SoVote

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

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Feb/28/24 7:07:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-318

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for this incredible bill, which will bring parity and equity in mental health and attachment to adoptive and intended parents. What we are talking about today, for folks watching, is Bill C-318, which was created by my friend and colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. I will give an overview and some compelling testimony that we heard at the human resources committee today. I am really going to hammer home how common-sense this bill is and how it should have been done long ago. However, like so many things in this House, here we are. Bill C-318 introduces a new 15-week benefit for adoptive and intended parents through the employment insurance program, and adjusts the Canada Labour Code accordingly. A lot of people, including me, did not know this was an issue. I have biological children and just assumed that adoptive parents, or intended parents, which means parents through surrogacy, were entitled to the same amount of unemployment leave, or mat leave or paternity leave, which are the common names a lot of people know. I was entitled to 52 weeks, but the reality is that the way the current system works is that they do not have access to that. They are cut 15 weeks short. One would ask why, which is a great question. It does not put any more financial stress on the system, and we know these parents need this time to attach. I want to tell members a bit about the politics that always bleeds into this place and why common sense often gets left behind. It was an election platform promise by the Liberals in the last two elections that they would have this in their policy. Here we are, and it is still not here, which is not a shock. That is the reality of what we have in this country. The bill has gone through first reading. What we are asking for in this debate today in the House is royal recommendation. Nothing will happen if we do not get that. We have had the support of the House; the bill has passed through first reading. In fact, everybody voted in favour of it except the Liberals. Four Liberals supported it. I thank those who did and parked their partisan politics for the greater good and for parity. I want to go through this article with members, because I think it really highlights the human component of this. I think sometimes, when we talk about policy and legislation, it feels very clinical, but there are very real human consequences to the decisions made in the House. Everything does come back to policy. This is an article that was written by Erin Clow. It was posted in The Province, which is a news publication. I want to read some of the words she has written: At the end of my first leave in 2020, I longed for more time with our son. Nearing the end of this leave, I feel a weight that is difficult to articulate, laden with sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach. In the early days of both parental leaves, the hours, days and weeks seemed long. Honestly, we were strangers who overnight became a family. We knew very little about each other and, most importantly, we didn’t know how to trust, let alone love one another. Each day was a monumental exercise in courage. We spent our time learning about one another. Learning about routines, what they liked and what they didn’t like. Learning how to be parents. Learning to love one another. Again, I come back to my own experience as a first-time mom, and that is exactly how it feels when one gives birth, but imagine adopting a child who has already lived in the world and formed feelings and emotions, and trying to attach and make up for all of that time. Ideally, adoptive and intended parents should have more, if we think about the biology and physiology of what they have to overcome, yet they have less under this legislation. It makes no sense. She continues, “It took months for me to start becoming the parent they deserved.” I would challenge Erin on that. I bet she was exactly the mother they needed from the day they were born and they were meant to be together, but I know that feeling of mom guilt. She goes on, “Now all that remains are 27 days. This supported parental leave will end in 27 days and I can say without a doubt we need more time.” Is that not the most valuable commodity we have on this planet? She continues, “Our daughter and son need additional time. We need months, not days, to continue the process of facilitating secure, enduring attachment for all members of our family.” She has written a very powerful article that really reiterates what it is like for these adoptive parents. I want to go through some of the testimony that we heard in committee. I want to reiterate the common sense of this, in terms of the financial piece. Parents are already paying into the system. It is not like we would be trying to find this money. It is already funded. So many programs that we see the Liberals pushing out to people right now are not funded, such as their pharmacare program and their child care program, which are underfunded and not working. They are not funded. This is. This is a really common-sense bill that would make it easy to give the foundation for kids and families to thrive. Quite frankly, another conversation a lot of people do not want to have in this country is that the cost of living is increasing so much. My daughter has said to me that she could not have kids, that she could never afford it. What a feeling to have. What a feeling to have in this country, to not feel like one can afford to have a house, to feed one's family or to choose to have children, which is the greatest gift in the world. For people who choose not to have children, it is totally fine, but I am saying that, to take away that choice, is a realist issue in our country. Another quote details, “Most children adopted in Canada are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and many have a history of trauma or serious loss. Having their new parent or caregiver(s) at home longer, in the critical first year, gives them time to form attachments and begin processing their grief and loss.” I believe the member opposite may be able to chime in, and I know that she is over my shoulder. There was one woman in particular, and I think it was Cathy Murphy, who talked about how her child did not call her “'mama'” for three years. It was three years of just “'Hey lady'”. That is so powerful because, whether one is an adoptive parent, an intended parent or a biological parent, showing up for one's kids when they are having a hard time is tough. It is the toughest responsibility any of us parents will ever face in our lives. Their behaviour is communication. These kids need so much more time to build trust. They do not have that. They have never had that. The trauma that many of them have faced is very real. Financial stress is one of the biggest stressors in a family dynamic. If one is sitting there worried about how one is going to pay the mortgage, pay for food, pay for groceries or put gas in the car, guess what? One cannot be the parent one needs to be to the kid who needs one. It is so simple to say to not worry, that one's EI, which one has already paid into, is here to help one be the best parent they can be. This is a very simple bill. Another quote is that, “Of the 63,000 children currently in care, 30,000 are eligible for permanent adoption by loving families—” and listen to this, “only 2,000 children are adopted each year.” How many of those children are out there who do not know where they fit, who do not know that they have somewhere they belong? What a feeling. Maybe if more parents knew that there were incentives and help for them to give the love that they have in them to give, that number would go up. Kyla Beswarick was adopted at age 10 with her two siblings. She said, “It took me two or three years to form that attachment.” An article explains, “Her mom had to quit her job to take care of Kyla’s high needs, including doctor and therapist appointments and adjusting to school, and couldn’t access parental leave.” Kyla, who is now 21, and who is amazing, said, “Imagine how I perceived the world, enduring such big breaks in trust and new environments. I was so young. That extra time would have helped me”. Ashley Bach also testified at committee. I will read this final one into the record because I think it is most powerful. It is from Julie Despaties, executive director of Adopt4Life: I would like to leave you with these thoughts. If we want a stronger tomorrow for our children, we must do right by them. As my good friend Irwin Elman, a former Ontario child and youth provincial advocate, says, you can't legislate love, but you can legislate the conditions in which love can flourish.

1660 words

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

Feb/28/24 7:18:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-318

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important. Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system. The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill. What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around. When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass. Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing. The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it. Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—

696 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/28/24 7:24:16 p.m.
Watch

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

26 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Feb/28/24 7:24:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was saying when I was interrupted a couple of days ago, the motion is absolutely essential to doing two things. The first is for us to work harder on behalf of our constituents, allowing more time for debate in the evenings, which is something the NDP has always called for. Also, we believe absolutely fundamentally that we need to be respectful of our employees and staff who run the bastion of democracy here in the House of Commons and who have been forced into 30-hour voting marathons by the member for Carleton. I will just remind you, Madam Speaker, that the member for Carleton, after voting six times in person, basically bolted from this place and ran away. The kind of boss that one sees—

131 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/28/24 7:25:40 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member knows that members cannot make reference to presences in and absences from the House. I know that the virtual Parliament has given some leeway on that, but I would remind the hon. member to please refrain from making references.

42 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Feb/28/24 7:25:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is fair enough. We know what the agenda of the member for Carleton is: Axe services, build up billionaires, fix elections and stop democracy. We hear this every day. That is what the Conservatives stand for. We saw this when the Harper regime was in power; there was $30 billion for billionaires each and every year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as a result of the Harper tax-free treaties for billionaires with tax havens. There was axing of services; the Conservatives did that very well. They forced seniors to work longer. They axed every single program that actually helped people. There was fixing of elections as well, with myriad violations of the Canada Elections Act. The Conservatives stopped democracy, including cutting back and strangling the Auditor General's department and refusing to fund the Auditor General for the important work that the Auditor General does. That is the Conservatives' mandate and mantra. That is what they have done: Axe the services, build up the billionaires, fix elections and stop democracy. That is why New Democrats will oppose the Conservative agenda each and every day, and that is why we support the idea that we work smarter and not harder, that we actually show the respect that we need to show to the employees who keep Parliament running, and that we have a health break every day rather than running into the health problems we have seen. I am looking forward to questions and comments from my colleagues. I just want to remind the House again, though, that the member for Carleton, after an hour, bolted from the House rather than going through the 30-hour marathon.

281 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/28/24 7:27:51 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member knows, and I just reminded him, that we cannot make references to presences in and absences from the House. This is not a new thing, and it is something all members are aware of. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

44 words

Mr. Gord Johns

Feb/28/24 7:28:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want some clarity here in terms of identifying people who we know are voting virtually, which is seen by the public, and people who are voting in the House. When two-thirds of the Conservatives voted virtually to end virtual Parliament, for example, people saw that Conservatives were voting virtually against something that they want to use. They were against using the app, but they used it to vote against.

74 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/28/24 7:28:44 p.m.
Watch

I take the hon. member's point, and I did mention that, obviously, virtual Parliament has blurred the lines a bit. However, it remains a fact that we do not, on purpose, make reference to absence or presence in the House. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

53 words

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

Feb/28/24 7:29:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the question I have for my colleague across the way is on recognizing that there is a finite amount of time that is available for debate on government bills and that the motion we are actually debating would greatly enhance the amount of time for members of Parliament to debate. This way, with respect to government legislation and budgetary matters that come before the chamber, members on all sides of the House would be provided a lot more time. Given that many Canadians work well past six or seven o'clock in the evening, does he see anything wrong with extending the hours to allow for more debate time and being reasonable by saying that it is not going to go past midnight? I see that as a positive win for democracy. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?

142 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Feb/28/24 7:30:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that we need to work harder and smarter. New Democrats have always said that; this is why we believe in, and I have always supported, having evening sessions. This is not new for New Democrats. However, what I find perplexing is the Conservatives' opposition to the idea that we would provide health breaks for employees and that we would work through evening sessions. I find it equally perplexing that Conservatives oppose dental care. The NDP's plan for dental care helps, on average, 30,000 constituents of each and every Conservative MP, yet they voted against it. Affordable housing helps thousands of people. We saw, under the Harper regime, that they destroyed 800,000 affordable housing units. Now, the NDP is fighting to put those housing units back, and Conservatives vote against it. They voted against the grocery rebate, and I gather that they are going to vote against pharmacare, which would help, on average, 15,000 constituents in each and every Conservative riding. If Conservatives are not standing up for their constituents, why are they here?

183 words

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

Feb/28/24 7:31:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what has been very interesting in this discussion is that we are seeing the NDP desperate to distract from the fact that its members are forced to abandon their principles and prop up one of the most corrupt regimes in Canadian history. We have corruption on one side and lazy corruption in the leader of the NDP over there. Why is that member forcing, through limiting debate on standing orders, something that should be done through consensus? Why is he showing Canadians that the NDP and the Liberals are allergic to work? That member has obviously never pulled a calf on a cold March morning, and he certainly never sat in a combine at 3 a.m. in September, when we know that the weather is turning. Why are they so terrified of working for Canadians in this place? Why is that member specifically so bent on propping up the corruption we see within the Liberal Party?

159 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Feb/28/24 7:33:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first off, the Harper regime was the most corrupt in Canadian history. I do not need to mention that members of that regime went to jail. Does the member not remember Conservative members of Parliament being led away in handcuffs? Second, for that member to raise the issue of working people to a person like me, who worked as a labourer for many years, worked the midnight shift in factories, worked in an oil refinery and did real, hard work, when the member for Carleton's sum total of work experience, before he arrived at the incredible Conservative milk machine of pouring all kinds of money into Conservative candidates, was one month at a Dairy Queen. That is all he brought. He had no work experience whatsoever, yet the member tries to question the work experience of real working MPs who are here. There is a member who worked as a farmer behind me, and the member for Elmwood—Transcona worked as an electrician. These are people who did real work, who got their boots dirty. Meanwhile, the member for Carleton actually shows, on Twitter, his boots with a little bit of mud—

197 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/28/24 7:34:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, Canadians demand an answer from the MP as to whether or not he is saying that younger Canadians should not be involved in politics because that is an absolute disgrace—

38 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/28/24 7:34:36 p.m.
Watch

That is debate. That is not a point of order. I will allow the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to finish his answer.

25 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Feb/28/24 7:34:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the sum total of his work experience, outside the Conservative Party and all this money that comes from billionaires for Conservatives, was a month in a Dairy Queen. For somebody to run, saying that they have the experience to run a country, when all they have done, aside from work in the very Conservative infrastructure, is worked in a Dairy Queen, is a little too rich. The member for Burnaby South, who is the leader of the NDP, brings a rich work experience, not only working from in a whole variety of manual labour and service jobs, but also from working as a lawyer. We will put our—

111 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/28/24 7:35:25 p.m.
Watch

It is time for the next question. The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

16 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Feb/28/24 7:35:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to lower the temperature. I really want to put today's motion in the context of Bill C-50 because I think that bill in particular illustrates the reasoning behind the motion. When Bill C-50 was at committee, the Conservatives, I highly suspect, used ChatGPT's AI technology to generate 20,000 amendments. Their plan failed, and those amendments were actually cleared in about an hour's time because they did not do their homework. The Conservatives are now trying the same thing at the report stage with 200 amendments. I think some people watching this debate may get the incorrect idea that we are doing away with votes. I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby could be clear that we are still going to have those votes, but the motion would allow members to have those health breaks and would allow the important staff who support this place to have those health breaks as well, so we are not putting anyone's health at risk while still conducting the democratic needs of the nation in the House.

190 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Feb/28/24 7:36:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Madam Speaker, the member is asking the kind of thoughtful questions that should be asked in this place. Unfortunately, the Conservatives never seem to ask a question that has any depth at all. In the case of the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, he does extraordinary work in the agriculture committee, and he has done work in a wide variety of areas that help to really advance public policy in Canada. The member is absolutely right, that what the Conservatives are endeavouring to do is to basically stop Parliament and stop getting legislation through that would actually help people. They want to block everything. Bill C-50 would actually provide for energy workers good well-paying jobs in the energy industry. I come out of the energy industry, having worked in an oil refinery, the Shelburn oil refinery, sadly now closed, in Burnaby, B.C. I know for a fact that it is important for energy workers to have access to good, unionized, well-paying jobs. What was the Conservative response? A little like Danielle Smith in Alberta, who wants to shut down clean energy and ensure that those jobs do not come to Albertans, Conservatives want to block legislation and make sure that those good, clean energy jobs are not available. That is why it is important to get it right. That is why it is important to have the health breaks when the Conservatives provide for obstruction. The members of the NDP, as the adults in the room, are going to make sure that we get the job done, and we do it in a way that does not harm the health and safety of the many employees who keep this place running.

287 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/28/24 7:38:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, something needs to be cleared up here. The member is suggesting that somehow young people should not be involved in politics. The Leader of the Opposition is proud to be involved, in this case, in Conservative politics. That member is suggesting, somehow, that young people do not have a role to play in our democracy. That is certainly disgraceful and something that the old NDP, which used to have principles, would have resoundingly rejected. When is the NDP going to stand up for the namesake of its party and actually defend democracy, as opposed to simply being lackeys for the Liberals and supporting their corruption?

107 words