Bill C-44 (Historical)

Helping Families in Need Act

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to provide an employee with the right to take leave when a child of the employee is critically ill or dies or disappears as the probable result of a crime. It also makes technical amendments to that Act.
Furthermore, the enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to provide benefits to claimants who are providing care or support to their critically ill child and to facilitate access to sickness benefits for claimants who are in receipt of parental benefits.
Lastly, the enactment makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

Let me pivot to Bill C-44, which significantly expands CSIS' powers. First of all, the matter is now before committee. Have you been invited to appear and to comment on that particular piece of legislation yet, sir?

[Daniel Therrien]

In my opinion, Bill C-44 has an impact on privacy, in that it directly gives CSIS an extraterritorial mandate. That implies that information is being shared between the secret services and certain foreign agencies. That sharing of information is an issue that affects privacy very directly. That is where my concerns lie.

Obviously, CSIS already receives independent oversight from an agency called SIRC. However, as I'm sure you know, recommendations have been made about this. Particularly in the Arar case, Justice O'Connor highlighted the shortcomings in Canada's independent oversight mechanisms. He recommended that all government agencies involved in national security be subject to independent oversight, much like CSIS.

I would add that Bill C-44 deals with CSIS's mandate and, indirectly, the sharing of information by CSIS. However, it is important to know that the information obtained by CSIS is then shared with some federal organizations, which may not be subject to independent oversight. That is the case with the Canada Border Services Agency, for example. It is this lack of oversight by independent agencies that is worrisome.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Great. Thank you very much.

Many bills address privacy, including Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. Bill C-44 does not deal directly with privacy, but it expands the mandate of CSIS.

Are you concerned about the lack of parliamentary or civilian oversight related to expanding CSIS' mandate?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

If I may, I will read you one paragraph that I skipped over that I think responds to your question.

I value limited state intervention, but I also value peace, order, and good government. So when confronted with the rare and hard choice between individual freedoms, civil liberties, and privacy on the one hand, and public safety and collective security, it is within the federal government’s constitutional purview and obligation to err on the side of the latter, including foreign intelligence activity. The Canadian public gives Parliament and the security agencies that report to Canada’s political executive the benefit of the doubt.

I would go so far as saying that given the current global security environment, including the challenge of extremist travellers, the federal government has an obligation to Canadians to pass precisely the sorts of amendments that Bill C-44 proposes, and that those are in the vital interest of Canada and Canadians. Tactically, operationally, strategically, and fiscally, this is the sort of way to compensate for the limits on CSIS to engage in foreign human intelligence gathering.

In light of the current global security environment, it is vital that CSIS be able to conduct and have the capacities that are being introduced in sharing with foreign human and security intelligence so the Canadian government can realize its responsibilities.

[Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

I appreciate having the opportunity to speak with you all today, in person for a nice change, regarding your ongoing study of Bill C-44. I'm appearing today on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, an organization that represents over 54,000 front-line civilian and sworn police personnel serving Canada's communities from coast to coast to coast.

My opening statement will be quite brief this afternoon as I hope to leave enough time to answer any questions you might have. I'm going to focus particularly on the area of the protection of human intelligence sources by law enforcement in the course of our duties. That being said, this is my first opportunity to appear here in Ottawa since the tragic events that took place on October 22, which claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo only a few blocks from where we're sitting today. He was shot by a terrorist who would have claimed even more victims if not for the courageous actions of those who are sworn to protect Canadians. To members of the Ottawa Police Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the House of Commons Security Services, I'd like to offer my personal thanks for their efforts that day.

I raise this, particularly in the context of my appearance here today, to highlight the need to adapt our laws in this country to provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to combat the rapidly evolving threats that can very clearly cause tremendous danger here in this country. That is why we're quite pleased to speak in support of Bill C-44 here today.

One of the most important jobs that have been given to our national security services, which would certainly include both municipal and provincial police, is the gathering of the necessary intelligence that would eventually help our members prevent attacks from taking place within our communities. Gathering that intelligence, however, has never been more difficult. Technology has given criminals and terrorists rapidly evolving tools that often allow them to appear to be steps ahead of those who are working to protect Canadians. Whether it is in the national security context or dealing with local street crime, finding and protecting informants is often an invaluable tool for police when it comes to levelling the playing field and obtaining the intelligence necessary; and I firmly believe that Bill C-44 and the provisions within it that deal with the protection of sources will be a positive step in protecting Canadians.

I should also note, particularly with respect to informants, that their use often goes beyond one single case, and that fact underscores their continued importance and the reason so many efforts are taken to protect their identities. Compromising their anonymity can not only put their personal safety at risk but also jeopardize months' and sometimes years' worth of investigations and police personnel time.

Furthermore, informants would often be reluctant to step forward to provide valuable information to law enforcement without as many guarantees as possible regarding their safety and anonymity, as they are often called on to testify against those who may know them best—their former and sometimes even current colleagues, family members, and other people with whom they've developed relationships.

As I mentioned, I did want to keep my opening remarks brief as I understand members may have questions regarding the current practices within law enforcement in Canada, and I'll try to do my best to provide that information.

Once again, thank you very much for the invitation to appear today. I look forward to any questions you might have.

Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Helping Families in Need Act is aimed directly at families who are faced with critical life-changing circumstances in their lives. Our government recognized this. Our government came in with the families in need act and extended the ability for employees in the workforce today to deal with that situation by being able to leave their place of employment and not be fired or laid off as a result of that. That is one key, very important piece of our government's platform for the most vulnerable people in this country.

The second one, the wage earner protection program, protects workers from bankruptcies of companies that go bankrupt and do not have the funds to pay workers their severance, their vacation pay, or any back wages that were not paid. It was our government that brought this bill to the House of Commons, our government that passed it, whilst the opposition voted against it.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on that note I will ask to split my time with the member for Mississauga—Streetsville and I apologize to the Chair for not indicating that at an earlier point.

The earlier speaker from across the aisle was talking about our government having done nothing for workers. The wage earner protection program protects the wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay owed to workers if their employers go bankrupt or into receivership. This has benefited thousands of Canadians. The statistics are this. Since its inception in 2008 and up to July 31, 2014, more than 74,000 Canadians have received $174.8 million in WEP payments. This is the wage earner protection program that our government brought in as legislation, contradicting what was said earlier by the previous speaker. These are wages that are owed to employees by employers who became bankrupt or went into receivership.

To further support employees in the federal jurisdiction we implemented the Helping Families in Need Act. This gives employees the right to take unpaid leave if they have a child who is critically ill, is missing, or has passed away as a result of a probable criminal offence. It is clear that in recent years we have expanded the labour standard protections for all employees in federally regulated enterprises because we have their best interests at heart.

The question of reinstating a federal minimum wage is a moot point. Establishing the minimum wage lies in the capable hands of our provincial and territorial governments who are better positioned to apply a local lens to such policy decisions. Workers in the federal jurisdiction are getting a fair wage under a system that works. There is simply no reason to change it. Therefore, that is why I propose to defeat the motion and I ask the support of my fellow members.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the discussion of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, proposing that the federal minimum wage be raised. For a number of very good reasons already mentioned, I do not support the motion. Not the least of those reasons is the simple fact that since 1996, the federal minimum wage has been paid to the provincial and territorial minimum wage in which the employee is working, so why should we change it now so that employees in the federal jurisdiction can have a higher minimum rate of pay than those in the provincial areas of jurisdiction?

The opposition's argument is that increasing the rate on the federal side will make the provincial governments fall into line and raise their rates to catch up, but the federal government cannot just tell the provincial governments to raise their minimum rates, nor can we be certain that the provinces would follow suit if the federal rate were raised. That is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Perhaps more important is the fact that the greater expertise in the area, particularly with respect to knowledge and understanding of local and regional conditions, lies with the provincial governments. In fact, provincial governments, for the most part, closely study and analyze the whole range of local and regional issues, including poverty levels, unemployment rates, job opportunities, average wage levels, and so on, before making changes to the minimum wage level.

Hon. members may know that over the past few years all provinces and territories have increased their minimum wage rates, in many cases after reviews by minimum wage boards or independent experts. In fact, several provinces have legislation stating that minimum wages must be reviewed every one or two years. Even those provinces without legislative requirements tend to adjust their minimum wage rates on a regular basis. In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan have all announced that they will increase their minimum wage on October 1, 2014. A recent Statistics Canada study has shown that the average growth in the minimum wage across Canada in the past decade has outstripped the rate of inflation.

I also want to point out that increasing minimum wage levels is not the only tool, and not a particularly sharp one, that governments can use to help low-income individuals and families to improve earnings and their standards of living. On the federal government side, these tools include billions of dollars in benefits given to individuals and families every year. I am referring to programs like the Canada child tax benefit; the Canada pension plan; the guaranteed income supplement; the EI program; maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits; the GST/HST credit for those with low incomes, and many more.

I list these few examples just to make the point that there is a great deal more to how we support and protect Canadian workers and families than just a band-aid short-term stunt adjusting the minimum wage. Economic growth and job creation, the top priorities of this government, are what have helped us build a strong and growing economy. They are what will continue to sustain us in the years ahead. Indeed, we are doing much better in that regard than many of our trading partners.

Since the recession a few years ago, we have had steady job growth, low interest rates, and growth rates that are the envy of many other countries. We believe that getting the economic essentials right will continue to keep us on the right track for even greater levels of prosperity and growth in the years to come.

As we all know, the best way to help improve Canadian workers' income is through the creation of good, well-paying jobs. One good example of how we can make adjustments to improve economic prospects is the recent announcement by the Minister of Finance of the small business job credit. This new credit will effectively lower EI premiums for small businesses by 15% over the next two years. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the credit will create 25,000 person-years of employment.

The minister also confirmed that in 2017, EI premiums would go down from the current $1.88 per $100 of earnings to $1.47 per $100 of earnings. This is excellent news for both workers and small business employers.

Our government will also continue to make specific changes and adjustments to a variety of programs to support workers and their families. Chief among them is making sure that all workers who come under federal jurisdiction have a safe and healthy workplace, equal opportunity for hiring and advancement, and the right to engage in a fair and balanced bargaining process.

Since being sworn in, our government has steadily increased occupational health and safety protections and improved working conditions for all employees under federal jurisdiction. This government implemented the wage earners protection program that protects the wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay owing to workers whose employers go bankrupt or into receivership. This government brought in the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, which changed the Canada Labour Code to ensure employees who lose their jobs cannot be deprived of severance pay just because they happen to be entitled to a pension. This government brought in the Helping Families in Need Act that allows employees under federal jurisdiction to take unpaid leave in many different circumstances to care for their families. It also provides for flexibility for parents who need to interrupt their maternity and paternity leave for different reasons.

All of this is to say that we have offered assistance to low-income Canadians as a topic that is broader and much larger than just a discussion of minimum wage levels. Therefore, I urge all members to consider this and all of the other issues that I have mentioned and vote against the motion.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

This is something that I think this committee has looked at before, in Bill C-44. I know that many of you were on the committee at that time.

From a personal perspective, I think this is extremely important legislation. Those of you who have children or those of you who deal with children know that making sure a parent is with them at a time of need is exceptionally important. I can't really describe to you how important it is to the child, albeit I've seen many times in an intensive care unit what the difference is in their well-being and recovery when their parent is there.

To take the economic burden, the issue of concern for a parent, off their shoulders so that they can focus on what is the most important asset they have—their child—at a time of great stress is, I think, extremely important. The things that we can do—and I'm delighted to say that all members of the House supported this legislation, both the government as well as the opposition parties—have created a phenomenon whereby I think Canadian parents are well supported in one of those most critical times in life.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find that very amusing. I sat in the House some time ago on Bill C-44 and commended the opposition on its significant support for particularly ill children. It is important that we highlight there are certain differences between the two parties.

I am pleased the opposition members are supporting the direction of this. I look forward to working with them more in the future, as I did with my critics on the human resources committee with respect to Bill C-44.

Canada Labour Code

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, there is no argument that children are a blessing. I became a pediatric orthopedic surgeon in part because of my love for children, so I understand that the hon. member has only the most compassionate motives in proposing this legislation. However, accepting the bill as it stands would run contrary to the intent of the Employment Insurance Act, as I will explain.

On multiple births, the EI legislation is very clear. It stipulates that regardless of the number of children born or adopted, the maximum number of weeks of EI parental benefits that can be paid as a result of a single pregnancy or adoption is 35 weeks. The legislation allows one parent to receive the benefit, or both parents to share the benefit at the same time or consecutively. The Federal Court of Appeal recently ruled on this issue and the decision of the court affirmed the legislation as it stands and rejected the charter argument on unequal treatment.

The bill seeks to increase the maximum number of weeks during which parental benefits can be paid from 35 weeks to 70 weeks in the case of multiple births or adoptions. Unlike a social welfare program where the financial needs or circumstances of each person are considered in determining eligibility, EI is an insurance program. It is the loss of wages that is being insured against. EI benefits replace a portion of those wages of a person's losses for their time away from work. Allowing this change would undermine the insurance nature of the EI program and change its purpose.

In addition to the 35 weeks of parental benefits, a new mother also qualifies for an additional 15 weeks of maternal benefits. The principle of maternity benefits is that a new mother should be protected from an earnings loss while she is physically unable to work or seek work in the weeks surrounding the birth of a child or children. The EI program ensures that working families who experience loss of income receive support to balance the demands of both work and family by providing the flexibility they need to stay home and care for their children, their newborn or adopted child.

Our government has delivered several initiatives recently to provide greater financial stability to parents facing difficult circumstances, through the Helping Families in Need Act. We amended the Employment Insurance Act to facilitate access to EI sickness benefits for claimants who had fallen ill or injured while collecting parental benefits. Also, a new EI benefit for parents with critically ill children will help ensure that families do not suffer undue financial hardship due to their child's illness.

As a pediatric orthopedic surgeon, I have seen the immense pressure a family faces when they have a sick child. I can say from personal experience, having seen parents present at the bedside of their child, that it is crucial that they be there when their child needs them. As parents in my riding of Simcoe—Grey have said, they are very pleased that the government has made this substantial investment in supporting families in their greatest time of need.

As well, there is a new grant now available to parents of murdered and missing children. These parents face tremendous emotional stress and often have to take time off work to cope with this tragedy or to be part of the criminal justice process.

We recognize our responsibility to help parents balance work and family responsibilities. We have repeatedly shown our commitment to support families and will continue to do so. Through Canada's economic action plan we have strengthened the universal child care benefit to help more than 2 million young children and 1.5 million families every year. Since it was introduced, this benefit has lifted approximately 22,000 families out of poverty.

We are helping working parents by making major investments in creating new child care spaces. Our government has allocated billions of dollars to support early childhood development and child care through transfers to the provinces and territories, direct spending and tax measures for Canadian families. To assist low and middle-income families, we have provided additional support through the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement.

In addition, through foster-to-adopt programs, foster parents are eligible for EI parental benefits as soon as they have taken the necessary steps to adopt a child into their care. Moreover, self-employed persons are now able to opt into the EI program to receive maternity benefits as well as parental sickness and compassionate care benefits. In addition to this, Canadian Forces members who are ordered to return to duty while on parental leave or whose parental leave is deferred as a result of a military requirement also have an extended eligibility window for EI parental benefits.

Regarding the suggested change to EI, we have estimated that the cost to workers and employers would be approximately $100 million per year if implemented. This is in addition to the $4 billion a year in EI measures the NDP would like to create, including a 360-hour work year, that would drive up EI premiums by 16%.

I was fortunate enough to be involved in the EI rate-setting consultations that occurred in the fall of 2001. I heard from businesses and workers all across the country about the importance of stable and predictable EI premium rate-setting. While our government introduced a new rate-setting mechanism to ensure stability and predictability for EI premiums, the NDP is proposing measures that would see EI premiums rise by over 16% in a single year.

Nothing is more important than the role a mother or father plays in caring for their child. The family is the fundamental unit of society, the backbone of a successful country. Time and again our government has demonstrated its commitment to helping families. However, in this fragile economic time when small businesses are concerned about EI premiums, supporting a bill that would result in increased EI premiums would be fiscally irresponsible.

While I certainly understand the good intentions of the hon. member opposite in proposing this bill and fully share her desire to provide greater support for Canadian families, as we done most recently with Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, I cannot support this bill at this time because of the huge negative impact increasing premiums would have on small businesses in my riding of Simcoe—Grey.

I encourage all members of the House to join me in voting against this legislation, which will put a huge burden on the backs of small businesses, employers and employees in this country.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate this morning, not just as the critic for human resources and skills development for the Liberal Party but as the father of three boys. There is a fairly significant storm hitting the east coast today and schools have been cancelled in Cape Breton and in many districts. As my wife teaches at the community college, she is home today. Therefore, I will be very cautious not to try to overstate how much impact I had in those early days in rearing the three boys. However, from my perspective, I was a spectator in something that I thought was pretty impressive with all that goes on with raising three pretty high-energy boys who were sort born in steps and stairs.

Young mothers almost need a third arm, with all the bags, strollers and kids. We can only imagine the impact when they are trying to do this for twins. When there is a situation with multiple births, we can only appreciate the additional effort and work that has to go into that situation. It is certainly not a normal situation. It is not an abnormal situation, but it is certainly one that I think deserves this opportunity to look at the bill that was brought forward by my colleague.

There are a number of points that I want to raise in my 10 minutes. The challenge is to find that balance between the special circumstances that arise in cases of multiple births and balancing good, fair, reasonable social policy against the cost to the people who fund the program. That is where we have to come up with something pragmatic that also makes sense.

Millions of employers and employees pay into the employment insurance fund. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to ensure that changes in legislation and regulation are looked at and vetted here. Unlike what we have seen with the changes to the current EI system, when we look at working while on claim and some of the other changes that have had a significant impact on seasonal industries, I believe it is in Canadians' best interests that these changes be vetted.

However, I have some questions that I think need to be answered before the bill can be properly judged. I do not think we have seen all the information. There have been a couple of points made. I certainly am not confident in the information that I have. I believe the vetting of this issue and the opportunity to hear witnesses on both sides of the issue would serve us well. It would serve the committee well and that would serve the House well, as this goes forward.

However, I do not think that we can dismiss the intent of the bill, which is to help families deal with unforeseen and challenging circumstances. That is why I want to support the bill going to committee so that we can assess the merits of the bill.

Canada is one of the most generous countries when we talk about maternal and paternal benefits. Being a proud member of the Liberal Party, I think there is much that the Liberal Party has done in contributing to the reputation that we hold in the world. In 1971, the government led by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau brought forward the first maternity leave, the 15-week maternity leave. Nineteen years later, Prime Minister Chrétien's government increased those parental benefits to 35 weeks and reduced the hours of eligibility from 700 to 600, allowing more parents to spend more time caring for their children without worrying about losing their jobs or where to find income.

It is noteworthy that my colleague from Durham is speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party. It is worth pointing out that when Mr. Chrétien brought that legislation in to increase the benefits, the Canadian Alliance, in fact, voted against those increases. I was not surprised to hear that he was not ready to get up and champion this particular piece of legislation.

Bill C-464 is admirable in the sense that it is trying to help parents who face a special situation. I think all of us here in the House can agree that multiple births are a very special situation. The Dionne quintuplets were very special and captured the excitement and imagination of an entire country. Many times, in multiple births, there are problems with the pregnancy and delivery, whether it is twins, triplets or quintuplets. There is physical, emotional and psychological stress placed on the parents and children, not to mention the financial burden that comes with multiple births. I think those challenges are high and worth noting.

According to Multiple Births Canada, 57% of twins and 98% of higher order multiples are born pre-term, with low birth weights and postnatal concerns. These facts cannot be overlooked or lessened. They are part of the basis of why this bill should at least be studied.

However, some of the arguments put forward in support of this bill have flaws as well. For example, the fact that some countries, most notably Europe, have additional benefits for multiple births argues that Canada should. However, in many of these countries, the total benefits provided are less than what Canada's current system already provides.

Proponents of the bill say that the additional challenges multiple-birth parents face warrant an additional 35 weeks of unpaid leave and EI benefits; if a single birth parent gets 35 weeks, it would automatically mean that parents of twins should get double, or at least should be viewed as getting double. With twins, I am not sure that there is twice as much work, so to take that correlation and apply it here to simply double the 35 weeks I am not sure is something we are able to do or it makes sense to do.

What we should be charged with as elected officials is to try to get something right, to try to get something that works for the parents that is responsible in terms of protecting the employment insurance fund.

According to the PBO, there are approximately 13,000 multiple births per year, and 6,700 parents would be eligible for this extended benefit. The PBO estimates this cost at approximately $80 million per year. That seems fairly high. However, it is approximately the same cost as Bill C-44, the government legislation that created the new special parental benefits last fall. This is another reason we should absolutely send this bill to committee to have it looked at.

My time is winding down here, so I am just going to sum up. I am sure there are things we can agree on in this House. Multiple births are very much a special circumstance. Whether we ultimately agree that parents of twins, triplets or other multiples should get twice the benefits as parents of single births is not the most relevant question with respect to whether this bill should go forward. This bill is at second reading, so it is about trying to gather more information.

For this circumstance, I believe we should support the bill. Whether doubling is the right way to go, I do not know, but I think we should recognize the challenges faced by the parents of families with multiple births and at least support this legislation as it goes forward to committee.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to both ministers for being here.

Like you, I very much enjoyed the time we shared here together with Bill C-44. Since you enjoy being here so much, I wonder if I could start off by asking whether you'd be willing to be here for two hours instead of just one hour, in the same spirit of cooperation that we showed during the debate on Bill C-44.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, it was only a short while ago that Minister Finley and I were here to talk about Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, and I'm delighted to be back again.

That legislation that we were talking about previously showed our government's commitment to the welfare of Canadian workers and their families. We believe that Canadians are entitled to be treated fairly on the job.

With that in mind, we foster good working conditions, constructive labour-management relations, and healthy, safe workplaces free from discrimination, because by doing all these things, we are making a vital contribution to Canada's prosperity and to our overall quality of life.

That said, we can't ignore that uncertain economic situation in which we are working today.

Some workers in our country are still vulnerable, and they are worried about the ability to provide for their families. We know that when Canadian workers were hit hard by the economic downturn—especially those employees whose employers went bankrupt, closed down, and did not pay their workers the money they were owed—Canadian workers did suffer.

That's why in 2008 our government introduced the wage earner protection program, or WEPP: because we wanted to make sure that the workers who were affected like this received timely compensation for their unpaid wages and their vacation pay.

We expanded the WEPP in 2009, and we included both unpaid severance and termination pay as well.

In 2011 we expanded again, to make sure that workers were covered in situations where a company attempted to restructure but was unsuccessful and ended in bankruptcy.

Overall, since the start of the program in 2008, more than $120 million has been paid to over 53,000 workers. Given the expansion of this program over the time, we are now adding $1.4 million annually in operating funds to ensure that we deliver to WEPP applicants the benefits they are entitled to when they need them most. Therefore, we're requesting additional funding through the supplementary estimates to fulfill this commitment.

We know that in uncertain times, workers suffer, businesses suffer, and indeed the whole country suffers. That's why our government remains focused on creating jobs, on long-term growth and prosperity, but in that, a crucial part is labour peace. We know that good labour relations help create a stable and a reliable environment in which businesses can thrive, but they also give workers the security that they need to be productive and to support their families.

The Federal Mediation Conciliation Service is a part of Labour Canada, and it really does do a remarkable job in supporting the stable, peaceful, and cooperative labour environment.

FMCS has a section for preventive mediation services. That service helps unions and management to build and maintain constructive working relationships that deal with difficult workplace issues as they arise, not necessarily at a point in time when a collective agreement is being bargained. To make this service available to more clients, we are committing half a million dollars in annual ongoing funding.

I want to make a point here on this issue. Despite the impression that may be created by media or by coverage of certain events, cooperative labour relations in Canada really are the norm. Strikes and lockouts are the exception. Indeed, in the past four years 94% of labour negotiations in the federally regulated private sector were settled without work stoppages when FMCS was involved.

Contributing to harmonious working relationships and therefore to labour stability is really only one aspect of the labour program's goals for federal workplaces. As minister, I firmly believe that a healthy and a safe and a fair workplace is a key element to Canada's formula for success. Indeed, I've called the workplace the engine room for the economy.

The workplace is important because where there's more morale, where there's ingenuity, where there's productivity, Canadian businesses are helped to compete with the best in the world, so we promote safe and healthy workplaces through both preventive education and reactive strategies. Most importantly, we encourage workers and employers to take an active role in ensuring the health and safety of their workplaces.

This past fall I visited China, and I'm really proud to say that Canada is recognized internationally for our expertise in workplace health and safety.

Lately, as well, we've been focusing on a different aspect of health and safety in the workplace: mental health.

Mental health in the workplace is a significant concern not only for businesses but also for workers and for families. Half a million people a day miss work because of mental health problems. That can translate into a loss of productivity of about between $33 and $50 billion annually. Quite frankly, this is something that we have to deal with.

That's why the Government of Canada provided $367,000 in funding to the Mental Health Commission of Canada to help develop a voluntary national standard for psychological health and safety in the workplace. My labour program provided the commission with technical expertise. The project is a really great partnership because it received funding from Bell Canada and the Great-West Life Centre for Mental Health in the Workplace.

What's really exciting about this is that it will be the first standard of its kind in the world. It really is an example of how governments and organizations can work together to help modernize workplace health and safety. We're working with businesses and we're working with unions. They were part of the psychological standard creation. With those two parties and with the help of the government, we are creating these dynamic workplaces where cooperation and fairness are the rule, workplaces where health and safety are integral parts of the culture, workplaces where workers and employers can contribute, innovate, and increase productivity for the benefit of all, including the general Canadian public.

Those are some ways that we in the labour program are helping Canadian businesses and families and continuing to strengthen our economy.

Mr. Chair, I hope this overview has been helpful and I'd be very pleased to answer any questions that you or the committee may have.

Thank you very much for your time.

Helping Families in Need Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-44.

Call in the members.