Bill C-44 (Historical)

Helping Families in Need Act

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

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

Helping Families in Need Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand to speak to this bill and perhaps bring a different perspective to it.

First and foremost, we recognize a good thing when we see it. What we see here is the government bringing in legislation which, for compassionate reasons, would allow individuals to receive employment insurance benefits in certain situations, such as if they have a very sick child, or a crime has been committed and the child has disappeared. There is a valid argument to be made, and I think no one inside the House of Commons needs to be convinced that we need to provide that sort of compassion when reforming our employment insurance system. To that degree, the government deserves some credit.

However, the bill does fall short. Ultimately, the bill will go to committee, will get third reading and will pass. We do not know whether or not there will be amendments brought forward. However, it is important to note that it does fall short in a number of ways.

What is somewhat ironic is that for the last while, members of our caucus from the Atlantic have been talking about their frustration in the minister responsible for employment insurance not recognizing the negative impact her decisions would have on individuals who are receiving employment insurance. Virtually every day we have been trying to explain that to the minister with the hope she will understand the profound impact it would have on those individuals.

The government of the day is offering a very attractive carrot and yes, we will take it. We will pass the bill. However, we want the government to do more. We want the government to revisit some of the decisions that are negatively affecting tens of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast.

I applaud the efforts in particular of my Atlantic colleagues who have been holding the minister's feet to the coals on this particular issue. They are asking her to try, in her very best way, to get a better understanding of that issue.

I have had the opportunity to ask questions during this debate. I have been asking why we are not looking at this in a more comprehensive way. There are many different ways in which we can ultimately argue on compassionate grounds that employment insurance benefits could be given to others.

Throughout time ideas are generated and talked about, but at some point in time we need to act on them.

If we look at the history of employment insurance, we would find that it evolved to what it is today after a lot of healthy debate and discussion both inside and outside this chamber. People might not realize that at one point it was actually under provincial jurisdiction, until Mackenzie King said that we needed a national program. He was prepared to open up a constitutional dialogue so that we could get that authority from the provinces. It went through the 1930s, but it did not work in terms of ultimately acquiring that power. It required that constitutional change and through the efforts of Mackenzie King, we were able to have an employment insurance program.

During the Trudeau years the employment insurance program was expanded. Not only was it meant to provide x number of dollars for an individual who is unemployed, but back in the 1970s, we in the Liberal Party recognized that we needed to play a role in training and retraining to ensure that individuals who lost their jobs were also being provided some assistance in acquiring skills to enable them to get a better job, or at least some form of employment so that they could provide for themselves and their family.

These are the types of things that have been evolving over the years and, yes, there have been some changes that maybe have not worked in everyone's favour. However, for the most part it has evolved into the relatively healthy program that it is today. It is one of those fundamental social programs that Canadians expect the government to maintain and move forward on.

Even the Auditor General of Canada has recognized what the Chrétien and the Paul Martin governments did in the 1990s in ensuring that it is all-in-one in terms of the general revenues. Many of the surpluses that the NDP members refer to actually went toward the funding of health care transfers, equalization payments and other programs that assisted real people, but the Auditor General of Canada recognized that this is something that should be all together.

We have seen governments, at least in the past, show that while we want the employers and the employees to be able to contribute, at times there is a need for the government to also go into the general revenues and provide the funds needed for future programs and potential further employment insurance benefits.

That is why we have had leaders of the Liberal Party, particularly Mr. Ignatieff, talk about extending on compassionate grounds the opportunity for a sibling or a spouse to provide firsthand care and to be with loved ones in their dying days. It was costed out at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 billion but it would be money well spent because Canadians expect their government to be there. It is one of the things that distinguish us from most, if not all, other countries around the world. We have demonstrated through our social programming that we can make a difference and we can make a difference through employment insurance programs.

Liberals have consistently articulated it, whether Mackenzie King as a Liberal prime minister during the 1940s or the Trudeau era of the 1970s that expanded the program to incorporate retraining or the idea of pooling resources to ensure the longevity of the program during the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien years. We have done so because we believe that employment insurance is an obligation that we have to citizens, to all workers and to those who have the misfortune of being laid off or are unable to be employed for whatever reasons. People need to know that the government is going to ensure that their money, as my colleague points out, is being well distributed in a compassionate, caring way—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

I must interrupt the hon. member for Winnipeg North at this point. He will have 12 minutes when the House returns to this matter, possibly later today.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Don Valley East.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Helping Families In Need Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has 12 minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to speak to the important role employment insurance plays in today's society. Before I do that, it is important to emphasize that we see the value in passing this legislation. I anticipate it could be passed today because there does seem to be widespread support among all political parties in the House. We anticipate it will likely pass today and for good reason. At the end of the day we all want to improve the system. This legislation takes into consideration the whole issue of compassion toward critically ill children. It does that by allowing for 35 weeks of benefits, and beyond 35 weeks in certain situations.

I also appreciate that it provides some protection in terms of unpaid leave. This is very positive. I appreciate that we are referring to jobs within the civil service with respect to that particular requirement.

It also deals with the important and sensitive issue of murdered or missing children.

I am sure that most, if not all, members of Parliament could cite specific examples of constituents or individuals they know who have been in such situations that this legislation would cover. Two occasions come to mind where this particular benefit would have been of great help to individuals I have known. Both of them involved a death.

Based on compassionate grounds, we see the value of extending the benefits through employment insurance. We see that as a positive move.

I want to reinforce something that was raised in the debate prior to question period, which is the whole idea of why, in the opinion of many, including the Liberal caucus, the government has still not recognized the value of extending that same sort of compassion in other situations. I am referring most specifically to individuals who are terminally ill. After explaining the situation to EI, it would be of great assistance to have a spouse, a child, or possibly a sibling afforded the opportunity to be at the bedside of a terminally ill family member.

The Liberal caucus has talked about this for a long time. We are very passionate about that idea, and the time has come for the government to act on it. I would encourage the government to act now. It does not have to wait.

Earlier I talked about how employment insurance has evolved over time. I would like to think that this is yet another example of the direction in which we should be heading in providing employment insurance benefits to Canadians as a whole.

When EI was first introduced, in terms of recipients, the number was well under 50%. It was not until the 1970s when the number of people who had access to employment insurance was over 90%. It is at a much more acceptable rate now, but we need to look at how we can expand the program so that more people are able to benefit from it. One of the greatest ways of doing that is to recognize the value of compassion in any sort of discussions on this issue. I think the vast majority of Canadians would be very sympathetic and would want the House of Commons to enhance the program so that others could receive benefits on compassionate grounds.

Employment insurance is one of those foundation programs that assists thousands of Canadians every year. If the program were not around, the alternative would be very bleak. There have been some changes that have caused a great deal of concern. I would like to draw attention to that issue. It has been debated significantly here in the House in the last 10 days or so.

The minister responsible for employment insurance has made some significant changes. Members from the opposition, in particular my caucus colleagues, have raised the issue that individuals are not able to receive a maximum benefit from the employment insurance program because of the working environment they have to fit into. As a direct result, they will be receiving less money. It is important to recognize the difficulty people are having in paying their bills and honouring their commitments. Employment insurance benefits do not offer the type of disposable income the average Canadian has because of the very nature of the program. It is at a reduced rate. It is there to ensure that people can afford the necessities of life and maybe even a little more than that.

The government has made some changes that have created a very awkward position. It has made it economically challenging for many people across Canada. Some very specific examples have been brought forward by my Atlantic colleagues to illustrate how Canadians will be losing money. That is why the minister needs to try to get a better understanding of the changes that she has put in place. That is one of the reasons members of our caucus are bringing forward individual cases. The minister could meet with opposition members and get some of the details. If she feels we are misrepresenting the facts, she can state that in the House. However, that is not happening. I believe the reason is the minister knows the changes she has made are causing a great hardship for a good number of Canadians not only in Atlantic Canada but in all regions of Canada.

When we look at this legislation, we have to look at the bigger picture of employment insurance. There is no doubt that the very specifics of this legislation have support. However, in commenting on the bill, it behooves us to send a message to the minister that what she is doing on the other fronts in dealing with employment insurance is not good. She needs to revisit things and make the necessary changes so that individuals are able to receive the money so that they can purchase necessities and be engaged in the economy, so that they can buy food, pay their rent and maybe even buy some luxury items. At the end of the day, the value is there.

We are calling on the government to look beyond this particular piece of legislation and reflect on some of the other changes that it has made. The government should reflect on how it could have brought in additional legislation or changed this legislation to incorporate more of what I believe Canadians want us to recognize in a compassionate society and demonstrate in certain situations.

I believe this program needs to be enhanced, particularly for those individuals who are depended upon economically and socially by terminally ill parents, spouses, or siblings.

During the 1970s, we recognized that and we were able to make modifications. Not only would people receive a cheque, but employment insurance had the additional responsibility to look at different types of programs to assist individuals adjust to new working environments.

At the end of the day, I would like to see this debate broadened. Ultimately, the legislation will pass, but we need to continue to have a debate on employment insurance because it affects hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country. It is of great value and it is a program in which Canadians truly believe.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. As he is aware, the NDP will support Bill C-44 at second reading.

Nevertheless, we have a number of reservations regarding the bill. I would like to hear the point of view of the member for Winnipeg North regarding a particular issue. There is discussion regarding the creation of a new special employment insurance benefit for the parents of children who were killed or reported missing as a result of a crime.

Does the member not think that limiting these special benefits to parents whose children were the victims of crime—but not providing these benefits to the parents of missing children, for example, who run away or who are involved in something of a non-criminal nature— reflects to some extent the Conservatives' shortsightedness and tendency to see everything through the lens of law and order?

Does my colleague not consider this bill, just like this particular provision, to be a little shortsighted? Should it not be potentially extended to include other parents whose children may have disappeared or even died, albeit not as a result of a crime?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up an excellent point. I think a good number of people are very suspicious of why the government is being so selective in extending the compassionate argument on the file of murdered and missing children. It is not to take away from the need for compassion in that situation, but there are other cases where that same sort of compassion, understanding, and proactive approach by government should be encouraged. However, as the member points out, that is where the legislation has fallen short.

There are many types of missing children cases and every year there are hundreds of children who just disappear. How does that affect employment insurance benefits? This has a profound impact on the parents of those children, but what happens in that sort of situation is a bit vague.

That is why we want to take a broader look at how we can make the employment insurance program more relevant to today, with the wealth that Canada currently has and the expectations that Canadians have of that social safety net.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain why the New Democrats want to amend the legislation so that beneficiaries who fall ill while receiving employment insurance parental benefits can receive sickness benefits?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an issue of what sorts of benefits parents should receive. We do not want to limit it to the parents of critically ill children, as referred to in this legislation. Members will find that there is an argument to be made, and we have made this argument for the last couple of years, that based on compassionate grounds we need to look at those in that family unit where there is a serious ailment or someone who is terminally ill and how this program of employment insurance might assist our social community and, more specifically, the individual family. There is enormous benefit, not only from a social, moral aspect. It needs to be looked at in terms of the economic benefit.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the member for Winnipeg North concerning the promise that the Conservatives made during the 2011 election campaign with regards to the funding of this program through the general revenue fund and not the employment insurance fund.

This time, they are turning back the clock. This is an argument that was often made in the previous Parliament. In fact, the employment insurance fund was in deficit and it was not necessarily possible to withdraw additional benefits from the fund. The general revenue fund had to be sourced. However, what we have noticed with this bill, regarding special benefits, is that the employment insurance fund is being sourced rather than the general revenue fund.

I would like to hear the point of view of the member for Winnipeg North regarding this Conservative party promise, and whether or not this bill is an example of the Conservatives walking the talk.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize the valuable role of Canada's Auditor General in this debate in regard to how employment insurance should be financed, especially looking at opportunities of expanding benefits and adding other things, such as the whole compassion argument we have been talking about for the last little while. Is it fair to expect that employers and employees should finance this type of social program well into the future? I am not 100% convinced of that. There could be an argument that the money needs to be there and government should ensure that it is there.

In the past, there have been many occasions where general revenues have supported the fund. Equally there have been occasions where the fund has supported general revenues. I believe the Auditor General of Canada is on position now in regard to the specific issue of how it should be financed. I suggest that we look to what the Auditor General is suggesting and follow that advice. Canadians would do well if we did just that.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, fewer than 50% of unemployed persons receive benefits. We support this bill, but we believe that a number of provisions could be amended.

Are the Conservatives attempting to cover up what they are really trying to do when it comes to employment insurance, and that is cut benefits for the unemployed left, right and centre? I would like my Liberal colleague to speak to this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we should have minimum requirements or certain criteria such as number of hours worked in order to be able to qualify for employment insurance. At times, we need to be able to be somewhat flexible. We need to recognize that there is a difference between economic activities in, for example, the province of Alberta and some other provinces.

Sometimes one province might be in more of an economic boom while another province might be more stagnant. We need to recognize those differences across Canada and support all of our workers no matter where they live. The best way to do that is by recognizing those regional differences which means maybe having different criteria for different regions. The purpose of doing that is to ensure that we are providing a program that is viable for all regions of Canada.

We need to have that sort of flexibility. At times when the economy is doing even worse, in a recession for example, we might want to relax the criteria for the entire country. In 2009, that is what the Liberal leader espoused, to reduce the criteria because of the economic times. There needs to be some flexibility and for the most part Canadians would recognize that and appreciate it.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

For several years, the NDP has been calling for measures to make the employment insurance program more flexible and thus more accessible for Canadians.

In its present form, Bill C-44 seems to respond to certain concerns we have expressed in the past. It also seems to meet the expectations of organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Caregiver Coalition.

Bill C-44 takes into consideration the special situation parents are in when a child is hospitalized, is critically ill, is murdered, or has disappeared. As a society, it is crucial that we help ensure that these parents are not doubly penalized: by having to deal with an especially difficult personal situation and by having to worry about their deteriorating financial situation.

This bill introduces flexibility into the administration of the employment insurance program and targets families in need. It also makes useful amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Those amendments allow for leave to be granted or extended for parents of a child who is hospitalized, is critically ill, is murdered or has disappeared. That is why the NDP will be supporting Bill C-44 at second reading. I think we will all benefit by examining it further in committee. That way, we will be able to work together to make it a better bill.

This bill is certainly a step in the right direction, but we must not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Since the Conservatives came to power, they have attacked unemployed people on several fronts. The effect of the most recent employment insurance reform they put through will be to further limit access to this scheme—one to which, we must remember, the government does not contribute. The employment insurance plan is entirely funded by employees and employers.

In the NDP, we will continue to criticize a government that limits access to an insurance program paid for by working people and employers. We will continue to fight for a fair, accessible and effective employment insurance scheme for people who are unemployed. At present, less than 40% of jobless people have access to employment insurance in Canada.

As I said earlier, the NDP will support Bill C-44 at second reading. We believe that the measures in the bill will help to relieve the suffering of some Canadian families in need. Canadians know that when it comes to helping families, the NDP will be there. On this side of the House, we find it very hard to understand why the Conservative government is avoiding tackling the bigger problems connected with employment insurance.

Bill C-44 will allow about 6,000 people to benefit from new support measures, and that in itself is very positive. Those 6,000 people will have less to worry about in terms of their financial situation at a time when their priorities are elsewhere. What are the Conservatives going to do about the other 800,000 unemployed people who are being denied access to a program they have paid into?

For the moment, the government’s response amounts to limiting access to the scheme, rather than facilitating it. On that point, the Liberals did no better: during the 1970s and 1980s, between 70% and 90% of unemployed people were eligible for the scheme, but no more than between 40% and 50% were in 1996. Canadians would gain by seeing their employment insurance scheme reformed in a way that would allow more people who are unemployed to benefit from it.

On reading the bill, I was struck by elements that do not seem important and by the absence of solutions to certain problems that we identified in the past. For example, I believe that Bill C-44, in its current form, ignores measures that could have helped mothers who return from maternity leave and learn that they have been let go or that their position has been eliminated and who, quite often, must reimburse the employment insurance program.

At present these women cannot access regular benefits after their special benefits run out. Bill C-44 could and should have included a measure allowing these women to combine the two types of benefits.

Similarly, I wonder why the Conservative government decided to make a distinction between parents of a child who has disappeared in circumstances considered to be connected with a crime and other parents of missing children.

I find it more difficult to understand why parents of children who have disappeared in circumstances that are not connected with a crime, for example, are excluded. I could give many examples of parents of missing children who have spent all their time and money to try to find their children. In my opinion, Bill C-44 should include these parents. Do they not suffer just as much as parents in the first category?

I would like the government to explain the logic behind this decision.

I also noticed that the government has decided to not fund part of the benefits proposed in the bill out of general revenue.

In their 2011 election platform, the Conservatives promised:

...we will provide enhanced EI benefits to parents of murdered or missing children...Funding for this measure will come from general revenue, not EI premiums.

Once again, I am curious about the reasons why this government changed its position on this point.

In summary, I would say that Bill C-44 is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. I only hope that the government will be open to the changes we will propose in committee. Partisanship must not prevent us from ensuring that our work results in properly constructed bills that serve an ideal of justice.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer. She spoke at length about what the Conservatives have done to the employment insurance program.

While we are in agreement with regard to the bill, what is proposed here is in fact the tree that hides the forest in terms of what the Conservatives have done to the employment insurance program.

A number of questions that I heard from the Conservatives this morning made me cringe, especially when they denied the fact that fewer than four out of 10 people who contributed to employment insurance receive benefits from it. I have figures on this. Out of nearly 1.4 million unemployed people in July 2012, only 508,000 unemployed Canadians were able to receive employment insurance benefits.

I would like to hear some additional comments from my colleague about the Conservatives’ employment insurance policies and the reasons why they can deny the figures that come from Statistics Canada.