44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 4, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, attachment is so important any time a child is placed, and it is more and more common, actually, for children to be placed with families when they are older, especially with adoption. That time is so critical.
Some people may think that 15 weeks does not matter, but it does matter. These children are sometimes coming from trauma and, as I said, from some form of disrupted attachment. Attachment is crucial for the cognitive, emotional and social development of kids of any age, whenever the brain is developing. We know, especially for boys, that this does not finish until about the age of 24, so attachment time is critical.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the member mentioned, our government has supported providing adoptive parents with an additional 15 weeks of leave to make sure that they get the same level of support to care for children as other parents do. We have also made many important investments for the well-being of children and families across Canada.
I would like to ask the member opposite this. What steps does she propose to take to monitor the effectiveness of these new policies, or, if needed, how does she intend to make the necessary adjustments for the future?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it would be great to see if the member could talk to the minister and urge her to provide the royal recommendation so that the Liberals can follow through with their campaign promises from 2019 and 2021.
As I said, this is a non-partisan issue. I really think this is something that can be discussed, especially when the bill gets to committee and when it comes back to the House. I plead for this to be a non-partisan issue. There are so many kids who are being robbed of the time to attach with their parents, so I urge the government to provide the royal recommendation for this bill.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise a second time on this issue, because it gives me another opportunity to thank my colleague across the way for raising this important issue in the House. 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 and parental benefits need to be fair for all workers, and that is why we are committed to providing adoptive parents with an additional 15 weeks of leave, to ensure that they receive the same level of support to care for their children as all parents do. We know that adoptive parents have advocated for this. They have rightly noted that all new parents need time with their children to help them grow and to create a meaningful and lasting bond. There is no question that the arrival of a new child is a precious time for all parents, and that is why we remain committed to providing adoptive parents and intended parents with the time that they need to bring their children home and create a sense of attachment with their children. The question is not whether we do this, but how we do this. Simply put, what is the best way to get it done?
We know that EI is a critical program that serves millions of Canadians each year. Canadians rely on it when they find themselves out of work, when they want to start a family or when they need to take time to care for a loved one or to get better themselves. We can all agree that EI benefits need to be fair, more responsive and more adaptable to the needs of Canada's evolving workforce.
Work is already under way to modernize the program. Our intent is to build a simpler EI program that meets the needs of Canadians for decades to come. The hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has led more than 35 national and regional round tables with stakeholders representing workers, employers, unions, industry groups and academics. The minister also heard from individuals, including parents and soon-to-be parents, through an online survey that had more than 1,900 respondents. Furthermore, we received over 160 written submissions and held three technical workshops.
During these consultations, we considered the needs of parents who create their families through adoption and surrogacy. We talked about making EI maternity and parental benefits more inclusive of the way families are formed. The consultations found enthusiastic support for providing adoptive parents with an additional 15 weeks of leave. Canada's current EI program provides parental benefits to parents who need to take time away from work to care for a newborn or a newly adopted child. When parents share benefits, they can receive up to 40 weeks of standard parental benefits, or 69 weeks under extended parental benefits. 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.
I am pleased to say that budget 2023 proposes continued prudent investments in Canada's EI program, including and extending financial supports for workers in seasonal industries. Budget 2023 also proposes establishing a new, independent board of appeal to hear cases regarding EI claims. As a tripartite organization, the new board of appeal would put first-level EI appeal decisions back into the hands of those who pay into the system.
Since 2015, our government has promised we would have the backs of Canadians, and we have kept that promise every step of the way. From the middle-class tax cut to the Canada child benefit, affordable child care, and incentivizing shared leave, our government has delivered real results for Canadians. Canadians and parliamentarians have expressed the strong need to reform the employment insurance program. As the minister has said, EI reform is a priority for our government, and we will get it done. We look forward to delivering on our commitment to provide adoptive parents with an additional 15 weeks of leave to ensure that they receive the same level of support to care for their children as other parents receive.
712 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I am pleased to represent Nunavut regarding Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, as introduced by the hon. member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster. Qujannamiik to the member for introducing this bill.
New Democrats support this bill. It would create a 15-week attachment leave benefit for adoptive and intended parents, through the employment insurance system. During my speech, I will describe benefits for children, parents and overall Canadian society. I will describe troubling realities substantiating the need for Bill C-318 to be passed.
It is unfortunate that it has reached the House as a private member’s bill, given that in 2019, and again in the last election, the Liberals promised to introduce legislation in this area. Regardless, we will continue to hold the Liberal government accountable to its promises brought by this bill. The NDP is committed to ensuring that all parents and caregivers, whether biological, adoptive, intended, customary or kinship, can spend time at home with their children in the critical first year.
Research shows that the quality of a child’s attachment impacts the overall health and development of the child. The benefits of passing this bill will be most prominent for children. Children with strong attachments are more likely to form strong relationships with peers, be better able to regulate their emotions and be less dependent on their caregivers.
I have personal experience. I strongly believe that, because of the strong bonds that were created in the early years of my life, I have been able to cope with the adversity I was forced to experience later in my life. Parents adopting and those intending to be parents need to receive the same benefits, so that adopted children can have the same sense of coping for their future. I have seen the benefits of ensuring those strong bonds early in life, through watching my grandchildren bonding with their parents in the time spent together early in their lives.
Adoption is an important practice in Nunavut, and providing this benefit will help many of my constituents. Unfortunately, Bill C-318 does not reflect our customary adoption practices. While the bill is an important step in the right direction, it does not include kinship and customary caregivers, which are particularly important for Métis, first nations and Inuit.
Kinship and customary care reflect indigenous culture and traditions, and are an alternative to foster care or group home placements. We want to ensure that an attachment leave benefit is inclusive of kinship and customary caregivers, as well as adoptive and intended parents.
Providing parents or caregivers with an additional attachment leave benefit so that they can develop these stronger attachments is crucial for children’s well-being. This benefit would provide adoptive and intended parents with much-needed financial security and improve outcomes for children, many of whom are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and have a history of trauma and loss.
Providing a 15-week paid attachment leave would ease the burden being placed on women who are adoptive or intended parents or kinship and customary caregivers. Providing them with the financial support they need would help ensure stronger attachments with their adopted or intended children.
The societal benefits would be seen with a healthier Canada, in children who are able to enter the school system prepared and ready to adjust to a world where they can learn to have friendships and learn to realize the importance of becoming contributing members of society.
The need to pass Bill C-318 is evident in the disproportionate amount of unpaid caregiving work that takes place in this country, mostly on the part of women. Indeed, more than half of women in Canada give care to children and dependent adults, and almost one-third give unpaid care to children.
New Democrats will support this bill, work to improve it so that it includes kinship and customary caregivers, and hold the Liberals accountable to deliver on their promises to ensure that adoptive and intended parents get the benefits they deserve.
I would like to conclude by sharing what we as New Democrats have heard from important agencies across Canada. The Child and Youth Permanency Council and Adopt4Life are calling for the creation of a new, paid, 15-week attachment leave benefit to adoptive and intended parents and kinship and customary caregivers. I very much appreciate their Time to Attach campaign, which has been effective in building public support for this change.
I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who had a petition on the 15-week attachment leave benefit. It garnered so much support by many.
Julie Despaties, from Adopt4Life, has said:
Canada’s current parental leave program does not recognize the unique attachment needs of children and youth joining adoptive families and is creating avoidable harms. We need this change, so families are no longer disadvantaged because they are formed through adoption.
Finally, Cathy Murphy, the chairperson of the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada, said:
The Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada is pleased to see Private Member's Bill C-318 from [the member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster] brought to first reading. Equitable attachment leave for adoptive parents, customary and kinship caregivers is long overdue, and we look forward to seeing these EI revisions.
901 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-318, which basically gives adoptive parents the same rights as biological parents by providing adoptive parents with the same 15 weeks of benefits that biological parents get. The Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of this bill, which will ensure fairness for all parents.
I can think of many arguments to support this cause. One is the importance of having time to bond with the child. This bond is important from the beginning. Adoptive parents also need time to prepare for the child's arrival. Children from newborn to six months old bond as strongly with adoptive parents as with biological parents. After the age of six months, it is more complex.
The average age of children waiting to be adopted is now six years. How effectively that bond develops will depend very much on the past experiences and traumas that adopted children may have had. If the bond does not develop properly, it can lead to many behavioural problems. On average, adopted children have more problems in this area. In many cases, adoption can also be seen as a healing and recovery process for the child.
We also know that children may need professional services, and adoptive parents must have time to arrange that. There are legal standards and international standards. I believe that all levels of government must fight discrimination against adoptive parents.
The important thing is that children's rights be at the centre of this debate. We know that in many other countries, adoptive parents get the same rights, services and benefits as biological parents. The government side has already announced that this private member's bill will need a royal recommendation. I will come back to that.
With respect to the right to equal and equitable treatment of both biological and adoptive parents in relation to bonding time, the Government of Quebec announced in December 2019 that the amount of parental leave granted to adoptive parents would be brought in line with the amount granted to biological parents, and that measure came into force in 2020.
I sincerely want to commend those responsible for the Time to Attach campaign, as well as Ms. Despaties, founder and executive director of Adopt4Life, for their determination. I also salute Mrs. Falk of the Conservative Party for introducing this bill. Finally, a petition sponsored by Ms. Gazan that collected more than 3,000 signatures was tabled on January 30, 2023.
As stated earlier, this is an issue that goes beyond partisanship. I would like to recall for members, and Mrs. Falk will remember—
447 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:04:48 p.m.
- Watch
I must remind the hon. member that we do not refer to members by name in the House. We only refer to them by their riding name.
The hon. member for Thérèse‑De Blainville has five minutes and 39 seconds remaining.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize to you and to my Conservative Party colleague. I really want to commend her for this initiative.
I would even remind her that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a study in 2021 on a comprehensive EI reform. I think everyone remembers that.
At the time, the government committed to building a stronger, more inclusive and modern EI system that covers all workers, including adoptive parents. I will read recommendation 12 from the committee's report on modernizing the employment insurance program. It states: “That Employment and Social Development Canada explore the option of creating 'attachment benefits' modeled after Employment Insurance maternity benefits, to ensure equitable treatment of adoptive, kinship, customary and biological parents in the amount of time and benefits provided to bond with their children.”
In December 2021, the mandate letter of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion asked her to create a new 15-week benefit for adoptive parents.
My critique about this debate is that, once again, we have to rely on private members' bills. That was what we had to do when we wanted to increase EI sickness benefits to 52 weeks. Now we have to do it again if we want biological and adoptive parents to be treated equally. Despite the government's pretty words, and despite its repeated commitment to EI reform and all its other commitments, nothing is happening. Absolutely nothing is happening because the government seems to have reneged on its 2021, 2019, and even 2015 promise to strengthen the EI system and provide the rights that should be provided. That is not what is happening.
For example, pregnant women who lose their jobs during pregnancy are not entitled to regular EI benefits because the program's eligibility criteria currently discriminate against them. The government committed to correcting this inequity for women and committed to revising the program to ensure that the eligibility criteria do not penalize them if they lose their jobs. The tribunal ruled in favour of the women, finding that the eligibility criteria were discriminatory. The government decided to appeal the ruling rather than fix the situation. Reforming EI is the way to fix it.
Right now, seasonal workers in many parts of Canada, including western Canada, eastern Canada and Quebec, are sounding the alarm and demanding EI eligibility requirements that do not penalize their socio-economic regions. While waiting for their work to start up again, these people have to get by with no income during the EI seasonal gap, even though seasonal industries are what keep these regions alive.
The minister was asked to respond to this again recently. Regions represented by my colleagues from the north shore, Gaspé and Charlevoix depend on seasonal industries to survive. None of this will get any better without political will.
Today the Liberals will say this needs a royal recommendation, or they will claim they do not know what to do about it.
There is only one way to go about it: All the injustices, all the EI eligibility requirements need to be changed. The government needs to stop asking questions about how it should be done and just do it. It needs to seize this opportunity and correct these inequities, just as the measures proposed in this bill would do by providing adoptive parents and biological parents with equal treatment when it comes to fundamental bonding time. I invite the minister to present a royal recommendation, but I urge her for once and for all to introduce a bill to reform EI. Workers, women and parents deserve it.
615 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country and an honour to speak in favour of the legislation brought forward by my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
Bill C-318 is an essential piece of legislation because it would allow this House to ensure equity in our laws for every Canadian family, especially and specifically for adoptive and intended parents. Just to be clear, intended parents are parents who, for varying reasons, may need to engage with a surrogate in order to have a child, and there may be various scenarios around this. They often go to great lengths to have a child and welcome a child into their home.
The challenges all new parents face are too many to count. That is why it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to do all we can to ensure fairness and equity for all parents in the employment insurance program and the Canada Labour Code.
Today, any new parent will receive parental benefits, but adoptive and intended parents do not receive maternity benefits and, therefore, fewer weeks of benefits. We rightfully recognize that time for attachment is vital, and it is just as needed for intended and adoptive parents. Forming a loving bond can come with extra challenges, especially when it has been estimated that most children adopted in Canada are over the age of 10 at the time of placement.
The lack of a specific benefit to provide parents the time to attach with a child adds extra burden on the ability of these children in need of love to bond with the family they can make a home with. Intended parents need just as much time to care for and bond with a child as well. Any time there can be an opportunity for a parent and child to bond, we should embrace it, and any time we can support adoptive parents or intended parents and their children, we should embrace it.
I recall someone saying to me almost 10 yeas ago, “Find your voice,” and I did not know what that meant at the time, but with an opportunity like this today, on this legislation, I can be a voice not only for my life’s journey, but for others.
I am going to talk about something extremely personal right now, and I feel the context of this legislation warrants me bringing some of my life’s experience, through my voice, into this conversation and into the discussion around this legislation.
I was adopted at birth. I was born in Edmonton, and my parents drove to Edmonton from Lethbridge to pick me up and bring me back to their home in Lethbridge, Alberta, which is where I grew up. I tell part of my life story in this place today with the utmost honour, respect and love for my mom and dad.
My dad passed away in 2014 and my mom passed away in the middle of the pandemic lockdowns in 2020. My dad was a firefighter and my mom was a teacher. Choosing to adopt when they found out as a newly married couple that they could not have kids must have been a big decision for my parents. When my parents started building their family, my mom had to step back from teaching for many years.
I knew from as early as I could remember that I was adopted. My parents never hid this within the family, but they also never, ever, called me their adopted child, and I never saw my parents as my adoptive parents. They chose to adopt. They chose to devote their lives to having a family, to mentor and raise. They chose to be parents, and they are my parents. I say this at the same time with respect also for my birth parents, who, as a young unwed couple, chose to give me up for adoption.
This legislation would make equal the ability for parents, whatever that looks like, to be on equal footing and receive equal benefits. I am proudly supporting, and am actually the official legislative seconder of, this legislation, Bill C-318. It would support and be inclusive for all those who choose to be intended or adoptive parents. It would treat everyone equally.
Whether someone is part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, whether they have children from other partners that they are bringing together under one roof as a family, whether they had to have a child through a surrogate, whether they adopt domestically or internationally, or whether they have a combination of the above or different family scenarios that I have not mentioned, all family dynamics and scenarios are embraced in this legislation. If we truly want to be inclusive, that means equity. Currently, if someone is an adoptive or intended parent, they do not have equity in the benefits they may receive in order to allow them time to bond with their child.
Let us talk about circumstances with some adopted children who may require extra levels of attention, care and compassion. Some children can come from places of trauma, loss or grief. Some children have complex medical or mental health challenges. Without that early care and attachment, these issues can alter their lives into adulthood. It is important to provide the time for the parent and child not only to bond but also to work on the needs of the child. For parents who adopt internationally or are caring for a child within Canada from a different linguistic background, that additional time can be used to help bridge linguistic or cultural barriers. For a family that adopts a child with special needs, the extra time for attachment will provide not just the chance to connect with their new child but also the time they need to learn more about the resources and services that may be available to manage their child’s unique needs.
Parents of adopted children, or intended parents, already take this time today. However, they often take unpaid leave to do it. That is simply not fair. Government policy must treat all new families fairly and equitably. Supporting the benefits that Bill C-318 would extend to all families will make Canada a better place.
According to a report from the Adoption Council of Canada, in the 2017-18 fiscal year, 2,336 children were adopted. However, the council admits that these numbers do not reflect customary care placements. Even if we assume that those placements would double this number, it would pale in comparison to the 30,000 Canadians eligible for permanent adoption, a number given in a 2021 report from the Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada. These children are waiting for good homes. Benefits like the ones Bill C-318 seeks to create will ensure that we fully respect all families.
In closing, I would like to refer back to the report from the Adoption Council of Canada. Specifically, there is a quote that provides context to this debate from the point of view of an anonymous adoptive parent. The life experience it refers to is very similar to mine. It says, “It is incredibly important for not just the federal government but society in general to recognize all parents”. It goes on to say, “My daughter is my daughter. She is not my ‘adopted’ daughter. I am her mother. I am not her ‘adoptive’ mother. There is still much that needs to change.”
These families are Canadian heroes, providing loving homes to children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. We should erase any dividing lines in our laws or support systems by which they are not entirely recognized as the families they truly are.
I sincerely hope that all members of the House can put their partisanship aside to support this wonderfully positive and family-focused bill, which was put together by a caring mom and seconded by a mom who was adopted at birth and who has an incredible son. Let us ensure equitability for adoptive and intended parents and pass this bill.
1364 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always encouraging when we get members standing up speaking on legislation who share their personal story. I do want to thank the member. I know I speak on behalf of all members. When members explain a very personal story, such as she has done in such an elegant way, it really brings the importance of the issue to the floor of the House.
The deputy House leader and I did get a chance to talk about the issue. I think there is a great deal of sympathy in regards to why the government should do what it needs to do in order to enhance EI. I am sure that the member is aware that we, as a government, have talked about the importance of EI generally speaking. However, when we think in terms of the specifics of what this legislation would do, we talked about during an election and post election. We saw a very passionate minister who is actually very keen on looking at ways in which we can improve the employment insurance regime.
A considerable amount of consultation needs to take place, but I will bring a bit of a different perspective.
There is absolutely no doubt of how an adoptive parent and adopted child love and care, which is reciprocated between them such that, in essence, we could drop the word “adopted”. The adoptive parent will raise the child as his or her own, and we will see the multitude of sacrifices that are made by the parent for the child with a very happy heart, because it is their child. As the child grows, we will see that it is most often reciprocated where the child sees the adoptive parent as their parent. There is no denying the strength of that bond, which is equal, I would suggest, in many ways to a natural birth parent in terms of the care and love connection.
I would like to add something to that. Last year, I was at an event in Winnipeg North with my daughter. We were sitting beside this wonderful lady, Myrna, who is a foster parent, which we just found out that evening. We knew she had a wonderful family, as I had met Myrna in the past, and I had seen her children, who are older, but I did not know that she was a foster parent. I was so impressed with the discussion that we had that we were inspired to do something with respect to foster parents, because the connection that foster parents have with children is strong. In fact, we will find that there is a very direct link when a person gets a child virtually from birth, and this happens quite often, until adulthood.
I do not know if it was in March or April, but there was a debate inside the Manitoba legislature about the connection between non-biological parents and children who are adopted or provided foster care. I have seen the connection. It is very tangible. In fact, what we ended up doing in that particular situation, and the same principles could be applied elsewhere, is recognize them with the jubilee pins we were given for honouring foster children. Based on the discussion we are having here this evening, I suspect we could have just as easily, and I wish we had, given some recognition to adoptive parents, because we should never take this for granted.
When we look at what the government has been talking about, I am sure the member is aware that the minister has a mandate letter. Within that mandate letter, as I understand, there is direction with respect to adoptive parents. We have to take a look at what has been taking place over the last couple of years.
One thing we have seen is that the whole EI area can be very effective at responding to the needs of Canadians in a very real and tangible way. We saw that during the pandemic. We might have had to put some limitations on some of the things we wanted to do as a result of the pandemic and the crisis that all Canadians had to deal with at that time. However, let us not let that discourage individuals following this debate from trying to push forward the idea and principle that we need to recognize adoptive parents through EI reform.
The minister herself has indicated that she genuinely wants to see changes to the EI system. The Prime Minister himself has recognized the importance of the issue. The Prime Minister not only came up with the mandate letters, which all prime ministers have done in the past, but also singled this issue out to this particular minister—
793 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I am sorry, but I do have to cut the hon. member off. The next time this matter is before the House, he will have two minutes left for his speech.
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.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:28:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here to follow up on a question I asked the government last week that is tied to a number of issues. It was tied mainly to the ongoing strike, but highlighted a key concern that I and many Canadians have right across this country in a number of areas.
The current government has increased the public service by, I believe, 53% over the last few years, to the tune of over $21 billion, and unfortunately, service has declined. The strike that just happened is the largest strike in Canadian history. While I will acknowledge it has tentatively come to a conclusion, it does not really get to the point of my main question, which is why it has taken the government two years to get this situation resolved.
That strike, and just the general lack of service support across federal government departments, has impacted, for example, Afghans, who helped Canada, get here because the IRCC has been proven incapable of processing the necessary paperwork. In particular, in the last month, the strike has had an impact on Canadians trying to get their tax returns done on time and, with the challenges many of them are facing due to pandemic benefits that were paid out and now, in some cases, being clawed back, trying to get clarity to understand what they owe and how fast they have to pay it back or work out an appropriate level of support. I personally took issue with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development having the audacity to tell Canadians, while the strike was going on, that their passports were not essential and not to bother applying.
There is another issue that specifically impacted my riding. Georgian College runs a marine program and Transport Canada reassured the college, and the 40 students in the process of finishing the program, ahead of time that they would still have the ability to write their exams and they would be administered on time. Unfortunately, there was a change in tune by Transport Canada while the strike was going on, and those students, who are to become much needed navigators or marine experts in our labour force, were not able to be qualified and get out there as quickly as possible. I am hopeful that will be resolved in a very short time frame.
The fact of the matter is that the strike had a huge impact, and I really just want to understand better why it took the government two years to resolve this situation with the unions when it could have been resolved before a strike even needed to occur.
439 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:32:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Before I answer his fundamental question, I would first like to provide an update to all my colleagues in the House of Commons and to Canadians.
As I am sure everyone is aware, we have reached a tentative agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or PSAC, for the four bargaining units in the core public administration. This is great news for employees and for Canadians.
It was not easy. We negotiated, we compromised and we found creative solutions. After long days, nights and weekends of hard work, we reached fair and competitive agreements for employees, with wage increases of 11.5% over four years, consistent with the recommendations made by the Public Interest Commission. These agreements are also reasonable for taxpayers and provide an additional year of stability and certainty.
The Government of Canada values the important role that public service employees play in providing services to Canadians. PSAC members play an essential role in this work, and these agreements will provide them with important benefits and improvements that recognize their vital contribution.
Now I would like to address the issue of services raised by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
There are a couple of things I will do.
First, I would like to directly answer why it took this long to have negotiations.
I would like to inform the hon. member that the Government of Canada tabled its negotiations just over a year ago. Unfortunately, PSAC chose not to negotiate with us. It walked away from the table. We were always there and ready at the table to start the negotiations so we could have avoided what we experienced over the last two weeks, but it was not to be. It was not until after the publication of the public interest report, as well the public interest commission's report, and some other processes related to the strike mandate before the unions returned to the table. We then negotiated night and day with the bargaining units at the table and came up with a deal that is not only fair and reasonable for public service employees, but also competitive, fair and reasonable for Canadians.
Therefore, I would be happy to talk to the member about the consequences of what has happened and the effects that this two-week strike has had on various services, but I see that I am running close to time, so I will wrap up here. I hope my colleague will allow me to continue providing him the response that he has sought.
442 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:35:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will definitely give the parliamentary secretary a chance to follow up in his remaining minute to really address the issue. I would like him, as well as the government, to acknowledge the terrible impact the strike has had in general, and on the lack of services to Canadians over the last number of months or years in some cases.
Also, I would ask for his advice with respect to what they have learned so that future governments, regardless of political stripe, can get to a resolution prior to a strike reoccurring. Does the parliamentary secretary have anything to offer so that in the future we do not have to get to the same point where our hard-working federal employees have to go on strike?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:36:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the advice I would have is to start the negotiations as early as we can. There are times where it would be unreasonable to expect any future government to start negotiations years in advance of the ending of a contract because conditions will change over time. If we go back three years, I do not think people would have predicted that we would have seen interest rates rise to 5% or 6% as they have. At the time, we were staying at historically low rates for almost a decade, so it would be unreasonable to expect that. However, as soon as they can, say a year out, it makes a lot of sense for governments to do that. I would encourage all future governments to ensure they sit down and negotiate an offer in good faith, and I hope the bargaining units will do the same, because it takes two to tango.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question to the government on February 9 quoted the government House leader's statement in the January 25 edition of The Hill Times that “protecting Canada’s economy and infrastructure from foreign interference and from the rise of despotism” would be the government's third priority in the upcoming session. Today, we can also add the government's repeated promise to protect all members of this House from foreign interference and threats. One hopes that protecting democracy, upholding Canadian laws and ensuring the safety of MPs would ordinarily be a priority for any government.
Therefore, I would again ask the government how its stated priority is coming along, especially in light of the matter involving the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. For some unknown reason, the government is incapable of taking immediate action and kicking out a Chinese diplomat, irrespective of the fact that the individual is a poster child for persona non grata under article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. The section says, “The receiving State [Canada] may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State [China] that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable.” It is pretty straightforward. Is there any ambiguity here? A threshold appears to have been met several times. Why, then, has there been such a delay?
Also, why is there no movement on creating a foreign agent registry similar to those in the United States and Australia? In fact, speaking about Australia, I want to read into the record something that Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, now retired, former commander of the Royal Canadian Navy and Canada's high commissioner to Australia, has said. He points out that relative to Australia, Canada's “[e]xposure to economic coercion is much less than in [Australia], yet Australia has stood up to the CCP [the Chinese Communist Party], absorbed the costs, diversified trade, and made it clear that no foreign power will be permitted to undermine its democracy and values.”
Is it the government's intention to send a clear signal to Beijing that Canada is a doormat? How difficult is it to create a registry? Did the PSAC strike set it back a few weeks? Moreover, how beneficial is it to place an RCMP car outside two illegal Chinese police stations in Quebec? Why can the federal government not shut down these stations? How long would it take the Americans or the Chinese to eradicate illegal police stations in their country? It would not take very long.
How has the government stood up and confronted, head-on, Chinese interference in Canada? Given its feeble record, I am sure its action is not on a sound foundation. With such an abysmal record, how safe should any member feel about the government working to guarantee their safety? Can the parliamentary secretary inform Canadians if we can expect the creation of a foreign agent registry in our lifetime?
527 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:41:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about our government's record when dealing with foreign interference. However, I want to start with where the member seemingly left off.
He asked how long it would take for the U.S. or China to react to these things. I am surprised that he would suggest in the House that we should follow the lead of the Chinese government in how it handles things, whether it is foreign interference or the rules of law and order in its country. We will not take lessons from the Chinese government on that. Instead, we will follow the rule of law in this country as parliamentarians.
As we have heard throughout the debate today, when it comes to illegal police stations, it is absolutely unequivocal that they need to be shut down. However, the suggestion that it is the federal government that polices them in this country shows how naive the member opposite is in terms of the role of the RCMP. I have every bit of faith and trust that the RCMP will do the right things to ensure not only that any illegal police stations that are open will be shut down, but that any additional police stations would be shut down as well. The suggestion that the police require this House to tell them to enforce the law is frankly insulting to our very capable RCMP members.
When it comes to foreign interference, it is not a new phenomenon. It is not unique to Canada. In fact, we have seen many examples of it around the world. The member opposite raised the issue of Australia. We also saw very public cases in the U.S. in the 2016 presidential election, as well as in France, Australia and New Zealand. We hear often of incidents in Estonia of foreign interference by the Russian government.
This is not new. In fact, it was the 2019 NSICOP report in this very House that raised issues of foreign interference and the targeting of MPs. As I have said in the House time and time again, reports are tabled in the House, and even though the suggestion is made that the government somehow never took this seriously and never addressed it, it was in those very reports that all members of the House had access to. It was actually our government, right from the beginning, that took serious action on foreign interference by creating NSICOP and the oversight body NSIRA. We are also moving ahead with a foreign agent registry.
We continue to take serious action on this. If the member opposite thinks there is a silver bullet to solve foreign interference, I would like to inform him that foreign interference is always going to be a threat that all governments must take incredibly seriously. We must be diligent. The forms that foreign interference takes may be changing. All governments and all parliamentarians need to be very aware of that, and all Canadians need to be able to trust the democratic institutions in this country. All governments must take this extremely seriously and continue to combat it.
523 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:45:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of foreign interference touches all Canadians in Canada, and over the last year, I have closely examined circumstances and events involving my situation in Spadina—Fort York. I have reached the conclusion, which is certainly within the realm of possibility, that I may have been subjected to Chinese interference in 2021 such that it destroyed my name and worked to prevent my election in 2021.
I have had a substantial meeting with CSIS of over two hours to discuss my thoughts and concerns. I also plan to meet the Hon. David Johnston to provide him with my information and things that I had shared with CSIS.
I want to assure the government and anyone else that, having put up with racist comments, innuendos, false accusations, threats and sketchy political machinations, I will go forward to determine what and who was behind the despicable takedown effort against me, my name and my reputation, whether they be of Chinese origin or otherwise.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:46:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that, if any members feel they are subject to foreign interference or are in any way being intimidated, then that absolutely should be raised.
I also want to caution that the threats around foreign interference are extremely serious, and that using instances without being able to provide credible evidence is also not a way to simply rebuild a reputation. I read the article in the National Post from May 3, wherein the member opposite makes some of these allegations as to what he believes. I will just point out that, if what was reported in the article was, in fact, true, then it would mean that a foreign entity would have had to have known that he might be potentially a candidate in Spadina—Fort York over three years in advance of the sitting member ever deciding he was not going to run again.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 6:47:37 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, before colonization, Inuit, first nations and Métis were self-governing nations that each had their own forms of keeping well with each other. They had their own laws governing behaviours. They had their own laws governing land and wildlife management. Indigenous peoples were independent nations.
Since about 150 years ago, the ravages of colonialism and the genocide against indigenous peoples have resulted in too many examples, such as what we saw in the tragic story of Dale Arthur Culver. To his family and friends, some of whom I had the privilege of meeting, I again send my sincerest condolences.
For those who may have forgotten, Dale Arthur Culver was a first nations young man from British Columbia. He was racially profiled, which led to his untimely death. I still find it appalling that it took six years to have charges laid against the five RCMP officers who were responsible for his death. Dale and his family deserve justice.
One hundred fifty years later, even after the ravages of colonialism, we are seeing indigenous self-determination. Most nations are starting to be self-governing again, which I am so proud of.
When I first asked the government when it would finally introduce an indigenous policing bill, which it promised it would introduce years ago, instead of answering the question, the government responded by saying it has provided funding. As such, I will repeat my question: When will the current government pass legislation so indigenous peoples can keep themselves safe?
251 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
