Bill C-343 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave)

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid leave from work for the following family-related reasons:
(a) the inability of their minor child to carry on regular activities because the child suffers a serious physical injury during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence;
(b) the disappearance of their minor child;
(c) the suicide of their spouse, common-law partner or child; or
(d) the death of their spouse, common-law partner or child during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence.
It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow these employees to receive benefits while on leave.

Private Member's Bill C-343--Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader on December 10, 2009 concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), standing in the name of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Joliette for his remarks concerning the bill.

In presenting his concerns with respect to Bill C-343, the parliamentary secretary stated that, in his view, the bill infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown. Specifically, he pointed out that the bill seeks to modify the Canada Labour Code to permit employees to take leave without pay for a number of family-related reasons. He explained that the bill would also amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to allow these employees to receive employment insurance benefits while on such leave for a period of up to 52 weeks, thus resulting in new government spending.

In his intervention, the member for Joliette argued that a royal recommendation is not required since the funds in the employment insurance account consist of premiums paid by both workers and employers and do not constitute government funds.

The Chair has examined the bill carefully, and it is quite clear that Bill C-343 alters the terms and conditions of the existing program under the Employment Insurance Act. The argument put forth by the member for Joliette regarding whether or not funds contributed to the employment insurance fund constitute public revenue was addressed in a Speaker's ruling delivered on November 16, 2009, at Debates page 6751, where it stated:

In essence, all monies received by the government, regardless of source, are deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and become public funds, that is, funds of the Crown. The Constitution Act of 1867 and Standing Order 79 apply to these funds. Thus, a bill proposing a new or increased expenditure of public funds, that is, an appropriation, requires a royal recommendation.

The employment insurance program operates under this framework. The funds in question are public funds and their management is subject to the financial initiative of the Crown.

By extending benefits to employees taking an unpaid leave from work for family-related reasons, Bill C-343 is increasing the expenditures under that act. These expenditures would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. As the House is aware, such provisions can only be put to the House for a final decision if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation as set out in Standing Order 79(1).

Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.

Canada Labour Code

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am presenting a petition that calls for the adoption of my bill, Bill C-343, which provides assistance for victims of crime, and particularly their families, by extending the eligibility period for employment insurance and allowing the families of victims to take time off work and keep their job for an indeterminate period of time.

On April 28, the House will vote to send this bill to committee. On behalf of the hundreds of petitioners and all the families of victims, I hope that a majority of this House will support the bill. These 35 signatures, in addition to all the others, show that the public is concerned about the families of victims and that they want the government to take action as quickly as possible.

Victims of Crime

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to no one's surprise, the Conservative government has announced that it will vote against Bill C-343, which provides real, tangible financial assistance to the families of victims of crime.

The government, which loudly proclaims that it defends victims and their families, is instead creating a diversion by holding Victims of Crime Awareness Week. We cannot oppose virtue. However, this gesture is simply a smokescreen for the Conservatives' inaction and indifference towards the financial needs of victims' families. The truth is that it is the awareness of this government's members that needs to be raised.

If the Conservatives truly were concerned by the fate of victims and their families, they would vote for Bill C-343on April 28.

Employment Insurance

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have another petition calling for the passage of my Bill C-343, which helps victims of crime and their loved ones by extending the employment insurance eligibility period and enabling victims' family members to take a leave of absence from work and keep their jobs indefinitely.

These signatures and all the others show that people are concerned about the fate of victims' families and want the government to act as soon as possible.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-9. I will begin by saying that we will be voting against this bill.

I have been a member in this House for over four years. Twice now the people of Ahuntsic have given me the privilege of defending their interests and Quebec's interests with my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

My duties here have allowed me to witness first-hand the Conservative government's failure to act, and above all, its political grandstanding. In fact, even the name of the bill, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, rather than the budget implementation bill, is itself an example of this smoke and mirrors act, as they try to convince the country that they are taking care of people.

In my speech on the budget implementation act, I will demonstrate that the government is trying to impose its right wing ideology to the detriment of women, children and even the victims it claims so loudly to defend.

First of all, consider the firearms registry. The underlying message of this budget is that the government wants to save all the pennies it can, putting the lives of our citizens in danger, particularly the lives of women and children, and even police officers. To save less than $3 million—the undisputed number from the RCMP—the government is supporting a bill that will exempt long guns from the current firearms registry, and 90% of all guns are long guns. And they are the weapons that kill the most women and children.

Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on March 18, 2010, the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP, Bill Sweeney, expressed his support for maintaining the full gun registry and pointed out that there is ample evidence proving that the registry contributes to the safety of police officers and the public. He said:

I believe that there is compelling evidence that the registry promotes officer and public safety...I believe that there will be an opportunity for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to present to a cabinet committee that evidence.

It is clear that the gun registry not only allows for better coordination of law enforcement interventions, but also for the prevention of domestic tragedies by facilitating the seizure of weapons. It also makes it more difficult to steal firearms and easier to conduct and conclude police investigations, and that allows police to arrest criminals more quickly. The registry is consulted more than 12,000 times a day by more than 80% of police officers across Canada.

On the issue of the gun registry, the government has achieved an exceptional level of absurdity. For $3 million in so-called savings, the government, which has more than $242.2 million in expenditures in this budget, wants to compromise the safety of the public and law enforcement officers.

For the government, public safety is just another prop in their show. All the government ever does is put on shows and make the same old announcements. I have some examples. By the way, the shows are not very good.

The Minister of Public Safety made a major announcement on the sex offender registry by saying that the government will tighten its grip on pedophiles. We were told that $14 million was being allocated over two years for DNA analysis. It was a big show.

In fact, we were addressing this issue before the government prorogued the House and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had produced a report on the sex offender registry. Furthermore, in April 2009 our committee met with the directors of two major labs, one in Quebec and the other in Ontario. There are three major laboratories in Canada: those two and the third one, run by the RCMP, which does analyses.

We received Mr. Prime from the Centre of Forensic Sciences, and Mr. Dufour from the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale. These two labs do roughly 70% of all the tests. What did these directors say in April 2009? That not only was there no agreement with the federal government, but they also had to do a tremendous amount of tests—nearly 70% of the tests—with very little money.

This means that it can take up to a year to get the results of these tests.

On March 18, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I questioned the minister about the funding for these laboratories. I was told that there still was no agreement in place and that Quebec still had not signed the agreement for the current year. So there is no agreement.

I asked how the $7 million a year would be split among these laboratories, and I got no answer. They do not know how they are going to divide up the money. Currently, each lab gets just over $2 million, so they will likely get exactly the same amount, with no increase. Once again, the government is making a great show of things, but in reality there is nothing new. Even worse, nothing is being done.

I want to tell my colleagues about something that is completely absurd. They say they want to crack down on pedophiles. No problem. Yet for the past three years—during which time there have been three public safety ministers—I have been warning the government and calling on the Conservatives to stop transferring pedophiles to Correctional Services halfway houses, also known as community correctional centres, near schools and daycare centres.

The Montreal school board has also been calling for this. It passed a resolution to that effect, but nothing was done. This does not require any investment of money—it does not cost a cent—and it does not even require that a law be passed. All it requires is a simple directive at Correctional Services. Did they agree? No. Three years later, they still have not done anything. What are they waiting for? I do not know. I hope with all my heart that they will not wait for a tragedy to occur before they do something, which is what usually happens.

I will give another example. For four years, this government has been saying that it is very concerned about victims of crime. So it makes a big deal about a paltry $6.6 million over two years to improve the federal victims strategy by making it easier for relatives of crime victims, specifically murder victims, to receive EI sickness benefits.

There is even a spokesperson who spouts all manner of falsehoods. I say “falsehoods” because I do not want to use unparliamentary language. I would use another word if I were not here in the House, but that is another story.

Why did they take four years to come up with a paltry $6.6 million? After putting on a show for four years, claiming to be there for the victims and feeling sorry for them, they did something, providing $6.6 million over two years. Why? On closer scrutiny, what do we find?

We know that the member for Compton—Stanstead introduced—more than once—Bill C-343 respecting the families of victims of crime. This bill would provide assistance in the form of employment insurance benefits not only to the families of murder victims, but also the families faced with the death of their minor child or the suicide of a spouse, common-law partner or child, and to parents whose minor child suffered a serious physical injury during the commission of a criminal offence. It would mean that any member of these families affected by tragedy could receive up to 52 weeks of benefits and maintain their employment relationship for up to two years.

What is the government proposing? It is proposing $3.3 million per year only for the families of murder victims, which boils down to approximately 15 weeks of benefits. We are asking for 52 weeks for a larger number of individuals. That is what I call really helping the victims of crime.

They are so frantic that, on March 19, Senator Boisvenu, their spokesperson, was still telling and writing falsehoods, not to use unparliamentary language, about Bill C-343. He attempted to defend the indefensible. We will see how absurd that was. He said that budget 2010 included an additional commitment of $52 million to help victims of crime and $6.6 million to support the parents of a murdered child through the EI program.

That is not true. There is no $52 million in the budget for the victims of crime. The Conservatives just love putting on smoke and mirrors shows. They are world champions at it. Unfortunately, these are not very good shows. I would not recommend them, because the shows are more pitiful than anything else.

I would like to speak about an issue that is important to me—crime prevention. We will see that they have a rather poor record. Crime prevention is not in their vocabulary. For the Conservatives, crime prevention is an obscure concept, one that they do not even understand. If they did, they would have thrown money at it since coming to power. I would say that previous governments did not do much more. However, the Conservatives claim that they are concerned about crime. Crime prevention is fundamental if we do not want people to become criminals. If we want to save our youth, we have to have prevention.

What if we are wrong? Well, I will prove that we are not wrong. We are not the only ones saying it.

There is nothing in the budget for prevention, there is nothing for the national crime prevention strategy. However, the National Crime Prevention Centre web site talks about providing communities tools, knowledge and support to undertake crime prevention initiatives in communities large and small across Canada. It is great to read that. It is encouraging.

This year, no new money has been allocated. Consequently, for over a year—and this may continue next year—the National Crime Prevention Centre, Quebec section, has been telling agencies in my riding, and they have told me as well, to not submit applications for new projects until further notice because it does not have any money and allocated amounts have already been disbursed.

I asked the minister about it when he came before the committee. It seems that no one could provide an answer. We will receive one in writing at some point, at least we hope so. I have dealt with a fair number of departments. It is fairly difficult to obtain information and a response from the department responsible for the NCPC. I will not go into that.

What are the Conservatives doing? They are doing the easiest thing, what they are paid to do and what they were sent here to do: they are making laws. Making laws is the easiest thing to do, unbelievably easy. However, making intelligent laws is not as easy, I can assure you. And when the time comes to put money into implementing those laws, it is a different story. Furthermore, there is always that narrow vision that would have us believe that putting more people in jail is in some way fighting crime. Let us just put people in jail and throw away the key and everything will be just fine. I am sorry, but no matter how many and how long the jail terms are, those individuals will be freed one day and once back on the streets they will be even more prone to crime and more dangerous.

Last Tuesday—as life and destiny sometimes take us to some cities at the right time—I was in Winnipeg where I replaced my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin at the justice and human rights committee, which was studying organized crime and street gangs. I must say that I was moved and touched by what I saw in Winnipeg, particularly by the condition of aboriginal children. All the witnesses we heard told us that more money was needed for prevention.

I met outstanding aboriginal women who work tirelessly for organizations in terrible neighbourhoods to save aboriginal children, to get them off the streets and to prevent them from being recruited by street gangs or organized crime groups.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about Mr. Wiebe, a man who stood out to me, although all of the testimonies were touching. Mr. Wiebe's 20-year-old son was murdered on January 5, 2003. It was a very violent murder planned out by young men aged 17 to 20.

This man was suffering a lot. Despite the fact that he and his wife were still suffering, he said that he had read that the Canadian government wanted to increase the budget for prisons by 27%, by $3.1 billion. He encouraged the committee to press the government to take 100% of this increase and re-allocate every cent into human rights and prevention. He said that we needed to save these kids before they became criminals. He said that his son would perhaps still be alive if his murderers had gotten some help.

What I saw and heard in Winnipeg regarding the situation with aboriginal children made it clear why these young people join street gangs.

Why, between 2005 and 2007, did Winnipeg police report more than 8,000 car thefts per year committed by members of street gangs, by 11- or 12-year old kids? These kids are living with poverty, unsanitary housing—I saw it myself—violence, drug use, high drop-out rates, parental abandonment, sexual violence, despair and lack of love. And nothing in this budget will meet these desperate needs.

What aboriginal children need is good food, decent housing, the opportunity to go to school, homes free from violence and drugs, and parents who are proud of their culture and their history. They do not need prison.

Aboriginals are already over-represented in federal penitentiaries in the prairie provinces as well as in juvenile facilities in the region. Like all children in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Saskatoon, these children need greater solidarity. They need help to keep them from being recruited, used or killed by criminal gangs.

In my riding, in Quebec and in Winnipeg, I have seen compassionate, loving people who scrounge pennies every day to help children escape misery and to prevent them from being recruited by street gangs. They know that is the way to fight crime.

I get emotional about this because I care so deeply. This is part of my mission as a politician and as a human being.

I hope that the government will listen to Mr. Wiebe. I hope that it will quit showboating and realize that we cannot play games with people's lives. I also hope it will understand that the key to winning the fight against crime is making major investments in preventive measures targeting distressed children and youth everywhere in Quebec and Canada.

The most important thing is figuring out not how to put people in jail, but how to save our children. That should be our first concern. They are the ones who will eventually be looking after us. We must remember one thing. One day, our children will be looking after us. If we do not look after them, if we leave them to rot in jail, they will not do us any favours when it is their turn to look after us.

Royal Recommendation and Ways and Means Motions

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 5, the Deputy Speaker made a statement regarding certain private members' bills on which a point of order had been raised during the last session regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation. One of these is Bill C-343 introduced by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

It will come as no surprise that I do not share the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to the effect that this bill requires a royal recommendation. According to Marleau and Montpetit, the rule regarding royal recommendation is as follows: “Bills that involve the expenditure of public funds must have a Royal Recommendation.”

My colleague's bill would provide employment insurance benefits to victims of crime who are on leave for family reasons. These benefits could extend to 52 weeks.

The employment insurance fund, which consists of premiums paid by both workers and employers, funds employment insurance benefits. Just last week, the Prime Minister went to great lengths to tell us that the board that manages this fund is independent. In that sense, my colleague's bill would not be funded by public monies but by the premiums paid by workers and employers in order to provide benefits to workers, when necessary.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed by the government's attitude towards this matter. By claiming that a royal recommendation is required, it is showing that it is incapable of transcending partisanship to come to the assistance of the families of victims of crime.

Employment Insurance

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am presenting a petition in this House that calls for the passage of my Bill C-343, which helps victims of crime and their families by reducing the qualifying period for employment insurance and allowing the families of victims to take time off work and keep their job for an indeterminate period of time.

These 170 signatures, in addition to all the others, show that citizens are concerned about the plight of victims' families and that they want the government to act as quickly as possible.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling in this House a petition that calls for the adoption of my bill, Bill C-343, which would allow victims of crime and their families to receive their fair share of employment insurance. This petition was signed by more than 800 people in my riding and from across Quebec.

These signatures show that citizens are concerned about the plight of victims' families and that they want the government to act as quickly as possible.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, happy International Women's Day.

I am also tabling in this chamber a petition calling for the passage of my bill, Bill C-343, which helps the victims of crime and their families by reducing the qualifying period for employment insurance—a real plan this time—and allowing the families of victims to take time off work and keep their job for an indeterminate period of time.

This petition was signed by more than 15 organizations and a number of municipalities in my riding and throughout Quebec. These signatures show that citizens are concerned about the plight of victims' families and that they want the government to act as quickly as possible.

Royal Recommendation and Ways and Means Motions

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before we begin private members' business today, I would like to make a brief statement regarding the issue of royal recommendation and ways and means motions with respect to private members' business

Just as individual items of private members' business continue their legislative progress from session to session, the Chair's rulings on those same items likewise survive prorogation.

Specifically there are nine bills on which the Chair either commented, ruled or has heard a point of order with regard to the issue of the royal recommendation. There was also one bill on which a point of order was raised regarding the requirement for a ways and means motion.

The purpose of this statement is to remind the House of those rulings and of the questions that remain to be dealt with.

Members will recall that, during the last session, some private members’ bills were found by the Chair to require a royal recommendation. At the time of prorogation, there were seven such bills on the order of precedence or in committee.

Let us review briefly the situation in each of these seven cases.

Three of these bills were awaiting report stage in the House at the time of prorogation, namely: Bill C-201, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), standing in the name of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore;

Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), standing in the name of the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi;

Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

On May 12, 2009, the chair had ruled that Bill C-201, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. In committee, all clauses of the bill were deleted. In its present eviscerated form, Bill C-201 need no longer be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

As for Bill C-241 and Bill C-280, the chair ruled on April 22, 2009 and on June 3, 2009 respectively, that these bills in their present forms required royal recommendation. The committee stage has not altered this finding.

The following four bills were at committee stage: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), standing in the name of the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska was before the Standing Committee on Finance; Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, was before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

finally, Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), standing in the name of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The Chair ruled that all these bills in their present forms needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The rulings were given on October 23, 2009 for Bill C-290, on October 29, 2009 for Bill C-308, on June 16, 2009 for Bill C-309 and, more recently, on November 16, 2009 for Bill C-395.

Furthermore, points of order were raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader at the end of the last session with respect to the need for a royal recommendation for two bills. These are: Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave) standing in the name of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead and Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Both of these bills were at second reading.

Just as was done in the last session, the Chair invites other members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for those two bills or any of the other bills on the order of precedence to do so at an early opportunity in order for the Chair to come back to the House with a ruling as soon as possible.

Finally, a point of order was raised during the last session regarding Bill C-470, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (revocation of registration), standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, arguing that it should have been proceeded by a ways and means motion. The Chair has taken the matter under consideration and a ruling will be delivered in the days to come.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

It being 1:35, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-343.

This is an important bill, one that I think will get a lot of support in the House. I am rather disappointed to hear the Conservatives' opinion about it. They do not feel they will be able to support the bill. They have suggested they will come up with their own legislation to take its place. I guess the government will sell it as part of its crime agenda.

This is solidly based legislation and the NDP supports it.

Bill C-343 would extend workplace benefits to victims of crime and their families. The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid leave from work for the following family-related reasons: first, the inability of their minor child to carry on regular activities because the child suffered a serious physical injury during the commission of or as a direct result of a criminal offence; second, the disappearance of a minor child; third, the suicide of a spouse, common law partner or child; and fourth, the death of a spouse, common law partner or child during the commission or as a direct result of a criminal offence.

All these occasions would be extremely stressful for families. It is important that they be allowed to take time off work because of the enormous stress associated with any one of these developments. The parties would need counselling. I would think it would be very hard for people to concentrate on what they were doing. We need to deal with these major issues.

Since 1969, the province of Manitoba has had a fund called the criminal injuries compensation fund. Some other provinces might have a similar thing. The fund provides benefits to people who have been hurt as a result of criminal acts. I would be surprised if Manitoba was the only province with a criminal injuries compensation fund. It is one province of which I am aware.

The bill would also amend the Employment Insurance Act to allow these employees to receive benefits while on leave.

I want to point out that the Conservative government talks a lot about crime. We spent an entire week in this place on crime bills. It was almost like a factory. There was a new bill every day of the week. I rather enjoyed the process, but it was difficult to keep up with the bills.

On CTV, I would hear that the government had announced another crime bill. It had two days of free coverage without us even seeing what the bill was about and then doing the necessary research to respond in short order. Then the very next day, there would be another one. It was as if it would never end. I am sure the government has many more such crime bills planned for the upcoming year.

The Conservatives always talk about being tough on crime. The NDP wants to be smart on crime not just up on crime. The fact is the Conservatives talk a great line about the victims of crime, but where are they when it comes time to do something about the victims? They are big on talk, but they are not so big on action.

Bill C-343, proposed by the member, does that. The bill does what the government talks about but does not actually do anything about.

I am really surprised that the government would take this very negative position on this bill and on many other good ideas that members in the opposition come forward with. It always has to find a reason why it is a bad idea and why it cannot support it.

For example, tonight the government talked about how it has costed the bill out already and that the effects of the bill are going to cost the system $340 million to $410 million. How in the world did the government come up with figures like that? Does it know what the crime rate will be? Supposedly, with all its great initiatives in its crime bills, the crime rate will come down. Therefore, there will not be the amount of crime that it is talking about.

Therefore, how would it be able to project figures--

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations are in order for my colleague from Compton—Stanstead, who introduced this bill and did such a good job of explaining it in the House.

The examples she provided and her references to the families reminded us all of painful memories associated with sometimes sordid crimes and unexplained disappearances. If we feel shaken up just thinking about it, imagine how the families dealing with such tragedies must feel.

We are coming into a period of celebration for all Canadians, but we must not forget that people suffer from these crimes all the time. When we talk about this problem, about the challenge before us, I can see that members of every single party understand the scope of this bill even though we do not all have the same understanding of its intention. For example, the government's parliamentary secretary said he understood the intention, and his remarks led me to believe that he would vote in favour of the bill. I was confused when I realized that his party would not be voting for the bill.

However, I did get the feeling that he was aware of the situation and understood the intention of the bill. In fact, he began his remarks by saying that he understood the intention.

Of course these crimes are tragedies for those who are directly affected, but they are also tragedies for their loved ones, the people who, in many cases, are forced to live with situations that are sometimes so intolerable they have to quit their jobs. Until now—and in Quebec, until September 2007—nothing has been provided for these victims. In Quebec, Bill 58 introduced provisions enabling these people to take leave from work for a year or two depending on the circumstances and the act or event. By that, I mean crimes as such or events like disappearances and suicide.

In cases of suicide or disappearance, the authorized leave period is one year—52 weeks—and employers must authorize such leave. In the case of crimes such as homicide, leave periods may be as long as two years.

Quebec law is very clear about the rights of employees and the obligations of employers. Respectively, they are entitled to and required to provide only one period of leave without pay.

This situation must be remedied, because we have to understand that families in such situations bear a double burden. Not only are they forced to take a leave of absence from work, but they have no income.

The bill introduced by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead offers a solution that requires that two acts be amended. First, the bill amends the Canada Labour Code to recreate the provision that already exists in Quebec for the whole of Canada by entitling employees to a leave of absence for the same length of time, one or two years.

Both my Liberal colleague and my NDP colleague who spoke just before me talked about the need to amend the bill, because they already see flaws in it. We are quite willing to look at any measure to improve the bill. That is why we hope it will be passed at second reading and referred to committee.

The Canada Labour Code must be amended to allow employees to take a leave of absence from work. However, the issue of benefits has not been addressed. That is where the amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and regulations come in. These amendments would enable the individuals concerned to have income for the same length of time as in Quebec, that is, one or two years, depending on the nature of the event or crime.

This is a purely technical exercise, and there is no need to go on forever about it. But we do need to take the time to understand the scope of this bill in relation to two suggestions that were made previously by the other three parties in the House. It was suggested that the bill be modelled on existing measures such as the 15 weeks of leave for serious illness or the six weeks of compassionate care leave. We are willing to look at that, but it seems to me that we are talking about something completely different.

We must consider these measures in relation to their purpose. I can already tell the House that the Bloc Québécois has a motion to increase the number of weeks of absence in the case of serious illness and for compassionate care leave, similar to the suggestion by the parliamentary secretary, while keeping in mind the purpose of each measure.

A petition has been circulating for a few months now. I have a petition here that has been signed by 55,000 people, and I have been told that 10,000 others still want to sign. This petition aims to encourage the House to improve these two measures for individuals during difficult times, for example when they must take sick or compassionate care leave. That is something completely different.

Let us get back to Bill C-343 from the member for Compton—Stanstead. In conclusion, I remind members that the purpose of the provisions of Bill C-343 is to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act to give benefits to individuals who have been the victim of a crime or who have had a loved one disappear.

I think I am the last to speak in this session, before we leave for Christmas. Happy holidays, Mr. Speaker, and the same to our parliamentary colleagues, and especially to my constituents in Chambly—Borduas.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave) brought forward by my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead.

As the title suggests, this is indeed a bill that seeks to reform Canada's labour laws, but in essence it is about our society's treatment of victims of crime. I will be interested to see how members of the Conservative Party end up voting on the bill. Their rhetoric of course is all about law and order. It is all about getting tough on crime. Yet if we look back on all the bills that have been introduced in the House under the auspices of the government's crime agenda, it becomes painfully obvious that it has focused almost exclusively on the offenders and how they are treated by the criminal justice system.

As I have said elsewhere, when those bills made sense, I was proud to stand in my place to support them. Other bills I voted against because in the view of experts they constituted bad public policy. However, throughout the countless hours of debate that we have had on these bills, I do not recount the government bringing forward a single piece of legislation that spoke to the needs of the victims of crime.

Surely we need to be smart on crime and not just tough on crime. Instead of focusing solely on the enforcement side of the law a smart agenda on crime needs to incorporate policies on prevention and it needs to have a plan for assisting the victims of crime.

Historically, the criminal justice system consisted of two parties: the offender and the victim. The victim initiated and handled the prosecution of the offender. That scenario is a far cry from the scenario we have today where the only two parties involved are the offender and the state, and where the victim is at most a witness for the prosecution. Today, a crime is considered to have been committed against the state, not against the victim.

Through years of determination and hard work, the voices of victims began to be heard. Change began when victims themselves began to speak out about the system and its shortcomings. When police and others within the system began to validate what the victims were saying and supporting their message, people began to take notice.

The victims' rights movement in Canada really has its foundation in the feminist movement and the results they obtained for women victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault. In Canada since the early 1980s, victims' organizations like Victims of Violence and CAVEAT have convinced various governments that the role of the victim in the process is an important one and that it should be recognized.

Changes with regard to the Criminal Code and victims' rights legislation were a direct result of the courage displayed by victims who allowed society to benefit from their experience within the system. Their influence is not limited to ensuring that victims have their rights respected throughout the process, but as well with regard to legislation that will prevent future victims. They want to enhance services and promote justice for all victims of crime and tragedy.

It is out of this strong advocacy tradition that support for Bill C-343 has grown.

The impact of serious crimes or tragedies is not just felt by victims in the realm of the criminal justice system. It is felt in all aspects of their lives. With the vast majority of adults participating in the labour force, it is immediately felt in the competing demands of work and family.

Even in the absence of personal tragedies, it is a challenge for working Canadians to meet the demands of both their jobs and their families. According to an Ipsos Reid poll in October of 2000, balancing work with home and personal life was the greatest source of stress for 45% of Canadians. The poll also showed that 42% of Canadians said their stress had increased over the past five years, while 21% said it remained the same.

There are a whole host of reasons for that.

About 70% of women with young children are in the labour force, more than 15% of families with children are led by single parents, the vast majority of them women and 18% of Canada's population has a disability, yet there is still almost no accommodation of their work and family needs.

As the aged population grows, more and more working Canadians are faced with caring for elderly relatives. In fact, one in four Canadians now provides some form of care to an elderly relative. Clearly, balancing work and family life has become a critical problem for workers right across our country.

However, imagine how much worse those already existing pressures become during times of personal tragedy. Imagine the pressures when a child or spouse commits suicide. Put oneself in the shoes of a parent whose child has disappeared. Imagine trying to cope with the aftermath of a child being seriously injured as a result of a criminal offence. What would happen to families whose child or spouse died as a result of a criminal offence.

Thankfully for most of us, those are pressure we may never have to face. However, that does not mean we do not have an obligation to recognize, understand, and accommodate them. That is precisely what the bill before us today is all about.

Many jurisdictions in Canada have already incorporated some provisions dealing with family leave and compassionate care leave into their employment laws. In other areas it has been the labour movement that has fought for these benefits on behalf of its members at the bargaining table. Negotiated agreements often provide much better protection for organized workers than employment standards legislation offers.

However, the labour movement never rests on its laurels. It keeps alive the spirit of CCF/NDP founder, J. S. Woodsworth, by acting on the credo: what we desire for ourselves, we wish for all. In that way the labour movement fights for all workers in our country and not only its membership.

That is why the Canadian Labour Congress, representing over three million workers in Canada, supports the legislation that is before us today. Like members in this House, the congress is keenly aware that the only jurisdiction in Canada that currently has legislation to assist families who are victims of crime is the province of Quebec. That simply is not good enough. Victims' rights should be recognized from coast to coast to coast.

It is true that the Canada Labour Code only sets labour standards for employers and employees under federal jurisdiction. These include sectors, such as air and marine transportation, interprovincial and international rail, road and pipeline transportation, banking, broadcasting, telecommunications and crown corporations. However, as the federal government is often seen as setting the national standard that provinces then follow, it is imperative that these amendments to the Canada Labour Code be adopted.

I will briefly address the details of what the bill proposes. Bill C-343 is a nine clause bill that would modify the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid family leave because of (a) a serious physical injury to their minor child as a result of a serious criminal offence; (b) the disappearance of their minor child; (c) the suicide of their spouse, common-law partner or child; or (d) the death of their spouse, common-law partner or child as a result of a criminal offence.

Importantly, it would then also amend the Employment Insurance Act to allow employees on family leave to receive special benefits.

The precise wording of the bill does raise some questions. Unfortunately, debate at second reading does not allow the author of the bill to respond to concerns in this House. These are not questions for which the answers will determine my support for the bill. I support its intent unequivocally. My concerns are of a more technical nature and I am certain we will be able to work out the details once the bill gets into committee.

However, let me flag them briefly so that, as the member for Compton—Stanstead, we will be aware. Why, for example, does the bill offer 104 weeks of leave for a physical injury that prevents a child from carrying on regular activities, while the disappearance of a child only leads to a maximum of 52 weeks of leave?

Why is family leave restricted to an event that happens to a child or spouse? How about a father or mother or another family member living in the same residence?

The bill deems an injury to a child serious if it “renders the child unable to carry on regular activities”. It is not clear whether regular activities are limited to attending school.

Finally, the bill suggests that nothing prevents an employer from dismissing, suspending or reassigning an employee if the consequences of the criminal offence or the repetitive nature of the leave constitutes a just and sufficient cause. I worry this may contradict what I understood to be the essence of this bill, which is to allow employees to take an unpaid family leave in such circumstances and to be protected from dismissal for this reason.

Again, I am confident we can resolve these issues in committee.

For now I will commend the member for Compton—Stanstead for bringing this bill forward. I look forward to working with the member as we amend Canada's labour laws to support victims of crime.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight and am glad to speak on Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave).

First, I want to say that while I have some concerns about the bill, they are things that could actually be better addressed at committee, so I support sending this bill to committee.

We definitely all understand the crises and trauma that families and individuals can go through when a crime is committed. This is something for which victims in this country do not get a great deal of attention, and this is critical.

The main provisions of the bill, I noticed, mirror to some degree the legislation that already exists in Quebec. I know the hon. member has obviously taken the information and used the Quebec model to draft her bill, which I believe was a good direction to go.

The bill allows employees to take unpaid leave from work for family-related reasons, specifically when there is a criminal offence. Some of the provisions, as others have mentioned before, are there to allow the minor child to carry on activities because the child suffers a serious physical injury. Again, the parent could take time off if that had happened because of a criminal offence.

We need to talk about the trauma that families have when these kinds of things happen. The bill, as I mentioned earlier, addresses the spouse, common-law partner and the child, but does not mention the mother or father. I note that it did not much refer to those issues, and that is something that we may want to look at, as other members of the family are certainly victims of acts of crime at times, and I just wondered why that particular aspect was not mentioned or is not in the bill at this point. However, the bill goes on to cover things such as the death of a spouse or common-law partner as a result of a criminal offence.

According to the bill, in the case of a minor child, the child must be under the age of 18. This is what the hon. member was mentioning as a concern, although I think that is a reasonable thing to do. Unpaid leave of up to 104 weeks is granted if the child is injured as a result of a criminal offence and if the presence of the employee is required by the child.

There are different times mentioned in the bill. Fifty-two weeks of unpaid leave is granted if a minor child is missing. However, if the child is found, the leave ends after the eleventh day following the return of the child. So there are some parts of the bill that actually take into account different situations or possible different scenarios, and that is helpful.

The 104 weeks of unpaid leave are granted if the child, spouse or common-law of the employee dies during the commission of, or as a direct result of, a criminal offence. This bill is very much tied to addressing the issue of victims of criminal activity, and the bill is very clear, in case anyone is concerned about it. The employee may not benefit from these provisions,

if it may be inferred from the circumstances that the employee—or...the deceased person, if that person is the spouse, common-law partner or adult child—was probably a party to the criminal offence....

This again reflects very closely the provisions in the Quebec legislation, if I am not mistaken from having taken a brief look at it earlier today.

Losing a child or a spouse is one of the most difficult circumstances anyone could ever face and has a traumatic effect on all members of the family. In my riding, about a year ago on New Year's day, a young woman by the name of Stefanie Rengel was killed, stabbed practically next door to her own home. Her mother did not hear her cry because it was late and it was outside. She died on the snowbank a couple of doors from her own home. It was a horrible crime and I still remember going and meeting with the parents and discussing the situation.

It was one of those things where no one could ever say anything that would help. Being sorry would not cut it. The trauma suffered by the mother, father, brother and other family members has been tremendous. They have been through a difficult time.

We all know that criminal offence victims who face serious injuries require the help and support of their families. All efforts should be made to ease the challenges in meeting those needs. Those who survive injury need time to deal with the trauma. The family, children or spouse of a victim also need time to rebuild their lives and get back to a normal life. This is something that is extremely important. We take our safety for granted sometimes. No one believes that it will hit us, but unfortunately it can and it does, as some of us have seen.

As I said earlier, there are areas of this bill that need study. I believe the committee needs to look at a couple of things, but those are not insurmountable or things that cannot be addressed.

I am going to highlight some of those areas. For instance, in the case of a physical injury to a child, an injury is deemed serious if it renders the child unable to carry on regular activities. I am not sure that the bill is clear on what regular activities are and whether it is limited to attending school or it includes other activities, but I think it is important to be clear so the interpretation is not wrong.

In another section, as I mentioned earlier, family leave is restricted to an event that happens to the child or spouse. However, what about a father, mother or any other family member? I do not want to expand on it too much, but mothers and fathers are obviously considered to be immediate family members.

I am going beyond the age of 18 and 19, and maybe there is something to be said about the age equation. I am not quite sure that the impact is much different if somebody loses a child at the age of 19 or 20, especially if they lose that family member through a criminal offence. I think that is worthwhile to discuss at committee.

There is another aspect to this. We have the question of the cost of allowing employees on family leave to receive EI special benefits. That is very important. The bill allows for a maximum of 52 weeks of special benefits, compared with six weeks on compassionate leave and 15 weeks for sick leave. I think we might want to look at expanding compassionate care or compassionate leave.

We are going to have different categories, and maybe this type of legislation could be in one category. I know that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women did a study with respect to the reform of EI specifically. Some of the recommendations dealt with compassionate leave.

We are looking at increasing and expanding compassionate leave. This might be something that would fit into that area. I think it would be worthwhile to look into it. It is certainly something we may want to discuss and potentially change. Compassionate care and compassionate leave is something we already have in the EI legislation, and it may be something we could expand.

The committee also looked at taking some of these things out of EI. That is something important that we would want to look at.

The Canada Labour Code currently does not specify that an individual can take unpaid leave when his or her family has suffered a major loss, including the death of a spouse, common-law spouse or child as a result of suicide or criminal offence, nor if a child has gone missing. As I said earlier, it is not there. I understand what the hon. member is trying to accomplish with this bill. However, there are some clarifications that I think the committee should look at.

We will support the bill, but some of these things could be looked at in committee to clarify them further and ensure that when the bill comes back to the House it will have more clarity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed listening to the comments and the intention behind the bill. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave). It affects two pieces of legislation.

All members here certainly sympathize with those whose loved ones have been victims of violent crime. There is no question about that. It can take a long time for anyone to fully heal from that kind of tragedy.

Before discussing what may be the best way to support these victims and their families, I would like to take a moment to sum up the main components of the proposed legislation.

Bill C-343 would amend the Canada Labour Code to introduce a new type of unpaid leave, known as family leave, which would be available to federally regulated employees whose family member has experienced certain kinds of trauma. It would also amend the Employment Insurance Act to provide temporary income support for up to 52 weeks, including the two-week waiting period, to eligible individuals who take this new type of family leave. It would also use a provision of the same act to ensure that premium rates were reduced in provinces where similar income support is provided.

In part, the proposed bill seeks to address issues related to victims of violence through the employment insurance program. I should like to note that the employment insurance program already provides some compensation to victims of crime. Specifically, eligible individuals who are unable to work and who are undergoing treatment for the psychological effects of bereavement or violent crime would be eligible for up to 15 weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits. In this way, the employment insurance program already responds to the needs of Canadians in these difficult circumstances. In limited situations, eligible workers can also access up to six weeks of compassionate care benefits.

While the EI system plays a very important role in providing some income support during absences from work for Canadians, the government recognizes it may not address the needs of all victims in all situations. The proposed changes represent a significant shift to special benefits, and it is not clear that employment insurance is the best instrument to provide income support under these circumstances. In addition to these concerns, the proposed changes have of a number of additional implications that are matters of concern.

The proposal to create family leave does raise some questions with respect to fairness. I am not sure whether, in making policy in this area, the distinctions and restrictions in this bill will result in a fair outcome.

For example, I am not sure parents of a 17-year-old and parents of a 19-year-old are deserving of substantially different treatment by the EI system. In the painful cases this bill seeks to address, I am not sure either type of parent would agree that differential treatment is fair either. While this is a little outside the scope of the bill, I am concerned that crime is the only thing being addressed here by these changes and that other painful and tragic events that are no less shocking, unexpected and difficult to endure are not being considered. As I said, other events are not within the scope of the bill, and that is a matter of concern for sure.

I will move on, however. It is important to note that most provinces already offer a variety of supports to assist families of victims of crime, such as coverage of medical expenses, as well as access to counselling services.

Six provinces even provide compensation for lost wages. Provincial compensation measures also have the advantage of being provided to victims and their families without regard to employment status.

Managing the employment insurance system is very complex, as we have seen in this House with the various pieces of legislation we have introduced, including the one that just passed today, Bill C-56. Our recent changes were only made after careful consideration and in response to a critical economic situation and, therefore, a situation that was critical for thousands of Canadians and their families. Our most recent proposal for change is to bring access and fairness to self-employed Canadians, as I mentioned, to the people who have never had access to the special benefits within the EI system before.

Right now, because of the global economic situation of the past year and because previous governments used EI premiums for non-EI spending, and the member makes a fair point there, the EI account is under strain. It is estimated that adopting the bill would increase program costs significantly and could result in significant upward pressure on premium rates, something that most people do not want.

While the length of the bill itself does not imply so, these proposed changes are major financial changes to the EI system. As we know from both the existing EI system and the new access to special benefits proposed by the government under Bill C-56, adding another class of people for whom 50 weeks' worth of benefits would be available is a very expensive proposition.

I am certainly not here to say that grief has a price tag or a price ceiling, but that these sorts of changes have consequences that need to be fully considered. Not only is the EI system perhaps not the best vehicle to help in these circumstances, but it is also an expensive way to use the system.

It is also important to bear in mind that the Department of Justice provides assistance with respect to issues surrounding victims of violence. It already offers a variety of programs and services, including the victims fund and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. In fact, in 2007, our government made a $52 million commitment over four years to increase services for victims and funding to the provinces for elements of their programs.

Finally, our government is also working to better protect Canadians against those who commit serious and violent crimes. In February 2008, the Tackling Violent Crime Act became law. This act strengthens the Criminal Code in the following five ways: mandatory prison sentences for criminals who commit crimes with guns; tougher bail rules to make it easier to keep people accused of serious gun crimes off our streets; a higher age of protection, that is, 16 years old, to protect children from sexual predators; new stronger measures against impaired driving; and more effective sentencing and monitoring to prevent dangerous high-risk offenders from offending again. Collectively these will certainly have an impact on reducing the number of victims.

Our government is concerned about the impact of violence on all Canadians and it is taking measures to address these concerns. We always welcome ideas for improvements to programs and services to respond to the needs of victims and their families. However, further consideration is required to determine whether employment insurance is the most suitable income replacement instrument for addressing this issue.

I want to assure the House that our government acknowledges the extensive work done by groups engaged in promoting a better understanding of the needs of victims and their families. These include the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families Association, led by Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu.

However, we believe that the Canada Labour Code should not be amended in such a piecemeal manner. We strongly believe that adopting a comprehensive approach would enable us to address more efficiently the needs of employees whose family member has been a victim of violent crime, has committed suicide, or whose child has disappeared.

For all of these reasons, the government cannot support this bill and intends, at the appropriate time, to move forward on this issue and introduce its own legislation for unpaid leave for victims of crime. This area is an important one and these issues need to be addressed, but they need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner.

Going through the employment insurance program is not the way to go. The system is not specifically designed for that and this may not be the time to work through that. As I have said, the government will be introducing legislation and certainly will deal with the issues that have been raised.