Debates of May 29th, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the labour issue and skills. The Red Seal program is going to see up to 100,000 young Canadians and others who will be able to get that Red Seal certificate through a program of this nature where we are helping.

Does the member support the program?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the 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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There are 10 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-222. Motions Nos. 1 to 10 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 10 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

propose:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after the heading “Employment Insurance Act” after line 5 on page 1 the following:

1.1 Section 10 of the Employment Insurance Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (13.01):

(13.011) If a child referred to in subsection 23(1) dies during the period referred to in subsection 23(2), or any extension of it, the benefit period is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to give effect to subsection 12(4.02).

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after the heading “Employment Insurance Act” after line 5 on page 1 the following:

1.2 Section 12 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.01):

(4.02) In the case of deemed care under subsection 23(2.1), the applicable maximum number of weeks set out in paragraph (3)(b) or (4)(b) or subsection (4.01) is, if necessary, increased by the number of weeks that allows each claimant to receive at least five weeks of benefits after the death of the child.l’enfant.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-222, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 21 on page 1 with the following

2 (1) Section 23 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) If a child referred to in subsection (1) dies during the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, while benefits under this section are payable to any claimant in respect of that child, the claimant is deemed to care for that child for the purposes of subsection (1) until that period or the extension of it expires.

(2.2) If the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, expires before a claimant referred to in subsection (2.1) has received at least five weeks of benefits after the week in which the child dies, that period or extension of it is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to ensure that the claimant receives five weeks of benefits.

(2) Subsection 23(3.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(3.1) No extension under subsection (2.2), (3) or (3.01) may result in the period being longer than 104 weeks.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 1 the following:

2.1 Section 54 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (y):

(y.1) respecting the provision of information to the Commission in relation to subsection 23(2.1) or (2.2) or 152.05(2.1) or (2.2);

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-222, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 16 on page 2 with the following:

3 (1) Section 152.05 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) If a child referred to in subsection (1) dies during the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, while benefits under this section are payable to any claimant in respect of that child, the self-employed person is deemed to care for that child for the purposes of subsection (1) until that period or the extension of it expires.

(2.2) If the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, expires before a self-employed person referred to subsection (2.1) has received at least five weeks of benefits after the week in which the child dies, that period or extension of it is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to ensure that the self-employed person receives five weeks of benefits.

(2) Subsection 152.05(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(4) No extension under subsection (2.2) or (3) may result in the period being longer than 104 weeks.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 2 the following:

3.1 Subsection 152.11(15) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(14.2) If a child referred to in subsection 152.05(1) dies during the period referred to in subsection 152.05(2), or any extension of it, the benefit period is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to give effect to subsection 152.14(4.1).

(15) An extension under one or more of subsections (11) to (14.2) must not result in a benefit period of more than 104 weeks.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 2 the following:

3.2 Section 152.14 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4):

(4.1) In the case of deemed care under subsection 152.05(2.1), the applicable maximum number of weeks set out in paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(b) or subsection (4) is, if necessary, increased by the number of weeks that allows each claimant to receive at least five weeks of benefits after the death of the child.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-222 be amended by restoring Clause 5 as follows:

5 Section 206.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.01) For the purposes of subsection (1), if the child dies during the period referred to in subsection (2), the employee is deemed to care for that child until that period expires.

Motion No. 9

Que le projet de loi C-222 soit modifié par suppression de l’article 6.

Motion No. 10

Que le projet de loi C-222 soit modifié par suppression de l’article 7.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a profound sense of gratitude and purpose as we debate Bill C-222, otherwise known as Evan's law, at report stage.

This is a bit of a historic moment. Just two days ago, we officially secured a royal recommendation for the legislation. This marks only the fourth time in Canadian history that a private member's bill has received a royal recommendation and the first time it has ever been obtained through this specific legislative path. We were, in fact, joking about this just before the debate started.

Before we discuss the mechanics of the bill and the amendments before us today, we must remember why we are here. Legislation often deals in the cold realities of budgets, bureaucracy and statutory language, but Evan's law is fundamentally about compassion. It is about how our government treats Canadian families in some of their darkest moments.

For me, this is deeply personal. As I shared during second reading, my wife and I came incredibly close to losing one of our daughters during a difficult birth. Those 20 days we spent in the NICU gave us a glimpse of the heartbreak that is experienced by many families. In fact, we are still friends with many of the families we met in the NICU during that experience.

Sadly, for approximately 1,600 families in Canada every year, there is no happy ending. They leave the hospital without their child, and they return home to a government system that inadvertently adds to their unimaginable pain. Under the current rules of the Employment Insurance Act, if a child passes away while a parent is on leave, the parent legally ceases to qualify for parental benefits in that very moment.

Members can consider what this means in practice. In the midst of planning a funeral and grieving a profound loss, a parent is expected to contact Service Canada immediately. If they do not, they are subject to a financial liability that the Canada Revenue Agency will later claw back. Parents can switch to EI sickness benefits, which offer similar financial support, but to do so, they have to contact Service Canada every two weeks and prove that they are still grieving, to rejustify their need for support.

Imagine forcing grieving parents to repeatedly explain their tragedy to strangers every 14 days. It is a cruel and unnecessary administrative burden placed on people who are barely holding it together. In fact, we do not need to imagine this because we heard these stories during the committee appearances at HUMA.

I have always believed that Bill C-222 sells itself. It is straightforward and compassionate, and it provides an elegant solution to a glaring bureaucratic failure.

Evan's mom is a constituent of Burlington. As the two former ministers of Service Canada, the member for Burlington and I were well-versed in what was operationally possible within the department. We were careful to maximize the benefit for grieving families while simultaneously reducing administrative and incremental costs. It is one of those rare cases in government where we can do the right thing while reducing unnecessary red tape.

From the beginning, we have had strong and early support from the Minister of Finance and ESDC. When we presented the framework to the Prime Minister last spring, it was very well received. During second reading, the debate was incredibly compelling and the bill was unanimously supported by the House. When the bill proceeded to the HUMA committee, the testimony we heard was extraordinarily moving. Many MPs commented that it was some of the most heart-wrenching testimony they had ever heard during a legislative debate.

I want to give immense credit to our committee colleagues from all parties. When I first introduced the bill, I was honest that I was going to need help to secure a royal recommendation. I was honest that it was going to be difficult. The committee worked brilliantly and strategically to keep the bill strictly within its original scope so that it could survive the legislative process, paving the exact procedural runway needed for the Prime Minister and cabinet to officially support it with the royal recommendation that we have before us today.

That brings us to the amendments being introduced at this stage. As I promised in the House, I committed to working co-operatively to tie up the technical loose ends to properly execute this within the EI framework. The government amendments before us today do exactly that.

Rather than abruptly cutting off support, the newly amended framework would explicitly ensure that parental benefits can continue to be paid for the entire eligibility period, whether that is the 40-week standard or the 69-week extended window. It clarifies that these benefits remain payable even when the eligibility period has been extended for special circumstances such as hospitalization. Crucially, these amendments introduce a vital safety net. If a child tragically passes away near the very end of a parent's leave, when they have limited remaining entitlement, the amendments grant up to five additional weeks of benefits per eligible parent. This would ensure equitable support for all families, regardless of when a tragedy occurs.

Furthermore, we are making corresponding amendments to the Canada Labour Code. We are extending job-protected bereavement leave to 17 weeks. This ensures parents will have the protected time off they need to access these EI benefits and provides additional flexibility for mothers whose maternity leave overlaps with their bereavement.

Most importantly, we are addressing the cruel administrative burdens. The amendments introduce a regulatory authority allowing the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to establish a compassionate, simplified notification process, such as a basic attestation. This avoids forcing parents into biweekly reporting, while ensuring and protecting program integrity.

I also want to address the fiscal reality of the bill head-on. While some costing estimates looked at payouts in isolation, they failed to account for the fact that many of these parents would otherwise switch to EI sickness benefits, which pay out a similar amount. Therefore, on a net basis, the measures are somewhat cost neutral. In fact, there are savings because the CRA will no longer need to chase down grieving parents for clawbacks. As well, by stopping Service Canada offices from having to process biweekly sickness reports, we are reducing administrative waste. We are saving the government money while delivering infinitely better services to Canadians.

This is a prime example of Parliament working exactly as it should, prioritizing compassion, focusing on practical solutions and working across the aisle to get the details right. My hope now is that we can move quickly through the House and through the Senate. It is my expectation that we will get this bill implemented before Christmas of this year. Once that happens, any parent who faces the unimaginable loss of losing a child while on parental leave will no longer face additional administrative cost pressures from our government. Instead, they will be given the time, space and support they need to heal.

Wednesday was a historic day, but we will not stop pushing until affected parents are directly benefiting from Evan's law. Let us pass this bill. Let us show Canadians that their Parliament can be efficient, smart, and above all, kind and compassionate.

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

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.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am quite moved to speak today on the bill introduced by my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour in British Columbia. It is moving because this is a bill that will achieve consensus with financial support from the government and will truly change the lives of people who are experiencing immense suffering.

Today, I am moved. I am happy for my colleague. I am happy for him because he managed to convince everyone, including members of the government. Parents who are grieving the loss of a child will be able to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits without having to worry about paperwork and red tape. They will be able to focus on their grief, come together as a family, and receive the support they need without worrying about a missed payment or a letter asking them to explain themselves.

I feel that I am participating in a wonderful parliamentary moment today, and it reminds me that one of the reasons that brought me here is that I love making a difference in people's lives. As members of Parliament, we can do that, and this is a fine example of that. The beauty of private members' bills is that they are often based on personal experience, an observation we have made, or a significant need we can address. When we have the privilege of having our name drawn, we realize we have the opportunity to introduce a bill that will make a real difference in the lives of individuals and families.

I wanted to commend the member for his perseverance, his tenacity and the way he worked to mobilize us and bring us together on such an important issue. I am also pleased with the important amendments that were proposed. In our view, the royal recommendation was the most important factor because, without it, the bill would have gone through the legislative process more quickly. Clearly, any families who are listening at home, and certainly those who are currently grieving, want us to pass the bill quickly so that they can have peace of mind. I also agree with my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour that we seem to be on the same page and that it would be really good to expedite passing the legislation so that families can benefit from it.

There is also one recommendation that matters to me a lot, the one that extends this privilege to self-employed workers as well. I am going to make a statement. I have spent the past 42 years with the same man. He has been self-employed his entire life. He is an artist, a graphic artist. A lot of people are self-employed, but it has not been that long since self-employed workers in Quebec were allowed to contribute to the Quebec pension plan to qualify for a pension. It might be 20 or so years ago. The whole issue of employment insurance for the self-employed was sticky. I am pleased with this amendment, because it allows workers who chose self-employment access to the same protections as salaried workers. Actually taking them into account is extremely important.

It reminds me of the need for EI reform across the board. My colleague from British Columbia managed to get his bill through the legislative process quite successfully, and families are happy with it, but we could have made plenty of other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act that would have righted certain wrongs. I would like to share one that means a lot to me. It concerns women who take maternity leave only to find out when then return to work that their position has been cut. These women are not eligible for EI benefits.

In my opinion, this is discrimination. In fact, this has been denounced by all workers' advocacy groups and unions. How can we still accept that, today, a woman who exercised her right to maternity leave is told, upon her return, that she no longer has a job and that she is also denied EI benefits on the grounds that she did not accumulate sufficient hours during her leave? That is something that really needs to be looked at because it is quite unacceptable. I even wonder why the Liberals, now that they have a majority, are not fixing this gender discrimination, since, the last time I checked, men cannot get pregnant. That is something the government could change.

My colleague Louise Chabot, who was here during the last Parliament, prepared a bill that included all the necessary changes to reform EI. There is a nice bill that is now dormant and contains all the amendments that could be made to modernize the Employment Insurance Act. Today, we are talking about one specific section, about specific individuals, and that is great, we are very happy about that. However, the work to modernize EI must continue. We believe that EI needs to be completely overhauled.

Like my colleague, I also had the privilege of being randomly selected. I will therefore have the pleasure of introducing a bill next week. My bill seeks to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 who did not receive the increase that those aged 75 and older did. Like my colleague, I am definitely going to take up the torch, because I am surrounded by seniors who have no pension funds, who live solely on their old age pension and who cannot make ends meet because of inflation. Like my colleague, I will also make it my mission to try to convince everyone that seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 deserve the increase too.

The government should grant a royal recommendation for our bill too so that vulnerable seniors, those who are not lucky enough to have a pension fund or a job that allowed them to save, can enjoy a dignified retirement. It is up to the Quebec government and the federal government to provide seniors, the people who built the society we have today, with the means to enjoy a dignified retirement.

This is the first time I am asking this, but I encourage everyone to seriously consider how we treat our seniors today. Are they really the ones that we are choosing to abandon? Personally, I have lots of ideas on how to fund solutions, but I will come back to them in my speech next week.

I want to sincerely and warmly congratulate my colleague for choosing to come to the aid of parents grieving the loss of a child. The worst suffering a parent can experience must be to lose a child while on maternity leave. We have to cut through the red tape and give parents time to grieve.

In committee, we unequivocally expressed the view that the benefit period should increase to 50 weeks. It is wrong to think that healing from loss takes only a few weeks. We believe that it would have been advisable to increase the number of weeks of benefits so that people could truly work their way through the grieving process.

Together with our colleagues across the way and with our Conservative colleagues, we agreed not to put any obstacles in the way that would prevent the government from backpedaling on the royal recommendation. We were able to agree on fast-tracking it. I sincerely congratulate my colleague. I also want to tell the people listening to us or watching us that all parties in the House of Commons can work together. When parties work in good faith and focus on the common good, we get results that make a difference in people's lives. I want to thank him and wish him all the best. The Bloc Québécois looks forward to voting in favour of the bill.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I feel privileged to rise to speak to this important bill.

This is a compassionate bill that will add more humanity to the employment insurance regime, particularly for grieving parents. As I mentioned, it is an honour to rise in support of the amendments that have been presented to facilitate the passage of Bill C-222, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with regard to the death of a child.

First of all, I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour. He deserves immense credit for his work in support of grieving parents.

I also want to thank all of my colleagues who helped shape this bill, as well as the witnesses who testified in committee on this very sensitive subject.

There is nothing more devastating for parents and a family than the loss of a child. It is, of course, an ordeal that causes deep and lasting pain. According to mental health professionals, parental grief is one of the most intense and persistent forms of grief.

The death of a child is a tragedy that affects many Canadian families every year. Data show that, in 2024, approximately 3,100 children under the age of 19 died in Canada. Of those children, 1,661 were infants who died before their first birthday and 1,210 were infants who died within their first month of life. That means that, every year, approximately 1,600 Canadian families experience the unthinkable loss of a child while they are still receiving EI parental benefits.

Research shows that returning to work after the death of a child can be difficult and takes time. Dealing with administrative institutions can also add to the emotional burden. This burden can become even heavier when the bereaved parent is no longer eligible for the income support measures available under the EI program.

It goes without saying that work and financial considerations are not the priority for these parents while they are going through an extremely difficult time. Having to deal with various administrative procedures and worry about their job security or financial situation adds an unnecessary burden to their emotional distress. Some parents who return to work quickly may experience what is known as presenteeism: They are physically present at work but unable to participate fully due to their emotional and psychological state.

No law can alleviate such grief, but our federal system—in particular EI and the protections provided by the Canada Labour Code—can at least ensure that bereaved parents have swift access to the support they need, when they need it most. That is what compassion looks like.

At present, EI parental benefits end as soon as the claimant's child dies. In its current form, Bill C-222 will allow parents who lose a newborn or an adopted child to keep receiving parental benefits after their child's death. The bill would also amend the Canada Labour Code so that employees who work in the federally regulated private sector and are on parental leave can continue to take that leave even if their child dies during the leave period that was initially granted.

For now, however, unless the claimant contacts Service Canada within a week of their child's death, they begin accumulating a debt to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Bereaved parents can also apply for EI sickness benefits, but they are then required to check in with Service Canada every two weeks to confirm that their benefits are still needed. Again, this creates an unnecessary burden at a difficult time. It is easy to see how hard this process can be for parents still grieving the loss of their child.

The current process lacks compassion and needs to be changed to ease some of the burden these parents face. The government wants to ensure that the parental leave provisions meet the needs of bereaved parents in a fair, reasonable and compassionate way. That is the spirit in which the amendments to Bill C-222 are being proposed today. These amendments are intended to strengthen the proposed bereavement and EI benefits for parents who are nearing the end of their parental leave. The amendments will help ensure that the bill actually meets parents' real needs.

The proposed changes also make consequential amendments to the leave provisions in the Canada Labour Code to align them with the proposed changes to EI parental benefits for bereaved parents.

Today's topic is an emotional one, but for the purposes of debate, I will also focus on a few technical details related to the proposed amendments to fully understand the scope of what we are discussing today. I want to take a few moments to talk about some of them.

The amendments to Bill C‑222 propose that EI parental benefits continue to be paid for a maximum number of weeks after the death of a child, up to 40 weeks for parents who share standard parental benefits and up to 69 weeks for parents who share extended parental benefits. By allowing EI parental benefits to continue to be paid without any additional administrative burden, these amendments would help ensure ongoing support during a time of great emotional distress.

For eligible parents who have already used almost all of their weeks of benefits at the time of their child's death, Bill C-222, as amended, would guarantee every eligible parent up to five additional weeks of benefits in the form of bereavement support. This measure will apply no matter which parental benefit option the claimant chose, whether standard or extended parental benefits. These additional weeks of EI parental benefits would be paid at the same income replacement rate as the option they chose initially. For example, if the claimant chose the extended parental benefits option at 33% of their average weekly insurable earnings, that rate would continue to apply for the remaining weeks and for the additional weeks of bereavement support.

Under the proposed amendments, parents must inform the Canada Employment Insurance Commission if they want to add the additional weeks of bereavement support to their benefits. However, given the heavy emotional burden this would place on parents at a time of deep grief, a regulatory authority will be established to set up a simple and compassionate process that grieving parents can use to notify the commission.

Bill-222 would also ensure that employees subject to the Canada Labour Code are entitled to the remaining weeks of parental leave that they would have been entitled to had the child not died. This proposed amendment would allow employees in the federally regulated private sector to benefit from protected parental leave while receiving EI parental benefits. Parents could also take advantage of the existing eight-week bereavement leave provided in the event of the death of a child, if they are nearing the end of their parental leave and wish to claim additional weeks of EI benefits.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the loss of a child is a profound and tragic event that no Canadian parent should have to experience. These parents deserve our full support, not administrative hurdles, in their darkest moments. Our government is committed to ensuring that families facing this tragic situation get the support they need. There is no doubt that Bill C-222, as amended, would promote a compassionate and flexible approach for parents facing the unthinkable, allowing bereaved parents to remain eligible for parental benefits even after their loss, thereby ensuring continuity, compassion and stability.

More importantly, Bill C-222 restores compassion and dignity to families during their darkest hours. It recognizes that no parent should have to navigate confusing red tape or repeatedly prove their loss in order to access the support they are already entitled to. This legislation represents a rare opportunity to achieve three goals at once: reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, improving government efficiency, and showing empathy toward bereaved Canadians.

By supporting Bill C-222, Parliament can ensure that no family is punished by the system for having experienced an unimaginable tragedy. It is a small change, but it will have a profound human impact, and it reflects the best of who we are as a country. As other colleagues have already mentioned, we are here to make a tangible difference in the lives of the people we represent, and this bill allows us to improve things for people who are going through an extremely difficult situation.

Once again, I would like to reiterate my congratulations and thanks to my colleague from British Columbia for introducing this bill in the House, as well as to all my colleagues who supported it and worked on the amendments in committee. I will conclude by saying that I fully support this bill and the proposed amendments.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in this place when we speak about policy and there are moments when we speak about people. Today, as I rise to address Bill C-222, also known as Evan's law, I am speaking about both. I am mostly speaking about love, about loss and about what happens when the two collide in ways that change a family forever. With love, the heart is full. With grief, the heart is heavy.

I want to begin by thanking my colleague across the aisle, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, for bringing forward this legislation. I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary courage of Evan's family, who turned their deepest heartbreak into a force for change so that other families might be spared even a small portion of the pain they endured. Their advocacy reminds us that sometimes the most profound acts of love come from the places where our hearts are most broken.

The journey to parenthood begins well before a child enters a home. Whether someone is expecting the birth of a child, becoming a step-parent or welcoming a child through adoption, families make the same kinds of preparations. Homes are reorganized, routines are reshaped and hearts are opened to make space for someone new. They look ahead to milestones, both small and large, like first steps and first words, school graduations, weddings, and the hope of grandchildren far in the future.

Families prepare not just for a child, but for a future shaped by that child's place in their lives. However, sometimes life takes a different path than the one that was planned. Sometimes the dreams held so carefully are shattered in ways that leave families struggling to understand how they are supposed to continue breathing, let alone navigate bureaucratic processes and government forms. I know this reality, not just as a parliamentarian, but as a mother who has walked this path.

Years ago, my husband and I lost a son. In the days and weeks that followed, even the most basic tasks, like grocery shopping, folding laundry and answering the phone, felt overwhelming. Ordinary moments could undo us. Hearing a parent call out their child's name could stop us in our tracks because it was our son's name. Tears would fall without warning and without reason.

At the same time, life did not pause. We still had other children who needed care, routines that had to be maintained and a world that expected us to continue. We did, but it was hard. Each holiday, each celebration and each quiet reminder exposed just how vulnerable we were. It was the memories, the moments we had lived and the love we had shared that held the broken pieces together.

What I know now, and what Bill C-222 so clearly recognizes, is the importance of time. When we lost our son, immediately the world felt completely upside down. We needed time to breathe, time to grieve and time to begin finding our way back to our daily routine, yet we only had two weeks.

Too often, processes are built around administrative efficiency, yet families live their lives around moments; moments of joy and moments of profound loss. This bill would take an important step toward narrowing that gap. It invites us to reflect on how other federal systems handle the loss of a child. Beyond employment insurance itself, current federal rules often require parents to meet strict filing, reporting or notification deadlines within weeks of a loss.

These timelines may be efficient from a systems perspective, but they are not designed for moments of tragedy. Extending federal deadlines by an additional 60 days would be a limited practical adjustment, one that does not expand government or create new benefits, but simply ensures federal processes better align with the realities families face in the immediate aftermath of a loss.

The research shows us what any parent who has lost a child already knows. This kind of loss affects everything. It affects one's ability to concentrate, to sleep and to trust that anything will ever be the same again. Studies tell us that grieving parents experience increased rates of anxiety, depression and physical health problems. They struggle to return to work, not because they do not want to, but because their minds and bodies are trying to process something that fundamentally changes who they are.

Even when employment insurance benefits barely cover families' expenses, they provide something more valuable than money. They provide space. They provide space to grieve without the added pressure of financial crisis, and space to be in the slow, difficult work of learning how to live in a world that no longer contains their child. Giving parents that space does not weaken our workforce. In fact, it strengthens it. Parents who are forced back to work too soon often struggle longer and return less prepared to engage fully. Parents who are given reasonable and structured time are better able to return and to contribute. Compassion in moments of loss is not a barrier to participation. It is often what makes participation possible, helping parents rebuild the bridge back to employment.

Bill C-222 recognizes that when we lose a child, we do not stop being parents. We do not stop needing time to care for them, even if that care now looks different: arranging funerals, creating memorials and finding ways to honour a life that was too brief but no less precious.

Under Bill C-222, parents would continue to receive employment insurance parental benefits until their benefit period expires, even after the death of a child. The bill would remove the requirement for new claims and reports during this time and work within the existing framework that already provides up to eight weeks of bereavement leave under the Canada Labour Code, acknowledging that this time can make the difference between surviving and drowning.

These changes might seem small to someone who has never lived this reality, but to a parent trying to arrange their child's funeral while worrying about keeping the lights on, to a family struggling to return to routines that no longer make sense, or to someone trying to figure out how to go back to work when work feels meaningless, these changes are everything.

Grief does not belong to any one party, and neither should compassion. This is not a partisan issue. This is about whether federal systems respond reasonably when Canadians face the most devastating moments of their lives. No member of the House is immune to loss. It will touch every community, every family and, at some point, every one of us. When it does, Canadians deserve systems that reflect not just efficiency but understanding.

My Conservative colleagues have long advocated for improvements to the system, and we are pleased to see progress with Bill C-222, though we recognize this is only the beginning. The bill does not pretend that government can fix heartbreak. It cannot restore what has been lost or ease the pain that will always persist. What it can do is ensure that in a family's darkest moments, when it is least equipped to navigate systems, forms and bureaucratic requirements, it is met with understanding rather than additional hardship.

When someone we love dies, we learn that grief is not something we recover from. It is something we learn to carry. The weight never fully leaves, but over time we learn how to balance it alongside all the other things we must carry: hope, responsibility and the determination to keep moving forward, not because the pain has ended but because love requires it. What Bill C-222 offers is recognition that love does not end with death and that neither does the work of being a parent. With love, the heart is full. With grief, the heart is heavy, and sometimes the heaviest hearts need the most support.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-222, to stand with grieving families and to ensure that when Canadians face the unthinkable loss of a child, our response reflects the best of who we are as a nation.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to speak, I ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, also known as Evan's law. The bill is called Evan's law because it was inspired by the experience of a grieving family whose son Evan died while they were receiving parental benefits. After his death, the family had to deal not only with their loss, but also with the bureaucratic consequences of our EI system, including benefit disruptions, paperwork and administrative requirements during a period of profound grief.

I want to thank the member for Burnaby North—Seymour for putting this bill forward on behalf of every parent who has grieved a baby in my riding and across our great nation. I also want to thank all the witnesses who appeared before the committee and shared their pain.

The death of a child is every parent's worst nightmare. It is a loss that changes a family forever. In those moments of grief, families should be surrounded by compassion, support and understanding. The last thing they need is paperwork, bureaucratic hurdles, confusion about government benefits or being forced back to work, yet that is exactly what can happen under our current employment insurance system. This bill would address that problem in a practical and compassionate way by allowing parents who have already qualified for parental benefits to continue to receive those benefits for the remainder of the approved period and through other means. It would also provide corresponding protections under the Canada Labour Code for employees in federally regulated workplaces.

I believe this bill reflects values that all members of the House can support, and I am grateful to all parties in the House for coming together to do the right thing. It is heartening, as a member in my first term in this place, to see members who understand that government systems should serve people, not the other way around, and who understand that compassion and common sense are not partisan principles, but are principles that should guide us whenever we legislate. Sometimes the most meaningful changes are ones that affect a relatively small number of people, but make an enormous difference in their lives.

For the parents impacted by this legislation, the effect will be that government stays out of their lives at a time when the last thing they need is government. Instead of worrying about paperwork, they can worry about each other and focus on grieving. Instead of being wrapped in government bureaucracy, they can stay wrapped in the arms of those who are helping them grieve.

There is also a broader principle at stake here. One measure of a society is how it treats people during their most vulnerable moments. Government cannot erase grief. No law passed in this chamber can undo the loss of a child. We cannot restore what has been taken away from a family, but we can ensure that our public institutions respond with humanity rather than rigidity. Too often, government programs are designed around standard circumstances. They assume life will unfold according to expectations, yet life does not always follow a predictable path. Families experience tragedies, illnesses, accidents and unexpected hardships. When these moments occur, government systems should have the flexibility and compassion to respond appropriately. Bill C-222 helps move us in that direction.

The stories behind legislation and the words of those who have spoken in the House today remind us why these changes matter. Behind every policy discussion, there is a real person, a real family and real experiences. I want to thank all of my hon. colleagues for the stories they have shared with us today. I also want to extend comfort to all those who carry burdens that are too heavy to share. Statistics can help us understand the scale of a problem, but they cannot help us understand pain. Words matter. A government that removes unnecessary obstacles and does not kick people when they are suffering from shattering pain matters as well. This bill would recognize that reality. It would acknowledge that stability and certainty have value during a period of crisis.

For those reasons, I am pleased that we are all supporting Bill C-222, and I want to thank all those involved in this bill for bringing us—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to pick up on a couple of points. We have heard a lot of wonderful, encouraging words this afternoon. Even though I was not at committee, I can imagine the mixed emotions that would have been expressed to the committee members and were, no doubt, part of the driving force behind building the goodwill we are witnessing today.

I want to recognize the efforts of the member for Burnaby North—Seymour because we are in a very unique situation. This is the first time ever that I have witnessed, and the member tells me that it might actually be the first time we have seen it, a royal assent potentially given to a bill that needed a recommendation from the Governor in Council. That is not an easy thing to have accomplished. I believe the member for Burnaby North—Seymour approached it in a manner that reflects the type of debate we have witnessed, not only now but also at second reading.

We see a high sense of empathy in what the legislation is attempting to do. I applaud the member's actions and those of the individuals he sat around when he was in the hospital for the birth of his child, when he met with many others who were experiencing the same thing, having a premature baby. He made reference to that emotional bond having remained with a number of them. I can appreciate that this is something that was well discussed, no doubt, as well as the frustration.

If we put it in its simplest way, we can all imagine, whether it is our parents, ourselves or, in my case, even my children, the sense of excitement when someone finds out that they are going to have a newborn, whether by natural birth or through an adoption, and then for that sense of excitement, that child, to be taken away from them for whatever reason. One can imagine the thoughts and emotions around having a stillborn child or a complication at birth or with the birth mother, for someone who is adopting. It would be absolutely devastating and hard to comprehend, and it would create an emotional impact and anxiety.

When we think of a parent who has the parental leave application, is receiving the benefits and going through the process, only to have this terrible thing occur and then find that they have to work through the government and ultimately reapply in a different form, it seems ultimately unnecessary. From my understanding of what has been called “Evan's law”, Bill C-222 would, in a very compassionate way, deal with a real and tangible issue and make a positive difference.

To see the support that has been given to the legislation is very encouraging. My understanding, after talking with the table, is that there will be one more hour of debate and then we will see the vote take place, both on the amendments and, immediately following, on third reading, if we have another day of debate, and I am anticipating that is what will happen.

I want to acknowledge all the discussions to date and applaud the member for the fine work he has done in presenting the legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, June 1, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)