“I am moving amendments to this bill. They make sure parents can keep getting parental leave benefits for at least five weeks if their child dies.”

“propose: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after the heading “Employment Insurance Act” after line 5 on page 1 the following: 1.1 Section 10 of the Employment Insurance Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (13.01): (13.011) If a child referred to in subsection 23(1) dies during the period referred to in subsection 23(2), or any extension of it, the benefit period is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to give effect to subsection 12(4.02). Motion No. 2 That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after the heading “Employment Insurance Act” after line 5 on page 1 the following: 1.2 Section 12 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.01): (4.02) In the case of deemed care under subsection 23(2.1), the applicable maximum number of weeks set out in paragraph (3)(b) or (4)(b) or subsection (4.01) is, if necessary, increased by the number of weeks that allows each claimant to receive at least five weeks of benefits after the death of the child.l’enfant. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-222, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 21 on page 1 with the following 2 (1) Section 23 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2): (2.1) If a child referred to in subsection (1) dies during the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, while benefits under this section are payable to any claimant in respect of that child, the claimant is deemed to care for that child for the purposes of subsection (1) until that period or the extension of it expires. (2.2) If the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, expires before a claimant referred to in subsection (2.1) has received at least five weeks of benefits after the week in which the child dies, that period or extension of it is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to ensure that the claimant receives five weeks of benefits. (2) Subsection 23(3.1) of the Act is replaced by the following: (3.1) No extension under subsection (2.2), (3) or (3.01) may result in the period being longer than 104 weeks. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 1 the following: 2.1 Section 54 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (y): (y.1) respecting the provision of information to the Commission in relation to subsection 23(2.1) or (2.2) or 152.05(2.1) or (2.2); Motion No. 5 That Bill C-222, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 16 on page 2 with the following: 3 (1) Section 152.05 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2): (2.1) If a child referred to in subsection (1) dies during the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, while benefits under this section are payable to any claimant in respect of that child, the self-employed person is deemed to care for that child for the purposes of subsection (1) until that period or the extension of it expires. (2.2) If the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, expires before a self-employed person referred to subsection (2.1) has received at least five weeks of benefits after the week in which the child dies, that period or extension of it is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to ensure that the self-employed person receives five weeks of benefits. (2) Subsection 152.05(4) of the Act is replaced by the following: (4) No extension under subsection (2.2) or (3) may result in the period being longer than 104 weeks. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 2 the following: 3.1 Subsection 152.11(15) of the Act is replaced by the following: (14.2) If a child referred to in subsection 152.05(1) dies during the period referred to in subsection 152.05(2), or any extension of it, the benefit period is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to give effect to subsection 152.14(4.1). (15) An extension under one or more of subsections (11) to (14.2) must not result in a benefit period of more than 104 weeks. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 2 the following: 3.2 Section 152.14 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4): (4.1) In the case of deemed care under subsection 152.05(2.1), the applicable maximum number of weeks set out in paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(b) or subsection (4) is, if necessary, increased by the number of weeks that allows each claimant to receive at least five weeks of benefits after the death of the child. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-222 be amended by restoring Clause 5 as follows: 5 Section 206.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2): (2.01) For the purposes of subsection (1), if the child dies during the period referred to in subsection (2), the employee is deemed to care for that child until that period expires. Motion No. 9 Que le projet de loi C-222 soit modifié par suppression de l’article 6. Motion No. 10 Que le projet de loi C-222 soit modifié par suppression de l’article 7.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Right now, when a baby dies, the government cuts off the parents' parental leave benefits right away. This bill lets grieving parents keep their benefits and their job leave without having to fill out forms every two weeks to prove they are sad.”

“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.”

“I support this bill and the changes made to it. Right now, parents lose their parental leave benefits as soon as a baby dies. This bill lets grieving parents keep getting their benefits and keep their time off work without extra paperwork.”

“Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I feel privileged to rise to speak to this important bill. This is a compassionate bill that will add more humanity to the employment insurance regime, particularly for grieving parents. As I mentioned, it is an honour to rise in support of the amendments that have been presented to facilitate the passage of Bill C-222, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with regard to the death of a child. First of all, I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour. He deserves immense credit for his work in support of grieving parents. I also want to thank all of my colleagues who helped shape this bill, as well as the witnesses who testified in committee on this very sensitive subject. There is nothing more devastating for parents and a family than the loss of a child. It is, of course, an ordeal that causes deep and lasting pain. According to mental health professionals, parental grief is one of the most intense and persistent forms of grief. The death of a child is a tragedy that affects many Canadian families every year. Data show that, in 2024, approximately 3,100 children under the age of 19 died in Canada. Of those children, 1,661 were infants who died before their first birthday and 1,210 were infants who died within their first month of life. That means that, every year, approximately 1,600 Canadian families experience the unthinkable loss of a child while they are still receiving EI parental benefits. Research shows that returning to work after the death of a child can be difficult and takes time. Dealing with administrative institutions can also add to the emotional burden. This burden can become even heavier when the bereaved parent is no longer eligible for the income support measures available under the EI program. It goes without saying that work and financial considerations are not the priority for these parents while they are going through an extremely difficult time. Having to deal with various administrative procedures and worry about their job security or financial situation adds an unnecessary burden to their emotional distress. Some parents who return to work quickly may experience what is known as presenteeism: They are physically present at work but unable to participate fully due to their emotional and psychological state. No law can alleviate such grief, but our federal system—in particular EI and the protections provided by the Canada Labour Code—can at least ensure that bereaved parents have swift access to the support they need, when they need it most. That is what compassion looks like. At present, EI parental benefits end as soon as the claimant’s child dies. In its current form, Bill C-222 will allow parents who lose a newborn or an adopted child to keep receiving parental benefits after their child’s death. The bill would also amend the Canada Labour Code so that employees who work in the federally regulated private sector and are on parental leave can continue to take that leave even if their child dies during the leave period that was initially granted. For now, however, unless the claimant contacts Service Canada within a week of their child’s death, they begin accumulating a debt to the Canada Revenue Agency. Bereaved parents can also apply for EI sickness benefits, but they are then required to check in with Service Canada every two weeks to confirm that their benefits are still needed. Again, this creates an unnecessary burden at a difficult time. It is easy to see how hard this process can be for parents still grieving the loss of their child. The current process lacks compassion and needs to be changed to ease some of the burden these parents face. The government wants to ensure that the parental leave provisions meet the needs of bereaved parents in a fair, reasonable and compassionate way. That is the spirit in which the amendments to Bill C-222 are being proposed today. These amendments are intended to strengthen the proposed bereavement and EI benefits for parents who are nearing the end of their parental leave. The amendments will help ensure that the bill actually meets parents’ real needs. The proposed changes also make consequential amendments to the leave provisions in the Canada Labour Code to align them with the proposed changes to EI parental benefits for bereaved parents. Today’s topic is an emotional one, but for the purposes of debate, I will also focus on a few technical details related to the proposed amendments to fully understand the scope of what we are discussing today. I want to take a few moments to talk about some of them. The amendments to Bill C‑222 propose that EI parental benefits continue to be paid for a maximum number of weeks after the death of a child, up to 40 weeks for parents who share standard parental benefits and up to 69 weeks for parents who share extended parental benefits. By allowing EI parental benefits to continue to be paid without any additional administrative burden, these amendments would help ensure ongoing support during a time of great emotional distress. For eligible parents who have already used almost all of their weeks of benefits at the time of their child’s death, Bill C-222, as amended, would guarantee every eligible parent up to five additional weeks of benefits in the form of bereavement support. This measure will apply no matter which parental benefit option the claimant chose, whether standard or extended parental benefits. These additional weeks of EI parental benefits would be paid at the same income replacement rate as the option they chose initially. For example, if the claimant chose the extended parental benefits option at 33% of their average weekly insurable earnings, that rate would continue to apply for the remaining weeks and for the additional weeks of bereavement support. Under the proposed amendments, parents must inform the Canada Employment Insurance Commission if they want to add the additional weeks of bereavement support to their benefits. However, given the heavy emotional burden this would place on parents at a time of deep grief, a regulatory authority will be established to set up a simple and compassionate process that grieving parents can use to notify the commission. Bill-222 would also ensure that employees subject to the Canada Labour Code are entitled to the remaining weeks of parental leave that they would have been entitled to had the child not died. This proposed amendment would allow employees in the federally regulated private sector to benefit from protected parental leave while receiving EI parental benefits. Parents could also take advantage of the existing eight-week bereavement leave provided in the event of the death of a child, if they are nearing the end of their parental leave and wish to claim additional weeks of EI benefits. In closing, I want to reiterate that the loss of a child is a profound and tragic event that no Canadian parent should have to experience. These parents deserve our full support, not administrative hurdles, in their darkest moments. Our government is committed to ensuring that families facing this tragic situation get the support they need. There is no doubt that Bill C-222, as amended, would promote a compassionate and flexible approach for parents facing the unthinkable, allowing bereaved parents to remain eligible for parental benefits even after their loss, thereby ensuring continuity, compassion and stability. More importantly, Bill C-222 restores compassion and dignity to families during their darkest hours. It recognizes that no parent should have to navigate confusing red tape or repeatedly prove their loss in order to access the support they are already entitled to. This legislation represents a rare opportunity to achieve three goals at once: reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, improving government efficiency, and showing empathy toward bereaved Canadians. By supporting Bill C-222, Parliament can ensure that no family is punished by the system for having experienced an unimaginable tragedy. It is a small change, but it will have a profound human impact, and it reflects the best of who we are as a country. As other colleagues have already mentioned, we are here to make a tangible difference in the lives of the people we represent, and this bill allows us to improve things for people who are going through an extremely difficult situation. Once again, I would like to reiterate my congratulations and thanks to my colleague from British Columbia for introducing this bill in the House, as well as to all my colleagues who supported it and worked on the amendments in committee. I will conclude by saying that I fully support this bill and the proposed amendments.”

“I support this bill. Parents whose baby dies should not lose their parental leave or have to deal with extra government paperwork.”

“Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to pick up on a couple of points. We have heard a lot of wonderful, encouraging words this afternoon. Even though I was not at committee, I can imagine the mixed emotions that would have been expressed to the committee members and were, no doubt, part of the driving force behind building the goodwill we are witnessing today. I want to recognize the efforts of the member for Burnaby North—Seymour because we are in a very unique situation. This is the first time ever that I have witnessed, and the member tells me that it might actually be the first time we have seen it, a royal assent potentially given to a bill that needed a recommendation from the Governor in Council. That is not an easy thing to have accomplished. I believe the member for Burnaby North—Seymour approached it in a manner that reflects the type of debate we have witnessed, not only now but also at second reading. We see a high sense of empathy in what the legislation is attempting to do. I applaud the member’s actions and those of the individuals he sat around when he was in the hospital for the birth of his child, when he met with many others who were experiencing the same thing, having a premature baby. He made reference to that emotional bond having remained with a number of them. I can appreciate that this is something that was well discussed, no doubt, as well as the frustration. If we put it in its simplest way, we can all imagine, whether it is our parents, ourselves or, in my case, even my children, the sense of excitement when someone finds out that they are going to have a newborn, whether by natural birth or through an adoption, and then for that sense of excitement, that child, to be taken away from them for whatever reason. One can imagine the thoughts and emotions around having a stillborn child or a complication at birth or with the birth mother, for someone who is adopting. It would be absolutely devastating and hard to comprehend, and it would create an emotional impact and anxiety. When we think of a parent who has the parental leave application, is receiving the benefits and going through the process, only to have this terrible thing occur and then find that they have to work through the government and ultimately reapply in a different form, it seems ultimately unnecessary. From my understanding of what has been called “Evan’s law”, Bill C-222 would, in a very compassionate way, deal with a real and tangible issue and make a positive difference. To see the support that has been given to the legislation is very encouraging. My understanding, after talking with the table, is that there will be one more hour of debate and then we will see the vote take place, both on the amendments and, immediately following, on third reading, if we have another day of debate, and I am anticipating that is what will happen. I want to acknowledge all the discussions to date and applaud the member for the fine work he has done in presenting the legislation.”