently by. The government had failed them by refusing to act on the recommendations passed in the report, but these individuals continued the hard work, hoping to finally have their experience acknowledged by their government. Petitions were signed, letters were mailed and emailed, and phone calls were made. Each year the anniversary of their child's passing came and went, but rather than give up and decide to just move on, they remained steadfast in their determination to find a solution to help others like them.

Finally, after years of watching and waiting for the Liberal government to do something, anything, to implement those recommendations tabled in 2019, a small glimmer of hope came in the 2023 budget. A vague outline for a potential bereavement leave for pregnancy loss was included, but of course there was a catch. This bereavement leave would only be available to federally regulated employees, leaving scores of parents without that same assistance due to their sector of employment. For all the work that these parents had put in to finally have their experience recognized, most of them would be left without access to that leave that they had fought so hard for, and it changed nothing with respect to the flaw in the Employment Insurance Act.

After years of watching the Liberal government's inaction and seeing this announcement only apply to federal sector workers, Sarah Cormier contacted my office once again. She created a petition, which I sponsored, calling on the Government of Canada to implement a bereavement benefit for all grieving parents of pregnancy and infant loss and to implement all seven recommendations contained within the committee report tabled in 2019.

With Sarah's help and the help of organizations and individuals all across Canada, we collected signatures, and I was proud to be able to table those petitions in the House of Commons. Still we had more inaction from the government. More days, weeks, months and years went by. There were more heartbreaking anniversaries that bereaved parents observed. For all the efforts they had made in memory of their beloved child, hoping for change, still the government remained silent.

More parents each year have gone through this same unimaginable experience only to be told by the government that it is sorry for their loss, but they need to pay the money back and return to work immediately. So much time has passed since Motion No. 110 was first introduced in the House. So many parents to whom the Liberal government could have offered much-needed support have lost a pregnancy or infant since then. Why only now? Why not in 2019 when the opportunity first presented itself? Countless individuals like Sarah and Lee Cormier have waited years for change. They have done the hard work to provide support to other grieving parents, wearing their loss with courage in the hope that other families would have one less burden placed on them by their own government during their darkest hours. They have waited too long.

While I am happy to see this injustice may finally be remedied, it also leaves me angered at the thought of so many parents continuing to be subjected to this treatment when recommendations for change were made seven years ago. We have all heard the saying, “Better late than never”, but “late” in this case has caused significant emotional and financial hardship for so many parents who did not have to suffer further at the hands of the Liberal government. I sincerely hope that this bill does not see the same resistance to its implementation that Motion No. 110 did, as these parents deserve better from their government during a time of unimaginable loss. It should not have taken this long.

In closing, as the father of a son and an infant daughter myself, I can say that parenthood is one of life's greatest joys. To lose a child is an unthinkable tragedy. Although we cannot legislate away that loss, we do have the ability to assure bereaved parents that government programming will not cause them unnecessary harm and stress while navigating their loss. The Employment Insurance Act must be amended to accommodate pregnancy and infant loss and to finally give grieving parents the compassion they deserve from their government.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I get very emotional when talking about some bills, and Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, or Evan's law, is one of them. As my colleague said earlier, most parents cannot imagine what it is like to lose a child. It must be the worst tragedy a parent can experience. I am thinking of my little Naomie, and I am going to give her a big hug tonight. Our children really are what we hold most dear.

I will begin by saying that this bill puts humanity and dignity before paperwork. That is how I would sum it up, because this bill addresses a rare but truly heartbreaking reality. The loss of a child is a devastating ordeal, and no family should have to face an administrative burden on top of that. The Bloc Québécois firmly believes that, at times such as this, the government should not be adding to people's suffering, but rather alleviating it as much as possible. When a family is grieving, the priority must be time, dignity and stability, not paperwork, forms and financial anxiety. When a family is grieving a child, that is what should guide us, not bureaucracy.

In this speech, I will start by talking about the problems with the federal system that led to this bill. I will then talk about what the bill fixes. Lastly, I will close by launching a broader debate on the Liberals' inaction on EI, particularly in comparison to Quebec and its parental insurance plan.

First, the current problem with the federal EI system is that benefits can be stopped if the child passes away. The maternity or parental leave may be challenged. As a result, some grieving parents are forced to plead their case, reapply or return to work too soon when they should be healing. This situation highlights a disconnect between administrative rules and human realities, as well as the rigid approach typical of the federal EI system. This situation is what prompted the realization that led to this bill.

Second, Bill C‑222 corrects this by proposing a simple, targeted and compassionate measure to maintain EI benefits in the event of the death of a child during a benefit period. The goal is to retain maternity or parental leave under the Canada Labour Code. It is important to keep in mind that a new claim is not required and no additional reports are required. There is also a clear exception if there is a criminal conviction. That seems appropriate. It is simple. No new claims are needed and, of course, cases where there are criminal convictions are excluded.

This is a compassionate measure. It is not a financial drain on the federal government, since we know that the infant mortality rate is low and stable. Every year, approximately 380 children under the age of one pass away in Quebec. That is a rate of 4.9 per 1,000 births. We also know that Canada has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the OECD, so the political conclusion is clear. This measure does not represent a serious financial risk, but it could make a huge difference for families who are affected by this situation. The government cannot use public finances as an excuse not to act. We must also remember that compassion does not cost much and that it is essential in terrible situations such as these.

Third, we support this bill. It simply rectifies an unacceptable situation. I would like to take a moment to put this in a broader context, namely the Liberals' inaction on EI. This winter, I will be sitting on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for the first time. I have been monitoring this file from afar for a long time, working with my former colleagues who served on that committee and who championed the issue of EI. What we ultimately see is that this is part of a pattern of chronic inaction. I have seen this over the years, working in the House, because EI has not been overhauled in decades.

The government refuses, for example, to extend the duration of special EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks. These are battles that we in the Bloc Québécois have been fighting. Consider the case of Émilie Sansfaçon, which is rather shocking. This mother fought two cancers and was forced to go back to work as soon as her chemotherapy treatments were over. As a result, she did not get the recovery period she deserved. It is rare to recover from cancer in 15 weeks. She was really a victim of the Employment Insurance Act, which has not changed since 1971. I wanted to put that on the record.

We have raised this issue in the House of Commons, and we introduced a bill to increase the number of eligible weeks from 15 to 50 in cases of serious illness. However, even though we managed to get a motion adopted in the House of Commons, the Liberal members did vote against it at the time. It showed a blatant lack of humanity towards these folks. We always get panicked calls at our offices from people asking how they are supposed to heal, because they will not recover in 15 weeks. When will this change? When will people get more weeks for a dignified recovery?

I would like to commend Louise Chabot, the former member of Parliament for Thérèse-De Blainville, for reintroducing a bill in November 2024, Bill C-418. With that bill, she drew on her own experience and attempted to change the number of weeks for cases of serious illness. She extended the duration, and her bill still included the idea of increasing the benefit period from 15 weeks to 50 for cases of serious illness. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament.

Still, a number of groups that work on EI issues highlighted and welcomed certain aspects of this bill. It was a major overhaul. I will list a few highlights of the bill, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois at the time. It established a single hybrid criterion of 420 hours or 12 weeks of 14 hours. It increased the current benefit rate from 55% to 60%, based on the best 12 weeks of earnings. It increased insurable earnings to 140% of the annualized average weekly earnings. It increased the minimum benefit period to 35 weeks. It increased special sickness benefits from 26 weeks to 50 weeks. It extended the qualifying period for special benefits. Lastly, it amended the provision disqualifying people from receiving EI regular benefits if they had lost their employment because of domestic violence or because of a return to education due to family responsibilities.

It was an important bill. We had another battle to fight because that act, which has not been amended since 1971, also discriminates against women. In 2022, the courts ruled that it was unacceptable for women to be penalized for having children and that working women should be eligible for benefits if they lose their jobs, even if they were on maternity leave. A mother who loses her job during her maternity leave or shortly after returning to work cannot accumulate the number of hours needed to qualify for EI benefits. We had been calling for that reform for quite some time. In the end, the Liberal government decided to challenge the ruling.

To wrap up, the Bloc Québécois's position is clear. We support Bill C-222. However, we must point out that this bill is only necessary because the federal system is broken. Quebec workers in federally regulated sectors must have the same protections as other workers. I would like to remind everyone of something I did not have time to address earlier: With the QPIP, the Quebec parental insurance plan, Quebec made a conscious decision to maintain benefits even in the event of illness or the death of the child. It is a personal, humane and respectful approach to grief.

The Bloc Québécois supports this bill because parents should not have to choose between mourning and staying afloat financially.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act. First, l would like to acknowledge and thank the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour for bringing this bill forward.

The loss of a child is one of the most devastating experiences a parent can face. lt is a loss that reshapes a family forever. ln those moments, parents deserve compassion, stability, space to grieve and time. What they do not deserve is confusion, paperwork and bureaucracy.

As a mother of two young boys, I know how completely children shape our lives. They give us our responsibility, our purpose and our deepest vulnerabilities. Parenthood opens us up to extraordinary love, while also reminding us how fragile life can be. When that loss occurs, the role of government must be clear, to support families and not to burden them. This is something all members can agree on in this chamber.

Each year in Canada, thousands of families experience this unimaginable loss. In 2023 alone, more than 3,200 child deaths were reported, over half involving infants under the age of one, with many occurring in the first month of life. Under our current rules, while EI maternity benefits continue following the loss of a child, recognizing the physical and emotional recovery from childbirth, parental benefits stop immediately when a child dies. The only alternative is to reapply for EI, a process that involves new applications, medical documentation and biweekly reporting that forces parents to repeatedly confirm their loss.

No parent should have to prove their grief to the government. This is the gap that Bill C-222 addresses. The bill would amend the Employment Insurance Act so that parents receiving EI benefits to care for a newborn or an adopted child remain eligible for those benefits even if their child dies during the benefit period. It would also amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that parents remain entitled to maternity or parental leave without interruption in the event of a child's death.

This is a simple, compassionate fix. It would allow parents to grieve without administrative burden, prevent unnecessary clawbacks and streamline government processes without increasing overall costs. Most importantly, it would treat all families, birth parents, adoptive parents and same-sex parents, with dignity and respect.

I have been encouraged by the broad, cross-party support for this legislation. This is not a partisan issue. This is about shared values of empathy, fairness and respect for families. It is also a reminder that Parliament can come together to fix systems when we see that they are causing harm. I do believe, though, that a broader conversation about how we can modernize employment insurance and caregiving supports is needed. However, Evan's law is about acting now, where we can, to prevent harm that is both clear and avoidable.

Protecting families in moments of vulnerability is one of the most serious responsibilities we hold as legislators. When we see that rules cause harm, even unintentionally, we have a duty to change it. This bill would remove unnecessary bureaucracy. When I think of my own children, I am reminded that the decisions we make in this chamber reach into people's lives at their most fragile moments.

Bill C-222 would ensure that when families face the unthinkable, our systems can respond with care and not further complication. For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill C-222.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-222 deals with one of the most devastating experiences a family can face. The death of a child is a moment that reshapes everything for parents and families. It is a moment of shock, grief and profound loss, and it is not something that follows a schedule or fits neatly into administrative categories.

In moments like those, the role of Parliament should be clear. Our systems should provide stability rather than uncertainty, compassion rather than pressure, and clarity rather than confusion. When families are at their most vulnerable, government should not become another burden they are forced to carry.

Bill C-222 responds to a real and long-standing gap in federal law. Under the current rules, parents who are receiving employment insurance, or maternity or parental benefits, can lose access to those benefits if their child dies during the benefit period. In some cases, they are required to return to work immediately.

In other cases, families are required to navigate a transition to a different benefit altogether with new eligibility criteria, new documentation requirements and new timelines. That can mean completing forms, meeting deadlines and learning unfamiliar rules, all while dealing with the immediate aftermath of a loss. This issue is about not only the loss of support but also timing. These administrative demands arise at precisely the moment when families are least equipped to respond to them. That outcome is not compassionate, reasonable or what Canadians expect from a system that is meant to support families during times of hardship.

The bill before us provides a straightforward and humane response. It would allow parents who are already receiving EI, or maternity or parental benefits, to continue receiving those benefits for the remainder of the approved period, even after their child dies. It would also ensure that maternity or parental leave under the Canada Labour Code is not abruptly terminated in those circumstances.

This legislation would not create new benefits. It would not extend leave beyond existing limits. It would not expand eligibility or introduce new categories of support. It would simply allow families to continue under the framework already in place, without being forced into sudden decisions or administrative hurdles during a period of grief. That is the reasonable and compassionate approach, one that deserves the support of the House.

Conservatives support Bill C-222 at second reading. At this stage, the House is being asked to agree with the principle of the bill, not to resolve every detail. We believe grieving families should not face unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles. We believe the employment insurance system should operate predictably and fairly. We believe committee study provides the appropriate forum to ensure that the legislation is as clear, workable and compassionate as possible.

I want to pause briefly to acknowledge the work that has been done on this issue by Conservative colleagues in previous Parliaments.

In particular, the member for Airdrie—Cochrane brought forward work that helped prompt serious examination of how employment insurance and related federal programs respond when families experience the loss of a child, including through committee study and parliamentary debate.

I also want to recognize the contributions of the member for Calgary Shepard, whose voice on this issue has carried a depth and gravity that speaks to real experience, and whose work has constantly stood with families facing devastating loss.

Those efforts helped move this issue forward and contributed meaningfully to bringing it to the point where Parliament is now in a position to act.

Moments like this also remind us of the broader purpose of this place. While we will always have disagreements on policy and priorities, there are issues where our shared humanity must take precedence. When legislation speaks directly to loss, grief and compassion, it calls on all of us to respond with decency and care. Bill C-222 matters because it would remove an added burden at a moment of profound grief. It recognizes that grief does not follow administrative timelines. It recognizes that families should not be forced to make immediate employment decisions or navigate complex paperwork while they are mourning the death of a child.

Employment insurance exists for moments when circumstances beyond a person's control interrupt their ability to work. It is a system Canadians pay into with the understanding that it will provide stability when life takes an unexpected and difficult turn. At its core, the purpose of insurance is continuity. It is meant to create a measure of certainty in uncertain times and to ensure that people are not forced into immediate decisions at the very point when they are least able to make them.

In situations of profound loss, the role of employment insurance is not to introduce new complexity, but to provide predictability and breathing room while people recover and regain their footing. Bill C-222 is ultimately about ensuring that in moments of genuine hardship the employment insurance system functions as it was intended. It would recognize that there are circumstances where the rigid application of existing rules can produce outcomes that do not reflect fairness or common sense, and where modest legislative clarification can prevent unnecessary harm. There are moments when a rigid application of rules can produce outcomes that are technically correct but fundamentally wrong. The death of a child is one of those moments. In these circumstances, systems should bend toward people in crisis, not away from them.

At the same time, supporting this bill would not mean ignoring the fact that another serious gap remains. While Bill C-222 would address what happens when a child dies during a benefit or leave period, it would not address the situation when a parent dies while on maternity or parental leave. Members of our caucus have encountered cases where a family lost a parent and then faced demands from the government to repay benefits that had already been paid. In these cases, the parent had paid into the employment insurance system. The family relied on the benefits in good faith and the surviving family faced immediate financial hardship because the parent who would have returned to work was no longer there. It is difficult to justify a system that responds to such a tragedy by clawing back support. Loss in those circumstances is already overwhelming. Adding financial shock to emotional devastation does not serve the public interest.

This is not about creating open-ended entitlements or expanding benefits indefinitely. It is about fairness and predictability. When a parent pays into EI, there is a reasonable expectation that the system will operate consistently. When that parent dies while on leave, the family loses both emotional support and future income at the same time. Grief should not trigger a retroactive penalty. For that reason, Conservatives intend to work constructively to strengthen this legislation so that it responds fairly in all tragic circumstances, not just in some.

Supporting a bill and seeking to improve it are not contradictory positions. They are both part of responsible law-making. Bill C-222 would move us in that direction. It addresses a specific and identifiable gap in the law and does so in a way that is limited and focused. It does not attempt to redefine the employment insurance system or expand its scope beyond what is already intended. What it would do is remove an outcome that most Canadians would reasonably view as unfair. It would prevent families from facing sudden loss of support as a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control and would ensure that existing benefits would continue as originally approved. That is an appropriate role for legislation.

When the application of a rule produces a result that clearly conflicts with fairness and common sense, Parliament has an obligation to intervene. Doing so does not require sweeping reform. It requires attention to detail and a willingness to correct what is not working as intended. Conservatives support this bill at second reading, and we will continue to approach it with the same focus, addressing real problems carefully, responsibly and without creating new ones.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C‑222, which was introduced by the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, a riding in British Columbia that I have not had the opportunity to visit.

I assume that this bill was introduced with good intentions. We will be able to discuss the bill in more detail later. The reason I say that is because the member himself was once the minister of citizens' services in the previous government. In fact, it is the same government, although the Liberals like to say that it is a new government because they changed prime ministers. In any case, it is still a Liberal government.

The purpose of the bill is to help people who lose their child. The birth of a child is a momentous occasion, a major life event. I am a father of three, and I can say that becoming a parent is life-changing.

Usually, when a person says they are expecting a new baby, there is a lot of excitement. The individual, the couple and the whole family are happy. However, there are cases where the child passes away shortly after birth, which is incredibly difficult. I was fortunate enough not to have experienced that, but I did lose a child—well, not me personally, because I was not the one who was pregnant—before the baby was born, and I am sure that losing a child after birth must be even more terrible and difficult.

Unfortunately, under the federal EI program, if a person loses a baby, then all of a sudden, they are not a parent anymore because they no longer have a child. They are therefore no longer entitled to receive EI during the leave period that parents would normally be entitled to. Obviously, I think that is terrible and unacceptable, but that is how things currently stand in our legislation. These are archaic laws that have not been modernized in many years.

We can only applaud the initiative of Bill C-222, which shows that there are major gaps and flaws in the employment insurance program. The one we are discussing today is only one of many. That is the worst part.

I could tell you a story. When I was in CEGEP and university, there were campaigns to modernize the employment insurance fund. Since I am 37, that means it was almost 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, there were campaigns to modernize EI. There were campaigns to denounce the fact that the government was dipping into the employment insurance fund, whether it was the Liberals under Paul Martin or the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. In the end, the money was never put back into the EI fund.

The sad thing is that the famous reforms that groups defending the unemployed were calling for at the time were never implemented. This was something the Liberals promised in 2015, when they were elected. They promised the moon. They promised that they would definitely look into employment insurance. They went on tours and held consultations. They have been in power for 10 years. This is even their 11th year in power. There still has been no major change. It is as if all those promises were worthless.

We are in favour of this bill and we will support it. However, it is still disappointing to see that this is not actually a government bill. It is a private member's bill. This is not a government initiative. It is the initiative of a backbencher that may force his government to do something if the Liberals vote in favour of the bill. I am unaware of the Liberals' intentions regarding this bill.

For me, this is a clear demonstration that it is past time for a major, in-depth overhaul of EI. Labour organizations, groups advocating for the unemployed and seasonal workers have been waging these battles pretty much everywhere.

When we talk to people in eastern Quebec, in the north shore region or in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, they all say the same thing: The EI system is dysfunctional, and it is sapping the life from the regions because of the spring gap problem.

The government might say that there have been pilot projects, but pilot projects are temporary, not permanent. They do not exactly solve everything, and the solutions they do bring are only temporary. There is always the fear that the problem will return or that it is only partially solved.

The Bloc Québécois has fought other battles on the issue of EI, notably with Ms. Émilie Sansfaçon, who, sadly, has since passed away. Her father also fought for this cause. Émilie Sansfaçon would have wanted people suffering from serious illnesses such as cancer to be able to receive EI like anyone else. People with a serious illness are not well enough to go to work and have to devote all their energy to recovery.

Unfortunately, this still leaves only 15 weeks of employment insurance instead of the 50 weeks that should be offered, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois. Still, many steps have been taken, and the government promised to listen and take action. The sad part is that the Liberals are supposed to be a social democratic party that cares about needs of the people, at least in theory. In any case, that is what they claim. They are supposed to have a heart and be open to changing and improving the social fabric, and providing economic support for struggling individuals. I have a hard time understanding why these changes have not come about over the years.

I would like to go back to the time when I was in CEGEP and university, because things have not changed that much since then. I remember that advocacy groups for the unemployed were saying that about one in two people who should qualify for EI were not getting it because of extremely strict rules. I have not seen the latest figures, but knowing that no major restructuring of the EI program has taken place, I get the impression that they are roughly the same today. Meanwhile, we are living through hard economic times, marked by uncertainty and job losses in a range of economic sectors. Under normal circumstances, that should turn our attention to things we can do to make life better for people who lose their jobs.

We are a long way from the 1930s, but let us not forget that all the social programs that exist today for workers who lose their jobs were put in place in response to economic hardships experienced in the past. When we are experiencing economic hardships, it is precisely the right time to think about what we can do for others who are struggling or going through tough times themselves.

Obviously, I think everyone in the House understands that the Bloc Québécois intends to support Bill C-222. However, we think that it should have been more ambitious, especially since this government has been promising reforms for 10 years. It seems to me that, after 10 years, if the government has not taken action, it is because it never intended to do so and probably never will.

The good news is that there is currently a minority government in place, and a lot can happen with a minority government. It is a minority government for now, at any rate. We have also seen in recent years that the Conservatives have developed some virtues, being a little less anti-worker in their policies. It is therefore not impossible that certain pro-worker policies could be adopted in the future with the support of the Conservatives and New Democrats, even without the Liberals. It would be impressive, but it is not impossible. Obviously, my expectations of the Conservatives remain limited. That said, these are possibilities that we will look into, because it is important to do more for our community.

As everyone knows, the loss of a child is a major event in someone's life. The statistics show that it is not that common, however. In Quebec, there are 4.9 infant deaths per 1,000 births. When it does happen though, we obviously want to be able to help these people. In a context where the new Liberal government has shifted to the right over the last term and no longer seems to be focused on the people but on the oil companies instead, we could perhaps argue that this would represent a very low cost to society, since there are only 4.9 infant deaths per 1,000 births and few people are affected. As I said, however, those who do lose a child are deeply affected, and their whole lives change. Everyone can agree on that.

I hope that everyone in the House will vote in favour of the bill before us, but more importantly, that everyone agrees that we need to go even further this time. Quebec has already solved this problem with the Quebec parental insurance plan, or QPIP. Unfortunately, as usual, the federal government is still lagging behind. Now is the time for it to catch up.

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

The honourable member for Burnaby North—Seymour for his right of reply.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, I only have five minutes, but I am not going to take a lot of it.

I will start by saying thanks. I want to thank all of my colleagues who contributed, not just today but in the first hour. To all of my colleagues who have been working on this for several years, either at the HUMA committee or in various ways, it is hard for me to explain why it has perhaps taken this long to get to this place. However, I am going to do everything I can to make sure this bill gets across the line.

I especially want to thank the members who presented their own personal, individual stories. The fact that we have members in this House who could have benefited from this bill, who are willing to be vulnerable, get up and tell their stories, tells us how impactful this is for the more than 1,600 families this affects across Canada. I would like to thank them next.

For those families who have had this happen, I thank them for sharing their stories, which are not easy to tell. Those families told their stories not for their own personal benefit but for the benefit of the next family that may benefit from this particular legislation. For that, I say a real heartfelt thank you.

I want to thank the Minister of Jobs and Families, the Minister of Finance and all of their staff who have helped work through various iterations of this bill and who will continue to work as we go through, hopefully, to the committee process and on to what I hope is third reading and royal assent.

Of course, I want to thank the critics, both the old critic and the new critic in the Bloc and the critics in all the parties, for their communication and their work on this so far.

For the 1,600 families that would benefit from it, this bill would provide a simple and elegant fix. A Bloc member rose in the first hour and asked if this was a good measure, saying that it seems to have universal support but that they were concerned about the royal recommendation. They asked me if we had the royal recommendation. I answered honestly that I did not have it and needed everybody's help to try to get it.

I am happy to update the House and say that I believe we have found a path to get a royal recommendation. However, it will require co-operation at committee, and we have to tie up a few loose ends. The required amendments are straightforward. They do not change the purpose of the bill; they simply ensure sound legislative execution. We will work diligently to make sure that is successful. The last thing we want to do is have another bill go all the way through and then not actually help those 1,600 families.

I believe there is broad agreement in the House to move this quickly to HUMA. I do not think it will take long to study it. We could have it back in the House and actually, probably, have the bill wrapped up by February. We have the evidence and the stories. We have the solution right in front of us.

For the benefit of all Canadians and those future families who, in the most unfortunate of circumstances, might face this kind of tragedy, let us get this done. Let us use this moment to help those future families.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.