“I support this bill, and I want the House to pass it quickly. Right now, parents lose their parental benefits and leave if their child dies. This bill lets them keep those benefits without having to fill out more paperwork. I also want the government to put money in the next budget to protect benefits when a parent dies. Finally, I ask Canadians to sign petition e-7765 to give better support to families who lose a baby during pregnancy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to learn that my colleague is a grandmother of 11. I rise today at final reading to examine and explore Bill C-222, known as Evan’s law, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding the death of a child. I speak for the families of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, from Cowichan Valley to the west shore. I speak for the parents of a Vancouver Island family who welcomed a child into their lives, and who were then asked to bear the unbearable. I served in uniform and that service brings a different perspective to the value of life. Those who serve and the families who wait for them know how quickly a life can change with one day, one phone call, one sentence that can never be taken back. This is the lens I bring to this bill. Allow me to explain what the bill would do. When a parent receives employment insurance, maternity or parental benefits, those benefits are tied to a child. Under the current rules, if that child sadly dies, parental benefits end. A parent may switch to sickness benefits, but must report to Service Canada every two weeks to show that they are still grieving. If they do not call within a week of that death, the debt begins to build that the Canada Revenue Agency will later claw back. The Canada Labour Code carries a similar gap, and leave protections may be cut short. Let us consider what that asks of a family. They are grieving and the system presents them with paperwork. Bill C-222 would correct that, and a parent would keep the claim already in place. They would not file again, and they would not have to learn new rules. They would be given time, and time is the one thing grief demands. I look forward to collaborating with the government on this. When a sound idea comes from the government benches, the right response is to acknowledge it. I have read this bill, and I have weighed both what it accomplishes and what it leaves undone. This work did not begin in this Parliament. More than 10 years ago, the member for Airdrie—Cochrane brought forward motion 110, which opened the national conversation on supporting parents who lose a child. This bill rests upon that work. It rests as well upon the courage of families, beginning with the family of Evan, for whom this law is named, who spoke publicly about the hardest day of their lives so that others would not face it alone. To those families, the House owes more than gratitude; it owes results. While Bill C-222 speaks to the loss of a child, it does not yet speak to the loss of a parent. Let us consider a parent receiving parental leave benefits who passes away. That parent paid into the system. They earned those benefits. In a case in a colleague’s riding, the benefits were cut off the moment a parent died. A family already grieving was handed financial hardship on top of their loss. A family that has lost a parent should not also lose what a parent paid for. This is the principle in the bill before us, but applied to a family it leaves out. If we hold that grieving families deserve time and stability, we cannot hold it only when the loss runs in one direction. Grief does not ask which way the law was written. Some will ask why this important issue was simply not added to this bill, and the answer is a rule worth understanding. Under our procedures, a private member’s bill that spends new public money cannot become law without a royal recommendation. This is the government’s formal approval to spend, and without it, a bill, even with majority support, cannot pass. The question was never only what is right, but what is possible, and I understand that. However, through good faith across party lines, a path was found. While this bill advances, it advances with a recommendation in support of families who lose a child. The human resources committee has agreed to study the extension of parental leave when a parent dies and has requested the cost from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This is progress, and I welcome it, but a study is not a solution. A committee report does not help a family this month, and that is why timing matters. This debate falls just nine days before the budget is tabled. A budget is the place where the government’s words become commitments. I therefore ask the government plainly to place the additional parental loss benefits to parents in the budget and expand parental leave protections to families who lose a parent. Our shadow minister for employment expects the cost to be modest, because the measure would extend benefits that already exist with leave periods that already exist, for a small number of families who have already paid into the system. The figure from the Parliamentary Budget Officer will show whether that expectation is sound. We remember that an announcement is not a binding commitment, but a line in a budget is. I will continue to press for it in the House, regardless of who holds government. The committee has also agreed to undertake a longer study of employment insurance parental leave in general, and it wishes to hear from Canadians, so those who have lived this or who hold ideas on reform may share them with my office, and I will ensure that they reach the committee. Their experience will shape what comes next. There is one more family of whom I wish to speak, because their story shows where this work does not end. Recently a Vancouver Island couple lost their son in the second trimester of pregnancy. Alongside their grief, they met a second difficulty. They did not know what respectful options were open to them. They did not know whom to ask or whether they could lay their son to rest as they hoped. With the help of a priest, at a cemetery in Cobble Hill near where I live, they could. The father built a tiny oak casket, the mother made a pillow, and their son was buried with prayer and dignity. Their question afterward was simple: Why should any grieving family have to find these answers by chance? From that question grew the Journi May Dignity Initiative, and it calls for compassionate communications, clear written information and meaningful choices for families after pregnancy loss. It is a House of Commons petition, e-7765. It is open for signature today. It is not closed. It has not been tabled. It calls upon the Government of Canada to “Develop and implement a Pregnancy Loss Dignity Protocol within areas of federal jurisdiction” and to encourage provinces and territories to review their own practices. Until it closes, every name counts. As such, I invite every resident of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and every Canadian to read Journi’s story and to sign petition e-7765. That couple asked a simple question, and Parliament can help answer it. Let me close with what the House can do: advance the bill before us without delay; complete its commitment for the committee to study the loss of a parent and bring forward legislation; place that extension in the budget; hear from Canadians on parental leave reform; and listen to families, such as the family from Cobble Hill on Vancouver Island, so that no grieving family searches alone for a dignified path. Supporting grieving families is not a partisan act. It is a standard and one worth upholding, whoever forms government, so I look forward to supporting the bill. I thank the member opposite for their work, and I look forward to seeing further work in expanding the benefits for grieving families, as agreed by committee.”