Debates of Oct. 27th, 2026

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 think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the order made earlier today, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3), respecting the deferral of the recorded division on the motion to concur in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, be discharged and the motion be deemed adopted on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

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

It is agreed.

(Motion agreed to, order discharged and motion deemed adopted)

The House resumed 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)

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Private Member's Bill C-222, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with respect to the death of a child, introduced by the member for Burnaby North—Seymour. I would like to commend the member for taking up such an important issue and for working with all sides of the House to advance this bill through Parliament. I also want to congratulate him for obtaining a royal recommendation from the government, which allows the bill to proceed.

I would also like to acknowledge my Conservative colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, for his work in collaborating with the member for Burnaby North—Seymour to have the bill move through the various stages, including our own internal caucus review process.

During his intervention in the last session, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan provided members of the House with an excellent summary of the collaborative effort across party lines that it has taken to get to this point, with various members of different parties championing this issue at one time or another, a journey that began over a decade ago with a motion put forward by our colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane that began the conversation in the House on offering more support to parents dealing with loss.

That motion recognized that parents who have paid into a parental leave system and then face the loss of a child should obviously not be forced immediately back to work. It highlighted the need, and it called for a system to be put in place that would allow them to continue to receive benefits that they have paid for, with, as my colleague so eloquently stated, clarity and simplicity and without disruption and red tape.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is a passionate parliamentarian and carries out his duties as shadow minister for employment effectively and efficiently. I would also like to acknowledge his work to explore the issue of what happens when a parent on leave dies during the benefit period. While it is outside the scope of this bill, I do hope that this issue will also be addressed.

This legislation addresses a topic that many of us do not want to think about. The loss of a child shortly after birth or adoption is an almost unbearable thought, yet it is a reality for so many families. In his speech at second reading, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour mentioned that approximately 1,600 families in Canada are faced with this tragedy each year.

I want to state for the record that I support the bill and am looking forward to its passage through the House. I hope that if it passes here, the other place will take up the legislation quickly so our current laws can be changed to support grieving families. The purpose of the legislation is to support grieving families in two meaningful ways.

First, the legislation would amend the Employment Insurance Act to allow a person who is entitled to employment insurance benefits following the birth or adoption of a child to remain eligible for those same benefits even if the child dies during the benefit period. Practically, what this means is that grieving parents would be able to continue receiving maternity or parental EI benefits for the entire period to which they would have been entitled had the tragic loss not occurred. This change means that parents would not need to apply for a different benefit because their parental EI support ended.

Second, this legislation would also amend the Canada Labour Code to extend the period of bereavement leave to which someone is entitled in the event of the death of a child. The bill would ensure that if a child passes near the end of a parent's leave period, the grieving parent would be entitled to a minimum of five weeks of leave following their loss.

Why are these changes necessary? As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, these proposed changes would potentially benefit 1,600 individuals, or 3,200 when you consider that when a child dies, two parents are impacted, not just the individual who was collecting EI. Additionally, the change would also benefit the families of bereaved parents. There could be other children in the family. There could be grandparents and others. What this change would do is relieve the financial pressure on the grieving couple and their loved ones.

If the bill passes, people would be eligible to remain on parental EI and receive financial support as they experience and work through unexpected grief. Additionally, they would be able to stay on a form of EI that does not require biweekly reporting.

Currently, grieving parents who no longer are eligible to receive parental EI may be able to access other EI supports. However, switching to a different EI stream, such as EI sickness benefits, requires a whole new claim. It requires the applicant to submit medical documentation to support the claim. Additionally, if the application is approved, the new form of EI benefit requires that reports be submitted every two weeks to justify the EI claim. Can members imagine trying to put together a new EI claim at a time when we are already stressed and numb with grief? If we get the new claim submitted and it is approved, can members imagine being asked to relive their grief over and over again by having to articulate the reasoning for their EI claim? The reason for the EI claim does not change from week to week, so it makes no sense to require parents to reapply for EI benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to receive had tragedy not struck their family.

Additionally, it takes a government employee time to process biweekly reports. We do not need to add unnecessary work to the program's administrators or red tape to those seeking these benefits. For those reasons, the proposed legislation is not just compassionate; it is common sense.

In closing, as a mother of four and a grandmother of 11, I am very thankful for the maternal and pediatric health care that we have in the country. We can be grateful that the measures proposed in the bill would not impact the vast majority of Canadians. Not everything we do in this place needs to affect millions of Canadians. It is important that we as parliamentarians recognize and consider the challenges that perhaps a small number of Canadians face.

I believe the changes proposed in the legislation are going to make a huge difference for those who find themselves requiring it. As I mentioned earlier, I do support the bill, and I look forward to voting in favour of it very soon.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to learn that my colleague is a grandmother of 11.

I rise today at final reading to examine and explore Bill C-222, known as Evan's law, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding the death of a child. I speak for the families of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, from Cowichan Valley to the west shore. I speak for the parents of a Vancouver Island family who welcomed a child into their lives, and who were then asked to bear the unbearable.

I served in uniform and that service brings a different perspective to the value of life. Those who serve and the families who wait for them know how quickly a life can change with one day, one phone call, one sentence that can never be taken back. This is the lens I bring to this bill.

Allow me to explain what the bill would do. When a parent receives employment insurance, maternity or parental benefits, those benefits are tied to a child. Under the current rules, if that child sadly dies, parental benefits end. A parent may switch to sickness benefits, but must report to Service Canada every two weeks to show that they are still grieving. If they do not call within a week of that death, the debt begins to build that the Canada Revenue Agency will later claw back. The Canada Labour Code carries a similar gap, and leave protections may be cut short.

Let us consider what that asks of a family. They are grieving and the system presents them with paperwork. Bill C-222 would correct that, and a parent would keep the claim already in place. They would not file again, and they would not have to learn new rules. They would be given time, and time is the one thing grief demands.

I look forward to collaborating with the government on this. When a sound idea comes from the government benches, the right response is to acknowledge it. I have read this bill, and I have weighed both what it accomplishes and what it leaves undone.

This work did not begin in this Parliament. More than 10 years ago, the member for Airdrie—Cochrane brought forward motion 110, which opened the national conversation on supporting parents who lose a child. This bill rests upon that work. It rests as well upon the courage of families, beginning with the family of Evan, for whom this law is named, who spoke publicly about the hardest day of their lives so that others would not face it alone. To those families, the House owes more than gratitude; it owes results.

While Bill C-222 speaks to the loss of a child, it does not yet speak to the loss of a parent. Let us consider a parent receiving parental leave benefits who passes away. That parent paid into the system. They earned those benefits. In a case in a colleague's riding, the benefits were cut off the moment a parent died. A family already grieving was handed financial hardship on top of their loss. A family that has lost a parent should not also lose what a parent paid for. This is the principle in the bill before us, but applied to a family it leaves out. If we hold that grieving families deserve time and stability, we cannot hold it only when the loss runs in one direction. Grief does not ask which way the law was written.

Some will ask why this important issue was simply not added to this bill, and the answer is a rule worth understanding. Under our procedures, a private member's bill that spends new public money cannot become law without a royal recommendation. This is the government's formal approval to spend, and without it, a bill, even with majority support, cannot pass. The question was never only what is right, but what is possible, and I understand that. However, through good faith across party lines, a path was found.

While this bill advances, it advances with a recommendation in support of families who lose a child. The human resources committee has agreed to study the extension of parental leave when a parent dies and has requested the cost from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This is progress, and I welcome it, but a study is not a solution. A committee report does not help a family this month, and that is why timing matters. This debate falls just nine days before the budget is tabled. A budget is the place where the government's words become commitments. I therefore ask the government plainly to place the additional parental loss benefits to parents in the budget and expand parental leave protections to families who lose a parent.

Our shadow minister for employment expects the cost to be modest, because the measure would extend benefits that already exist with leave periods that already exist, for a small number of families who have already paid into the system. The figure from the Parliamentary Budget Officer will show whether that expectation is sound. We remember that an announcement is not a binding commitment, but a line in a budget is. I will continue to press for it in the House, regardless of who holds government. The committee has also agreed to undertake a longer study of employment insurance parental leave in general, and it wishes to hear from Canadians, so those who have lived this or who hold ideas on reform may share them with my office, and I will ensure that they reach the committee. Their experience will shape what comes next.

There is one more family of whom I wish to speak, because their story shows where this work does not end. Recently a Vancouver Island couple lost their son in the second trimester of pregnancy. Alongside their grief, they met a second difficulty. They did not know what respectful options were open to them. They did not know whom to ask or whether they could lay their son to rest as they hoped. With the help of a priest, at a cemetery in Cobble Hill near where I live, they could. The father built a tiny oak casket, the mother made a pillow, and their son was buried with prayer and dignity.

Their question afterward was simple: Why should any grieving family have to find these answers by chance? From that question grew the Journi May Dignity Initiative, and it calls for compassionate communications, clear written information and meaningful choices for families after pregnancy loss. It is a House of Commons petition, e-7765. It is open for signature today. It is not closed. It has not been tabled. It calls upon the Government of Canada to “Develop and implement a Pregnancy Loss Dignity Protocol within areas of federal jurisdiction” and to encourage provinces and territories to review their own practices.

Until it closes, every name counts. As such, I invite every resident of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and every Canadian to read Journi's story and to sign petition e-7765. That couple asked a simple question, and Parliament can help answer it.

Let me close with what the House can do: advance the bill before us without delay; complete its commitment for the committee to study the loss of a parent and bring forward legislation; place that extension in the budget; hear from Canadians on parental leave reform; and listen to families, such as the family from Cobble Hill on Vancouver Island, so that no grieving family searches alone for a dignified path.

Supporting grieving families is not a partisan act. It is a standard and one worth upholding, whoever forms government, so I look forward to supporting the bill. I thank the member opposite for their work, and I look forward to seeing further work in expanding the benefits for grieving families, as agreed by committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 10.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be carried.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 10 carried.

(Motions Nos. 1 to 10 agreed to)

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be carried.

(Motion agreed to)

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank everybody who made this possible. I would request a recorded division, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express appreciation for the effective role that the standing committees can play at times. The House of Commons is made up of a number of standing committees. Through those standing committees, there is an opportunity to do a wide spectrum of different studies.

One thing the Government of Canada has consistently been concerned about, coming out of the last federal election, is the economy and its impact on jobs, opportunities and so forth. We have seen a number of different initiatives that have been supported by the government.

We have a standing committee of the House that has spent some time trying to deal with the youth unemployment issue. I have a number of things I would like to share with the House on that, at the very least to acknowledge the efforts made by the standing committee to bring forward this particular report. I have argued in the past, when we have had a continuation as opposed to an adjournment, as to why these reports come before the House. Typically, it is a way we can provide concurrence if it is deemed necessary.

Before I provide my comments directly on youth and youth employment, I want to highlight the legislative agenda.

Just moments ago, we had the opportunity to pass a private member's bill that will have a profound, positive impact on Canadians. In every region, there will be Canadians who will directly benefit from the legislation we just passed. It is encouraging to see members on all sides of the House come together to see what I anticipate will be that bill passing tomorrow unanimously. I give credit to the member for taking the time to do the canvassing, to share the experiences and to work very closely with the Prime Minister's Office and others to make sure we could do that, because of the expenditure component of the legislation. It was a significant challenge.

I say that first and foremost to acknowledge exactly what my friend from B.C. has been able to accomplish but also to highlight that, as programmed private member's business, whether it is a motion or a bill, the Standing Orders facilitate its ultimate passage. If we look at government business, much like opposition business, there is a limited time frame. I have had opportunities to talk about this issue with other concurrence motions that have been brought to the House.

When a concurrence motion is brought forward during government business at the beginning of the day, what I have witnessed over the years is that it is often used as a tool to prevent government bills from being debated or to minimize the amount of time that a government bill is up for debate. I say this as more of a cautionary note. Government legislation does not have programming per se. It is an issue with the Standing Orders, to protect both government and opposition. I believe we can come up with ways that would facilitate programming of motions or government legislation in much the same way that opposition or private members' bills are allowed to be programmed.

In Manitoba, we made some rule changes that facilitated that sort of programming for the first time. That is important to recognize at this stage because, I would like to think, there should be a high level of interest in ensuring that government legislation is debated in the House, while at the same time respecting what concurrence motions are there for.

Where there is an opportunity to talk about an important issue, we would find, if we were to check with the Clerk's table, that we could be debating concurrence motions, or issues raised at committees such as the one we are debating tonight, indefinitely. We could virtually take it all the way up to the next election. It is very important, when we get reports that come out of our standing committees, that we be very careful about which ones we determine we want to debate and then ultimately have concurrence or a vote on here in the House.

I am glad we are having this debate this evening because it is not taking away from debate on government legislation, which is critically important because it is a part of election platforms. Those debates need to occur. Then the legislation needs to advance to a committee and come back for the third and final reading in order to advance to the Senate and then to royal assent if the Senate does not send it back. Time is very important.

This is not to take away from the principles of the report itself. The report we are debating today is about youth unemployment, which has been a major concern of this government since the last federal election. I myself was very concerned about it and had the opportunity to talk about it in the last federal election. I can assure members opposite that whether they look at the Prime Minister or other members of the Liberal caucus, they will find a great deal of effort put into public policy to drive the issue of youth employment and determine what we can do to alleviate concerns.

Listening to the Conservative opposition's remarks, one would think that youth unemployment at this level is something new. Sadly, that is not the case. Youth unemployment at times can be a very difficult challenge. If we were to go back to 2012, two administrations ago under Stephen Harper, we would find that youth unemployment back then was just over 14%. The economy was doing relatively well, and we did not have the wars in the Middle East and Europe or the trade issue between Canada and United States.

We can contrast that to 2025, which was the first year we could actually report that, on average, youth unemployment was less than 14%. In 2012, it was over 14%; in 2025, it was less than 14%, on average. We are still concerned about it, which means we are trying to address the issue. I would argue that one needs to look at the different announcements we have made as a government to support our young people in Canada. As for employment opportunities, a number of things come to mind, and I would like to emphasize a few of those things in particular.

One would be general policy as a whole with the government promoting, encouraging and investing in our Canadian Armed Forces. We have seen dramatic results. Within six months of the last election, the Prime Minister and the government achieved that spending of 2% of the GDP. As a benefit of that, not only did we see a bump in salaries for our military personnel, but we also saw record numbers of young people get in line to become members of the Canadian Forces. That directly helps young people.

There is a sense of pride because it had been 30 years since we saw so many put in their applications. Yesterday, when I brought it up, the Conservatives said they are just applications. Well, those applications turn into real recruits. I believe the number is 7,000. Can members tell me when it was that high in the last 30 years? It has not been the case, which goes to show that government policy has clearly demonstrated a higher level of interest in providing more job opportunities in the Canadian Forces. I was young when I joined the forces. I would have been 20 or 21, I am not 100% sure, but as a young Canadian going into boot camp situations, I found the vast majority were young. This is one action since the last federal election.

Another action has been the Red Seal program. The Red Seal in trades is an incredible commitment from young people to play a major role in building a stronger and healthier Canada. Something I am often afforded the opportunity to talk about is how the government is advancing the importance of building that stronger, healthier Canada. As I cited just an hour or so ago, everything from major projects to small businesses is going to drive and build that stronger economy, and an important aspect of that is our skilled trades. These are important jobs of the future, and we have made a commitment to young people that we are going to invest in that program to the degree that we anticipate 80,000 to 100,000 people are going to directly benefit.

We are talking about a $5,000 donation to individuals who are able to acquire that certificate, which helps pay for the education and the training that was involved. It provides incentive, whether for those in post-secondary institutions or secondary institutions. I think of high schools like Tec-Voc High School in Winnipeg, our Red River College Polytechnic and other post-secondary facilities. Cooks, autobody workers, bricklayers, hairstylists, machinists, plumbers, roofers, tower crane operators, welders and so many more are going to benefit, and they are going to be the youth.

The minister just made an announcement that we are going to extend the employer applications for the Canada summer jobs program until December 3. These summer jobs provide opportunities for young people. Thousands of young people are going to benefit from the summer jobs program, and providing those non-profits and others the opportunity to hire youth will benefit Canada as a whole.

I think of the many daycares in Winnipeg North and how many of them will be hiring summer youth. These are all programs designed to help young people land their first job. It is making a tangible difference. The government talks about youth unemployment and takes tangible examples of it. I just finished demonstrating that.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great joy to my colleague. It is always a pleasure. I say it is not what he says, but how loud he says it.

The member talked about the Canada summer jobs grant. I am going to give him and the Liberals a very simple lesson in constitutional law. The charter was passed to protect the citizenry from the government, yet the government made people sign an attestation about what they believed. The government was using the Constitution as a sword from citizen to citizen. The government messed up. That was completely unconstitutional.

Will the member renounce this unconstitutional policy right here, right now? We all know it was wrong. It offended freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Will he renounce it right now? He is, after all, part of the party that said it is the party of the charter. Let us hear it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are the party of the charter. Ours is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights, and I stand by the Charter of Rights.

It is interesting that the member would refer to that because, back in 2012, when there was over 14% unemployment with young people, what did the Conservative Party do to the summer youth program? It cut it. It put in a budget that cut the amount of jobs being created with that particular program.

We can contrast that to now having a government that has lower youth unemployment. We continue to not only support the summer youth program but also bring in other programs that support our youth, unlike the Conservative Party. Talk is cheap—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am getting ready to make my speech, but before I do, I will try to summarize my frame of mind.

Right now, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the issue of training, employment and labour is another area where the Liberals are really trying to be paternalistic, telling Quebec what to do on a matter that falls squarely within Quebec's jurisdiction.

It is not just me saying so. The former minister of employment and labour said so last spring when he saw the Liberal government's intentions, particularly through Bill C‑5. It is working to accelerate the economy so aggressively that it is even trying to impose its way of thinking on the education and training of our young people.

What I am saying is more of a comment than a question, but I feel as though I am starting to repeat myself in this House. It is somewhat discouraging to see the government continue trying to centralize things instead of working collaboratively on these issues when they concern Quebec.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I was a provincial MLA for just under 20 years, and the province plays a critical role. There is no doubt about that.

When saying that the federal government should not support the Red Seal program, the member needs to reflect on the constituents she represents. I believe that our constituents having mobility rights under the Red Seal program is to the advantage of her constituents, my constituents and all the people of Canada, because if they achieve the Red Seal certification, the skills they learn through time and money will be recognized from coast to coast to coast. To say that the federal government has no role is highly irresponsible.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us highlight the dire situation we are in. It is one that the member is desperate to gloss over. We have the worst workforce participation situation in almost 30 years, according to the latest job numbers. We are at a 29-year low in terms of workforce participation in this country. We lost 110,000 jobs in the last two months alone. Unemployment is up to 6.5%. In particular, youth unemployment is up to 13%.

That is significantly higher than it has been in the past. It is much above the sustained pre-pandemic averages, for example. Basically, what we hear from members' offices is that it is good enough. It simply is not good enough. We should be providing hope and opportunity to young people and all Canadians. Instead, we have this 29-year low in workforce participation.

This unanimous all-party report contains constructive solutions. Why will the Liberals not adopt some of those solutions?