Bill C-206 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (persons who leave employment to be care-givers to family members)

Open Government Act

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-462, which is a lengthy private member's bill that would make a considerable number of amendments to the Access to Information Act. Indeed, I do not think it is going too far to say that Bill C-462 constitutes a major effort to overhaul the Access to Information Act.

Clearly, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot once again has focused our attention on the Access to Information Act by bringing forward his extensive bill. Accordingly, my purpose today is to comment on the member's bill, which I intend to do from more than one perspective. Before doing that, I want to take a moment or two to make some introductory and background comments.

I do not know if all the members of the House are aware of how long the member has been working on reforming the Access to Information Act. I believe I am right when I say that he first introduced a private member's bill to amend the act in the fall of 1997. The bill was then numbered as Bill C-264. The member made certain improvements to Bill C-264 and reintroduced it in 1998 as Bill C-206. In the summer of 2000, Bill C-206 was defeated. Prior to this, the member had twice obtained more than 100 signatures in support of his bill.

I want to elaborate on a point to which I alluded a moment ago, which is the importance of access to information legislation. Here in Canada, we are fortunate to have had such legislation in place at the federal level since Canada Day 1983. As so often happens, we have a tendency to take this for granted because we have benefited from the Access to Information Act for more than 20 years.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that one of the pillars or cornerstones of a democracy is a law that gives citizens a right to gain access to government information. Of course, this right to government information is not absolute or unfettered, and certain government information must still be kept confidential. Some good examples of this are taxpayer information, sensitive and confidential business information that a company provides to the government, sensitive government information such as the contents of an upcoming budget, and information relating to the defence of Canada.

These examples do not detract from the general principle that most government information should be accessible so that Canadians can, if they wish, find out what the government is doing. Put simply, allowing Canadians to check up on the government is an important part of our democracy.

Although many may not realize this, Canada is viewed as somewhat of a pioneer in the field of access to information legislation. Various countries in the world are developing democratic principles for themselves and some of these countries seek Canada's advice on how to create access to information legislation for themselves. In some of these countries, the government can, based on whimsy or whatever good or bad reason it chooses, completely ignore a citizen's request for government information or untruthfully tell the citizen that the information does not exist. Regardless of whether our Access to Information Act is out of date and in need of some modernization, the fact remains that, fortunately for us, the situations I just mentioned are contrary to our federal law.

So far I have attempted to make the general point that we are fortunate to have access to information legislation. I wish now to turn to Bill C-462 itself. What I intend to do in the next few minutes is mention a number of proposed amendments in the bill that are worthwhile and then draw the House's attention to a few proposals that I think require some additional thinking, examination and refinement.

Before doing this, let me say that, as we know, the Minister of Justice is responsible for any reform of the Access to Information Act. The minister does not oppose the general direction of this bill. However, certain concerns needs to be addressed.

In the category of worthwhile amendments that are proposed in Bill C-462, I want to begin with one in particular. As everyone in the House knows, the repercussions of the horrifying attacks that took place on September 11, 2001, are still with us. In this regard, this bill proposes a seemingly small but, in my view, quite important addition to the Access to Information Act.

Currently, section 20 of the act essentially protects trade secrets and other confidential commercial information that a government institution receives from a third party, usually a company. The proposal in this bill is that this exemption be amended to add a specific protection for information relating to critical infrastructure. As I mentioned earlier, the right to gain access to government information is not absolute. Certain information must be kept confidential, and I think that for security reasons information on critical infrastructure falls neatly into this category.

Sometimes an issue arises when a request is made under the act for records subject to solicitor and client privilege. Certainly, the act currently contains an exemption that can be used to protect records covered by this privilege. However, when the government is willing to discuss part of a record covered by solicitor and client privilege, there is concern that the privilege in relationship to the remainder of the material might be endangered. Bill C-462 tries to address this concern by specifying that the disclosure of part of such a record does not constitute a waiver of the privilege in relationship to the remainder of the record. This proposal is worth examining further.

I have one further comment to make in the positive category before moving to some of my concerns. At present, the act states that if a requester is unhappy with how her or his request has been handled, or with the records that she or he has been given, the requester can complain to the information commissioner within one year from the date on which the request was made.

The difficulty that requesters can encounter with this section is that sometimes, legitimately or not, government institutions do not respond to requests until later than one year after the date on which the request was made. The proposal in the bill, which I view as entirely sensible, is to amend this section to say that a requester can complain within 12 months from the date of the request or such other time as the information commissioner may allow.

Turning now to my concerns, the following two proposals concern me because I believe they go further than necessary to accomplish the policy goal. Therefore, at the very least, they need to be very carefully scrutinized. First, the bill is proposing the outright repeal of section 24 of the act. Let me take a moment to described what that section does.

As I mentioned earlier in this speech, the Access to Information Act contains several specific exemptions that serve to protect from disclosure certain types of confidential information. One exemption, section 24, is slightly different. It requires the protection of information that is described as confidential in other statutes.

Attached to section 24 is a schedule that lists the confidentiality provisions in the other statutes of Parliament. Included in the list are, for example, a section of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Defence Production Act, the Income Tax Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Statistics Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, and sections of the Criminal Code and the Patent Act. In addition to these, the list in the schedule contains about 50 other statutes. I do not believe the complete repeal of section 24 is the correct approach.

No conclusion regarding section 24 should be reached until after each and every confidentiality clause listed in the schedule has been examined and evaluated, and every entity that could be affected, for example, CSIS, Statistics Canada and the anti-money-laundering agency, Fintrac, has been thoroughly consulted. We simply cannot afford to not get this right.

The second proposal that causes me considerable concern again does so because I think the proposal in its current form may well go too far. I am referring to the proposal in the bill that the definition in the act of a government institution be expanded to include not only parent crown corporations but also their wholly owned subsidiaries and “any incorporated not for profit organization which receives at least two-thirds of its financing through federal government appropriations”.

I am not entirely sure what this proposal would mean in practice. It seems to mean that any charity that receives most of its money from the government would be subject to the Access to Information Act. This might require charities to expend time and money on creating the necessary infrastructure to deal with requests under the act. If I am right, is this result desirable? It is a question.

Regarding the wholly owned subsidiaries of crown corporations, we need to have a complete and up to date list of these so we know exactly which entities we are talking about.

Furthermore, a related proposal in Bill C-462 makes it clear that the CBC would be covered by the Access to Information Act. Would this mean that people could send Access to Information Act requests to the CBC in the hope of discovering information about confidential sources or investigative reports? Again, if I am right, is it appropriate and desirable?

I wish to move now to certain points that concern me less but to which I still want to draw the House's attention. We are puzzled with one proposal in Bill C-462. A few years ago, as a result of another private member's bill, C-208, a criminal offence was added to the Access to Information Act to cover essentially the intentional destruction, alteration or concealment of a record in order to thwart the Access to Information Act. Accordingly, I do not understand why the member sponsoring this bill is proposing to add another quite similar criminal offence to the act.

The final concern is related to an issue I mentioned a moment ago, and that is the coverage of crown corporations and their wholly owned subsidiaries.

The Minister of Justice does not oppose the general direction of the bill, nor does he oppose this bill going to committee. However, he strongly believes that certain concerns need to be addressed. I mentioned a few. It remains an open question whether this bill could in fact be repaired at the committee stage. That is the position of the justice department.

Canada Pension Plan

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my Progressive Conservative colleague, I would like to state that an NDP government, and that has a wonderful sound to it, would ensure that a motion of this nature, which, next to some of the motions I have presented, is one of the finest pieces of legislation to hit the floor of the House of Commons, is passed. My colleague from Churchill should be congratulated for her efforts on behalf of injured workers throughout the entire country.

Anyone who has ever dealt with workman's compensation, whether they live in the three territorial jurisdictions or the ten provinces, knows what a quagmire it can be. It is an absolute bureaucratic mess. All the member is doing is ensuring matters for people who are injured on the job. We know the statistics. Every day in Canada three people die on the job and hundreds are injured; they should not be punished in their long term retirement plans by deductions of CPP. It naturally should be included. As my colleague from Dauphin--Swan River said, it is part of a person's income and should be considered as such when it comes to retirement benefits such as CPP.

We know, of course, that this is a good motion. It is good for workers and good for their families, so the Liberals must be against it then, but what is new about that? They have voted against every positive resolution we have ever presented. This is a pragmatic motion. We know there is a problem and we know the motion will address that problem. Does it address all the problems? No, nor was the member indicating it would. This is just one small step toward fixing the problems.

I know of what the member speaks. Five years ago, I presented Bill C-206, the caregivers' legislation, which, basically and briefly, stated as an example that if my wife and I had a child and we were both working, either one of us could take a year off work and get unemployment insurance, through maternity benefits or paternity benefits.

However, what happens if the doctor diagnoses our seven year old child with cancer and says our child had six months to live? What are we supposed to do? I ask members to ask themselves what they as parents would do. Would they institutionalize the child? Would they take time off work? Would their company allow them to take time off work? Would they suffer a financial loss because of it? All of these questions go through the minds of Canadians every day.

All my bill said was that if a physician stated that someone has a relative under palliative care, the caregiver should be able to take time off work to prevent that person from being institutionalized. The bill stated that the caregiver should be able to collect unemployment insurance for up to one year, like maternity benefits, which would allow the caregiver to have job security, flexibility and an income while caring for that person. For every dollar spent through the EI system, $4 would be saved in the health care system. Those are facts, right there on pages 184 to 188 of the Romanow report.

The Liberals were against that but they did introduce a program, a very small one, a starter step, starting in January, for six weeks for children. I will give them credit for that.

However, I will come back to my colleague from Churchill, Manitoba, the polar bear capital of the world, by the way. My colleague states very clearly that there is a need for this type of legislation. I know the member quite well. She does not throw out legislation willy-nilly just to have a conversation and tie up this full House we have tonight, standing room only of course. She thought this over very carefully. She has worked with various groups, organizations and individuals who have gone through this. She, being a good member of Parliament and a fine representative of her beautiful area of northern Manitoba, has said very clearly that she would like to introduce this into legislation.

It has some merit, because the committee that deals with private members' business has made it a votable item. The committee of her peers is not made up of fools. They are good people from all the respective political parties. They know the motion has merit. We are rather ashamed that the Liberals are against it, but we have not spoken to every one of them. Hopefully we can change their minds and work toward this motion being passed.

No injured worker under any circumstance should have to suffer when it comes to CPP. We in the NDP have always stated that a pension plan is a cornerstone to retirement. Although the Canada pension plan has not done everything that we would like it to, it has prevented an awful lot of people from slipping into dire straits.

The public pension plan is a very good idea. In fact, it is a social democratic idea. It was people like Stanley Knowles, M.J. Caldwell and J.S. Woodsworth, and the pages are looking at me wondering who were those great people. They were the founders of our party. They were the ones who fought for health care. They were the ones who fought for pensions, long before it was ever cool to talk about these things. They knew the need was out there. If it were not for those great people, we would not have those things today.

The New Democratic Party, and previously the CCF, has done terrific work. Although we have never formed a federal government, one day I hope I to sit in this House as a member of an NDP government. The reality is that this is the type of legislation people would see from a very progressive government, a social democratic government.

Public health, public education, a publicly funded military, a publicly funded police force, a publicly funded system of roads and transportation are all social democratic ideas. We are very pleased when opposition parties right of centre, and the Liberals are the right of centre of party now, actually support some of those initiatives. They grew up in this country under those programs. Those programs were fought for by members of the New Democratic Party as well as many people in the social movement. Union members have died for these types of rights. If I can give the union movement a plug right now, if it were not for the unions, we would not have the concept known as the weekend.

Having said that, this is a fine piece of legislation. It is worthy of further debate. It should go to committee so we can have a more constructive debate and dialogue on it. There are those who would oppose it in any way through lack of information, lack of knowledge or maybe they just do not like it. Maybe we can change their minds to vote for something to help injured workers in this country in their retirement plans.

Petitions

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, continuing on with thousands of other petitions that we introduced in the House earlier, from Leroy, Saskatchewan, from Port Dover, Ontario and the Magdalen Islands, the petitioners pray upon Parliament to support Bill C-206, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, allowing for security of employment status and career opportunities for people who take employment insurance while they care for their loved ones under palliative care or under severe rehabilitation.

It is a great honour for me to present this petition on their behalf.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is on behalf of thousands of Canadians across the country who have written in in support of my Bill C-206. They are asking Parliament to support and enact the legislation to allow caregivers an opportunity to leave their place of employment for up to a year to care for someone under a palliative care situation.

Caregivers

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of people are leaving their jobs to help a family member who has a disability or an illness, or who is elderly. These individuals known as caregivers make a difficult choice in staying with a loved one 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without pay.

More often than not, they are women. Indeed, 80% of caregivers are women.

Sadly, last week, this House did not pass Bill C-206, which would have provided caregivers with financial support. Sadder yet, in voting against this bill, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women ignored one of the demands made by the International March of Women.

Budget Implementation Act, 2003

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member who just spoke and of course his colleague from Elk Island, two Alliance members who are from the family values party, which we have heard about from that party many times, and who supported Bill C-206, a bill to offer compassionate care leave for caregivers in our country.

I know that one good thing about the Alliance is that it allows free thought and free votes in its party and I support that. We have heard the words family values many times from the Alliance Party. I would like to ask the member to comment, if he could, as to how the leader and the former leader of that party could vote against the bill. Half the Liberals voted against it too, but I am just working on the Alliance right now.

How were Alliance members able to stand up in the House and purport to be a party of family values when all I asked was that this bill, which would offer assistance to caregivers, at least be debated in a committee? They did not have to agree with the bill. The member supported it and so did his colleague, but his front bench and the official opposition leader said no. All we asked was that it go to committee.

I know why the Liberals did not go for it, which is despicable in itself for half of them, but why did the leader of the Alliance Party and his colleagues vote against that great recommendation in regard to, again, one of the finest bills ever to enter this great hall?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, sometimes we wonder why members of Parliament keep being elected all the time. We have the fine member for Fredericton who has one of the finest Picasso's in the country hanging right in the beautiful gallery in Fredericton.

I have three questions. First, I have a large military base as well, as the member knows, and he talked about his base in Gagetown. A few years ago he fought very hard to prevent alternate service delivery from happening in his riding, which happened in Goose Bay. Does he think the funding is enough for the military, especially after the recent announcement about Afghanistan with close to a thousand troops?

There is also the Coast Guard. The member comes from Atlantic Canada and he knows the value of the Coast Guard. It did not receive as much funding as we were hoping. In fact, the estimates show there was actually a decrease in funding to the Coast Guard.

My third question, could he explain why half of his party, not him personally because he supported it, but half of his party and half of the official opposition voted against Bill C-206, one of the finest pieces of legislation ever to grace the halls of Parliament?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was asked by my party whip to come to the House to debate the budget. I thought that was what we were doing.

I do want to at least allow the opportunity for the Liberal member to say that in terms of the economic argument, there is no question that this was long before September 11. The United States is one of the most protectionist societies when it comes to protecting its farmers with generous subsidies, looking after softwood lumber concerns and the PEI potato battles. The Americans started all that long before September 11. The fear for most Canadian is that by not supporting the efforts of President Bush on the war, it will exacerbate the damages.

The other day we had a vote on Bill C-206, the compassionate care leave bill, which would allow individuals who care for a dying child or a dying relative the opportunity to leave their place of employment and collect unemployment benefits and job security while they care for that individual. It is exactly the same for two people who are married and have child. They can collect maternity benefits for up to one year. We have a program at the beginning of a person's life, but we do not have a program at the end of a person's life.

We have proved again to government that for every dollar on the EI system we would save $4 to $6 on the health care system. This is why we had support from people like Gary Marr, the Alberta provincial health minister, and people throughout Atlantic Canada. Over 84 national groups across Canada supported the bill. All I asked was that it would go to committee. Unfortunately, half the Alliance, the family value party, and half the Liberals voted against that very reasonable request.

Why does the hon. members think that the majority of MPs voted against that reasonable request to help the caregiver--

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to re-introduce Bill C-206, the compassionate care leave bill, for a vote in the House of Commons to move the bill to committee.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was recently that we had the vote on Bill C-206. While lauding the initiative of the member who proposed that private member's bill, according to my understanding there were several aspects to the bill that were technically impossible to deliver given the current framework.

I would suggest to the member that Rome was not built in a day. I am sure she could find room in her heart to say that the federal government is at least moving in the right direction. In fact, a number of provisions in Bill C-206 were, as I understand it, announced in the budget and that it might have been a duplication of effort and initiative to support that bill.

That said, the member and I are of one mind when it comes to doing what we can to support those who are disabled or the people who support those who are disabled. I believe she will at least agree with me that the initiatives that have taken place under our watch since 1993 have seen remarkable improvements. However we can agree that there is always room to do better, whether it is this file or the other files that constantly face a government.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the member's comments about people living with disabilities and the families that support them. In that context, I would ask the member why he and other members of his caucus, along with members from the Alliance Party, chose not to support a very important proposal before the House, that being Bill C-206, the private member's bill on caregiver benefits, presented by my colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.

The member will know that Bill C-206 was a proposal to the House to deal with the fact that the burden for caregiving falls heavily on women's shoulders and requires a meaningful solution by way of using some of the $45 billion EI surplus.

Given the need that he has identified and the fact that we had a constructive proposal, why did he and so many others in the House choose to vote against that constructive proposal and instead create a situation where families continue to grapple with the need to provide care for children with disabilities, for aging parents, for sick members of their family or for people who are dying, and do so without a meaningful alternative?

I think the member needs to explain to us what was wrong with that proposal and why he and others would reject something that was so positive.

Petitions

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I again rise in the House to present petitions in support of Bill C-206, the caregiver legislation, which would employment insurance benefits to those who care for people under palliative care or severe rehabilitation.

Let it be shown that although the bill was debated yesterday, the family value party, the Alliance, its leader, as well as three-quarters of the Liberal Party voted against the bill to move it to committee to support and further debate. Let the record show that indeed happened.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March 20, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-206 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Interim Supply

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent in the House to proceed immediately to the taking of the division on the main motion on Bill C-26 and the amendment to Bill C-20 and to proceed following that with the motion on Bill C-206.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-206 are deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 25 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

It being 6:50 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me tonight to speak on Bill C-206. Of course my learned friend who brought it forward is a very kind and compassionate person. He cares about what happens to individuals all over the country.

People have to forget the fact that it is going to cost money. It will cost money up front, but we will save money in the long haul. We could sit down and talk about all the bills that come through the House, and when all is said and done, there is no bill that will affect people as much as this bill will. Bill C-206 is a bill for the people. It is an excellent, caring, compassionate bill, which we sometimes do not see from politicians. Today we have a chance as a country and as politicians to stand up and say that we care for the working people of this country in a way that we have never cared before.

We all know that the workplace is very stressful. For 22 years I worked as a front line worker in health care. That is a long time. I have seen a lot in 22 years. I have been with family members who cried, who had stress and who did not know where their next dollar would come from because they were too emotionally upset to work. They had no plan so that they could go off work and have some income. They did not know where their next dollar was coming from.

This bill gives them hope. Bill C-206 gives them some type of peace of mind for the future and the people they love and will care for.

Bill C-206 raises legitimate points. Certainly all members sympathize with and respect those who are left with no other choice but to leave their employment due to the illness of a family member. Whether it is a parent, a sibling or a child, it does not matter.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada certainly believes in assisting Canadians who are in need of help. Bill C-206 will bring a great sense of peace of mind to people who are in need. The government gives parental leave and maternity leave, so what is wrong with the government giving compassionate leave to the people who need it the most? Bill C-206 gives it to the people.

I know that the hon. member is looking for 52 weeks and I know that the Liberal government put 6 weeks in the budget. I commend the government for that. Six weeks is a good starting point. This is a good start to move forward to make the bill better than ever before.

I am sure we all know people who have been in situations where they could not go to work because of stress and because they wanted to take care of a loved one on the last leg of the journey. As a result, they did not know where they were going or if they would have any money.

Bill C-206 gives them hope. I could tell story after story of people whose lives have been torn apart, but unless people go through it themselves they do not really understand it. I have been through this experience with my father-in-law who had cancer. He was diagnosed in December and before the trout season began he passed away. The only reason the family had peace of mind was that there were family members in the house. One could afford to take time from work and there were two family members who were not working at the time and they spent every day and rotated shifts.

The bill would give those family members a chance to say, “I can take legitimate leave from work, stay off and take care of our loved ones”. The hon. member should be congratulated. We have an old saying: the people in this country should be kissing his feet, because we have a kind politician, a politician who means a lot to this country. We as politicians can change the time and change the image of politicians if we do things right. This is what it is all about.

All of us should vote in favour of the bill. No one should object to the bill. We should unanimously support the bill, give the people something that they rightly deserve and give them hope for the future.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak on Bill C-206. It is legislation that certainly seeks to assist those who need help to be able to provide care to a close relative, father, daughter or son who is seriously ill.

However, with respect to this bill, the funds allocated under the 2003 budget deal specifically with this problem.

I can well understand the thinking of our hon. colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore who has worked so hard to advance Bill C-206. However, while I fully share the values of compassion, caring and dedication that lie behind his bill, I believe it has some serious shortcomings.

Our government has pledged in the Speech from the Throne to find a way so that workers will not have to choose between taking care of a family member and their job.

As usual, we were quick to deliver on our commitments. Actually, the government has announced in the 2003 budget the establishment of a six week leave with employment insurance benefits. This initiative seeks to ensure that Canadians can provide compassionate care for a seriously ill or dying child, parent or spouse without putting their job or income at risk.

Beginning in January 2004, six weeks of compassionate care benefits, along with eight weeks of Canada Labour Code job protection, will be available so eligible workers may take a temporary absence from work without fear of sudden income or job loss when a parent, spouse or child is dying or falls gravely ill.

Of course, at first glance, this leave may appear inadequate to my colleague, who is suggesting leave of up to 52 weeks. However, several analyses we conducted in the medical world showed that the average absence of a relative taking care of a seriously ill family member was six weeks. This is why the government suggested a six week leave paid by employment insurance.

Contrary to what my colleague from Vancouver East said, when she was drafting her bill, I am not so sure that our hon. colleague carefully researched the financial impact of her proposal on workers, employers and society as a whole.

Her bill includes not only close relatives such as children, parents, spouses, as does the government proposal, but also brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, as well as in-laws and step family members. This definition of family will be very costly for our society.

It gets worse when we consider the idea of impairment involved in the bill that applies to a wide range of care services entailing significant costs for Canadians.

I have noticed that no one here has mentioned any numbers. Let us talk numbers. Just to give members an idea, our compassionate care plan should cost the public purse approximately $86 million in 2003-04, and $221 million in 2004-05 and subsequent years. Clearly, Bill C-206, which would entitle more Canadians to this kind of leave and would make the leave almost nine times as long, would be very costly.

I do not believe that we as a country can afford this measure. The idea behind the measure is an idea that the government has already put forward and the government's position is one where we acknowledge the need, we try to answer the need, but there is certain limit to which we can go and this is a financial limit.

Bill C-206 runs contrary to the very principles on which we laid the new foundations of the employment insurance system, since it requires those who want to take care of their relatives to quit their job or be fired to be entitled to support.

The government proposal stresses that it is important for individuals to keep their jobs as long as possible. Unfortunately, I am out of time but, believe me, it is important to have a balanced approach.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-206, an act that would amend the Employment Insurance Act concerning persons who leave their employment in order to look after their loved ones at home.

I agree with the previous speaker that this legislation is very important. This opens up the debate on exploring some of the new alternatives that must be looked at as we move forward into the 21st century if we are to protect our health care system.

I wish to commend my colleague from Nova Scotia for bringing forward the bill before the House at this time so that we can at least begin debating it. I also wish to commend my colleague from Medicine Hat who led our party's response to this piece of legislation.

As senior health critic of the Canadian Alliance I would like to look at this issue primarily from a health perspective.

Canadians are a caring people. It is a value that we have as Canadians. In fact, as Canadians, we see our identity sometimes being wrapped around our health care system and the value of it. The value that we applaud and appreciate is the value that says that we will not lose our life savings because of an illness later in life, or at any time in our life. Because of that we collectively would like to pick up those costs for health care and have the one tier system. That is a value that we share.

Our American friends to the south have a different value. I am not here to judge their value. I am here to say that is not our value and we do not appreciate it. However, their value is a little different. They say they will look after people's health needs, in fact, they have terrific health care, but they have a terrible health care system, in the sense that they will take people's life savings before they give them treatment. Because of that, we do not share that value system and do not want that system. Nor do I hear any political party or hear any voices calling for that.

The value system that we have is saying that we should look after our people, regardless of their financial means. The Canadian Alliance will stand firmly behind those values.

We also have another problem; it is our aging population. An aging population means many of those who are facing the challenges later in life of becoming ill, as this bill will speak to, are having to be looked after by an institution, or by home care, or perhaps by a solution that is brought forward in this piece of legislation.

I am not here to say that the idea is wrong; the idea is right. We must explore all the ideas that we can possibly come up if we are to sustain the health care system as this aging population moves into the 21st century. It is important to take a little bit of time and describe exactly what we are facing in Canada as a health care system. We must realize that between the ages of 45 and 65 the average cost to the health care system in Canada right now is about $4,400 per person. However, between the ages of 65 to 75 that cost almost doubles, to over $7,000. And between the ages of 75 to 85 it doubles again, to almost $14,000. Those are just the bare facts of the dollars that go into health care right now without any of the exponential costs that we have seen. However, these costs are continuing to grow and becoming a real concern.

We can say that is fine, as people get older they access more dollars for health care. However, what we must put into that formula is an understanding of the demographics.

People who were born after the second world war are now reaching the age where they are getting into those high dollar costs of health care. As they hit our health care system we will have to come up with ideas that would have to go far beyond what this piece of legislation is proposing to be able to sustain our health care system. The numbers will keep increasing, until the year 2041, before we start breaking over the bubble where it starts relieving the demographic curve and we will have fewer people age 65 and over. From now until then we will have more individuals in Canada who are reaching the age of 65 and beyond. Therein lies a dilemma in our health care system and because of that we must start looking at it.

That draws me to the bill itself, the idea of compassionate leave for individuals to look after their loved ones at home.

Most Canadians want to be there for their loved ones, at the time of their greatest need. I also believe that those who have a terminal illness would prefer to live at home. They would prefer to be in their own environment where they would be the most comfortable with the least stress, have an easier time of it, and be looked after by those who love them the most rather than be in an institution where they would feel alienated.

From that perspective, I believe it is important that we look at this proposed legislation. As I said before, I applaud the member for bringing it forward.

Indeed many Canadians are already providing formal care in their homes. Most families are looking after their aged individuals. In fact a study has been done in Ontario by the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organization. It estimates that 85% to 90% of the home care is provided by family and friends. That means there are a great many individuals who are looking after those they love dearly. I salute each one of them who dedicates and sacrifices himself or herself for Canadians. It is very important that happens.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that care at home is actually more beneficial for the patient than care in institutions. It is also more cost effective.

When it comes to care at home, the care from family members is much more cost effective than formal care. I think that is very easy to understand. In fact my colleague from Medicine Hat, when he made his first comments on this proposed legislation, said that a constituent of his came to his office to talk to him about the bill. He said that the home care cost for his loved one per month would be $2,500. He said he could do that same job for $700.

When we look at Canadians, we can understand why this could be duplicated many times over which would relieve a lot of the costs.

However is it the right vehicle? Is it the right place from which we should be getting the money to deal with this? I would suggest that probably not. It may contribute to better health outcomes and enhance human dignity, and it is possibly less expensive. That is true when we look at the bill.

However should we be drawing the money from the EI program? That is where the bill and I differ. I do not believe EI was set up for that purpose. EI was set up for the purpose of employment insurance, which insures people for the times they are out of work. Individuals as well as corporations have paid into that program. In fact that program is in some ways an over taxation because of the amount of money brought in through that program and yet is not paid out through that program.

In fact the Auditor General has repeatedly criticized the government for pouring the EI funds into the consolidated revenue fund rather than establishing a separate self-sustaining EI account. I believe the Auditor General is right because the numbers are significantly more and it really amounts a higher tax than what it should be in the program.

Under the bill, it calls for 52 weeks on EI with a potential extension. We have to understand that the government's own pledge is only for a six week program. That would still add some further dimensions to the program.

We need further study to see if that is appropriate, with the right numbers and if it is flexible enough. All that needs to be taken into consideration. Because the compassionate leave is a health issue and because such leave is intended to address human health needs and would allegedly result in cost savings to the health care system, consideration should be given to the funding for compassionate leave being provided through federal and provincial health budgets and not employment insurance.

There is another example recommended in the Kirby report suggesting that perhaps the money should come from tax credits for supporting individuals at home. That is another way of accomplishing the same thing only in a little different way.

It is very important that we understand that this is perhaps an important bill. However even under the bill and even under the government's six weeks plan, we can see it would cost $86 million for the first year and $221 million for the second year. Therefore it is a very costly program.

If we are to sustain our health care system into the future, we will have to come up with ideas like this, not as expenses, but ideas that will drive efficiencies into the system or we will lose our health care system. It is very important that we open our eyes and examine all areas and ways to deal with our elderly and with the people who are ill in Canada.

I applaud the member for bringing forward this bill, but I would challenge him on using EI as the vehicle to pay for it.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. This bill represents a piece of public policy whose time has come.

I must go back to an experience that I had in my own riding approximately one year ago where I put out a request to my constituents asking them what they believed some of the priority issues would be, should be, that I would take to our Liberal policy convention which was to happen in June of last year. One of the top three messages that came to our policy team was the whole issue of compassionate leave of absence for respite caregivers. We developed a resolution in the community and I would like to read it into the record:

Whereas the Government of Canada provides for parental leave of absence of up to one year, which allows a parent to nurture and care for a new member of the family and our Canadian society without jeopardizing employment status or career opportunities as an employee;

Whereas the Government of Canada does not formally recognize the importance or impact of family members or guardians providing respite care without jeopardizing employment status or career opportunities;

Whereas current and future generations of Canadians will require the Government of Canada to hold dear an individual's quality of life until the point of death and for caregivers to provide comfort and support to that point;

Be it resolved that the Government of Canada review compassionate leave of absence to employees or guardians providing respite care to family members as a mandate for review. The review period should not exceed two years for the purpose of establishing criteria, standards and timeframes for leave of absence.

The people of my community are 100% behind the member from Sackville on Bill C-206. In June 2001, of the 400 policy resolutions that were tabled for the Liberal Party of Ontario policy convention this resolution was accepted as one of the top 10 as a priority resolution. There is a will emerging within the Ontario wing of the Liberal Party that this issue be dealt with.

We must also acknowledge that in the last budget the Minister of Finance did put this issue on the radar screen. He made a great first step with six weeks. It is a start.

The House of Commons must really press the finance officials and the will of all members in the House, especially the ones who are obsessed with the fiscal framework. What they do not understand is that when we have to work to make a living and our parents or a family member is dying, if we cannot look after them what happens is that most often we put them into the hospital system. That is a heck of a lot more expensive.

First of all, we cannot even compare the quality of care to a loved one looking after us. But the cost to the health care system, when people are just put into a hospital because they have no alternative, is really a heck of a lot more expensive than what the member is proposing in Bill C-206.

I wish to congratulate the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. Let us continue to press the will of the House to ensure that in this term, before we go back to the people, within the next two years that this becomes one of those pieces of legislation that is a fond memory of all of us collectively doing something special in this Parliament.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House tonight to support this private member's bill.

I congratulate my hon. colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. Having read his bill and having been present in earlier hours of debate, I want to say that this is one of the most important pieces of private members' business that has come before the House. It deals with an issue that affects Canadians right across the country, no matter where they live, no matter what their background, no matter what socio-economic class they come from. It is a private member's bill that deals with a very grave and important issue.

To refresh people's memories, Bill C-206 would provide employment insurance benefits to people who leave employment to be caregivers to family members who are seriously ill or undergoing severe rehabilitation. It is modelled on the EI parental benefits program. The bill simply and straightforwardly would enable Canadians to leave their workplace to care for a family member, knowing that their job and income would be protected for the designated period.

I cannot think of an issue that is more important to so many people across the country. That is one reason the bill has received tremendous support.

In my own province the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities is probably the major organization that deals with issues around disabilities and deals with this issue of caregiving. This is a major issue that faces that organization and their members. I am very glad that the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities is supporting my colleague on this bill, as are many other organizations across the country. These include the Alzheimer's Society of Sudbury-Manitoulin, the Alzheimer Society of Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma District, the Alzheimer Association of Saskatchewan, the Alzheimer Society of Ontario, Muskoka and Kingston, VON Canada, Hospice Huronia, the Canadian Mental Health Association in Ottawa, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition in Ottawa, the Canadian Cancer Society, and the list goes on. It is a very strong indication that people understand the importance of this bill and why it needs to be supported.

In speaking to the bill today, like many people, I have had personal experience about what it means to be a caregiver when a family member is sick, or in my case, in palliative care. In my situation, my partner of 24 years, Bruce, was dying of cancer. Like many family members in other situations, I faced very difficult choices about what to do. One struggles to keep commitments at work and at home to care for the family member. There are very difficult choices. My colleague has outlined many stories from Canadians and the struggles they faced.

In my own situation, in 1997 I was very lucky that I worked for the Hospital Employees' Union in British Columbia, which was very sensitive and understanding of its employees. It was willing to give me time away from work so that I could participate in the care of my partner when he needed it, in the most critical time when he left the hospital and came home, basically to die. If I had been in a work situation where I had not had an employer that was willing to provide that kind of compassion and support to me as an employee of that union, I would have been in a very difficult situation.

I did not have savings that I could have used to stay home. I did not have family members who could provide income support. I recognize that in my situation I was able to cope, as difficult as it was.

We have to recognize that in most situations across Canada, when one member of a family unit is working but is also placed in the position of trying to care for another member of the family unit, and it might be a child, a sister, a spouse or partner, or a parent, employers often are not able to make arrangements. People may not work in a situation where there is a collective agreement that has some sort of provision. They may actually be in a situation where their employer just does not give a damn about the situation.

The bill says that under the employment insurance program we should be entitled to receive the kind of benefits, just as we would when our employment is terminated. We can use EI now for parental leave. It seems to me that this would be the most logical expansion of the program, especially when we consider that the EI fund has now accumulated a huge surplus. It is over $40 billion. This is money that is paid into the fund by employers and employees. Government money is not involved in the fund. It is a very legitimate use of the insurance program, to extend it for caregiving purposes.

I have had a lot of feedback in my riding about this bill. One person in particular, a member of an aboriginal family, described to me the circumstances they found themselves in of having to care for family members not just once but on several occasions, where family members were terminally ill.

As a result of losing employment, one of the real tragedies of the status quo is that people lose their pension benefits. They actually lose pensionable earnings because they have to quit work.

The bill is important. I want to address some of the concerns and myths the government has put forward in debating the bill. It has suggested that it would be very expensive, that it would cost a huge amount of money to do this, yet there is no evidence to suggest that.

What the government fails to take into account is that not having this kind of provision through EI actually costs our health care system a huge amount of money. For every dollar that would be spent on this kind of caregiver program, we would actually save $4 to $6 in health care costs. We would be creating a supportive environment, with support programs, palliative care programs and programs for sick children. This would actually save dollars in the health care system. I would also note that Mr. Romanow in his report strongly recommended that a caregiver program be approved.

One of the other myths the government puts forward is that somehow if a program did exist, a person would only need about six weeks. In my own situation a minimum of 10 weeks was what I required to be at home in order to care for my partner. To suggest that the period could be limited to six weeks, I do not think is any kind of representation in terms of the realities that are out there.

In closing, I congratulate my colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. He has produced a fine piece of legislation that is not only worthy of debate, but is worthy of support. I hope very much that members from all sides of the House will agree that the bill should now go to committee where we can get into detailed examination of it and debate the issues in it. It is very worthy of that support. I urge members to agree to support it and to send it to committee.

Business of the House

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place between all the parties as well as with the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-206, scheduled at the conclusion of private members' business later this day. I believe you would find consent that at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-206, all questions necessary to disposed of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, March 25 at the end of government orders.

The Budget

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Palliser for his comments on education and agriculture but I would like to zero in on a couple of issues which the budget ignored.

A budget should reflect today's reality of the present as well as the future. Unfortunately, in my riding, and I am sure clear across the country, the budget has ignored completely the concerns of people on fixed and low incomes, those who are seniors and who are struggling to pay their heating bills. We certainly cannot say that it has been an exceptionally cold winter and that is why the prices of home oil and gas have gone up. This is consistent.

These people are suffering under the weight of heavy oil and gas prices. They are having to make some very tough choices. Those are choices that we as parliamentarians should not allow them to face alone. We as a government and as members of Parliament should be able to reflect their concerns and address their daily needs.

Another issue is the airport security tax. Even with a 40% reduction in the airport security tax, about $42 million will be taken out of the Atlantic economy. That is at the maximum. It will be up to $42 million. However the government is only putting back in anywhere from $6 million to $10 million for airport security. Where is the other $30 million to $34 million going? It is going into general revenues. That was a tax put on after 9/11 to convince Canadians that air travellers would have to pay more, even though it affected airport travel and the profits of airlines, to have enhanced security.

We agree with the fact that there should be enhanced security at the airports but the amount of money still being taken from consumers is affecting not only consumer travel but the profits of airlines as well. We are saying that the government should lower it even further. If a user fee has to be charged in that regard, a $5 charge, similar to that in the United States, will be much more acceptable and reflective of what is put back into security, rather than it going into general revenue which is meant for other areas.

Another concern that the government has completely forgotten about is a shipbuilding policy for Canada. We have tried and tried. I know my colleagues from Halifax, Dartmouth, Acadie—Bathurst and my former colleagues Gordon Earle, Michelle Dockrill and Peter Mancini, have been trying very hard to get the government to focus its attention on the need for a national shipbuilding policy.

I know the former minister of industry, Mr. Tobin, set up a committee which came up with a report called “Breaking Through: The Canadian Shipbuilding Industry”. It is a very good report but so far it has fallen upon deaf ears. We are not surprised by that because we have a finance minister who is quoted as saying that the shipbuilding industry in this country is a sunset industry. We could not disagree with him more. We are asking the government to refocus its energies and to put in a shipbuilding policy to keep our shipyards of Saint John, New Brunswick, Halifax, Marystown, Lévis, Quebec, Welland, Ontario and in Vancouver alive and well. These are very good paying jobs and the budget unfortunately has neglected that very important industry.

Regarding the military, unfortunately the $800 million that has been allocated to it will go to pay the credit card and current operations overseas. It does not address the structural concerns within the military of acquiring new ships, Sea King replacement helicopters and other aircraft for that matter. We are telling the government that if it built those ships in Canada, it could have a naval shipbuilding policy which would then spawn a very good domestic shipbuilding policy. We believe that would be the way to go.

It is interesting in 1993, when the Liberals came to power, there was a $42 billion deficit, yet they announced a $45 billion infrastructure program over four years. By the way, I give them credit for the $45 billion infrastructure program because infrastructure programs are very important for the country. However now in 2003, with an $11 billion forecast, they can only come up with $3 billion over 10 years.

I do not understand how on one hand the government can have a huge deficit and come out with more money over a shorter period of time, and have a huge surplus and come up with less money over a longer period of time. I do not understand that and that is why many cities are concerned about what is going on with the infrastructure program.

On the issue of national parks, a lot of people who work in the parks associations across the country were virtually assured that there would be at least $200 million in this budget, not only to preserve the ecological integrity of our national parks and wilderness areas, but also to include the 10 new national terrestrial parks and the five new marine parks.

Unfortunately, the budget was seriously lacking in sufficient funds for that. We can only hope that the government will realize the error of its ways and will understand that a good thing to do would be to get rid of the gun legislation, in my opinion, and use that money to fund national parks. That would be a very good legacy for the Prime Minister.

I know the Prime Minister has taken a special interest in parks. He has done it his whole life. I hope that before he leaves, he ensures that there is adequate funding to not only maintain the ecological integrity of the current parks that we have, but also the 10 new ones and the five marine protected areas.

One of the most important organizations in our country, especially where I come from on the east coast, is the Coast Guard. The budget announced $75 million over two years for the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, that would not even buy a brand new icebreaker, let alone meet the needs of our Coast Guard men and women. We must address this issue a lot more positively than we have been doing in this particular budget.

We need to have clear indications from the government that again with a proper shipbuilding policy we could build new Coast Guard vessels and icebreakers here in the country. We could put people to work and give them the enhanced security training that we require for the protection of our east coast in terms of fisheries violations, environmental violations, illegal immigrants and drug detection as well. I believe that would not be a liability to the government but an asset if it invested in that particular way.

I will give the government credit because for five years I have been working on a bill called compassionate care leave. Finally, after two throne speeches, after the Kirby report, and after the Romanow report--and I give the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development top notch credit for at least getting the finance minister to announce it in the budget--effective January 2004 there will be a six week program for compassionate care leave. Unfortunately, although it is a toe in the door--I would have preferred that it was a whole foot through the door--it simply is not enough.

We have the funding in the EI program to meet these needs. Bill C-206 which I introduced over five years ago, and which is being debated for third hour debate on Thursday, will be votable next Monday or Tuesday. It states that any couple, parent or relative who has a child or a relative under a palliative care situation can prevent them from going into an institution. For example, currently a husband and wife who have a child through natural birth or adoption, one of them can take a year off for either paternity of maternity leave. They have job protection and are able to care for that child in their home.

What happens if a couple has a child that is diagnosed with cancer and has six to eight months to live? What do they do then? Bill C-206 would offer that one of those parents, or any other relative, should be allowed to stay home with that child, have job security, and be with that child in the last days of its life. It would prevent the child from becoming institutionalized. It would offer job security to the family member. It would also give a little income to them as well because we all know the EI fund has quite a surplus in it. For every dollar that we would use on the EI fund to offset the lost wages of a particular individual, we would save $4 to $6 on the health care system because we would prevent that individual from becoming institutionalized.

This is one of the best programs that we could ever do in this country and I thank the government for doing that, initially at a very snail-like pace. I hope that all members of Parliament will support the bill and allow it to go to committee to have further clarification and discussion. If indeed that were happen, then the budget in that regard would be a good thing.

In closing, all of us should pray for peace in Iraq and pray for the people in the Middle East.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Yukon on his remarks regarding national parks and the child tax benefit.

I am pleased to see that he is one of the few Liberals who actually recognizes that although there is money going to national parks, it is simply not enough and he is hoping there will be more in the future. I congratulate him for that statement.

As he also knows, the major flaw of the child tax benefit program, which I think is a very good program, is that it still allows the provinces to claw back dollar for dollar. In Nova Scotia for example, the poorest people still do not have access to it because the province claws it back.

One of the good things, and I give the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development credit, is the compassionate care leave for palliative and serious rehabilitative care for only six weeks.

The member knows that on Thursday we will be debating Bill C-206, which is votable, which expands that particular initiative to the same benefits as that of maternity leave. This means if a couple has a child through natural birth or adoption, one partner can take a year of maternity leave to care for the child. On the other hand, if a couple has a child who is diagnosed with cancer and only has six to eight months to live, six weeks of this program simply will not be enough.

The bill that we introduced over five years ago would allow a parent to stay home with an ill child, for example, for the same duration as provided for maternity leave. I am wondering if he would support that type of initiative. We will vote in the House of Commons to move that bill to committee. I am wondering if the hon. member for Yukon, who is a fine member of the House of Commons, would actually support that type of initiative.

Supply

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Speaker and the House for the opportunity to again speak on a private member's bill that we brought forth back in 1998 and have reintroduced four different times, Bill C-206. Before I begin, I wish to thank the government very much for the recent budget in that it actually mentioned compassionate care leave. What it has announced is compassionate care leave of six weeks, starting on January 4, 2004. Although that is a great start, it is simply nowhere near enough to meet the needs of Canadians.

We all know that Bill C-206, if enacted, would allow people who leave work to care for a dying relative or a relative under severe rehabilitation the opportunity to leave their place of employment and collect employment insurance; it is the exact same benefits as if they were to have a baby. We have programs for maternity leave and paternity leave at the beginning of someone's life, but we have no program at the end of someone's life. Although the government did announce a program for six weeks, the unfortunate part is that it is simply not enough, not even close.

We have proven this. The provinces have proven it. As well, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, which is across the country, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the AIDS coalitions and many other groups, including CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, with 4,000 members, all have proven that for every dollar spent on employment insurance, thus offsetting someone's salary, we would save $4 to $6 on the health care system. The winner would be the provinces in terms of financial costs, because it is the provinces that have the responsibility to deliver health care.

This is a program that we know the government is working on. We know that the hon. Minister of Human Resources and the hon. Leader in the Senate, Sharon Carstairs, have mentioned it on many occasions. We are appreciative of that effort, Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. We are not condemning the government for it. We appreciate the fact that the government has taken on the issue and started to move with it, but my bill would actually move it a little more quickly.

What we are hoping for is that after March 19, after third reading, of course, the government and other opposition members actually will vote to move the bill to committee. Thousands and thousands of e-mails, petitions and letters have been sent from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, in support of the bill. In a recent CTV poll for Canada AM , with over 2,000 people polled over 24 hours, the number one concern was home care.

I just want to say to all Canadians and all parliamentarians that this is not a question of if someone will become a caregiver but of when someone will become a caregiver. Those who are passing on have a right to die in the surroundings of their choice, to be surrounded by their loved ones and also to be free of pain.

I believe that this bill deserves a lot of support. It is a non-political bill and we believe it should move forward.

Statutory Instruments Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the federal NDP to acknowledge the hon. member for Surrey Central for his persistence in bringing the bill before the House of Commons and his outreach across the country to get broad support for this bill. I am sure he can also add the federal NDP and provincial NDPs from across the country in this particular area.

A lot of the folks watching probably do not fully understand exactly what this bill would mean. I would like to go into it in brief detail so I myself can fully comprehend it as well.

The status quo ad hoc disallowance procedure applies only in the House of Commons and not the Senate. Second, disallowance is limited to statutory instruments made by the governor in council or by ministers of the crown.

Moreover, the SJCSOR disallowance report is not binding. It is left to the discretion of the minister of the crown or the governor in council to revoke or amend the regulations identified in the reports. Further, and this is very important, our courts are unable to enforce it. This creates a potential conflict between Parliament and the executive.

Amending the scope of the disallowance procedure and providing statutory footing will remedy these defects, making the procedure more transparent and effective. Even advocates for better parliamentary control of delegated legislation recommend that these two defects be remedied.

The purpose of Bill C-205 is to update the Statutory Instruments Act to afford the disallowance procedure legal statutory footing and to establish a disallowance procedure. Bill C-205 provides parliamentarians with an opportunity to strengthen, and this is something I really appreciate, our democratic process by establishing a procedure for disallowance and affording its legal footing in the House of Commons.

Parliamentarians must have the opportunity to reject a subordinate law made by a delegate of Parliament. The governor in council or a minister must act in the sense ordered by the House. While I say that, we had a motion in 1989 to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. That was a motion and direction by Parliament, but still has not happened.

We had motions passed in the House regarding retrofitting of buildings and regarding businesses giving transit passes to their employees to reduce car traffic in the cities. These were motions passed by the House and directed at government to enforce, but it still has not been done.

Parliamentarians must protect democracy and therefore make the disallowance procedure more transparent, effective and enforceable. After 15 years, putting the present procedure on a statutory footing would not only ensure Parliament's effective control of the delegated legislation it authorizes, it would also authorize simplification of the current procedure.

Other commonwealth jurisdictions, including the provinces, are way ahead of the federal government on red tape reduction. Who could not use a little less red tape in our government?

Since 80% of the laws that Canadians face are through SI, this bill is of very significant public concern. Businesses, various organizations, stakeholders, the CFIB, Canadian manufacturers and exporters and chambers of commerce support the bill. I would say to the member for Surrey Central that many members of Parliament from various parties also support the bill.

It is very good when a cross-section of political thinking comes together on a particular bill. I only hope that on my own bill, Bill C-206, the caregivers compassionate leave bill, we will have the same consideration.

There is support for Bill C-205 and reduction of red tape is an integral part of the legislation. I thank the hon. member for Surrey Central. It is this type of bill that in many ways has ramifications down the road and a very positive effect. Anything that gives members of Parliament more empowerment to represent their constituents in the manner they choose is good for all of Parliament.

Employment Insurance Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to the bill from my colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, and I echo the compliments that have been given to him about his social conscience.

Tonight we are debating private member's Bill C-206 concerning EI benefits for persons who are caregivers for family members. There is no doubt that the issue of compassionate care and the need to find a way to provide support and job protection for workers who have to take time off to care for very ill or infirm family members is a key one for the House to consider. We know that everyone has a stake in workplace issues: employees and unions, employers and governments, and social commentators, for example. Virtually all have identified the need for some kind of compassionate leave program for Canadians who have to be away from work to provide needed care for family members.

We have a lot of evidence to look at. For example, almost one in four Canadian workers say that they or others in their households provide care to an elderly, disabled or seriously ill family member. We also know that almost half of Canadians feel moderate to high work/life stress. This is almost double the rate of a decade ago. We know that women are more than twice as likely to feel the stress of trying to blend work and personal responsibilities. Workers with dependant care responsibilities, such as children or elderly relatives, report even more conflicts between work and life than their fellow employees. The member raises an issue that is of great concern to Canadians and that is already high on the government's priority list.

There are numerous ways to look at this issue. To some it is an issue of work and life balance. To others it is an issue of workers' rights. More recently it was identified as a health care issue. For example, both Romanow and Kirby looked at it in the context of the health care system. Mr. Romanow told us that as much as 85% to 90% of home care is provided by family and friends. His report concludes that home care could not exist in Canada without the support of social networks and informal caregivers. Senator Kirby too recognized the fundamental role played by family caregivers in home care. His report specifically recommends that benefits be provided to employed Canadians who choose to take leave from work to provide palliative care.

The government appreciates the views presented in these reports and accepts that attention to the issue of support for family caregivers is an important element of the overall health care agenda, but we also see this as a key workplace issue, especially in the context of looming skill shortages in many Canadian workplaces.

We have some facts that illustrate the extent of this issue in Canadian workplaces. First, we know that 56% of family caregivers also work full time and another 12% work part time. We also know the following: 69% of women with children under 16 are part of the employed labour force; 75% of males and 62% of females who provide care to seniors are employed; and the proportion of employees caring for both elders and children is going up dramatically, in the past decade increasing by 9.5%, to 15%. One survey showed that 77% of Canadian workers who care for gravely ill family members have had to take some time off to provide compassionate care.

The need to balance caregiving and workplace responsibilities is one that has impacts on many individual Canadian workers and their workplaces and, given the demographics of our population, it seems safe to assume that the extent of the impact on individual workplaces will continue to grow.

The issue of being able to provide compassionate care and still stay attached to the workforce is one that has important implications for the labour market of this country. Our objective must be to make sure that the valuable skills and experience of employees continue to be available to the labour market. At the same time, we should try to support their need to meet vital caregiving responsibilities.

In other words, the government's response to this issue should meet workers' needs for temporary income support while they are away from work but at the same time should allow them to stay attached to the labour market. Governments are not alone in seeing this need. Employers too are recognizing the growing need to provide temporary leave to meet family responsibilities. For example, a survey of medium sized to large businesses showed that 59% offered some kind of family responsibility leave, although only about half had a formal policy. The survey also showed that typical employer workplace supports are largely unpaid, informal and very short term. In other words, there is growing recognition of the need for temporary workplace support for caregivers but not yet a systematic approach.

As we look at the issue from the perspective of the government, some key considerations emerge. First, although representatives of both employers and employees acknowledge the need for some kind of program to allow workers to balance their work and family responsibilities, no systematic response to the problem appears to be forthcoming from the private sector. Second, the typical need is for a temporary form of income support which will ensure that workers can retain their attachment to the labour force. Third, any solution must be affordable. Fourth, a program response from the federal government should involve both the public and the private sectors.

These are the key considerations that are guiding the government as an appropriate response is developed to meet the throne speech commitment to deal with this issue. I once again compliment the member for his work in the social field in raising this important subject for us to deal with in the House.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue today. I thank the hon. member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore for raising such an important issue as compassionate care. It is something many of us on both sides of the House are very interested in. I am pleased that members in the opposition party share the same values as our government and support the same issues that concern us.

The very idea that is raised in this bill was broached in the September 2002 Speech from the Throne. In it the government clearly stated its intentions to modify existing programs to ensure that Canadians are able to provide compassionate care for a gravely ill or dying child, parent or spouse without putting their income or jobs at risk.

While we applaud the member's open-hearted desire to extend benefits to cover care not only for immediately family but also for aunts and uncles, brothers, sisters, step relations and inlaws, we as the government must be fiscally responsible. We have to ask the question, has the hon. member tallied the potential costs of implementing the amendments proposed in Bill C-206? It is one thing to have one's heart on an issue but at the same time as one's heart is on an issue, one has to look at what the costs will be to the government and to taxpayers.

These costs would involve not only direct payments to caregivers but also the loss of the labour market of workers. In addition, employers would face added costs in seeking, hiring and training new employees.

Besides Bill C-206's wide scope of both duration of benefits and definition of eligibility, we also have to question the need for a person to quit or to be laid off in order to be eligible for benefits. Is this the way to go? I think it needs more work and more discussion.

Canadians want to work and they do not want to be faced with either of these decisions. It goes directly against the government's continuous efforts to support labour force attachment. In fact, the principle of encouraging Canadians to find and keep work was at the heart of the 1996 reform of the Employment Insurance Act. The working world is perilous enough without encouraging workers to leave it in the hope that when they are able to return, there will be a job waiting for them.

The government is compassionate. We recognize the stress caused by balancing home and work demands. We are constantly seeking ways to lighten this burden.

It was for this reason that we extended maternity and parental benefits from six months to a full year. The temporary support employment insurance provides insures against the risk of losing one's job completely as a result of a family situation.

As the Speech from the Throne indicated in September, we intend to put the same effort into finding solutions for persons caring for a gravely ill close relative as we put into finding appropriate solutions for workers caring for their new children.

It does mean that we must look at the broad spectrum of government programs. It means that we have to look at all of the issues facing Canadians, including family, work and health. It means recognizing that people's lives are not neatly compartmentalized and that the same person is a worker, a parent and very often a caregiver.

We know that nearly three-quarters of the population of Canada who provide care to frail seniors are also employed and that the proportion of employees caring for both elders and children has almost doubled in the last decade. Caregiving is an issue that confronts a large segment of the population. It is also an issue that crosses the boundaries of work, family and health.

Commissioner Romanow in his recent report stated that home care quite simply could not exist in Canada without the support of social networks and informal caregivers. He noted that as much as 85% to 90% of home care is provided by family and friends.

When workers are faced with this degree of home care responsibilities, conflicts between work and care are bound to rise. Both the Kirby and the Romanow reports have raised the issue of income support and job protection for family caregivers.

I ask members to please note that these reports have linked both of those issues. They have not suggested, as Bill C-206 does, that choices should be made between work and caregiving. The government is examining just how to support people caught in this work/care dilemma.

We believe that an appropriate solution would be to design a measure that directly supports family caregivers. This measure would also permit Canadians to take a temporary absence from work to care for gravely ill immediate family members without fear of sudden income loss or job loss.

We welcome this opportunity to debate and explore solutions to the problems faced by employed caregivers. Bill C-206 gives us all the opportunity to enter into this debate and to look for the solutions needed to move it forward. We strongly believe that the federal government has an opportunity to lead by example in providing temporary income support and job security to working caregivers.

We are, of course, very conscious of the costs of such programs. The challenge parliamentarians have is to turn good intentions into good results for Canadians facing family health crises. The government's objective is to design a cost effective initiative that is responsive, flexible and practical.

In regard to the member who introduced Bill C-206, I think it speaks well of just what a caring individual he is. He has put the work into this private member's bill to put it on the floor and to move this debate along. Hopefully in the near future we will be able to have a program that meets the needs of Canadians and recognizes the challenges that many people are facing today.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to say a few words today on Bill C-206, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

We are told that the purpose of the bill is to allow a person who receives employment insurance to care for a family member with an impairment, or who loses a job because of the conflicting demands of the job in the workplace to get up to 52 weeks of employment insurance.

Many groups across the country, especially in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would support this bill because it takes a great deal of pressure off the already ailing health care system. Also it gives us an opportunity to see something very rare in this country. It gives us the opportunity to see the provincial government get a break and probably the opportunity to upload onto the federal government for a change. That would be a very positive step indeed.

I was very disappointed to hear that the Alliance will not support this bill. This bill would help out families right across the nation. The Alliance tries to be known as a party of the family, but it has no intention of supporting the bill, which is shameful.

I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, who initiated this bill. I wish I had done it instead of him but I do want to congratulate him for it because it is a very good move indeed.

In general, we can support this initiative as a party. I have always been in favour of laws and policies that respect and enhance the well-being of the family which is one of society's main building blocks.

The bill has some very good points. It restricts the role of caregiver to that of a close family member: a spouse, a common law partner, a child, a grandchild, a sibling. This is very positive. In other words, strangers need not apply. The bill covers family matters. It is not extended to the commercial home care enterprises. That is good because it protects the integrity of the bill itself.

The impairment involved must also meet the requirements of the Income Tax Act. If the government's definition is as strict as what it uses for the disability tax credit, we can be assured that we are not in any danger of having a major run on the EI account.

The caregiver has to have a major attachment to the workforce. In other words, someone who barely or rarely qualifies for EI benefits cannot use the caregiver provisions as a method of getting up to 52 weeks of employment insurance benefits.

The provision is not open-ended. A person cannot draw EI under this provision for more than 52 weeks in total in one or more periods over a two-year period. The bill makes provision for an extension of the 52-week period if a doctor certifies that the care provided is necessary for the health and safety of the person with the impairment or it has made it possible for the person with the impairment to avoid becoming an in patient in a hospital or a long term care facility.

Finally, the bill requires any wages earned during the caregiver period to be deducted from the weekly EI benefits.

This is a good bill. I am hopeful the government will see fit to support it. I understand the bill will go to committee. Who knows, maybe a few changes will be made at that juncture.

In view of the fact that the government has been thinking out loud of late as to the possibility of covering home care under medicare, this bill certainly is in line with that thinking. It has the additional benefit of the home care being given by a close family member, which is very important to the individual receiving the care.

I want to revert to a part of the bill that requires a doctor's certificate for an extension of benefits over and above the 52 weeks stipulated over the two year period. It is not made clear in the bill, and hopefully it will be when it gets to committee, that a doctor's certificate is not required initially for the individual to get home care. That is one little thing we will probably have to look at. Hopefully when it is in committee some adjustment will be made.

It is a very good bill and we have absolutely no hesitation in supporting it. The bill will provide compassionate home care for family members. It will save money in the health care system and it will not be a very serious burden on the EI account. Unless and until home care is covered under medicare, this is a very good first step.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak in the debate on Bill C-206, which seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act to allow persons qualifying as caregivers to leave their job to care for a family member.

The member's objectives in introducing this bill are highly commendable. For quite some time, we have looked for a way to help caregivers help their family. We know that there is no better caregiver than a family member to help someone who is ill either regain their health or die with dignity.

We also know that a program for caregivers would take a huge load off the health care system, the CLSCs and the clinics providing home care and so forth. Therefore, the principle of the bill is a good one.

The definitions are set out in section 1. Caregivers, clearly, are persons leaving their job—it says who leave their employment voluntarily or whose employment is terminated—but who want to care for a family member who is ill or who has an impairment as defined in the Income Tax Act.

Next, the bill gives a definition of family. Again, I see no problem with the way family is defined.

But I do see a problem with the fact that families are getting smaller and smaller and, quite often, caregivers have no family ties with the person they are in a position to care for.

There are all sorts of reasons. Perhaps they are neighbours who have become friends, or they are co-workers, one of whom has no family and the other of whom is able to help.

Families are much smaller than they used to be. The bill refers to siblings, uncles, aunts and so on, but nowadays many families are having only one child. We also must consider the fact that family members are not always very close.

There used to be the family unit and everyone lived together. It was not uncommon to see only a handful of surnames in a village. Nowadays, young people often have to leave the region they were born in to look for work elsewhere and they end up very far away. Parents stay all alone. Thought should be given to a mechanism that would allow the concept to be expanded so that someone who is truly close to the person in difficulty could come to their assistance.

There is something else that should be considered. I personally would be very much in favour of this bill being passed by the majority of the members in the House so that we can send the bill back to committee, study it in depth and look at how it could be improved in order to fund this program.

The hon. member from the Canadian Alliance said that it was a problem to take money from the EI fund. Certainly, if this leave were reserved only for people receiving EI benefits, there will be a problem. There are an increasing number of self-employed workers. They need to have access to the necessary funds to be able to become natural caregivers too.

Given that the EI fund has surpluses in the billions, maybe it would be good if the government could come up with a mechanism to transfer part of the EI surplus into a fund to run this program. It would be accessible to all Canadians who may have a certain type of need.

Sometimes a natural caregiver may incur expenses when leaving home to take care of someone else, even if they live close by. Perhaps there could be a way to help the natural caregiver even if he or she is not receiving employment insurance benefits.

The various aspects of this problem need to be looked at. We will most definitely have an increasingly aging population, and will need more help to take care of them. It seems to me important for a mechanism to be found that is adaptable enough to enable everyone to benefit from the program.

For example, we do not want to get into the same bind as with maternity benefits and special sick leave benefits, which are related to workers' accumulated leave, workers who have a job and can draw employment insurance. The program to be developed for natural caregivers must go far beyond that and be capable of encompassing all Canadians.

I am convinced that, if we all support this bill at second reading stage, if we refer it to a committee for consideration and for the necessary hearings to be held so that people can put in their two cents worth, we will really have done something worthwhile. The government will perhaps decide after all that to reverse its position and say to itself, “Now, to move ahead with this bill about caregivers, it strikes us as important to redraft it and produce one that reflects all the comments that have been made”. So, one day, we will truly be able to help out natural caregivers.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-206. My colleague from Medicine Hat has already spoken to the bill. He is the critic for us in this area, but I also want to add my voice.

Bill C-206 is an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act for persons who leave employment to be caregivers for family members. First I want to first congratulate the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for bringing forward this issue. I believe that every member of the House appreciates the hardship and adversity families face when one of their relatives is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Such families are confronted with very hard choices over how to care for that relative while at the same time providing for themselves and other family members. Those who choose to care for their own relatives are very courageous and deserve support from the state. This was recognized by both Kirby and Romanow in their reports.

Members of the Canadian Alliance strongly believe that the family is the essential building block of society. We therefore find merit in the idea of government assistance to Canadians who choose to leave a paying job to care for a terminally ill family member at home. I must say that this is already done by many people. They may not be leaving a paying job, but this kind of care is done regularly across the country even at this time.

Certainly the proposed legislation would reduce the financial stress for people who find themselves in that situation. In addition, such a program could provide substantial savings for public health care budgets. However, the primary issue is a recognition that the social and emotional benefits of loved ones caring for each other far outweigh placing an individual in institutionalized care.

By tying such assistance to the employment insurance program, however, the bill flies in the face of a Canadian Alliance conviction that the EI system has gone astray from its original objective to be a safety net for laid off workers. When the program was designed, the premiums were supposed to match the payouts. However, since its inception all kinds of new features have been tacked on and the Auditor General has raised objections that the intent of the Employment Insurance Act is no longer respected, particularly in regard to premiums equalling benefits. We in this party believe that EI should be brought back to a true insurance program for job loss.

I understand the desire on the part of some members to attach this initiative to the employment insurance program. The overcharging of employers and employees for this program resulted in a $40 billion surplus at the end of the last fiscal year. This is $25 billion over what is required as a cushion by the chief actuary of Human Resources Development Canada, who says that $15 billion would be adequate to withstand any economic downturn.

Of course we as parliamentarians know that this is a surplus only on paper, because EI funds flow directly into general revenue. The $25 billion extra in surplus has already been spent, mainly to pay off the debt, according to Dale Orr of the economic forecasting firm Global Insight. Even if the EI surplus were just sitting there, the Canadian Alliance believes the solution is not to tack on more spending initiatives to the program. Rather, the federal government should stop overcharging employees and employers and substantially lower premiums to reflect the benefits paid out.

Funding compassionate leave through the EI system has other drawbacks. I think it is important to point them out, because this may be well intended but may not have been thought out by the people proposing the legislation. It arbitrarily screens out those who are ineligible for EI: the self-employed. I do not believe that Canadians would support the disqualification of farmers, small business owners, contractors, consultants and truckers from such a worthy social program. They would be left out in the cold. Also, as the trend in business is toward hiring workers as independent contractors rather than employees, the pool of the excluded would likely increase dramatically over time. The same situation applies to parental leave, frankly, which we in the Canadian Alliance believe should be a separate program and not part of the EI system.

In addition, due to the demographics of an aging population, there is a very real possibility that attaching compassionate leave to EI may in time overburden the system, requiring premium hikes down the road.

In conclusion, I believe the intent behind Bill C-206 is on the mark and I applaud my colleague for his work on this issue. However, the fatal flaw of the legislation before the House today is that it uses the employment insurance system as its funding instrument. This initiative needs to be further studied and debated. In my view, the compassionate leave would be better financed through some joint provincial-federal agreement. I therefore cannot support the bill itself. I certainly believe in the intent, but the bill itself, in attaching it to EI, is not acceptable to the Canadian Alliance.

[Diane St-Jacques, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for having launched this important debate on a matter that cannot help but interest large numbers of Canadians. It is, in fact, a matter of interest to the country as a whole, since it impacts upon the workplace, the health care system and society in general.

Last year I had an experience that made me more aware of this situation, when I was involved in fundraising for Leucan. I came to know parents who had left their jobs to be with a sick child and was able to see the many difficulties and constraints parents have to deal with during this painful time.

I must acknowledge that the bill introduced by my hon. colleague addresses concerns that are shared by the Government of Canada.

Bill C-206 needs to be seen in relation to the commitment made by the Government of Canada in the last throne speech.

In the September 2002 Speech from the Throne, the government announced its intention to make changes to existing programs The government will also modify existing programs to ensure that Canadians can provide compassionate care for a gravely ill or dying child, parent or spouse without putting their jobs or incomes at risk.

These commitments show the government's concern with the difficulties being faced by many Canadians in balancing work and family.

There is no question about my colleague having his heart in the right place. He is concerned about the difficult situation being faced by nearly one in four Canadian workers. These workers or other family members are looking after a family member who is elderly, disabled or seriously ill.

My colleague's deep concern for these devoted people who are having to reconcile family responsibilities and work pressures is obvious. Theirs is a superhuman task.

It is also undeniable that the efforts required to establish this balance among all one's obligations, often incompatible obligations, is a heavy burden for many Canadians. We know that close to half of all Canadians experience average, if not high, occupational stress levels. That figure is close to twice what it was 10 years ago. We also know that women who have to reconcile work and family responsibilities are twice as likely to experience considerable stress.

This personal conflict does not only impact on individual health and well being, although this is enough of a concern in itself. Mental or physical health problems also have repercussions on the economy.

These repercussions are directly related to job satisfaction, to loss of interest in the organization and burnout, which can ultimately lead to someone leaving their job. Work-related absences represent approximately 20 million work days and $2.7 billion annually for Canadian businesses.

Taxpayers are affected too: health care spending is increasing. The cost to the Canadian health care system resulting from the difficulties of balancing work and family life has been estimated at over $425 million per year.

What concerns me is that the proportion of employees caring for both elderly parents and children has risen from 9.5% to 15% over the past decade. Given these demographic trends, the situation can only get worse. That is why the Romanow and Kirby reports recommend that the Government of Canada ensure income support and job security for caregivers.

What the member is trying to accomplish with Bill C-206 is an act of compassion worthy of praise. There is no doubt that we must look at this issue.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government recognized the vital importance of job protection and income support to workers whose family is in crisis because, for example, a loved one is seriously ill or dying.

I think that it is not acceptable to any of the members that 56% of Canadians dealing with these types of responsibilities must take time off work without pay.

That is why Human Resources Development Canada is developing policy options for a new leave for family reasons. Our first goal will be to effectively meet the needs of Canadian workers and their families.

We made a commitment to change our existing programs to allow Canadians to provide care for their child, spouse or parent who is seriously ill or dying.

I would like to mention one concern I have regarding Bill C-206: the fact of having to choose between work and providing care for a family member.

On this point, I am very happy that the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore was open to amendments to his bill. This is something that could be done in standing committee.

According to the amendment proposed, people would have to leave their job or be laid off in order to receive employment insurance benefits.

I am sure that all members would agree that the last thing we want is for Canadians to have to choose between their job and being a caregiver for a family member who is seriously ill.

The new compassionate leave that our government is proposing would allow Canadians to miss work temporarily to provide care for a child, spouse or parent who is seriously ill or dying.

The benefits the government is considering providing would add to the support measures intended for families who need them the most. This would avoid having vulnerable families slip into poverty. This would also help Canadian companies keep their skilled employees, an issue of great importance for all employers at a time when the labour pool is diminishing and there are not enough qualified workers. Our compassionate approach to people's personal problems will contribute to a more productive economy.

Our initiative will also meet one of the key recommendations of the Romanow report and will help to achieve the targeted results in a federal jurisdiction.

I can assure the hon. members that we are consulting with provincial and territorial governments, employers and stakeholders in order to move forward with this initiative. We are confident that we will have their support.

According to a recent COMPAS survey, 60% of CEOs and senior managers of companies are in favour of the government providing temporary financial support to employees who have to stay away from work in order to take care of members of their immediate family who are seriously ill.

I should also point out that according to surveys, Canadian companies have adjusted well to the extended parental leave that we implemented a year ago to promote balance between family and work.

Of course we are well aware of the cost of such programs and we want to create a program suited to the most practical needs of Canadians.

We understand our colleague's generosity of spirit. We must turn good intentions into good results for Canadians who have to cope with serious family health problems. Our goal is to come up with an effective and economical initiative that will meet needs yet be flexible and practical.

Let us make no mistake. The Government of Canada fully recognizes the challenge faced by many Canadian workers. We are determined to give them the support they need to cope with this difficult situation.

I am certain that the new leave for family reasons that is being developed will take into account the hon. member's concerns. I hope I can count on his support.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak on this important bill. I must congratulate my colleague from the NDP for having introduced Bill C-206 as well as for having managed to convince the subcommittee on private members' business that it should be votable.

I am a bit constrained by the need for secrecy on the deliberations of that subcommittee, being a member of it. I do want my colleague to know, however, that this bill will be voted on because its subject was found to be highly relevant.

We must point out that, above all else, a Parliament is a forum for individuals of varying backgrounds, varying visions, and varying political ideologies and allegiances.

In the case of the Bloc Quebecois sovereignists, we have a different vision of the relationship that should exist between a sovereign Quebec and the rest of Canada. I believe that this is democracy, and it is within this view of democracy that our two new colleagues were elected in the Monday December 9 byelections in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and Berthier—Montcalm.

The reason I have referred to these differences in backgrounds is that the member's bill transcends party lines and political ideologies and allegiances.

When a bill addresses compensation, remuneration for natural caregivers, someone who has had to leave a job in order to look after a sick person, there must be no attempts at partisan politics. Our approach has to be people-centred. In matters such as this, we cannot be technocratic or number-obsessed. We cannot start asking how it will be funded. In this connection, I do have some suggestions as to how it could be financed, but that ought not to be the focus of the debate.

I am convinced that the question we have to answer as parliamentarians—and I am basing this on what I have heard from the colleagues who preceded me—is whether we would be capable of obtaining a unanimous vote in this assembly so that this matter can be settled. I am sure that, with some good will, this bill could be passed.

I have been fortunate in that I have not had to deal with this situation in my own family. I do, however, have friends who have had to leave a job in order to take care of a sick father or mother or some other close relative, or to be with a child with cancer during the child's last days on earth.

It is important to ensure that these people are compensated. This will not cure the sick; it cannot ease the terrible suffering of the caregiver. However, it can, at the very least, ease someone's mind, quiet a concern, and it might allow the caregiver to face the terrible illness of the person under their care with greater peace of mind.

So, this would eliminate all financial worries. Then again, when I say all financial worries, I should say some financial worries, because it is not possible to reimburse all the expenses incurred when someone loses their job.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the lawyers who help us parliamentarians draft bills, because we do not all have a law degree. Fortunately, we have benefited from the assistance of very competent lawyers, although unfortunately there were too few of them. I think that there are plans to increase the number.

The purpose of the bill is to introduce important definitions. Among them, we find “caregiver”. I want to quote subsection 23(1) of the bill:

“caregiver” means a person who leaves employment voluntarily or whose employment is terminated because the person is unable to carry out work or attend work at the times required by the employer by reason of caring for a member of the person's family—

Further on, the word “family” is defined. It says, and I quote:

“family”, with respect to a person, includes

(a) a spouse or common-law partner; and

(b) a child, grandchild, parent—

Most eventualities are covered.

The bill would also allow the person to collect employment insurance benefits. This is found in clause 4 of the bill. It reads:

—no benefit is payable to a major attachment claimant under this section—for more than 52 weeks in total in one or more periods in any two year period.

Finally, another important element of this bill is that it also refers to caring for a person who:

(a) has an impairment as defined in section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act; and

(b) is not an in-patient in a medical facility or a resident of a long term care facility or home.

This refers to situations where people make the decision to live out their final days at home, among their things, in their own bed. I have had the opportunity to visit people—not in my own family—whose families had to literally adapt a room, for example, having a hospital bed. Some diseases, such as bone cancer, are so painful that a normal bed cannot be used. The family must get a special bed.

It is more and more common in our society for people who know they have a terminal illness to say they would like to end their days surrounded by family at home. I think this should be encouraged.

I believe that the surplus in the EI fund—I talked about this with my hon. colleague in charge of the file—is currently around $6 billion. Let us not forget that the Liberal government helped itself to more than $42 billion of the EI fund surpluses. Let no one say that the current regime is unable to take on these new responsibilities and fund these new measures. I think that with the EI fund surplus, we now have enough to compensate these people. That is basically what I wanted to say.

As this is probably my last intervention on a bill, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues in this House a Merry Christmas and a wonderful 2003. I would also like to wish a happy holiday season to those watching. This year, fresh from this bill, I would like us to take a moment to think about those who will be spending the holidays alone, or those who are sick and staying in long term care or in a hospital.

As parliamentarians, let us try to take the time for someone who might not otherwise receive any visitors over the holidays. Evidently, the holiday season is a very difficult time to spend alone. Food for thought.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to debate Bill C-206 and to congratulate my colleague, the member from Nova Scotia, for bringing this forward.

I do not think there is anyone in this place who has not, at one time or another, either personally faced, heard about or had someone close to them who has faced a situation where a family member has been diagnosed with a terminal illness. All of a sudden big life choices must be made about how to deal with that and how to look after that person. We would not have a heart if we were not concerned about that and did not want to find ways to help. My friend has done a good job of starting the debate by introducing Bill C-206 and asking how we address those types of issues.

Not too long ago I was in my office and I had a lady come in who had a family member who was gravely ill. She made a very good point. She said that she had home care coming in to look after this person, but that it was hugely expensive. It was something like $2,500 for a home care person. She said that if someone would give her $700 to stay home, she would do it herself. I thought that was pretty interesting.

There are lots of people thinking about this and my friend is correct when he suggests that this would be a money saver for the health care system. I do not quibble with any of that. It is important that we find a way to deal with those sorts of issues. My friend mentioned that it was raised in the Kirby report. Obviously people from the health care perspective are thinking about this and that is very important.

Where I differ from my friend is with respect to how this should be funded. During his speech my friend mentioned that right now, maternity benefits have been greatly improved. They allow people who have just had a child to spend some time with their new child. I do not think anyone would quibble with that. Everyone wants to see a new mother or father spend some time with their children, especially right after birth. That is a good thing. The question is, how do we fund it?

The reason I do not agree completely with my friend's bill is that I do not think this should be funded out of employment insurance. Employment insurance started out as an insurance program to look after people in the event they lost their jobs through not fault of their own. The premiums would match the payouts and it was pretty simple. Since that time all kinds of new aspects have been added on. The original intent of the program is no longer respected at all in many different ways. I talked about that a little earlier today in the prebudget debate when I said that even the Auditor General said that the intent of the Employment Insurance Act was no longer respected with respect to premiums equalling benefits.

The question is, how do we fund this? The country wants to put money into this. Clearly Gary Mar is talking about this in Alberta. As the population ages and a lot of elderly people at some point in the not too distant future will be facing that last chapter of their lives, how do we address this so that our children have a way to deal with this? I would argue that we should address it through the health care side. That is where we should address it.

The same thing applies, frankly, with respect to maternity benefits. We should not continually ask employers and workers to fund maternity benefits. It should be a separate program. We should make it a social program. We should do the same thing with this issue if that is the will of the provinces and the country. If that is what they want to do, let us hive it off and make it a different program. Let us keep EI for what it was intended. That is what I would rather do.

We could have a big debate about how it is funded. I do not believe we should get away from the original intent of the employment insurance program because it serves us well. The further we get away, the more chance we have of destroying what is a good program. If it were funded through EI then what would we do for people who are self-employed? For example, if a consultant or a farmer has a situation that comes along, that individual would not be eligible for EI benefits. It may make more sense to take that money out of the health care component to fund this.

My friend knows I plan to raise the issue of 52 weeks. He said it might be too long or too short. All I am suggesting is that instead of picking an arbitrary number such as 52 weeks, it may make sense to do some research. First of all it is obvious we need to find out how much this would cost after having gone through the firearms thing. It is important that we nail those facts down so that we know how much we would have to budget.

We should find out for instance what is the average amount of time home care would be needed for palliative care? That should be the figure used rather than an arbitrary 52 weeks.

This issue could be benefited by more study. My friend has mentioned he would like to get it to committee so that it can all be discussed. I do not have a problem with that. We need to have these kinds of discussions. I am not sure if it should be discussed in the human resources committee or perhaps in the health committee. Let us find a way to get it to committee and have some discussion on it.

I will conclude by again congratulating my friend for bringing forward this important issue. It would be one of the most meaningful things in our lives to spend some time with our parents before they pass away and it does not necessarily have to be only parents. We need to find a way to accommodate that. My party strongly believes in family. We must find a way to support families. I know my friend believes in that as well and I applaud him for that.

I would like to wish all my colleagues in the House a Merry Christmas and all the best over the holiday season.

[Yolande Thibeault, Liberal, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore has introduced a relevant bill at an appropriate time. I am talking about Bill C-206, to amend the Employment Insurance Act, which deals with one of the most important issues raised in the recent Speech from the Throne. This issue was also raised in both the Romanow report and the Kirby report.

This is a relevant bill because, as we know, a growing number of Canadians have to strike a balance between their work responsibilities and the need to care for family members. It is timely, and I congratulate my hon. colleague on drawing attention to such an important commitment made by the Government of Canada in the Speech from the Throne.

Obviously, the government shares his concerns about those who have to balance family responsibilities of this sort with work responsibilities. I can confirm for the hon. member that officials are looking into the matter.

While we appreciate his interest in this issue, we do have reasonable concerns about the proposals contained in this bill.

We are starting from the premise that Canadians ought not to have to choose between keeping their job and looking after a family member. In the Speech from the Throne, the government stated its intention of ensuring that workers were not forced to make that choice.

Nevertheless, the amendments proposed in Bill C-206 would require people in such a predicament to choose between leaving their job or being let go so that they could collect benefits while looking after a family member.

Instead of this, we want to encourage people to retain their connections with the job market, particularly with a shortage of skills looming. However, we want to proceed by acknowledging the specific requirements, often temporary, that occur.

As a result, we oppose the provisions of Bill C-206, which would oblige workers to leave their jobs or be let go in order to be eligible for benefits.

Then there is the question of costs, or at least an estimate of costs for this type of measure. It is one thing to propose new measures if one sits on the opposition benches, but those of us who sit on the government side also have to be concerned about the potential costs of such proposals.

For example, this bill calls for benefits to be paid for up to 52 weeks. It is not easy to imagine a worker being able to draw 52 weeks of benefits to look after a family member, when if he or she were ill, there would be only 15 weeks of eligibility. As well, we need estimates of what the cost of such a long benefit period would be.

I wonder if the member has looked at the potential costs of such a proposal. They might be very high, particularly given the wider definition of family member that is being proposed as part of the amendments to section 23 of Part 1 of the Act. In addition to listing immediate family members such as children, parents and spouse, this bill includes in its definition brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and even members of the spouse's family and those of the common-law spouse's family.

This definition could include a very large segment of the population, particularly in the context of an aging population. We must ask ourselves seriously who should be included in the definition of family, since we must be able to support the costs involved.

We know that Canadians are experiencing increasing difficulties in balancing the conflicting obligations of their work, on the one hand, and their family, on the other, and we want to do something about it. However, we do not think that the approach proposed in Bill C-206 is the solution.

We must re-examine this issue together.

Close to half of all Canadians are experiencing moderate to severe stress because of their professional responsibilities. Workers who must care for children or elderly people say that they experience much greater conflicts between their professional and private lives than do other workers. Many employers recognize the importance of providing temporary help to these workers, but they cannot fully meet their needs.

A survey conducted among medium and large businesses showed that 59% of them provide some form of leave for family obligations, but that only about half of them had an official policy. Usually, the support provided by employers is largely non-monetary, unofficial and short term.

The data shows that 77% of Canadians who provide care to a family member have taken a leave of absence. Among them, 69% were absent from work for more than two weeks. In 56% of the cases, they were on leave without pay.

The challenge for the government is to take advantage of existing supports in the workplace, so as to establish a program which will ensure that workers can remain in contact with the labour market during a period of temporary family related stress, and which will also be affordable.

Therefore, we are pleased to discuss the proposals included in Bill C-206 and we are quite prepared to continue to work with all members of the House.

Temporary income support and employment security are appropriate roles for the federal government. This is an opportunity to set an example by meeting the needs of Canadian workers and their families, and by adding an important feature as a support measure for an improved health care program.

Again, I applaud the initiative of the NDP member, and I am sure this is just the beginning of the debate.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

moved that Bill C-206, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (persons who leave employment to be care-givers to family members), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I cannot say how pleased I am, along with my colleague from Vancouver East and all of the New Democrats, and all members of Parliament and yourself sitting in the chair, to lead off in what I think is a historic debate. We are debating how we could use the laws of Parliament to change Canada's employment insurance system to assist anywhere from 200,000 to three million Canadians when they provide care.

On a personal note I am honoured that my hon. colleague and good friend from Vancouver East seconded the bill. She has experience on the subject and can give personal testimony to exactly what we are speaking about. It would be unfair for me to go into that as she will so eloquently state her personal experience.

Every single one of us probably knows someone, or we ourselves have gone through what the bill addresses. Bill C-206 would allow individuals to care for a dying relative or someone who is under severe rehabilitation in the comfort of their own home. Individuals would be able to leave their place of employment and would have job protection and would collect employment insurance while they provided the loving, palliative care that is so desperately required by dying Canadians.

Bill C-206 will not solve or even get into the discussion of all aspects of caregiving. It is not meant to do that. Being a member of the fourth party, the New Democratic Party, in order to assist the government and other opposition parties it is our role to provide some advice or suggestions. It is our role to say, “Here is an idea. Let us forget about the politics and let us work together to see where we can go on this initiative”. That is the purpose of this debate.

This bill originated in 1997. I had received a call from two of my constituents. Unfortunately, one of them has since passed away. Their names are Pearl and Doug Fleming of Oakfield, Nova Scotia. They were in their seventies and Pearl was dying of cancer. She had been a robust woman of 120 pounds but when I met her she was down to 75 pounds.

All of the doctors told Mr. and Mrs. Fleming that she was dying, that she must be in the Nova Scotia hospital for 24 hour care. Mr. Fleming said no, that if his wife was going to die, he was going to care for her in their home. The doctor said fine and listed the equipment that would be required and the concerns that should be kept in mind. They needed an air filtration system, a ramp, a lift for the vehicle, a special tub, widening of rooms, et cetera.

All the man wanted was to deduct those expenses from his taxes. After fighting for it for over two years, we were finally successful in getting a tax deduction for him. That opened my eyes to what happens in this country and the difficulties that people face time and time again.

I will not use any names, but I know of a woman who now lives in Fort McMurray, Alberta. She was working in the tar sands. She left a small community in Newfoundland for economic reasons. Her father passed away in 1998. In 2001 her mother was diagnosed with cancer and Alzheimer's and was dying.

Being the only child, the young lady had a choice. She could either institutionalize her mother so that her mother would die in a strange building surrounded by people she did not know, or she could quit her place of employment, move back to Newfoundland and provide the care that her mother so desperately needed. She chose the latter. When her mother passed away, she returned to Fort McMurray to see if she could get her job back but unfortunately, it had already been filled.

That should not be allowed. That young woman made a life decision which affected her career. All she wanted to do was care for her dying mother in the comfort of her mother's own home. She did not want the taxpayer to pay hundreds of dollars a day for health care in a nursing home. She wanted to give her mother the care that her mother had given to her when she was a child. She saved the state a lot of money. This young lady left her home in Newfoundland to find work, which is what we encourage Canadians to do to become productive members of society. Yet when she made a life choice, there was no program in place to assist her.

This is just one story of thousands of stories I could tell and they are all true. Every day in our society people make that difficult choice when they get a phone call telling them a relative is dying or has been in a severe accident. I hope and pray that it never happens to any parliamentarian or staff member or anybody in Canada who is watching this.

Madam Speaker, imagine if you were to receive a call today that one of your children had been involved in a severe accident. I know what you would be doing right now. You would be rushing to the aid of that child and you would be with your child for as long as you could. But what if you suffered financially because of the concern and love you have for your child? Madam Speaker, what if your employer could not let you go because of constraints or some other reason? You would then have to make a very difficult choice.

I know what most Canadians who are loving parents would do. They would worry about the money aspect later and would concentrate on the here and now which is the care and love for the child.

Madam Speaker, if you were pregnant and gave birth to a wonderful child you could take a year off with pay under the maternity leave provisions in the employment insurance program. There are paternity leave provisions as well. This is a great program to have at the beginning of a person's life. That nurturing for the first year of a child's life is wonderful and I do not think anyone wants to take that away.

But what do we have at the end of someone's life? Nothing. That is what the bill is meant to correct. Bill C-206 is not perfect. What I am asking is that members send the bill to committee so we can debate the issue more thoroughly and carefully. I am asking for a full year but if members of Parliament feel that is a little much and that we should start slowly and work up, I would agree with that.

I am trying to start the debate on palliative care, end of life care, and severe rehabilitative care, and there is hope. It has been mentioned recently in two throne speeches given by the Liberal government. In his report Senator Kirby has dedicated a whole chapter, either chapter 8 or chapter 9, to this issue. Commissioner Romanow in his recent report on health care mentioned it on pages 184 to 188. There is hope. The debate is out there.

We recently sent out letters to over 500 organizations across the country looking for their support. In the span of two days we received close to 200 e-mails saying that we absolutely have to do this. Those e-mails came from across Canada.

Again, for those who are watching, my bill would allow a person who leaves their place of employment to care for a dying loved one to have job protection. The person would be able to stay at home and care for their dying loved one, under a physician's care. The physician would have to indicate that if that person was not getting the care at home, the person would need to be institutionalized.

We all know how much institutional care costs. Depending where one is in the country and depending on the level of care, it could cost $180 a day, $700 a day, or even more.

We are asking that an individual be able to collect employment insurance so they can leave their place of employment in order to provide that care. It would save money. In fact we have hard evidence from very good sources that for every dollar spent on the employment insurance program we would save five to six dollars in health care. Who would be the biggest winners financially? The provinces.

I was very pleased to see on CBC National after the federal and provincial health ministers met that Mr. Gary Mar of Alberta said he was more than willing to work with the federal government on a palliative care leave program. Gary Mar and I may come from different walks of life politically but I was very proud of him for having said that. He knows that something has to happen.

The burden of care is really hard on a lot of people. In fact, an awful lot of employees feel they have to fudge their statistics at work, that they have to lie. They have to claim sick leave or take stress leave. That costs the economy almost $2.6 billion a year. Employees have had to leave because of the tremendous stress they are under providing that type of care.

Financially, the provisions in the bill would make it a win-win situation for the country. It would be a win situation for the families.

There are companies doing this already, for example, GlaxoSmithKline, a big pharmaceutical company. I called Leanne Kitchen the other day. That company has a 13 week program that allows its employees leave with pay in order to assist a relative under palliative care in an end of life situation. GlaxoSmithKline is quite large and very profitable so it can afford to do that. Many businesses cannot afford to do that, so we need the federal government to step in and show leadership.

The House of Commons can show leadership. Every single program we have has come with a struggle but nothing compares to the struggle that families have in making decisions when it comes to their loved ones.

I want to state four points. Every Canadian has the right to die with dignity. Every Canadian has the right to be free of pain. Every Canadian has the right to be surrounded by their loved ones. Every Canadian has the right to die in the setting of their choice.

On a personal note, I cannot thank my sister enough for the care she gave my father when he was dying. I was fortunate that my mother and father lived in the basement suite of my sister's and her husband's house. When my father was dying it took a long time but my sister and my mother provided the care for him when he was dying. I was lucky because members of my family could do that.

Think of that woman from Newfoundland who did not have family members to do that and think of the choice she had to make. She had to quit her job and move back to Newfoundland because of her love for her mother. She watched her mother die knowing she was out of work and wondering what she was going to do when her mother did pass on. Fortunately, after a year she was able to find work again and she is back on her feet but what a struggle. She has asked me not to use her name because of her pride. That is just one story of many others.

I cannot thank enough Gail Broom, of the Family Caregivers Association of Nova Scotia, who has been helpful in assisting me in drafting the bill knowing full well that the bill is just one aspect of caregiving. There are many aspects of caregiving, from Alzheimer's to physical disabilities to mental disabilities, and so on. We can talk for a long time in the House on all aspects of that.

Again, I am concentrating more on the end of life care and severe rehabilitation. If we were to move toward that effort it would be wonderful.

I wish to mention another aspect that we tend to forget sometimes, that of seniors who in many cases are looking after more elderly seniors, especially in rural areas. Those of us who come from rural areas know that the access to medical care and facilities is not as available as it is in major urban centres.

A classical example is my good friend Floyd Day from the Eastern Shore in Nova Scotia. He is 72 years old, his mother is 92. His wife is elderly as well. His wife and mother are not doing well and he has to provide the care for both of them.

This particular bill would not assist him in that particular case, but it would show the possibilities of what we can do to assist people like Floyd Day, when seniors care for seniors, especially in rural areas.

Approximately 220,000 Canadians die every year. A recent poll said that 90% of Canadians, if they had the choice, would prefer to stay in the comfort of their own home and be able to die in their own home. About 6% of caregivers in the country feel that they could adequately care for their loved ones under that circumstance. Nearly 75% of those 220,000 people die in strange places, such as hospitals and long term care facilities.

We will all get old one day. Dying is something we should not be afraid to discuss or talk about. It is a fact of life.

Madam Speaker, if you had the choice, where would you prefer to die? Would you not want to be free of pain? Would you not want to be surrounded by your loved ones? Would you not want to die in a setting of your choice? Would you not want to know that your caregiver was not suffering under financial strain, or respite strain, or whatever requirement to be able to provide you with high quality care?

We all know that when people enter a strange building, such as a long term care facility or a hospital, right away they are emotionally drained and are looking around, saying, “Is this it? Is this what I have to look forward to for the rest of my life?” No.

When the time comes for me to die I hope that I am surrounded by my daughters--hopefully they would have kids of their own--my dog, or if my dog is not around maybe another one, my beautiful wife, my brothers and sisters, and my good friends. I do not want my caregivers to suffer financially because there was no program in place that would assist them.

I want to thank the members of the House of Commons for listening today. I want to thank my seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver East, who has personal experience with this issue. I want to thank Floyd Day, and Doug and Pearl Fleming for their stories, and for the ability to meet with them and share with them their experiences.

I encourage the House to move the bill along. If it needs to be amended, so be it. But let us work on it together and let us give Canadians truly a beautiful and blessed Christmas present. God love you.