Debates of Oct. 24th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as is the custom for members on this side, we consider every single amendment, we consider the impact of those amendments on the lives of Canadians and we make our voting decisions accordingly.

With respect to some of the amendments that were put forward, we heard the term “chain migration” being used. This is very dangerous language use in this place, because it fundamentally misrepresents. My colleague gave the example of a foreign service diplomat who could get tied up in the maelstrom of what the opposition is proposing.

What we are proposing is a reasoned, thoughtful and clear path to citizenship for people who meet the requirements.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way stated that this side of the House supported a moratorium on immigration, which is patently misleading. What we have stated is that the non-partisan consensus on immigration has been broken by the government.

For 30-plus years, between 300,000 and 500,000 people came to Canada and valued this country, and that number bounced around because of economic circumstances and the situations around the world. That consensus was broken when the numbers skyrocketed past one million per year for three years. That was not fair to the immigrants coming in, and it is not fair to Canadians who then faced housing, medical and other shortages in this country. Would the member opposite not agree?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member. I want to say two things. First, I think we all agree that there is an important moment in this country's history to be able to reform the immigration system so that it works in a thoughtful, meaningful way, which is exactly what our government has said we are doing, and that is exactly what we are doing.

The member opposite said that I made a blanket statement about a moratorium on all numbers, but that is not what I said. There are members opposite who have said that, including the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, who said that it was his personal view that there should be a moratorium on immigration. My understanding is that this runs counter to the very policies of the other side, so I would appreciate it if the member opposite would be able to clarify that position, but as far as I am concerned, those are the words of his colleague.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members across the way keep saying that it is because of an anti-immigration attitude that people are critical or would have preferred that the amendments tabled in committee be adopted by the House. I find it really interesting that they are telling us this.

I am not an immigrant. If I go abroad and my children are born abroad, their children will not have Canadian citizenship if they do not spend at least three years here. Why are we victimizing immigrants? It is not immigration that is being targeted here, it is the issue of not granting citizenship to people who do not have sufficient ties to Canada and ensuring that the people who are granted citizenship are people who have demonstrated that attachment.

The issue that divides us is determining the level of attachment required, not whether or not to grant citizenship.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only reason we started talking about immigration and not just citizenship is that the members of the Conservative Party started talking about immigration and the problems related to the system.

It is hard for us to have a meaningful discussion about the concept of citizenship without acknowledging the problems with the immigration system in relation to obtaining citizenship. Even for Canadians, there need to be clear rules that everyone can understand about how to become a Canadian citizen.

That is why it is important for us to weigh this bill responsibly.

Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law)

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

moved that Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, also known as Evan's law.

It is an incredible week for me, personally, to be introducing this legislation. Sunday represented the 10-year anniversary of my first being elected to this House, and I thank my friends and neighbours in Burnaby North—Seymour for continuing to give me their trust and support over all these years. Wednesday represented the 20th anniversary of my wife and I being together. I have to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, but mostly through the television cameras, to my wife Ravi that I love her very much. Of course, I love our two beautiful daughters, Nova and Solar, who are turning seven and five. That means I have been an MP for more than half of my relationship and a father for the majority of my time as an MP.

Why is this an important context for this bill? One of our daughters had a very challenging birth. We came incredibly close to losing her. Had it not been for the day-and-night, 24-hour service of a dedicated team of NICU nurses and doctors at the Royal Columbian Hospital over the first 20 days of her life, she would not have made it. Those 20 days in the NICU gave us a lot of perspective. There was not only a deep feeling of gratitude for everyone who works in our health care system, but an appreciation for the struggles parents of young children face every day. We met families who were both emotionally and financially devastated by the unplanned complications that so many new parents face.

Sadly, not every story has a happy ending. ln Canada, approximately 1,600 families experience the unimaginable heartbreak of losing a child during the period in which they are receiving parental benefits. ln those tragic circumstances, our system currently adds a layer of unnecessary pain and bureaucracy to families who are already facing profound loss.

Under the current rules, once a child passes away, the family technically no longer qualifies for parental benefits. This means that the family begins to accrue a financial liability that will later have to be clawed back. Families can choose to switch to EI sickness benefits, which provide similar compensation, but doing so requires them to contact Service Canada, not just for the initial application, but for every two weeks thereafter to confirm their eligibility. I think we can all agree that this is a cruel and unnecessary burden. Imagine forcing grieving parents to repeatedly explain their tragedy to strangers every 14 days. That is the unfortunate reality of our current system.

Evan's law offers a simple, elegant and compassionate solution. lt states that if an individual qualifies for parental benefits and their child tragically passes away during that period, they would continue to qualify. There would be no phone call, no questions and no clawbacks, and there would be little to no additional cost. There would be no significant incremental increase in cost because parental benefits and the El sickness benefit are nearly identical in value. Actually, this change would save government resources by reducing administrative complexity and eliminating needless red tape. Remember, every time a government official needlessly picks up the phone, it simultaneously increases costs to the taxpayer while decreasing the level of service provided to everyone else.

This is a small and technical amendment. The entire bill, fully translated, is less than one page, double-sided. While I have no delusions that this piece of legislation would change the world, I know it would make a world of difference to those 1,600 Canadian families who are directly impacted.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the many people and partners who helped make this bill possible. l would like to extend my gratitude to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Jobs and Families for their guidance and support as this proposal was developed. I want to recognize the previous members of HUMA who studied this issue in 2019 and whose work laid much of the foundation for this legislation, as well as the hon. member for Burlington, who was previously the minister responsible for Service Canada. She helped draft this legislation. She seconded it and will be speaking to it later today. Simply put, this bill would not exist without her. Also, Evan's parents live in her riding.

Evan's mother, Jennifer, was the individual who first raised this issue after enduring the loss of her child. The power of a free and democratic society is having the ability to turn a person's heartbreak into something that will help thousands of families in the future. I am thankful to Jennifer for her immeasurable contribution to this bill.

I also want to thank members from all parties who have reached out to me directly to express their support, share their personal stories and offer constructive ideas. Compassion does not belong to any one side of this House; it belongs to all of us. I truly believe the bill represents the kind of legislation we could all get behind, reflecting our shared values and shared humanity.

From my time working at Service Canada, I have seen first-hand how simple, innovative changes can make the government not only more service-oriented but also more effective and more efficient. At a time of global uncertainty, our government has expanded services to help make life more affordable and to make Canadian workers more productive. This includes such programs as child care, dental care, pharmacare and the national school food program. All of these programs help improve our quality of life in the short term while growing our economy and our competitiveness in the long term. However, they are only sustainable if we work to make our government as efficient as possible. Our Prime Minister has embodied this philosophy, challenging our government to spend less in operations so we can invest more in growing our economy and unlocking the full potential of Canada and Canadian families.

This piece of legislation aligns perfectly with this philosophy, which is important because we require a royal recommendation for the legislation to pass. I assure members that we are working diligently with the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible to get that recommendation. It is possible to modernize our government, make it more cost-effective and provide better services all at the same time when we work together. Evan's law encapsulates this principle perfectly. It is about creating a system that understands that families who are going through a hard time need compassion. It responds with effective simplicity. It is about designing government that works for people, not against them.

Bill C-222 is a small bill, but it would make a meaningful difference. It is a reminder that good government is about more than budgets and bureaucracy; it is about people and the compassion we show in the moments that matter most. This is a bill that makes sense, saves money and, most importantly, reflects the kind of Canada we want to build, one that is fair, efficient, smart and kind.

I hope all members of the House will join me in supporting Evan's law. If they have any questions or concerns, I invite anyone in this House or listening at home to reach out to me directly.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for making that speech and for bringing the bill forward.

It is going to allow me to raise my son's name: Brenton. I spent 31 days in the NICU, 37 years ago. He did not make it.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for that comment. It was difficult for him to stand up and make that comment.

I was very scared of getting through my section of the speech and had to slow down myself. That is how important the bill is.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also deeply moved. I think there can be no greater tragedy than losing a child. I congratulate the member for introducing this bill, which brings all the current limitations of the Employment Insurance Act into full view.

I would like to know whether, as a member of the government, he has verified that this humane amendment to the act will receive a royal recommendation.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am working diligently to get it.

I can tell the member that the other thing I have been diligently working on as the previous minister responsible is making sure that, if we get that royal recommendation, it could be implemented under the legacy system of EI very quickly, as well as under the BDM programme as well. Everything is aligning in the right direction, but I am going to need everybody's help to make sure that it happens.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my gratitude to the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour for bringing the bill forward.

In his speech he said that he knew this was not going to change the world, but that it would make a world of difference for the affected families. I could not agree more. For those 1,600 families who tragically experience this every year, he is making their lives a bit easier. I just want to thank him for that.

I am also a former minister of Service Canada, and my colleague is as well; we do not often get two previous ministers of Service Canada sitting beside each other. I wonder if he can talk about what this means from a service delivery point of view, why this is not only good policy that is compassionate and does the right thing but also better at delivering services.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member for Burlington, for raising the issue initially. I had never been a part of the private members' bill lottery system before, and when I was lucky enough to get the number five spot, I felt the weight of that responsibility because it was an opportunity to do something that affected people in a meaningful way. Different people use the opportunity differently.

When the member came to me and presented this idea, I thought about it for literally an entire day. I think it made sense to both of us really quickly, as previous ministers responsible for Service Canada. The fact is that there is so much good that we can do just by looking inside our current organization and asking the questions of why are we delivering something in a particular way and, given the technology and the state of our country, whether there is a way to improve upon it.

Yes, this would be a small change but a meaningful one and part of a collection of changes that, if we all work together, can make our government more efficient and more compassionate, and can certainly provide better services to Canadians, especially when they are facing the most tragic of circumstances.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today as a survivor of stage 4 cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in particular. I bring that up because it greatly shapes my perspective on the legislation we are discussing today.

When I was sick and going through chemotherapy and radiation treatment, it was taxing on me as a person emotionally, physically, mentally and spiritually, but the hardest part of it was seeing my mother endure it all. My mom is a strong woman and a woman of faith, but for any parent, seeing a child go through a serious illness hits very hard.

I remember vividly the fear and anxiety in my mother's eyes. I remember her face when I was going in for a lumbar puncture, PET scan or blood work, and saw the impact that me being in that position had on her. It was one of the haunting moments of the whole ordeal for me. What my family went through in those years was just a fraction of the pain and anguish that a family goes through when they lose a child. What my family went through was just a fraction of the pain and anguish that parents go through when they lose a young child in particular.

I am very happy to stand here today to express my complete support for Bill C-222, Evan's law. I think the government needs to do as much as it possibly can to support families, in particular to support grieving families, through difficult times. This legislation represents an important move in that direction.

I want to acknowledge the hard work that was done to get this legislation here. I will start by acknowledging the member of Parliament for Airdrie—Cochrane, who has been an advocate on this issue for years. I also want to acknowledge the member of Parliament for Burnaby North—Seymour for bringing this bill to the House. I understand that he worked closely with the member for Burlington on it. I salute them and everybody else who has gotten this legislation to this point.

To me, this is about the government fulfilling the promises it makes to families. If the government promises to provide parental leave benefits to a family, it should do so regardless of the circumstances changing, especially tragic circumstances, which I think most people would regard as deserving more support, not less.

I hope the Liberal government hears my heart on this. I say this with zero criticism or opposition to the bill. I would like to propose a change to it that would expand the protection of parental leave benefits to more grieving families. Bill C-222 is specific to families grieving the loss of a child, and that is an incredibly important part of the changes to the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. However, there are also families grieving in very similar situations but where a parent has passed away, and as a result, they are dealing with many of the same challenges that the current version of Bill C-222 seeks to remedy. Since we are having a conversation about making changes to the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, I think it opens a window for us to extend consideration, generosity and empathy to grieving families in other situations as well.

I raise this on behalf of some of my constituents in Bowmanville—Oshawa North, many of whom signed a petition on this very issue recently, a petition that was inspired by the difficult circumstances of a family that I represent. For the sake of their privacy, I will not say their names, but they brought their situation to my attention, and I believe that with an appropriate amendment, this bill could remedy the circumstances they have found themselves in.

I want to share what those circumstances are. They were brought to my attention by the surviving husband of a woman who tragically passed away while on parental leave with their first daughter.

The surviving husband contacted Service Canada to inform it of his wife's passing away. The remaining months of parental leave benefits were then promptly cut off for his family. Shortly after, the surviving husband received a bill from the CRA requiring him to repay the benefits he had received between the time of his wife's passing and the date when Service Canada was notified.

I do not believe anyone in the House wants families facing unimaginable loss to go through that. I do not believe anyone in the House wants the CRA to be sending a bill to a grieving husband or wife. I do not believe anyone in the House wants Service Canada to be cutting off benefits promised to a family at a time when they are not only facing an unimaginable loss, but also dealing with the economic uncertainty and instability that comes with a parent passing away. My hope is that, in hearing this story, we might be able to work together on expanding this very empathetic and important piece of legislation to include families in these circumstances.

At the request of my constituent, I would like to read a statement from him to help people get a better sense of how all of this impacted him and his family. He wrote to me and said, “My daughter lost her mom before her first birthday and that is a heavy weight for us to carry as a family for a lifetime. Maintaining benefit payments and extending some grace to those who find themselves in such an unfortunate position might make all the difference in the world to somehow who is already running on empty mentally, emotionally, physically and financially.”

The spirit of Evan's law would be to protect and relieve grieving parents from an additional burden, and I think it would be appropriate to provide the same consideration in cases of death of a parent who is receiving parental leave benefits. Continuing these payments to the surviving spouse for the remainder of the approved benefit period would alleviate a significant burden on the small percentage of families who face these particular tragic circumstances.

As I stand here in full support of Bill C-222, and I certainly look forward to enthusiastically voting in favour of it in this chamber, it is my belief that, by raising these important concerns about the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, we have an opportunity to extend this consideration to more grieving families.

I want to reiterate that I hope the Liberal government hears my heart on this. I say none of this as a criticism, and in fact, I look forward to the possibility of collaborating with the government on an amendment that would expand this consideration to more people. I am happy to have shared the story of some of my constituents who have been impacted by the policy status quo.

I really do believe the core of this is asking governments to live up to the promises they make to families. I think we have to see that, when the government promises EI payments, or when the government promises parental leave benefits to a family, that promise should be seen through, from the beginning to the end, for the appropriate period of time. That money should never be clawed back. There should be no expectation that grieving families have to return money paid out in that period of time and, most importantly, that families know they can count on that money they have planned for, especially in a tragic situation where there has been a loss.

I do hope we can give this amendment the consideration it deserves. I look forward to Bill C-222 supporting grieving families across our country.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for introducing Bill C-222. As we have seen in the few minutes that we have been discussing it, this bill should be something we can all agree on. Ideology and partisanship often prevail in Parliament, but in this case, we are talking about what we hold most dear, our loved ones, our children, those we have lost. That brings a whole new perspective to the debate. I am not even sure that we can call this a debate. I would therefore like to thank and recognize my colleague.

My thoughts also go out to Evan's family. This bill, which I hope will become law, bears his name. Like several members have pointed out, seeing newborns come into our lives and sometimes also having to say goodbye to them is something very human that we all share.

This is something extremely human and there is no way to avoid the human experience. I am a mother myself. As a mother and with all the empathy that we have as human beings, when we put ourselves in the shoes of these families who have to say goodbye to a newborn child, we understand the pain and suffering they experience.

I, too, have had difficult experiences. I have several children, but I have a little boy who suffered a perinatal stroke at birth. No one will ever know why these things happen. Moments like that are filled with fear. Life is fragile; it is fragile in the moment, and it remains fragile afterwards.

As my colleague so eloquently described, it is in these moments that we experience true sorrow. These may be the moments in our lives when we are the most fragile. This is when we should fight with all our strength, but it is also when we have the least strength, because we are busy trying to survive. I believe this is what bereaved families and parents are going through: They are simply trying to survive.

As my colleague said, there are anomalies, even absurdities, that would be so easy to correct. Examples include the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. Take, for example, the requirement to call in every two weeks to report on one's status. Families do not need that kind of burden.

I believe that, as legislators, it is also our duty to make laws more humane. There are often grey areas, things that we did not think of when passing legislation. Lived experience often leads us to realize that we need to improve things and take these grey areas into account, and perhaps shed some light on certain things.

That is what we are doing today. We think this situation is absurd. We have the empathy necessary to understand the need to change the law and the Canada Labour Code. I also believe that we have the means to do so.

I do not know if that argument should be made today. Personally, I think we are well beyond purely monetary considerations. Canada is a rich country. I understand that things are really tough right now, but the difficulties are cyclical and contextual. However, irrespective of that, there are still things we can do. Workers and employers pay premiums, of course, and that is what funds EI. That fund needs to be able to support families.

I wholeheartedly agree with this bill. I would say that, in Quebec, we have this protection under the Quebec parental insurance plan. Quebec has its own plan when a baby is born. People who are in mourning already benefit from this protection, from this assurance that they will be able to navigate this difficult time with dignity, respect, understanding and kindness, without having to worry about the economic and administrative side of things.

I repeat that I completely support this bill. I hope that all members of the House will be able to come to an agreement rather quickly. I do not believe that we can even call this a debate here in the House of Commons. We all want to take care of these people and we have the means to do so.

I hope my colleague will improve the employment insurance regime to make it more humane. My colleague may talk later about the bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois entitled the Émilie Sansfaçon act. When someone is unable to fight because they are fighting for their life, they need support. I think that it is a good social agreement to say that we will use the means that we have to take care of our own when they need it the most.

I would like to once again thank my colleague for his initiative. My thoughts also go out to all those in the House or outside of Parliament who have experienced a tragedy like this and who need support. I want them to know that the Bloc Québécois is with them.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank colleagues in this House for their incredibly thoughtful and compassionate interventions. This is a moment when Canadians can be quite proud of this chamber as we come together for our shared humanity. I really want to thank my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour for bringing the bill forward, because it touches all of us.

I rise today to tell everyone about Jennifer and her son Evan. Jennifer is the reason I stand here today in support of the bill, and her story is the inspiration for Evan's law. In spring 2022, a constituent called me to tell me her story. She had found her baby blue and motionless in his crib. In a panic, she called 911, and emergency services arrived soon after, confirming that he had passed. As she and her husband waited nearly six hours before a coroner came, a million questions flooded their minds. The experience was traumatizing.

Evan was four months old when he passed away. Jennifer described him as “a laughy little guy” who had the best smile. He loved to be held, and everybody loved to hold him. He was, as she said lovingly, the perfect little baby boy.

In the days that followed, Jennifer and her husband felt as though they did not know what to do with themselves, as though they were walking into walls, disoriented, exhausted and devastated. As a mother of two, I cannot begin to imagine the heartbreak and despair that comes with losing a child. I hope I never have to, but, sadly, as we all know, this happens to thousands of families each year in Canada. For about 1,600 families, it happens while they are on EI parental leave. Jennifer was one of those Canadians on EI parental leave at the time. No one told her after she lost Evan that she needed to contact Service Canada, but she did so of her own accord, which is not the case for many parents in her situation. She figured she needed to find out what this would mean.

Jennifer soon contacted Service Canada to describe what had happened. She was informed that because her child had passed, she was no longer eligible to receive parental benefits. In the eyes of the Employment Insurance Act as it is currently written, once a child passes away, the act no longer considers a person a parent. Therefore, they are no longer entitled to receive parental benefits. When I learned this, I was shocked. In my humble opinion, it is cruel and unnecessary both to define what being a parent is in this way and to cease benefits immediately if a person loses a child while on leave.

To receive any financial support or time off work, Jennifer would have to switch to EI sickness benefits, a program that is not designed with grieving parents in mind. She spent hours on the phone trying to switch her benefits. Then she was told that she would have to call back every two weeks to confirm her eligibility. This took a serious toll on her. She told me the biggest thing was that every single time she called, she spoke to a new person. She was forced to relive her trauma every two weeks and explain everything over again, every single time. Through no fault of their own, the staff picking up the phone at Service Canada were not always equipped or trained to handle the sensitivity and weight of that kind of call.

As we can imagine, contacting Service Canada is the last thing on the minds of grieving parents. Often, parents may not even realize that they have become ineligible. In too many cases, parental benefits continue to be paid in full, only for the CRA to seek repayment months or even years later. In effect, these parents find themselves indebted to the government because of the death of their child. I strongly believe this runs contrary to Canadian values and the values of this House, as we have seen today.

Like Jennifer and her husband, roughly 1,600 Canadian families face the tragedy of infant loss each year. Almost 50% of those losses occur in the first 24 hours following birth. For most who experience it, it is the darkest moment of their lives. Despite this, the current provisions of the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code cut off access to parental benefits when infant loss occurs, removing critical support that these grieving Canadians so desperately need. When families need the most support, additional bureaucratic and financial strain is imposed upon them. However, we can change that, and Evan's law would do so.

While no policy can take away the sorrow and tragedy of losing a child, it is our duty as legislators to ensure that the systems we have in place do not add unnecessary burdens to the grieving process. The essence of the bill lies in our ability to support parents during their darkest moments. For anyone who has experienced a loss, particularly the loss of a child, the pain is not just emotional; it can also be financial and logistical, and it is often overwhelming.

By removing the need for a new claim and by ensuring that the parent continues to be eligible for benefits, Evan's law would provide not only financial relief but emotional relief as well. Grieving parents would no longer be forced to prove their eligibility in the midst of their mourning. The bill would send a message that as a country, we understand the profound impact of such a loss and that we are here to support those who face it with the utmost dignity and respect.

We must also recognize that every parent grieves differently. Jennifer needed time off. She needed time to grieve. On the other hand, her husband needed to go right back to work; that is what helped him through the grieving process. The bill would give parents the permission and the flexibility to grieve how they need to in one of the worst moments of their lives. We can give them the choice: to return to work when they are ready or to take the time they need.

Just last week, I heard from two more parents, Samantha and Neil. After they had suffered through three first-trimester losses on their journey to parenthood, their daughter Lily finally arrived, safe and sound, last December. However, this past March, just days before Lily turned three months old, the family received devastating news: Lily had been diagnosed with a highly aggressive form of acute leukemia. Samantha said, “We felt like lightning had hit us for the fourth time.”

Lily began undergoing intensive treatment immediately, and her parents moved into the hospital with her. They did not know how short their time left with her would be. Due to complications with her treatment, Lily passed away on June 28. Samantha soon learned that she was no longer eligible for parental benefits. In the midst of grieving such an enormous loss, she was forced to navigate a series of burdensome administrative tasks.

Samantha told me, “had Evan's law been in place, this would have been one less thing I would have worried about. It would have provided us some relief during that unimaginable time, allowing us some peace so we could grieve the death of our daughter.”

When we speak about family, we often focus on the joy that comes with raising children and supporting parents through the milestones of life, but it is equally vital to acknowledge the pain of loss and to ensure that our social safety net does not fail people who are in their time of greatest need.

Let me conclude with some thanks. First, I thank Jennifer for having the courage to share her and Evan's story, not just with me but with all of Canada. I thank Nora Spinks, Michelle La Fontaine and Lynn Clark, and the Pregnancy and Infant Loss Network, for their collaboration and support as we developed the legislation.

Of course, I offer very deep and heartfelt gratitude to my colleague and my dear friend, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, for taking up the task and introducing Evan's law. I and thousands of others across the country are grateful for his compassion and leadership in moving Evan's law forward.

In their darkest moment, Evan's law would give grieving parents the knowledge that their benefits would not end abruptly, and the opportunity to take care of themselves. We are a nation that prides itself on compassion, and Evan's law would be a step toward ensuring that our policies reflect that compassion in the most challenging of circumstances.

In honour of Evan's life and in honour of every parent who has experienced this unimaginable loss, I am grateful to my colleagues who have expressed their support for this private member's bill. It is time to give grieving parents the space and the support they need during the most difficult time in their lives.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved and feel privileged to speak on the bill introduced by my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour.

I know exactly how my colleague must feel in introducing a bill that responds to a very obvious need expressed by the people around him, people who have experienced the tragedy of losing a child and having to return to work quickly without being able to grieve because EI is not adapted to this type of situation.

I know how he feels because when members have to enter a lottery to introduce a private member's bill. If they win, they get the privilege and opportunity to debate one of their bills. I had that privilege in 2021. I introduced Bill C‑265, which sought to increase the number of weeks of special EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50. I know how he feels because we had to convince our colleagues here that the EI program could afford it, that the fund has enough money from workers and employers to be able to offer that number of weeks to those who are battling cancer, for example.

I also had the names of people with colorectal cancer, for example. It is has been scientifically documented that getting through this form of cancer takes at least 37 weeks of special EI sickness benefits. Although treatments are increasingly effective, they take a longer period of time and can take a heavy toll on a person's health. I could name people who had to go back to work or borrow money, in short, people who had to go into debt and subject themselves to financial stress, because they did not have enough weeks of special EI sickness benefits to live comfortably and, most importantly, to be able to focus their energy on fighting their disease.

When someone is grieving the loss of a child or suffering from a serious illness, they should not have to spend time worrying about their survival or about how they are going to pay the rent. They need to muster their fighting spirit. People who lose a child in tragic circumstances need that energy to grieve and overcome their ordeal. I know of nothing worse in life than losing a child, either at birth or in the course of the child's life. In my opinion, there is no right age to lose a child.

I understand how my colleague feels. Bill C‑265 passed through all stages of the legislative process. We defended it successfully in committee, and it received virtually unanimous support from all parties in the House. However, when all the cancer patients were waiting for the news, in the end, the Liberal government in power, this same Liberal government, refused to give it a royal recommendation. People who had aggressive forms of cancer and needed their energy to fight the disease unfortunately were left with the bad news. Benefits went from 15 weeks to 26 weeks, even though we knew full well that many serious illnesses take longer than 26 weeks to recover from.

I understand my colleague and I want to reassure him. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, and our party will work hard to convince all our colleagues that it must be passed, because it is a humane response to a terrible tragedy. Most importantly, the EI fund can afford it. We are not talking about the general population or a large number of people. There is no financial reason to oppose this bill. We are not talking about a large number of deaths that could bankrupt the fund.

I hope that, this time, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc will agree to amend the Employment Insurance Act and allow these parents, who are facing a human tragedy, to focus on their grief without being forced to return to work too quickly before their wounds have begun to heal. We do not ever completely get over the death of a child. A part of us is always broken. It will always affect us. However, having a much-needed break before returning to work is important.

This brings me to the point that the Employment Insurance Act is outdated. It is not a modern piece of legislation. The Bloc Québécois has been saying for a while now that it needs to be modernized and adapted to the new labour market and new realities. For 10 years now, the government has been promising us an overhaul of the Employment Insurance Act that will take into account certain provisions whose inclusion in the act is no longer relevant.

I will share my perspective as a woman and as a mother. I am sure that members of the House are aware of what I am about to say. A person who has a child, goes on maternity leave and loses her job at the end of her maternity leave is not entitled to EI benefits because she has not accumulated the necessary hours of work to qualify for EI. This is deeply unfair. It is shocking discrimination against women.

I want to say that there are members across the way who have an opportunity to convince their government to modernize the act, or at least to remove certain sections that discriminate against women who experience motherhood and lose their jobs after maternity leave.

The act is also discriminatory with regard to seasonal employment in general. I do not like the term “seasonal workers”. It is not the workers who are seasonal; it is the jobs that are seasonal. In this case too, there is discrimination against those who work in certain regions of Quebec and who depend on seasonal employment for their livelihood.

The Employment Insurance Act needs to be overhauled and modernized. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois offers its full and unwavering support, as well as its influence in the House of Commons, to enable the passage of the bill before us, Bill C-222.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. I am pleased to add my support to Bill C-222.

I want to add some context. This issue has been around the chamber for some time, and I want to add my acknowledgement to the work put into this by my former colleague, the member for Banff—Airdrie, who put forward Motion No. 110 in a previous Parliament. Certainly, through previous governments, we have been pushing for this from this side of the table. I want to acknowledge that that effort is paying off, and today we are finding compassionate support around the chamber to address the needs of those at some of their hardest points in life.

I am going to end up speaking personally, so I will try to get there, but before I go there, Mr. Speaker, you may rule me out of order with this next statement. I know that I cannot refer to any other member by their last name, but I am unsure whether I can refer to myself.

My last name, as members all know, is Epp. I am not the first Epp who has graced this chamber floor. There have been others. In fact, going across Canada, there are at least seven different Epp families that are unrelated to each other. The former minister of health under the Mulroney government, Jake Epp, was no relation to me or my wife. Why is that important? My wife's maiden name was Epp. Before any member in the chamber jumps to any conclusions, I want to state that all six fingers on both hands of all four of our daughters are beautiful.

Why is that important? My wife was born in New Westminster, British Columbia, and was adopted. An adopted identical twin, she grew up in Calgary, went to elementary school in Calgary, went to high school in Rosthern, Saskatchewan, and then went to university in Winnipeg, where we met. She says that she must retire in Quebec, la belle province, and retire or die in Newfoundland as she works her way across this beautiful country.

We met, married and, in 1988, we were anticipating our first child. We knew from early on in that pregnancy that there would be issues, so we began the process of driving up what I now affectionately call the “bore-01”, up and down highway 401, which I have travelled innumerable times in my various capacities over my professional career. Then, it was as a young to-be father, as my wife spent a lot of time in St. Joseph's, the London hospital, preparing for the birth of a challenged child. We anticipated that he would be born with insufficiently developed lungs. That was the diagnosis because the scans had revealed intestines in his chest.

When he was born, with two surgical teams waiting, the first thing he did was scream, which was not anticipated. That gave us hope. He screamed; he lived. I had been preparing myself, throughout the last two-thirds of my wife's pregnancy, to lose him.

The member for Burlington spoke of how people grieve differently. I did a lot of my grieving prior to my son Brenton's birth to be there depending on the outcome.

In the 37 years that have followed, my wife and I continue to grieve differently. I went back to work. We were in the middle of tomato season. He was born in 9230 season, that is a Heinz variety that we were harvesting on August 13, 1988, and he died in 6203 season, September 13. He lived 31 days. As members can hear in my voice, I have lived experience with what this bill attempts to address.

My son underwent an emergency colostomy at two days old, which he survived. He then began to turn blue and actually went through open heart surgery at two weeks old, when doctors grafted his left subclavian vein. For those of us from the medical community, they grafted the vein around his aorta where the blockage was, and he survived. I am still grateful to the many friends who drove me up the “bore-01” to see my wife and child every evening, as I harvested during the daytime and saw them at night.

There was only one night that I did not make that trip. We were advised that we could take him home in two days' time, so I stayed at home and slept until 2 a.m., when I received that call to “come now”. It was obviously a difficult night because we lost him that night.

I said my wife is a twin. Her twin was flying from Alberta, and we picked her up at the airport that morning. She was coming for a dedication; she came for a funeral. We prepared for that, and still to this day, I am immensely thankful for the friends and family who supported us.

How does this relate to government bureaucratic processes and compassion? The morning of his funeral, we received a call from a government agency that said we had made a mistake in his birth certificate application. We did not know how to fill out the baby's mother's maiden name. We filled it out as “Epp” and “Epp”, of course, and obviously we had made a mistake. There are many Epps in Canada, as there are many Smiths, McDonalds, etc., from many heritage streams, but that was the call we received.

We worked our way through it that morning. The morning of my son's funeral, we were working through a government process. I do not fault or cast aspersions on the bureaucracy that made those calls. They were following through with their due diligence. However, if there are ways we can streamline our government processes to show compassion and show respect for taxpayer dollars, which is everything that this bill would do, why do we not do that?

I am very heartened by the support around this chamber. It has taken a while, but I am glad the government and all opposition parties are bringing their compassion to this chamber and addressing the opportunity to make life better for Canadians in their most heartfelt and difficult times. I have lived those times, so I want to say thanks.

We subsequently had four daughters. I mentioned them. They are beautiful. They do only have five fingers on each hand. My wife is adopted, but because of her last name, we went through some processes before we had them, given the experience we had with our son Brenton.

Sometimes people ask me about them. I am the father of four daughters, as members can see by the colour of my hair. I am immensely proud, as my wife Charlene is, of their accomplishments.

I have shared this experience with many other families that have asked me how many children I have, and whether I answer with four or five depends on how much time I have in the conversation. Today is my opportunity to acknowledge my son, because the circumstances of the day have afforded me the time to bring his name to this chamber. It is an august responsibility that we have as members to speak. It is a privilege.

I have had the chance to introduce my two granddaughters to this chamber. How many people in Canada get to do that? I want to give a shout-out to the House of Commons orientation staff who oriented me six years ago. They impressed upon those of us going through that process the unique opportunity we have as members to represent Canadians.

Boys and girls today dream of potentially becoming NHL and, maybe now, baseball players. A truly Canadian dream is to become an NHL player or PWHL player.

As we walk the tunnel between the welcome centre and the temporary home of the House of Commons, we see the plaques from the first Parliament to the 43rd. I have served in the 44th and we are now in the 45th Parliament. We see the names of all parliamentarians who have had the chance to serve. There are fewer of us who have had the chance to speak in the chamber than there are people who have played professional hockey in our country's history.

That is how special the opportunity is that we have as parliamentarians to represent our fellow citizens. Let us cherish that. When there are moments when we can come together, when we can join our voices to make life better for Canadians, let us be thankful for that opportunity.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have always considered the hon. colleague opposite to be an excellent parliamentarian, but I now put him in the category of an outstanding human being. The courage that he has shown today on the floor of the House of Commons, to share such a personal story and to relate it to a bill is indescribable. I do not think I have seen it in all my years, 10 years now, of serving as a member of Parliament. I truly commend him for that.

We have an opportunity. We have seen it today, with the spirit in the House. This is politics, and politics is naturally partisan. That is not always a terrible thing, but sometimes it prevents us from doing the work we need to do as parliamentarians to benefit the country. I would point to the bill, a private member's bill that our colleague has put forward, a private member's bill that seems to have unanimous consent, to say the least, to go forward.

This needs to go forward. I hope a royal recommendation is given, because no less than 1,600 families a year are affected by the loss of a child. The sponsor of the bill, in his initial speech on the subject, made clear that there is an elegant solution here, as he put it.

This would not require extra spending or anything like that. EI parental benefits and EI sickness benefits are almost equal. Removing the bureaucracy from the process and ensuring that we have a compassionate approach put forward is absolutely vital. It is something that we can unite on here today.

It would make clear that we also respect the House of Commons' process. In 2019, the committee that is responsible for labour matters and benefits, the HUMA committee, spoke about the need to go in this direction. If we respect Parliament, as we do, and if we respect the House and its procedures, as we do, we will give life to and go forward with this particular change.

I thank everyone who has spoken today. It is a day I will not forget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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.

It being 2:30 p.m., the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)