SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 287 - Feb/28/24

Feb/28/24 5:38:46 p.m.
Watch

I am already hearing a number of noes. I will ask the hon. member to come up to the desk, when the bells are ringing, so he can share that information and we can make sure this does not happen to other members. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. 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.

117 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/28/24 5:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for, in the preservation of democracy, a recorded vote.

14 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 5:39:46 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 6:23:13 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 6:23:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 61st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the items added to the order of precedence on Tuesday, February 13, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

78 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 6:24:15 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2) the report is deemed adopted.

12 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 6:24:31 p.m.
Watch

There being no motion at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

31 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Feb/28/24 6:25:04 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill be concurred in.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/28/24 6:25:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-318

Before the House proceeds to Private Members' Business, the Chair wishes to remind members that pursuant to statements made on Thursday, May 4, 2023, and Monday, February 26, a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, since the bill would appropriate part of the public revenue. Accordingly, if the bill is concurred in at report stage, the question on the motion for third reading will be put only if a royal recommendation is produced at the appropriate time.

92 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/28/24 6:26:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-318

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. She said: Mr. Speaker, as all parents know, the arrival of a new child is life-changing. It comes with great joys and excitement. It is a precious time of bonding and many firsts, but it also comes with added expenses, time constraints and new challenges. While we all know that Canada’s employment insurance program helps to ease some of those pressures, we must confront the fact that not all families are treated equally. It is not a fair program, and it does not reflect the diversity of families here in Canada. Families formed through adoption and surrogacy continue to be entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave, and this is a disadvantage that must be rectified. My private member’s bill, Bill C-318, does that through the creation of a new 15-week time-to-attach benefit for adoptive and intended parents. It also adjusts entitlement leave accordingly in the Canada Labour Code. It is a common-sense bill; addressing the inequity in our EI system should truly be a non-partisan issue. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has instead chosen to politicize it. While it claims to support equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents, the Liberal government’s actions suggest otherwise. At second reading, the member for Winnipeg North indicated that this was not a priority for the Liberal government when he said, “We might have had to put some limitations on some of the things we wanted to do as a result of the pandemic”. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that this bill would not get a royal recommendation because his own bill did not get one. Of course, this was followed by all but a handful of Liberal members of Parliament voting against the bill at second reading. Following the committee’s consideration of this bill, the Liberal government challenged amendments that sought to remove any ambiguity around parental benefits for indigenous peoples. The opposition to this from the Liberals raises concerns about their intentions around achieving equal access to EI benefits for indigenous families with customary care arrangements. Now, at third reading, this bill risks being dropped from the Order Paper altogether if a royal recommendation is not provided by the Liberal government. By all indications, unfortunately, this does not seem to be forthcoming. The Liberal government’s decision to include a benefit for adoptive and intended parents in Bill C-59 was a clear declaration that it does not intend to collaborate on this issue and that it is more focused on political games than rectifying the discrimination in our EI system in a timely manner. Bill C-59 is an omnibus budget bill that would not course correct the harmful policies of the NDP-Liberal government, which are fuelling the affordability crisis in this country. The Liberal government not only tied its proposed benefit to a costly and convoluted omnibus bill but also did not even make this legislation a priority. It is the Liberal government that sets the agenda in this place, and it has not brought Bill C-59 up for debate since January. Frankly, it has just not been a priority for the Liberals. In fact, they have never made it a priority to address the discrimination in our EI system. They have been promising this to adoptive parents since 2019; they extended this promise to intended parents last year, after I introduced Bill C-318. Providing equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents should not be a complicated problem to solve, especially with the agreement of all opposition parties. However, the Liberal government has voted against Bill C-318, failed to provide the royal recommendation needed, refused to work collaboratively and failed to exercise the political will necessary to just get the dang job done. Shamefully, the Liberal government’s broken promises, delays and political games are happening at the expense of families. These families are hopeful and anxiously waiting to know if they will get the time they need and deserve with their child. The children who do not get the time they need with their parents are the greatest victims. Adoptive and intended parents are not less deserving, and they certainly do not need less time with their children. It is often the case that these families face additional challenges in bonding and attachment. Access to equal leave can go a long way to support them. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard compelling testimony from adoptive parents and adoptees about the challenges they experienced attaching. We heard repeatedly how meaningful additional time to form strong and secure attachments would have been for their families and how 35 weeks was not enough time. We need to listen to those voices and act in a timely manner. Cassaundra Eisner, an adoptee herself, shared with the human resources committee: “Moving in with people who were recently strangers is intimidating and very scary. Time to attach is something that would have helped that 11-year old little girl.” Shelley Rottenberg, also an adoptee, shared that, if there had been more time early on, her mother would not have had “to worry about going to work and leaving me with someone else” and that it “would have sped up that process of growing and building that trust and the bond to have a more secure attachment.” Cathy Murphy shared that it took three and a half years for her son to call her mama instead of “Hey, lady.” Julie Despaties shared that she ultimately did not return to work after her leave, because she needed more time to support her three adopted children. Erin Clow wrote that, near the end of her leave, she felt “a weight which is difficult to articulate, laden with the emotions of sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach.” There are many more examples. Providing adoptive families with an extra 15 weeks of leave is not only fair but will also help improve their long-term outcomes and help set these children up for success. I have also heard from a lot of intended parents who are growing their families through surrogacy. These parents need to make a decision about their leave options in the immediate term; many are expecting their child and are hopeful that they will have access to an additional 15 weeks of leave. I have also heard from parents who have made the decision to take the extended parental leave, at a significant financial disadvantage. Often it is not because they want to take a two-year leave, but rather because they want the same opportunity to be home with their child in the first year of their life. Canadians growing their families via surrogacy face a lot of added costs, and the disparity in benefits add to those financial pressures. Child care is another consideration. It is more costly to get child care for an infant under a year old, and the reality across the country is that there are limited infant child care spaces. These added costs are made even worse given the growing affordability crisis. Baden Colt shared with the human resources committee: “Having a child through surrogacy poses challenges that are not faced by most new parents, and these financial obstacles are compounded by the inability to access the same 15 weeks of maternity leave that most new parents get.” She said that children like her daughter “deserve every opportunity that her peers have in life and that begins with having the same amount of time to bond with her parents as any other Canadian child.” Her daughter does deserve the same time with her parents that is afforded to other children. The Liberal government needs to set aside the partisanship and the political games that are costing families across this country the time to attach and bond with their children. It is well past time that all families, including adoptive and intended parents, get the time they need and deserve with their child.

1390 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/28/24 6:37:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the speech that my friend, colleague and neighbour from Saskatchewan made regarding this issue. I would ask the member if she could share additional stories of examples in which the practical change she has proposed would be truly life-changing to adoptive parents and the adopted children who are given that chance to form the appropriate bonds and whatnot that are required for the development of children in those essential relationships.

76 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/28/24 6:37:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are countless stories that I have heard from adoptive and intended parents. I have one here from Luke, who says, “The existing leave time was insufficient to help me build an attachment relationship with my son, who had a history of abandonment and childhood trauma, and needed to have additional time with me as his new parent in order to feel secure and settle into my home...As such, I needed to take additional time off at expense to my family.” Hearing from Canadians across the country, this is not just a regional issue, but literally from coast to coast, from every area of the country. These parents just want time to attach with their children in a safe and secure environment.

127 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 6:38:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the way for her excellent speech and advocacy for this really important policy change. Could the member talk about the importance of having leave time between parent and child before the arrival, to prepare the home and the family for the arrival of the child?

55 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/28/24 6:39:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, leave is important, as is that time to prepare for a baby or an older child to come, because a lot of children who are adopted are not necessarily infants but of ages all the way up to 18. Yes, it is important to have that time to prepare as well as the time to attach.

58 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Feb/28/24 6:39:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all of her hard work on this file and this bill. As a mom of four herself, she has done incredible work. My question for the member is this: What is different in the member's bill versus what was in the Liberals' Bill C-59? Why is it still really important that this bill get passed and get royal recommendation, so that intended and adoptive parents will get the leave they deserve?

82 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/28/24 6:40:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-318

Madam Speaker, it is very important. I would actually say that this bill is more important than the provisions that are put into the FES. As I mentioned in my remarks, the Liberal government has not even brought forward that piece of legislation to debate. With my legislation, there is actually an enactment on royal assent. We have no idea at all when this would be enacted, if it is like anything that they have done, such as child care, which is a mess, or the disability benefit, which Canadians with disabilities still have not received. It would do Canadians, especially adoptive and intended parents, a great service if they just gave Bill C-318 a royal recommendation, which would make sure that these intended and adoptive parents would know the date that they could apply for these benefits.

139 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 6:41:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member knows well, because she has already made reference to it, that the changes are actually incorporated into the fall economic statement, which will in fact be passing. It does seem to cover a bit more in terms of the concerns that have been raised by parents of adopted children. We recognize the value. In fact, it was part of our election platform and part of the mandate letter. The question I have for the member is this: Does she support that aspect of the budget, and, if so, can we anticipate that she will be voting in favour of it?

104 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/28/24 6:41:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this promise was in the Liberal Party's 2019 and 2021 mandate letters, and nothing got done until I and my office did the work. We actually wrote legislation. Then the Liberals scooped it up. The member across the way is being a little presumptuous—

48 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/28/24 6:42:22 p.m.
Watch

We are way over time. Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages.

21 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.)

Feb/28/24 6:42:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-318

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in this debate on the bill introduced by the hon. member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster. I want to thank the member for bringing attention to an issue that matters to Canadians. Adoptive parents have been telling us that they want a new employment insurance benefit that provides them with the same number of weeks as birth parents. Currently, under the EI program, workers who are pregnant or have recently given birth, including surrogates, can receive 15 weeks of maternity benefits to support their recovery from pregnancy and childbirth. This is in addition to the 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 shareable weeks under the extended option. Adoptive parents also have access to support under the EI program. However, parents of adopted children are eligible for only 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 weeks of support. In short, the difference lies in the fact that adoptive parents do not have access to the 15 weeks of benefits that parents who give birth do. In 2024, this needs to change. That is why these improvements to the EI program are included in Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The measures in Bill C-59 would create a new 15-week EI benefit that would add flexibility and better address the needs of adoptive parents and parents of children through surrogacy during the weeks surrounding the actual placement of the child. The comprehensive measures in Bill C-59 reflect what we heard during our consultations with Canadians on the EI program in 2021 and 2022. They reflect the diverse and inclusive way families are formed today, and they provide needed flexibility. Before I go into more detail about Bill C-59, let me outline how it resonates with the consensus we heard at the EI consultations on the issue of an inclusive program. In particular, the government absolutely acknowledges in Bill C-59 that adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy have income support needs that are related to their unique processes. Time devoted to a child helps create a family bond. This is true for birth and adoptive parents. In the case of adoptive parents, it can help the child make up for any developmental delays or health setbacks and give that child a better chance to reach their full potential. Every extra week spent with an adoptive child in the first year after adoption has an impact on their development and their lifelong relations with others. There is no question that for any new parent, having the time and resources to welcome and care for their child or children is precious and requires support. Also, additional time for adoptive parents to be with their children can be beneficial for their employers, as it would put these parents in a better state of mind when they return to work. There is no doubt that what the member opposite proposes, and what we propose, is important. Leave with income support for adoptive and intended parents, so they can welcome and care for their children, needs to be part of a modern and inclusive El program. The proposal in Bill C-318 does this in part, but we consider our approach in Bill C-59 to offer the better, more flexible and more responsive solution to address this important need. We expect that each year, the government's proposed benefit would provide approximately 1,700 Canadian families with additional time and flexibility as they welcome a new child in their home. Parents through surrogacy, including 2LGBTQI+ families, would also be eligible for this benefit, and rightly so. The government's proposed El adoption benefit would make El benefits inclusive and reflective of families in Canada. It would support parents going through adoption or surrogacy by providing temporary income support before the child arrives at home, for example, while they are finalizing the placement or travelling abroad to bring the child or children to Canada. That support would also extend to the early weeks of the child's arrival into the new family. This equalization was a key ask by our stakeholders. It is the right thing to do, and it is an idea whose time has come. All of this will happen if Bill C-59 receives royal assent. I also want to note, as we were told during the EI consultations, that the profiles of children and youth being adopted are often unique. Adopted kids are typically older, have sibling groups and have special needs. Cathy Murphy, chairperson of the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada, told us this during the consultations: Even if a youth is joining their family at age 12 or 13, it's really important for that parent or caregiver to be there, to be able to meet them after school or to maybe take them out to their favourite lunch spot over lunch hour once a week, because that's usually the only way you're going to get them out to lunch. By continually showing up and being actively involved in their life, they are going to realize after an extended period of time that their parents are there for them. For the past eight years, we have been busy improving important programs so that life is more affordable for Canadians. From day one, the government has kept its promise to protect all Canadians, and we are using all the tools at our disposal to do so. Canadians want an EI system for the 21st century. The government has heard these calls. It is a long-haul commitment, but we are taking the time to get it right, and we are not waiting for a grand reveal to make improvements along the way. Let me reassure my colleague opposite that the Government of Canada is taking a thorough approach to EI to ensure its continuous improvement for the benefit of all Canadians. Adoptive parents have asked for equal treatment. They deserve equal treatment, and the government has answered.

1020 words