Debates of Oct. 27th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Appearance of the Prime Minister before the Standing Committee on Finance

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague channelled Paul Martin in his speech, and so I would ask him how exactly the Liberal government of that era got back to fiscal responsibility when it came to downloading responsibilities and costs to the provinces. Conservatives have been talking about what is going to happen with our social programs. What happened with social programs when the Liberals of the past were in the same situation that the Liberals of today are going to be putting us in?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was devastating for social services delivery across the country when the Liberal government started downloading additional responsibilities, because it had to drastically cut its spending to make the bond markets happy. The bond markets are not happy right now, and we might see continued pressure on our fiscal finances as a result.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Finance; the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Health.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be here today. I will be splitting my time, to acknowledge that at the front end.

We have been asked to speak today on an opposition day motion, but it is so much more than that. This is about where Canada is right now in the world. We have a government that continues to spend recklessly, which is driving up the cost of living for all Canadians. We have a Parliamentary Budget Officer who has been using certain terms for over a year: stupefying, not hitting financial targets, mesmerizing, and additional costs that are driving up costs for Canadians.

We now know that the Liberal government is set to spend more on interest than it is on health care transfers. We know that the share of interest for a family is about $6,000. That is money going to bondholders and bankers across this country. We also know that the Prime Minister, in an election that occurred a year and a half ago or so, promised that he would have a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. We will talk more about the deficit-to-GDP ratio too, because that in itself is a way to avoid accountability.

Let us talk about the impact this is having on Canadians. We can see that inflation is starting to creep up. It is now up to 2.8%, and it continues to grow. In fact, all of the experts are now ringing warning bells and telling everyone. From markets to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, they are all predicting that the rate of inflation will increase and interest rates will also increase. Even Tiff Macklem is indicating that he will increase interest rates. That means that if someone is renewing a mortgage in the next three to six months, a $250,000 mortgage at standard rates for a five-year term, they could see an annual increase somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3,000 to $5,000. I would ask all members in this House which families have an extra $3,000 to $5,000 to spend.

Just to do some simple arithmetic, if it were not for the Liberal government, we would not have an interest cost for the federal government of $6,000. We would not have an increase in the cost of mortgages, which is now up to $3,000 to $5,000. That is thousands of dollars.

Here is a simple thought exercise. Let us think about what could be done with that money if it were not going to interest. It is money that could go to health care. It is money that could go directly to Canadians to be used for their children to play hockey. It could be used for Canadian kids to do the extracurricular activities they desire. It could be used for families to feed themselves at the end of the month, so they would not have to scrimp, save and put their grocery bill on their credit card.

Let us talk a bit about the fiscal anchor. The promise the Prime Minister made is not something the Conservatives or the leader of the official opposition made up. It was from the Prime Minister.

Most of the world, nearly all of it in fact, judges debt by something called the debt-to-GDP ratio. Our debt is a big, scary monster. In fact, it is $1.4 trillion. Instead of linking his promise to that, because he must have already known, this Goldman Sachs wonder kid, that he would not be able to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, he chose a different number. It sounds a bit like debt to GDP but is entirely different. He chose deficit to GDP. Instead of the cumulative debt, it is the amount the government is spending over what it is earning each year, which is eminently more in the control of the government of the day.

He said that we were going to have a declining deficit-to-GDP number, but he cannot achieve that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the government is going to miss it for the next two years. When it comes to promises from governments beyond two years, I do not put a lot of stock in them, because two years is a long way out for the Liberal government. For the foreseeable future, the government will not hit that mark.

Some on the progressive left will say the problem is that we need more taxes and revenue, but the government is raking in record revenue. Is it because our economy is growing and doing great? No, not at all. It is because the government's inflation is driving up the cost of everything, suffocating our ability to live. It also drives up government revenue. That, combined with high oil prices, means the government is taking in more money than ever, yet somehow this banker has been able to outspend our record revenue.

Let us talk about a few more stats. As I said, Canadians are going to the grocery store and are realizing that a dollar does not go very far. It is $50 to fill up one bag of groceries. The $100 that used to pay for groceries for a week now lasts but a day or two. It is because of two issues. One we have talked about: inflation and higher interest. The other side of the ledger is income.

Generally, when a government has an expansive fiscal policy, we get higher income. It makes sense. If we are lowering taxes and spending more, according to Keynesian economics we should get economic growth. However, the government has managed to spend more and not get economic growth. It almost defies reason that it was able to do this. Only the Liberal government could spend billions and still have our GDP per capita, which is analogous in many ways to our income per capita, stay flat over the last 11 years.

If we do a comparison, our gross debt is about 110% and the U.S.'s is, to be frank, about 125%, which sounds a bit better. The U.S. has the reserve currency, which puts it in a stronger position compared to our country, as the Canadian dollar is not the reserve currency. The other thing that the U.S. and some other countries have going for them is economic growth. At the same time, we have had practically zero economic growth, GDP per capita, over the last decade.

America's economic growth has averaged well in excess of 2% to 3%, in some years even touching 4%. We can imagine our personal finances. If someone has a large mortgage, even if they have some credit card debt, and has a high income that is consistently increasing, that problem is fixable. The challenge for the Canadian economy, because of the Liberal government's poor economic and fiscal management, is that we have high debt and low, flat incomes. Our GDP per capita would put us at the very bottom of any U.S. state's. These are significant economic challenges that have real economic consequences.

When we talk about bond yields, interest rates, inflation and other metrics, the reality for the people of Northumberland—Clarke is that they are suffering. Over the summer, I spent numerous days going to various food banks across my riding. Every single one of them has had a massive increase since 2015. I really hope the Liberals do some soul-searching. They can pick data points and numbers and we can argue about them, but what they cannot argue about is the people in Northumberland—Clarke who are suffering right now.

Just one of those food banks, if I can share a number, has seen a 3,000% increase since 2015. There is a wide cross-section. It has seen a dramatic increase in children, for example, who have to use the food bank. It has seen seniors having to use the food bank. It has seen people who are employed having to use the food bank because of the Liberals' reckless spending, which has driven the cost of living out of control.

The government really needs to do some soul-searching and think about the ways it can reduce costs. I hope it does that in the next budget. I do not think it will, but Canadians desperately need the government to get spending under control so that Canadians can afford to live.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize, as the debate winds down, that as much as the Conservatives try to play on the fear of our deficit and debt situation, experts around the world, whether from the monetary associations or credit rating agencies, have recognized that Canada has good financial capacity. Canada has been given, for example, a AAA credit rating. In the G7, that is something that only Germany can also claim.

At the end of the day, we believe that it is important for us to invest in Canadians, in our infrastructure and in so much more. Can the member explain why, as we believe we should be investing, the Conservatives do not recognize the true value of investing?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this comes down to a decades-old, if not centuries-old, debate. Conservatives believe at heart that the best people to spend Canadians' money are Canadians. We do not believe we need the government to control our lives. Ronald Reagan once famously said that Liberals define compassion by how many people the government helps; Conservatives define compassion by how many people the government does not have to help. If we simply restrained spending, parents would be able to feed their children, businesses would be able to thrive and people would have jobs. These are all self-inflicted wounds by the government.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is telling Canadians to just trust him. He wants Canadians to buy fish in the ocean without even seeing them. I think it would be responsible for the Prime Minister to explain that to Canadians, since he is a fantastic economist, and make them understand what he is trying to do.

The government has been borrowing money for the last 11 years non-stop. How long is it going to take the government to realize that what it has been doing is wrong? I would like the hon. member to elaborate on that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always at least enjoy the passion brought by the member for Winnipeg North, but he is not the one who came up with some of these economic plans. That was the Prime Minister. In fact, I am so old that I can remember two years ago when the member was arguing for the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister is now saying.

Let us bring the Prime Minister before committee and have him explain why his plan is failing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the plan is not failing. It is the Conservatives who are failing Canadians by not recognizing that, whether it is the Progressive Conservatives, and I underline “Progressive”, in some provinces, the New Democrats in other provinces or the Liberals in other provinces, many governments and administrations recognize the value of investing in Canadians. It is only the far-right Conservatives here in Ottawa who seem to oppose it. Why?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a tell. Whenever they are losing, they use the phrase “far right”, so we know we are winning on this debate.

I could give members the numbers: the flat GDP per capita, the ever-increasing deficit, the debt at $1.4 trillion and the increase in interest rates. I could go through all that, but I invite the member to come down to Northumberland—Clarke and go with me to the food banks. They will all explain to him the dramatic increase in the use of food banks by children. That is because of his policies, and I—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am inspired by my colleague from Northumberland—Clarke, who thinks that the Liberals are losing when they use the words “far right”. I wonder when we will start calling the current government the “near right”, because I find very little difference between what was found in the Conservative platform and what is being implemented by the new government, which still has the title “Liberal government”.

I wonder if my friend from Northumberland—Clarke notices that there have been quite a number of elements of the Conservative platform implemented recently.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard perhaps the best compliment I have ever heard given to the member for Winnipeg North and the Liberal government.

Although I have heard that before, I do not think it is a reality. Here is the difference. Here is what Conservatives would do. Conservatives would put Canadians back in control of their lives. They would put dollars back in Canadians' pockets, not give them to Liberal government insiders.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Scarborough Southwest to speak about their stories and, of course, join in debate to discuss our government's plan, which has made targeted and high-impact investments for Canadians while maintaining the fiscal sustainability that is so necessary for our country right now.

I believe I will be able to shed some light on some of the work that we have been doing, and maybe address some of the misconceptions, and the negative energy, frankly, that we hear from the other side every single day. If the Conservatives could just get on board and actually understand the reality of what Canadians are facing every single day, we would be able to work together to actually address some of the challenges that all of us in the House have talked about. We have heard about food banks. Since the pandemic and throughout the last couple of years, we have seen the lines increase at every food bank. In Scarborough, I have seen that myself.

Just recently, when I talk to the food banks, they say they are getting to a point where they are seeing the numbers decrease. We are actually finding solutions. We are actually able to help people. We are helping students who used to line up at those food banks and families who used to line up at those food banks.

I really hope that we are able to have a discussion where we understand that the Conservatives have really highlighted this debate and made it about fiscal responsibility versus economic growth, as a choice. It is one or the other. I want to say that we need both. We need to have fiscal responsibility, and we also need to have economic growth, not one versus the other. We cannot choose one over the other. That is why it is so important that we are being disciplined, controlled in our measures and focused on that fiscal sustainability.

How did our government do that? Let us talk about some of the plans that our government worked on. When we look at our budgets, for example, the way we spend money, something that I have said over the years in my time as a public representative, standing up for the people I represent in my community, is that a budget is a moral document. That means a budget highlights the values that we are focusing on, what we are spending on and what our priorities are. It really is a moral document on how we take care of one another.

When we look at the way we have spent and what our government has been focusing on, the number one priority that I see every single day, that I know is important for my community, is a plan to build housing. I see that as a priority for our government, and we are already working on that. Our plan also builds on major infrastructure to transform and connect our economy. We have had Conservatives in government for years, but one of the things we failed to do in the past was to actually connect our provinces and territories to one another. This government made an intentional effort to make sure that we are able to connect our provinces to one another so that we can actually have an economy that functions in a seamless way. It also means that we diversify our trades with countries across the world, make new friends and build capacity. That is exactly what we have done.

Another thing that we have done is our plan to lower costs to help families get ahead. That means helping families with our groceries benefit and a child care plan, and focusing on a national school food plan that helps in multiple cities. I know in the city of Toronto, that was something that a lot of schools and a lot of parents appreciated.

Canadians expect their government to manage public finances responsibly, and rightly so. Now rising debt servicing costs reinforce that responsibility, because when we look at the rising debt servicing costs, it is about how we are focusing on that responsibility. Fiscal responsibility is not just about balancing a number on the balance sheet, and it is not just about reducing that number and forgetting everything else, which goes back to what I was saying about that choice between fiscal responsibility versus economic growth. It involves making careful choices. It is about making choices today that strengthen our economy for tomorrow. It is about making choices that improve Canada's ability to stand up for the future and for the children of tomorrow.

In our April economic update, the finance minister gave us a clear and transparent account of Canada's economic performance in an increasingly, if I may remind everyone, uncertain world. It has done two things, I would say. One is that it has given transparency to our businesses, not just small and local businesses but all scales of businesses, so they can seize new opportunities and make sure they are able to thrive. It also helped families. It gave families the confidence to plan for their future.

A lot of families were starting to feel that the uncertainties seen around the world were having an impact at home. When we formed government and came into power, within months, families had the confidence to understand how they can move ahead. Yes, it will be tough, and it will get tougher, but we have a plan, and we will work toward making sure we are able to help families move forward.

How did we do that? We remained focused and we were disciplined. We focused on what we can control. That means balancing our day-to-day operating spending with revenues by 2028-29 and maintaining our fiscal anchors. We heard many of my colleagues speak to that in the House. We also looked at every dollar spent. It is not the government's money, but people's hard-earned dollars. We are responsible for people's tax dollars, and we are making sure that people's money is spent on behalf of Canadians to support growth, resilience and their well-being, to make sure they are able to get ahead. We have a responsibility to spend every single dollar in a way that helps Canadians every single day.

This is the approach that is very important for those on the other side to understand, especially for today's debate. Controlling the cost of government while making the investments needed for a stronger economy is what the government has done. It looked at what we could reduce spending on, and we focused on government spending. We looked at how we could build resilience and focus on building a stronger economy for our nation. Our government knows that we cannot just stand still. It is not an option. There cannot be inaction like we have seen in the past. Underinvestment can be detrimental and cost us significantly.

I want to focus on one more thing before I conclude. It is really important for us to understand that we are facing a time when people across the country want us to unite and help them. Canada is a country where we take care of one another, and if we are building resilience and a stronger economy, we must come together and make sure we are building an economy that helps our future generations.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion.

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.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Committees of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 10 to concur in the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, later this day, at the end of the time provided for debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, the motion on the previous question shall be deemed adopted on division, and the question on the original motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

All those opposed to the parliamentary secretary's moving the motion will please say nay.

Since no one is opposed, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I expect that, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I am speaking to Bill C-222, which seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. This bill is sponsored by the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, and I want to commend him for introducing this legislation. It is a bill on a sensitive issue that provides for the following:

...a person to whom employment insurance benefits are payable to care for a newborn child or a child placed with them for the purpose of adoption remains eligible to receive those benefits even if the child dies during the benefit period.

The bill further provides that an employee remains entitled to maternity or parental leave in the event that the employee's newborn child, or a child placed in the employee's care with a view to adoption, dies during the period of leave.

This bill, which is non-partisan and crosses party lines, is compassionate and appropriate, as it seeks to ease the financial and psychological pressure on families who have lost a child. This is a bill that addresses a real problem, and we are confident that Quebeckers and Canadians will benefit from these measures. This is a real game-changer for families dealing with such tragedies. Let us hope that reality will prove the old saying wrong, however, because it is never too late to right the wrongs of the gutting of EI and workers' rights that occurred under Conservative governments.

Let us not forget that, over the past 10 years, minor adjustments have been made without ever addressing the profound injustices against workers and EI recipients. Despite the Liberals' election pledges and commitments, nothing substantial has been tabled in this decade. Labour organizations in Quebec and Canada and the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois—which echoed the main criticisms made by the unions—have made many demands over the past decade.

That is why the Bloc Québécois condemns the inaction and obstruction of the Liberals, who voted against Bloc bills and motions to support workers and allow more people to access EI. However, we are persistent and we will once again table a bill for a more comprehensive reform of EI.

Let us get back to the bill before us. As we saw during the committee study of the current bill sponsored by the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, the cabinet and the Prime Minister quickly made a commitment to the Liberal member to offer their support and a promise that his private member's bill would receive the necessary royal recommendations, a crucial step for any private member's bill requiring new public funds.

I will quote a few figures. Infant mortality has remained relatively stable since the early 2000s in Quebec. The Institut de la statistique du Québec has counted approximately 380 child deaths before the age of one. The infant mortality rate for both sexes is 4.9 per 1,000 births. In the rest of Canada, the rate is slightly higher but not statistically significant. Among the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. Fortunately, this tragic occurrence is pretty rare, as we can see from the figures.

Having seen the Liberals' tendency to cite the state of the public finances whenever they want to justify saying no, whether to a comprehensive reform of the Employment Insurance Act or to old age security benefits for those aged 65 to 74, the low infant mortality rate means that this enhancement to the EI program and the Canada Labour Code should come at very little cost. For those affected by such tragedies, however, a measure such as Bill C-222 would make all the difference and allow claimants to grieve with greater peace of mind, free from financial anxiety.

As we see time and again, Quebec is at the forefront when it comes to socially oriented public policies. Thanks to the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan, or QPIP, Quebeckers already have a social safety net with the same criteria as those set out in Bill C-222. It is understood that a claimant may apply for QPIP benefits even if a child dies after a claim has been initiated. By contacting the plan's customer service department, claimants can receive the information and assistance they need from a representative. As a result, they receive personalized support tailored to their needs. The plan also specifies that the death of a child has no effect on benefit payments, since QPIP provides for a grace period following pregnancy or childbirth. Naturally, this also applies if a parent is grieving the loss of a child.

It is worth noting that, in 1972, Quebec passed the Crime Victims Compensation Act, which allows victims to receive compensation and the care they need to recover. This law sets out a financial compensation regime for any income losses the victim experiences. In December 2007, without specifically addressing the death of a child, the Quebec act respecting labour standards with regard to absences and leave included provisions that provided compensation for employees who are victims of crime, employees who have lost a loved one as a result of a criminal act or suicide and employees whose child goes missing. The Bloc Québécois believes that workers who are employed by a federally regulated businesses should have the same protections. Furthermore, there is a clear parallel between Bill C-222 and Quebec's political action.

It is also worth noting that, when the committee tabled its report in the House on May 29, 2026, the bill's sponsor was particularly proud that his government gave royal recommendation to his bill. That is great. That is the pivotal stage where the executive branch must give its approval when a private member's bill requires a commitment of public funds. It is important to point out that this is the fourth time in the history of Canada that a private member's bill has managed to make it past this legislative step. The member also mentioned that there are approximately 1,600 Canadian families a year who experience the death of a child. According to him, it is unconscionable to ask parents to contact Service Canada every 14 days to justify their need for employment insurance sickness benefits. Bill C-222 seeks to address this cold and callous measure under which parents cease to be eligible for parental benefits.

The amendments presented at report stage were specifically intended to prevent benefits from ending abruptly. They would allow parental benefits to continue, whether under the standard 40-week benefit period or the extended 69-week benefit period, including in cases where benefits have been extended because of a child's hospitalization. If a child tragically dies at the end of a parent's EI benefits period, each parent will be eligible for five additional weeks. In addition, the bill provides for a 17-week extension of bereavement leave with job protection. Lastly, grieving parents will only have to submit an attestation, sparing them the burden of submitting documentation every two weeks.

To achieve this result, the Liberals tried to put forward some amendments to their colleague's bill in committee, but several were ruled out of order by the chair because they required a royal recommendation. Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary had very little understanding of the amendments she was proposing and was of little help. Things were a bit confusing in committee, which significantly slowed down the work. Finally, the Liberals proposed amendments on May 27, 2026. It should be noted that these provisions are very similar to the ones that were rejected by the committee chair because they all involved expenditures and therefore required a royal recommendation from the government.

For example, one amendment sought to add a new ground for extending the benefit period under section 10 of the Employment Insurance Act if a claimant's child dies during the period in which parental benefits may be paid. This amendment would ensure that a claimant can receive up to 26 additional weeks of EI parental benefits after the death of their child. Parents came to testify in committee and their stories were deeply moving. Tears were shed during the committee's proceedings. It was not easy. The parents simply asked us to allow them to grieve in peace and, above all, without having to battle bureaucracy. Honestly, I do not think anyone ever fully recovers from the tragic death of a child. I am thinking of those bereaved parents. The Bloc Québécois is, of course, in favour of this bill, because our political party has always advocated measures that go even further. We have consistently maintained that a 50-week period is appropriate. We have long advocated for this through the “Émilie Sansfaçon” bill. Although different, our proposal was intended to assist claimants facing a serious illness.

Through this motion, the government is proposing to extend this period to 52 weeks. We welcome this measure, having long maintained that a stillbirth, a miscarriage or sudden infant death are profoundly traumatic experiences. We therefore agree that parents should be entitled to a 52-week period of respite to grieve, heal and come to terms with the loss of a child. All that remains is to take action on behalf of seriously ill workers. This is a battle that still needs to be fought, and for which we have already tabled the “Émilie Sansfaçon” bill. We must stop inflicting financial distress on these workers, as it is profoundly unfair.

This is a good start tonight. It is an important step, but it is far from the end of the fight.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-222, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding the death of a child, also known as Evan's law.

I am pleased that all members who spoke during the first hour of debate of report stage expressed their support for the proposed amendments. The revised bill demonstrates that members of Parliament share a deep commitment to Canadian parents and a common understanding that when a parent faces the unimaginable loss of a child, they expect compassion, dignity and care from us.

Nothing in life is as profoundly devastating as the death of a child. It completely turns the parents' life upside down. In such moments, parents are consumed by their grief. Bureaucracy, money and work should not stand in the way of their recovery, yet under the current framework, they often do. This is not intentional and is what Bill C-222 aims to fix.

The hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour deserves thanks for his leadership and perseverance in seeing this through and for his unwavering support to many parents across Canada.

I would also like to thank the many colleagues, stakeholders, witnesses and advocates who all contributed greatly to the development and improvement of this important bill.

Their voices have been essential in shaping a bill that truly reflects the reality faced by grieving parents.

Our government has long recognized that balancing family and work obligations can be challenging for Canadians raising children, in addition to the financial stress that can come with it.

Every parent's situation is unique, and our support systems should be able to adapt as much as possible.

Over the years, we have taken important steps to modernize EI maternity and parental benefits so that parents have more flexibility.

This includes allowing maternity benefits to begin earlier, up to 12 weeks before the due date, compared to the previous eight weeks, if mothers need to begin receiving benefits earlier.

It also includes offering parents a choice between standard or extended parental benefits and providing more weeks of benefits for parents who share them.

These measures reflect an effort to build an EI system that is responsive, flexible and sustainable and that supports families through major life events.

Grieving the death of a child is a major life event that the current EI system does not provide enough flexibility and compassion for. Losing a child is a tragedy that requires a compassionate and thoughtful response. This is exactly what the amended Bill C-222 aims to fix.

Currently when a child passes away, EI parental benefits stop. If parents do not notify Service Canada, they may unknowingly incur an overpayment and therefore have to repay. Parents can transition to EI sickness benefits, but they are required to report every two weeks. This is an administrative burden that is often overwhelming for grieving parents. This is not the compassion and understanding that Canadians rightly expect from their institutions.

That is why Bill C-222, with the amendments before us, aims to correct the situation. It proposes that parental benefits may continue following the death of a child, alleviating the need for parents to navigate complex administrative processes at a time when they are least able to do so. It would allow EI parental benefits to continue for up to the maximum duration already established, which is up to 40 weeks for those who select standard benefits and up to 69 weeks for those who select extended parental benefits.

More importantly, for parents who would be near the end of their benefits when their child passes away, the amended bill would ensure that eligible parents may receive up to five additional weeks of benefits as bereavement support. This provision would apply to both the standard and the extended benefits that were originally chosen. These additional weeks would be paid at the same income replacement rate selected at the outset, providing continuity and predictability to parents during such a difficult time.

Another important aspect of these amendments is the effort to minimize the administrative burden. While there may be some circumstances where parents would still need to notify the the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, through Service Canada, the bill would introduce a regulation-making authority to make this process simpler and more compassionate. That is a key improvement.

In parallel, these amendments would also ensure that employees in the federally regulated private sector continue to have access to job-protected leave provisions under the Canada Labour Code while they avail themselves of EI parental benefits, including if they receive the additional weeks of up to five weeks.

These include access to the remaining weeks of parental leave. For employees near the end of their leave at the time of the death of the child, they would be allowed to transition to the current eight weeks of bereavement leave for the death of a child, ensuring that parents do not have to choose between grieving and going to work.

These legislative changes are part of a broader effort by the government to strengthen the social safety net and ensure that federal support systems are responsive to the realities that Canadians face.

We have made significant investments in employment insurance and related programs, to provide meaningful assistance where it is most needed. For example, caregiving benefits have long supported Canadians who must step away from work to care for an ill or injured family member, including, of course, a child. In 2022, EI sickness benefits were expanded, extending their duration so individual families facing illness or injury have greater financial security and job protection as they recover. These changes were informed by consultations with Canadians and reflect an understanding of how caregiving responsibilities and health challenges shape people's lives.

Equally important is the work being done to improve how Canadians access these services. Making benefits easier to obtain can provide significant peace of mind, especially during times of crisis. At its peak, the EI system was managing more than one million claims during the COVID-19 pandemic, which is more than five times the usual volume. In response, the government expanded its capacity, streamlined processes and implemented new approaches.

Since then, we have continued our efforts. Between 2022 and 2025, Service Canada employees worked to refine procedures, test new strategies and improve delivery. As a result, backlogs have been significantly reduced, by 73%, as of January of this year. This progress illustrates that government systems can evolve to be more responsive, efficient and compassionate.

When we consider Bill C-222 and the related amendments before us, we must remember that this legislation is about people. It is about ensuring that in the moments darkest for parents, government processes are not an additional source of stress or hardship. By allowing parental benefits to continue, by simplifying requirements and by ensuring that employees in the federally-regulated private sector have access to job-protected leave, these amendments would take steps toward that goal.

For all these reasons, I am pleased to support Bill C-222 with the proposed amendments, and I encourage all members of the House to do the same.