44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 4, 2023 10:00AM
- May/4/23 5:14:02 p.m.
- Watch
I remind the member that this issues was dealt with right after question period.
The hon. member has the floor.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:14:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important to lay out what the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, said at committee back in December of 2022.
She said, “The Prime Minister is briefed regularly. He's very interested in this subject and has directed work for agencies to do...We are briefing regularly, and those briefings are received and acted upon.” This is in relation to the Prime Minister getting briefed. Jody Thomas also went on to say that their are constant briefings to the Prime Minister. She said, “He's briefed on foreign interference when we have issues to raise to his attention. He has a daily foreign intelligence brief, and he has a weekly Prime Minister's intelligence brief.”
I am not saying Jody Thomas was involved in this, because Jody Thomas was not the national security adviser at the time, and I know that before her, there was a revolving door of national security advisers in the PCO.
The Prime Minister does get briefed. If he did not get this briefing, then shame on him. If he did not act upon it, he has responsibilities under our parliamentary process to make sure he gets that information as part of accountable government. He has not acted. He has failed Canadians, and he has not kept us safe.
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:15:19 p.m.
- Watch
It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:16:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:16:55 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 19, by the deputy House leader of the government regarding Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents.
On March 30, in a statement on the management of private members’ business, the Chair pointed out that Bill C-318, standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, may infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. The Speaker then invited members to make arguments regarding the need for the bill to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
In her point of order, the deputy House leader of the government noted that Bill C-318 would add a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. This benefit is not currently contemplated in the act and would result in a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 838, and I quote, “Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.”
The Chair has reviewed Bill C‑318 and found that clause 5 adds new section 22.1 to the Employment Insurance Act to create a new type of special benefit, namely, a 15-week attachment benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The bill also provides for the duration of this new benefit to be extended for various reasons.
Implementing Bill C-318 would create a new type of benefit, and therefore, lead to increasing public expenditures for purposes not currently authorized by the act. As a result, a new royal recommendation is required for the bill to receive a final vote in the House at third reading.
In the meantime, the House is about to start debate on the second reading motion of the bill. This motion will be allowed to be put to a vote at the conclusion of that debate.
I thank all members for their attention.
373 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:19:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-7
Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised Tuesday by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills concerning the alleged foreign intimidation.
Before beginning my remarks, I want to make some things very clear. When a foreign government attacks one of us, it attacks all of us. We must remain united against it.
I want to reiterate what my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, said on May 2 in the House to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We express our solidarity to him and his family and we will continue to work with him and all parliamentarians to make sure he and all parliamentarians get the support they need.
As the Minister of Public Safety has said, since we formed government, we have been vigilant in fighting against foreign interference and ensuring we have in place the people, resources, tools and oversight to defend our institutions, Parliament and Canadians. We will continue to do that work together.
On the specifics of what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills raised, I cannot comment, of course, on an intelligence leak that was the basis of the Globe and Mail's reporting on the alleged allegations by the Chinese government. However, I will raise a few points.
I will use an example of the situation of the question of privilege raised by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent respecting the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying from a previous session. The member raised his question of privilege the day after the other members had raised other questions of privilege the day earlier. The Speaker at that time ruled that the member did not raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity and, therefore, declined to find a prima facie case due to this fact.
The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, in his intervention, stated that he had not raised the matter at the earliest opportunity and stated:
Our authorities refer to the need for questions of privilege to be raised at the earliest opportunity in the House. While the Globe and Mail report was published yesterday morning, this afternoon is the first opportunity I have had to raise this point of privilege. In fact, this afternoon is the first time I have been up in the House since the report was published in The Globe and Mail.
I would like to examine whether, in fact, the member was not able to raise this matter earlier. The day the Globe and Mail story broke, in the morning of May 1, the leader of the Conservative Party was able to ask at least 10 questions in Oral Questions on this matter. During Routine Proceedings on the morning of May 2, the House leader from the Conservative Party requested an emergency debate on the matter respecting foreign intimidation, which had been raised in question period earlier. The leader of the Conservative Party then ostensibly challenged the Speaker on his ruling to not allow the emergency debate to proceed. That afternoon, after the matter was raised repeatedly during question period, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills then finally, at 3:30 p.m., raised his question of privilege.
Given these facts, the statement that the member made that the afternoon of May 2 was the earliest opportunity to raise his question of privilege clearly stretches the limit of credulity. I take all members in this place at their word, but the sequence of events over Monday, May 1, and the morning May 2 raises serious questions about the veracity of the statement that 3:30 p.m. was, indeed, the earliest that this question could have been raised.
Although I cannot refer to the presence or absence of members in the House, I would note that, now that we are in hybrid mode, there is no reason the member could not have raised the matter at the earliest opportunity, which would have been Monday morning, particularly as he stated that this matter is serious and grave.
If a member believes an issue is serious enough to constitute a prima facie case of privilege, he or she has an obligation to raise it at the earliest opportunity. The delay cannot be justified by a member wishing to conduct research to supplant his or her argument with various precedents to support, or to consult legal counsel.
The Speaker has, at his disposal, all relevant procedural precedents and access to procedural authorities to deal with this matter. The precedents are crystal clear. A member must raise the issue at the earliest opportunity. This did not occur in this instance.
The actions that allegedly took place, according to a leaked document as it relates to the member's family abroad, outside of Canada, beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament to deal with.
Finally, since these are uncorroborated statements that were allegedly leaked by a member of Canada's security services, it is impossible for the House to confirm the facts in this instance. As the Globe and Mail story stated, the individual would not disclose their identity so as to not breach the Security of Information Act. Allegations that the House cannot corroborate can never serve as a determinative means to establish a prima facie case of privilege.
Moreover, on Monday, May 1, the Prime Minister asked senior officials to consider the matter immediately.
I therefore conclude that this matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, and uncorroborated allegations should not be seen as meeting the high threshold for a Speaker to find a prima facie case of privilege.
Before I conclude, I would also like to set the record straight about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills' assertion that the government did not tell him about the Chinese government's alleged actions.
The Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister became aware of the matter following the story that appeared in The Globe and Mail on May 1. On May 2, security officials also briefed the member on all the information that could be provided.
Additionally, the member has received briefings from CSIS on a number of occasions regarding the fact that his work makes him a target of foreign governments. Unfortunately, we live in a time when many foreign governments are targeting democratically elected members of the House. Going forward, we have made it clear to CSIS that, in cases of threats to an MP or their family, regardless of a level of concern, the MP should be briefed quickly and thoroughly.
This is not a partisan issue. We must all work together to defend our institutions, the communities and, most importantly, the parliamentarians who serve on behalf of their communities to protect our democracy.
1127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:27:08 p.m.
- Watch
I appreciate the added information, which will be included with the other information previously provided to be considered for the upcoming response.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:27:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request that the ordinary time of daily adjournment for the next sitting be 12 o'clock midnight pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:28:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I would further put forward that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the respective stages of said bill.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:28:19 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:28:37 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:28:43 p.m.
- Watch
Do we have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:28:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 so we could begin private members' hour.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, the arrival of a new child into one's family is a precious and exciting time for parents. As a mom of four, I know first-hand how important, demanding and wonderful that time truly is. For adoptive and intended parents, that time is equally meaningful and critical for the well-being of their new child, yet Canada's parental benefit system does not treat families who grow their families through surrogacy and adoption equally.
Canada's employment insurance program provides critical financial supports to new parents through maternal and paternal benefits while they care and bond with their new child. However, adoptive and intended parents are entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave. That is because they cannot access maternity leave benefits. It is about time that all parents have access to the time they deserve and need with their children.
It is for that reason that I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-318. This bill delivers parity through the creation of a new 15-week employment insurance benefit for adoptive and intended parents. It also makes necessary adjustments to the Canada Labour Code's leave entitlement provisions. Mirroring the maternity benefit in terms of the dollar amount and weeks of leave, this benefit will deliver parity while supporting attachment and bonding for families formed through adoption and surrogacy. At its core, this legislation is about the well-being of the child.
Attachment and healthy child development go hand in hand. Healthy attachments form over time as a parent bonds and cares for their child. As parents respond to the needs of their child, their child feels safe, protected and loved. That foundation of security is critical to the long-term health and development of a child.
When a child has healthy attachments, there are countless benefits. They help build their confidence and self-esteem and contribute to their self-control and self-regulation. Healthy attachments help a child build relationships with others and have trust in those relationships. They encourage exploration and learning. When a child experiences failures or challenges, healthy attachments help build resiliency and stability.
These attachments are formed between a child and their parent in the early stages of life, including in utero, but also throughout their childhood and adolescent years. The benefits of healthy attachments are lifelong. The quality of the relationship between a child and their parent or caregiver will significantly impact their social, emotional and cognitive developments.
Bill C-318 recognizes the complexities of attachment for families formed through adoption and surrogacy. Adopted children have experienced an attachment disruption in some form. When they are placed with their new families, they are building new attachments, and that process is informed by a child's life experiences, including possible past traumas.
An absence of healthy attachments in their life prior to their placement can present unique challenges. Time is so critical for adoptive parents and their children to form healthy attachments. For families formed through surrogacy, time to bond is also critical for the successful emotional transfer from a surrogate to the parents. Allowing parents to be present for 15 more weeks with their child will help them form healthy attachments, and ultimately, it will have a positive impact on the long-term outcomes of the family.
Every child is valuable and deserving of the safety and security that come with healthy attachments. This legislation will ensure that our system of parental benefits in Canada does not discriminate against certain families. We owe that to the children impacted by this policy. They all deserve time to attach.
Shortly after I was first elected, I met with a group that was advocating for a time to attach for adoptive families. Kyla was among that group. She sat in my office and shared her adoption story. She shared the challenges she experienced in connecting with her new parents. Adopted as a sibling set when she was 11 years old, Kyla highlighted the unique challenges and pressures that her mom faced in balancing the care of her and her siblings. Kyla made a compelling case for more time to attach.
Since that first meeting, I have had the opportunity to hear from many more adoptive families about how meaningful 15 more weeks together would have been for them, how 15 more weeks would have eased the pressure and how it would have better supported their families. I have also had the opportunity to hear from intended parents about how much it would mean to them to spend a full year with their newborn. They have talked to me about the challenges of having 15 fewer weeks of leave when it comes to finding child care. They have also expressed the heartbreak and concern about potentially missing some of their child's firsts when they are forced to go back to work earlier than other parents.
Simply put, having equality in our benefits landscape and a time to attach benefit is good policy. It is why it has been in the last two Conservative election platforms. However, let me be clear: This is a non-partisan issue. In fact, we have seen some form of support from all sides of the aisle.
The NDP member for Winnipeg Centre sponsored a petition last fall for a time to attach benefit that garnered over 3,000 signatures. The Conservative member for Calgary Shepard previously sponsored a petition for parity in parental benefits that garnered thousands of signatures. The human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities committee recommended that the government explore the attachment benefit in a 2021 report entitled “Modernizing the Employment Insurance Program”. The Liberals have also introduced this attachment benefit for adoptive parents in their last two election platforms, and it was included in the 2019 and 2021 mandate letters for the minister.
Despite all of this support, the Liberal government has failed to bring it home for adoptive parents. The Liberals have not prioritized delivering this benefit to them. Most recently, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion publicly alluded that a benefit for adoptive and intended parents would be included in her government's budget, yet when the budget was delivered it was nowhere to be found.
It has already been years since the government first promised this benefit. Adoptive and intended parents should not have to keep waiting. There are families today who need and deserve this benefit. There are children today whose development would be better supported. The longer this common-sense policy is delayed, the more families will miss out on precious time together.
Beyond the undeniable developmental benefits of additional time together, these families deserve to have an additional 15-week benefit. Like the existing maternity and parental benefits, only parents who have contributed to the employment insurance program would be eligible to receive the proposed benefit. The adoptive and intended parents are already contributing equally to our employment insurance program, as are their employers, but other families are receiving more in return for the same level of contribution.
Adoptive and intended parents should be treated fairly, but the reality is that our current system discriminates against them. Bill C-318 addresses that discrimination. In terms of dollars and weeks of leave, it would deliver parity to them.
It is also worth noting that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has costed the implementation of this bill. The impact of this proposed benefit on the employment insurance fund would be very minimal. In fact, it would be so minimal that it would not require an increase to employer or employee premiums.
While the cost of this proposed benefit in the context of the employment insurance program may not be immense, the impact of the proposed benefit for the families who would have access to it is truly priceless. It would afford them more time together as a family. It would foster healthy attachments. It would ease some of the pressures faced in the critical first year of a child's life or placement with family. It is difficult to fully measure what it would mean to each of the families impacted by this policy.
While I am proud and honoured to have introduced this bill, I would like to recognize and thank Julie Despaties, Cathy Murphy and the countless other Canadians who have tirelessly advocated for a time to attach benefit. I offer my thanks to each and every Canadian who has added their voice to the call for parity in our parental benefits landscape, and thank those who have signed the many petitions, shared their personal stories and championed this issue for the sake of the thousands of Canadians and all the families who would be directly impacted by this proposed benefit.
I truly hope that not only does Bill C-318 find support from all sides of this House, but the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion provide the royal recommendation needed for this legislation to pass. Together, let us give adoptive and intended parents the time they need and deserve with their children.
1554 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to participate in this important debate.
On March 8, 2023, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster introduced the bill before us, Bill C-318, to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. We understand that EI maternity—
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:42:16 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry, but this is questions and comments.
There is five minutes of questions and comments, so does the hon. parliamentary secretary have a question for the member?
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to simply ask what impact introducing these changes or amendments would have on families across Canada.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the benefits are countless. We cannot measure what children would gain by having the time to attach with their parents.
I really hope the parliamentary secretary across the way is encouraging his minister to provide a royal recommendation for this bill so that the Liberals can follow through on their 2019 and 2021 campaign promise.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the hon. member for her important intervention and for introducing this bill.
I am not too sure if the member knows this, but for indigenous communities, first nations, Métis and Inuit, kinship, customary care and adoption are important cultural practices. I wonder if the member would agree that ensuring these forms of adoption, as well as care, would be an important improvement to her bill?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
