Terry Beech

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I we were seatmates for almost a year and a half, and because of that, I know how experienced she is. In fact, she is one of the most experienced members of the House. We are in unprecedented times. I would like to hear the member's reflections on something, given the vastness of her experience. If we talk about the speed at which the government is moving, the focus that we have in creating prosperity and creating good, high-paying jobs, what is the importance of that as it relates to this legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano will be deeply and profoundly missed in this House, on the North Shore, in B.C. and across Canada. We were nominated as neighbours within weeks of each other, and for more than 12 years, I have had the pleasure of watching his impact on our community and our country. The only solace I have is that Europe, the world and Canada get to continue to benefit from His Excellency's new position. He did not do this alone. He is notorious for surrounding himself with the best people, and I thought he might want to take this opportunity to acknowledge some of the great Canadians with whom he has had the opportunity to work over the years.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our friend does not get enough time to talk in the chamber, so I have arranged for a literal “choose your own adventure” question, remarking both on his speech and also on his previous answers. On affordability, I know for a fact how much dental care, child care and the national school food program have helped constituents in my riding of Burnaby North—Seymour. On defence, the member talked about how we went from less than 1% in the Harper days to more than 2%, but he did not talk about how the economy has grown, so it sounds like we doubled the spending, but we more than doubled it. With regard to the Conservatives' saying that we are antidevelopment, we are actually at a stage where there is record bitumen production in Alberta, record royalties and record corporate profit. On any of those three areas that the member would like to talk about, I would like to hear his ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a profound sense of gratitude and purpose as we debate Bill C-222, otherwise known as Evan's law, at report stage. This is a bit of a historic moment. Just two days ago, we officially secured a royal recommendation for the legislation. This marks only the fourth time in Canadian history that a private member's bill has received a royal recommendation and the first time it has ever been obtained through this specific legislative path. We were, in fact, joking about this just before the debate started. Before we discuss the mechanics of the bill and the amendments before us today, we must remember why we are here. Legislation often deals in the cold realities of budgets, bureaucracy and statutory language, but Evan's law is fundamentally about compassion. It is about how our government treats Canadian families in some of their darkest moments. For me, this is deeply personal. As I shared during second reading, my wife and I came incredibly close to losing one of our daughters during a difficult birth. Those 20 days we spent in the NICU gave us a glimpse of the heartbreak that is experienced by many families. In fact, we are still friends with many of the families we met in the NICU during that experience. Sadly, for approximately 1,600 families in Canada every year, there is no happy ending. They leave the hospital without their child, and they return home to a government system that inadvertently adds to their unimaginable pain. Under the current rules of the Employment Insurance Act, if a child passes away while a parent is on leave, the parent legally ceases to qualify for parental benefits in that very moment. Members can consider what this means in practice. In the midst of planning a funeral and grieving a profound loss, a parent is expected to contact Service Canada immediately. If they do not, they are subject to a financial liability that the Canada Revenue Agency will later claw back. Parents can switch to EI sickness benefits, which offer similar financial support, but to do so, they have to contact Service Canada every two weeks and prove that they are still grieving, to rejustify their need for support. Imagine forcing grieving parents to repeatedly explain their tragedy to strangers every 14 days. It is a cruel and unnecessary administrative burden placed on people who are barely holding it together. In fact, we do not need to imagine this because we heard these stories during the committee appearances at HUMA. I have always believed that Bill C-222 sells itself. It is straightforward and compassionate, and it provides an elegant solution to a glaring bureaucratic failure. Evan's mom is a constituent of Burlington. As the two former ministers of Service Canada, the member for Burlington and I were well-versed in what was operationally possible within the department. We were careful to maximize the benefit for grieving families while simultaneously reducing administrative and incremental costs. It is one of those rare cases in government where we can do the right thing while reducing unnecessary red tape. From the beginning, we have had strong and early support from the Minister of Finance and ESDC. When we presented the framework to the Prime Minister last spring, it was very well received. During second reading, the debate was incredibly compelling and the bill was unanimously supported by the House. When the bill proceeded to the HUMA committee, the testimony we heard was extraordinarily moving. Many MPs commented that it was some of the most heart-wrenching testimony they had ever heard during a legislative debate. I want to give immense credit to our committee colleagues from all parties. When I first introduced the bill, I was honest that I was going to need help to secure a royal recommendation. I was honest that it was going to be difficult. The committee worked brilliantly and strategically to keep the bill strictly within its original scope so that it could survive the legislative process, paving the exact procedural runway needed for the Prime Minister and cabinet to officially support it with the royal recommendation that we have before us today. That brings us to the amendments being introduced at this stage. As I promised in the House, I committed to working co-operatively to tie up the technical loose ends to properly execute this within the EI framework. The government amendments before us today do exactly that. Rather than abruptly cutting off support, the newly amended framework would explicitly ensure that parental benefits can continue to be paid for the entire eligibility period, whether that is the 40-week standard or the 69-week extended window. It clarifies that these benefits remain payable even when the eligibility period has been extended for special circumstances such as hospitalization. Crucially, these amendments introduce a vital safety net. If a child tragically passes away near the very end of a parent's leave, when they have limited remaining entitlement, the amendments grant up to five additional weeks of benefits per eligible parent. This would ensure equitable support for all families, regardless of when a tragedy occurs. Furthermore, we are making corresponding amendments to the Canada Labour Code. We are extending job-protected bereavement leave to 17 weeks. This ensures parents will have the protected time off they need to access these EI benefits and provides additional flexibility for mothers whose maternity leave overlaps with their bereavement. Most importantly, we are addressing the cruel administrative burdens. The amendments introduce a regulatory authority allowing the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to establish a compassionate, simplified notification process, such as a basic attestation. This avoids forcing parents into biweekly reporting, while ensuring and protecting program integrity. I also want to address the fiscal reality of the bill head-on. While some costing estimates looked at payouts in isolation, they failed to account for the fact that many of these parents would otherwise switch to EI sickness benefits, which pay out a similar amount. Therefore, on a net basis, the measures are somewhat cost neutral. In fact, there are savings because the CRA will no longer need to chase down grieving parents for clawbacks. As well, by stopping Service Canada offices from having to process biweekly sickness reports, we are reducing administrative waste. We are saving the government money while delivering infinitely better services to Canadians. This is a prime example of Parliament working exactly as it should, prioritizing compassion, focusing on practical solutions and working across the aisle to get the details right. My hope now is that we can move quickly through the House and through the Senate. It is my expectation that we will get this bill implemented before Christmas of this year. Once that happens, any parent who faces the unimaginable loss of losing a child while on parental leave will no longer face additional administrative cost pressures from our government. Instead, they will be given the time, space and support they need to heal. Wednesday was a historic day, but we will not stop pushing until affected parents are directly benefiting from Evan's law. Let us pass this bill. Let us show Canadians that their Parliament can be efficient, smart, and above all, kind and compassionate.

Madam Speaker, I only have five minutes, but I am not going to take a lot of it. I will start by saying thanks. I want to thank all of my colleagues who contributed, not just today but in the first hour. To all of my colleagues who have been working on this for several years, either at the HUMA committee or in various ways, it is hard for me to explain why it has perhaps taken this long to get to this place. However, I am going to do everything I can to make sure this bill gets across the line. I especially want to thank the members who presented their own personal, individual stories. The fact that we have members in this House who could have benefited from this bill, who are willing to be vulnerable, get up and tell their stories, tells us how impactful this is for the more than 1,600 families this affects across Canada. I would like to thank them next. For those families who have had this happen, I thank them for sharing their stories, which are not easy to tell. Those families told their stories not for their own personal benefit but for the benefit of the next family that may benefit from this particular legislation. For that, I say a real heartfelt thank you. I want to thank the Minister of Jobs and Families, the Minister of Finance and all of their staff who have helped work through various iterations of this bill and who will continue to work as we go through, hopefully, to the committee process and on to what I hope is third reading and royal assent. Of course, I want to thank the critics, both the old critic and the new critic in the Bloc and the critics in all the parties, for their communication and their work on this so far. For the 1,600 families that would benefit from it, this bill would provide a simple and elegant fix. A Bloc member rose in the first hour and asked if this was a good measure, saying that it seems to have universal support but that they were concerned about the royal recommendation. They asked me if we had the royal recommendation. I answered honestly that I did not have it and needed everybody's help to try to get it. I am happy to update the House and say that I believe we have found a path to get a royal recommendation. However, it will require co-operation at committee, and we have to tie up a few loose ends. The required amendments are straightforward. They do not change the purpose of the bill; they simply ensure sound legislative execution. We will work diligently to make sure that is successful. The last thing we want to do is have another bill go all the way through and then not actually help those 1,600 families. I believe there is broad agreement in the House to move this quickly to HUMA. I do not think it will take long to study it. We could have it back in the House and actually, probably, have the bill wrapped up by February. We have the evidence and the stories. We have the solution right in front of us. For the benefit of all Canadians and those future families who, in the most unfortunate of circumstances, might face this kind of tragedy, let us get this done. Let us use this moment to help those future families.