Mr. Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging it is great to see you in the chair today. I know this is an issue that you have spoken out on, in terms of your own experience, with great courage and significance. I know the parameters of being Deputy Speaker limit your ability to give speeches on bills now, but I thank you for giving aid and confidence to other families who are confronting similar situations. It is good to see you presiding over this debate today.
Bill C-222 is an important piece of legislation that has been the subject of significant cross-party co-operation. As the Conservative shadow minister for employment, it has been an honour for me to do this work with colleagues, collaboratively across the aisle, on behalf of our caucus as we work to deliver on our clear commitment from the beginning, to do all we can to maximize support for families who are dealing with loss.
I want to start by highlighting that the journey to this legislation did not start in this Parliament, and it did not start with just this bill. Over 10 years ago, our colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane put forward Motion No. 110, which began driving the necessary national conversation on offering more support to parents dealing with loss. It recognized that parents who have paid into a parental leave system and then faced the loss of a child should obviously not be forced immediately back to work and should have a system that allows them to continue to receive benefits that they have paid for, with clarity, with simplicity, without disruption and without red tape.
That national conversation on this issue was started and driven in this place by my colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane, a member with so much compassion and empathy. I want to salute his work on this, continuing throughout this process.
As members of Parliament speaking on these issues in this place, we are in many ways the tiny tip of the iceberg. There is a vast array of people underneath us and behind us, pushing us forward and magnifying this issue. Without the courage of families speaking out about their own experience, I do not think this would have happened today. I know it is very difficult for people who have faced personal tragedy and personal grief to speak publicly about it, to come to Parliament and share from their own experiences, but we know in history that so often justice and compassion move forward because people who have had terrible situations themselves are willing to speak up and share their pain, share their experience and motivate others to understand that experience and to walk with them.
I want to thank the families who have spoken out about their own experiences and salute them for making that happen.
In this Parliament, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, a member of the government, is putting forward Bill C-222 with our complete and strong support. I want to thank him for taking this step and continuing this important work in putting this bill forward. I do not in any way mean to diminish his work by noting the history. The first bill I put forward in Parliament had in fact previously been a Liberal bill that I took up and tabled in this House. I want to highlight the collaboration, the continuation and the important work that the member has done.
As we signalled during the second reading debate on the bill, it was our desire to put forward an amendment to the bill that would include more grieving families, following conversations that I had with the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North. He had highlighted a situation in his riding where a parent, not a child in this case, who was an EI parental leave recipient, had passed away. Following the death of that person who was the parent recipient of the parental leave benefit, those benefits were immediately cut off, compounding the grief for the family with financial hardship. Our position has been that, if a parent receiving leave benefits passes away, and they were entitled to those benefits as they had paid into those benefits, then those benefits, which they had paid into and had been entitled to prior to their death, should be able to continue. We should not be immediately cutting off those benefits at the point at which a parents dies.
That was not the purpose of this bill in how it was initially written and constrained. This bill was designed to deal with the situation of the loss of a child. We proposed amending it to extend that support to more families, in cases where there is the loss of a parent. Following that proposal, which we put forward at second reading, we had many constructive conversations across the aisle about the best way to move forward with that idea, whether it was including it in the bill or working on that issue of supporting families dealing with the loss of a parent through a separate track. In the end, we were able to come to what I think was a constructive and effective agreement on the best way to move forward, which was an agreement at committee to have the committee undertake, separately from this bill, a study of the issue of extending parental leave in cases where there is the loss of a parent.
Further, our committee adopted a motion asking the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide us with costing on that particular proposal. I do not think it would cost very much. We are talking about extending benefits out of a sense of justice and compassion to a very small number of families who have paid into the system. I do not think it would cost very much because we are not talking about very many families, of course.
In any event, the compromise we arrived at was that we would not include it in this bill, although I would have liked to. Instead, we requested information on costing from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We agreed to do that study at the human resources committee. I hope that, coming out of that process, we will see a report to the House and see legislation on this. Perhaps the government will even consider including in the next budget a further extension of leave to protect benefits in cases where there is the loss of a parent.
In the process of making that agreement with the government, we were clear-eyed about the reality that private members' bills that spend new money cannot pass unless they have a royal recommendation. That is, they cannot pass without the support of the government. Even if the revised, beefed-up and strengthened version of the bill that Conservatives had initially proposed had the support of a majority of members of Parliament, it would not have been able to become law because, I suspect, it would not have received a royal recommendation from the government.
Out of what were at times difficult and challenging, but sincere, discussions across parties, we were able to come up with a very good path forward under the circumstances, recognizing that the government was not prepared to do the version in the fullness of what we had hoped for all at once. We now have a royal recommendation to proceed with offering this essential support to families dealing with the loss of a child. Meanwhile, the human resources committee is committed to a path where we will get more information and do further study, and we will continue to push the issue of extending benefits in the case of a loss of a parent as well. I think we can do both. We do not have to do both things as part of the same legislation, but we can do both, and I think we should get there.
I want to say as well that in the process of those negotiations, working with my colleague and friend the member for Vimy, the parliamentary secretary responsible, has been a pleasure. It is good for Canadians to know, because they see the cut and thrust and the conflict of this place. I definitely think that has a place. It is right and important for the opposition to fulfill its responsibilities, to hold the government accountable, to challenge the government when it is on the wrong path and to push for better outcomes for everyday Canadians. However, when it comes to the work of legislation, we do and we must work collaboratively across the aisle to propose constructive reforms and changes. Those relationships exist, and those behind-the-scenes conversations are important.
We in the official opposition are committed to playing a constructive role, to opposing the government where we think it wrong, working with it where we see opportunities for collaboration and supporting good ideas it puts forward and asking it to support good ideas we put forward. As the official opposition, we have stood up, and will continue to stand up, for families dealing with loss, to support this legislation and to build on it with further measures to include more families dealing with loss as well.