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

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question about the employment insurance program.

As I mentioned in my presentation, the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, made drastic changes to the employment insurance program. Among other things, in 1995, the Liberals took the surpluses out of employment insurance rather than investing in the program and helping people. Moreover, they reduced the benefits. The Conservatives did the same thing. They made cuts to the EI program and made changes to a program that helped everyone.

Just think about remote areas and seasonal workers. I lived long enough in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean to know about the difficulties faced by families and workers who should receive employment insurance because the plant where they were employed no longer had enough work for them. These people were hit hard by the reforms to employment insurance.

Right now, the Conservatives are denying the figures and are refusing to acknowledge that the unemployment rate is quite a bit higher than we think. There are some people who do not even apply for employment insurance and who look for help from other quarters because they know they will not be able to receive benefits from the EI program.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for ably outlining not only why we are supporting Bill C-44 but also outlining some of the concerns with it.

This morning we heard the Minister of Labour say that the changes under the Canada Labour Code would only apply to federally-regulated employees. I think many Canadians, when they first hear about this bill, will think that it will apply to everybody.

I wonder if she would comment on the fact that this would also require changes to the provincial labour codes in order to have non-federally-regulated employees covered as well.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always unfortunate when amendments are made to the Code that that do not apply to everyone, even though that would be worthwhile. Through experience, the members in the House know that these changes will hit seasonal workers and women particularly hard. I am thinking about maternity leave for women, and parental leave. Not everyone will be able to benefit, and I find this regrettable. I should not even talk about benefits, but about the right of workers to lead a decent life and to benefit from leave to help their families and their relatives.

I would like to come back to a particular point in the bill. People whose children have disappeared will not be able to benefit from this amendment. I hope that the committee studying the bill will take this item into consideration and make a positive recommendation in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned earlier, the NDP will support Bill C-44 for a number of reasons. Basically, it responds to a number of the demands that the NDP has traditionally made in order to help parents who are in drastic and often unusual circumstances. With this in mind, one can hardly be opposed to virtue, and this is why we will support the bill. However, there are a number of shortcomings in the bill that I will come back to in my speech.

First and foremost, I would like to go on in the same vein and a little bit further with the question that I just asked, to speak a little bit about what the Conservatives have done to employment insurance since they came to power, particularly with the passage of Bill C-38.

I come from the Lower St. Lawrence area, a region that depends on employment insurance a great deal. It is not that we want to depend on it, but the reality in the Lower St. Lawrence, as in the Gaspé and in a number of other regions in Quebec, is that seasonal work is of major importance to the economy. It is true that there has been greater diversification over the past few years, but there are still many workers in the region who depend on either agriculture or tourism or forestry or the fisheries. These are strictly seasonal types of jobs, and employment insurance helped seasonal workers cover the periods during which they were unable to work.

In light of the provisions put forward in Bill C-38, and that are now in effect, someone who works in a specific field such as tourism can now be forced to work in a store or in a boutique for up to 70% of their salary or they will lose their benefits. They can even be forced to travel to a job location that is at least an hour by car from their home, which in the Lower St. Lawrence means from about 70 to 100 km.

The amendments that were proposed by the Conservatives and that were adopted by this House, which unfortunately had a Conservative majority, are detrimental to a number of regions that, once again, depend on employment insurance, even though of course they might well prefer not to.

There is another element, as my colleague mentioned earlier. It was caused by the Conservatives and also by the Liberals before them. I am referring to the low proportion of people contributing to employment insurance who can actually collect benefits. The Conservatives deny in their answers that this is the case, but this is a fact. Of all of the people who were unemployed and actively looking for work in July 2012, only 508,000 Canadians were able to receive employment insurance benefits. This means that 870,000 unemployed Canadians were unable to receive benefits. In other words, only four out of 10 unemployed people were able to collect benefits, and this is because of the conditions reducing entitlement to benefits that were brought in by the Liberals and by the Conservatives.

However, Bill C-44 has remedied some specific situations, and that is why we are going to support it at second reading, even though some changes are likely going to be put forward in committee later on.

This bill will make amendments to the Canada Labour Code to enable parents of seriously ill children, or of missing or deceased children as the result of a crime, to obtain leave without pay without fear of losing their jobs. It will enable employment insurance claimants, who fall ill during their parental leave, to also get sickness benefits—in other words, additional benefits. The bill will create another category of special employment insurance benefits for the parents of children who are seriously ill, which will be extended to a maximum of 35 weeks, and be shared by parents over a 52-week period. It will create a new special employment insurance benefit for the parents of children who are murdered or missing as the probable result of a crime. The benefits total $350 a week for a maximum of 35 weeks, and two weeks will be added in the case of a child located during the benefit period.

Even though these measures are positive and should be supported in order to assist parents who face a particularly difficult and traumatic period in their life, one still has to wonder why the Conservative government has specifically targeted these families, to the exclusion of other families.

For example, children may be reported missing due to circumstances that are not believed to be criminal in nature, for example, when a child runs away. A runaway child may be absent for a long time, in fact, many children run away for several days, or weeks. There is not necessarily a criminal element to what has occurred. However, I can tell you, that the vast majority of parents, if not all parents, find it to be an extremely difficult experience. First and foremost, these parents are concerned about the welfare of the child. They want to be free and able to participate in efforts to actively locate their missing child.

I do not think that it is appropriate to exclude these parents from categories of employment insurance. Yet, the Conservatives have chosen to do so. Why? I would like answers.

Another thing that bothers me is the non-explicit exclusion in the text of special benefits for parents whose child is injured while committing a crime. A crime may be any number of things. It may be a serious offence, but it might also be an act where parents have a key role to play in getting their child back on track.

I am the father of two children. I have a boy who will soon be four and a little girl who is not even one. I know what my role as a parent will be later on. My child might be nine or 10 and do something stupid, like shoplift, and my role as a parent will be to get my child back on track. It is important to not criminalize such children because it is clear that they do not have the capacity to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. It is the parent's role to guide them.

Let us take the same child and say they are shoplifting and are struck by a car in the course of the theft. The child is expressly excluded from these special benefits, in plain words. There is no room for interpretation. Here I can see the difference between the Conservative approach and the more progressive approach to parents’ role in rearing their children. This Conservative approach is even going to have repercussions on the proposed bills.

This aspect was raised by the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin in committee during previous parliaments, where a very similar private member’s bill introduced by an opposition member was discussed. At the time, he introduced the bill as a measure to provide support for victims. It is hard to argue that this measure supports victims if the parent or family of a child who is injured falling down stairs, or is struck by a car, or injured some other way while committing a crime, is entitled to claim benefits in this case. It is not the victim who is benefiting. For that reason, I cannot support this bill.

In plain words, that is what the Conservative member who is still here today said in a previous parliament at a committee meeting. That really highlights the difference between the Conservative approach and the progressive approach to education. It is truly unfortunate that we have this in a bill like this one. We have to understand that the parents of children who are run down or seriously injured in whatever circumstances are also affected. This bill has nothing to say about those parents.

We believe it is a real problem to target one particular category, even though, like all members present here, and you, Mr. Speaker, I agree that these parents need help. We are prepared to offer them our support. We consider it unfortunate that Bill C-44 excludes or omits certain categories of parents whose children are touched or seriously affected in non-criminal ways. This is because of the law and order lens that virtually all Conservative initiatives are seen through, not just for issues relating to the justice system, but also for issues relating to human resources and employment insurance, as in this case.

The House as a whole is going to want to debate this bill. I hope the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is going to do good work. This bill is a step in the right direction, as several of my colleagues have said. We hope to hear the government’s justification for the omissions from the categories of people who will be able to claim the special benefits. We are certainly going to propose amendments to try to remedy those omissions. For the moment, we can only express our support, in particular, for parents of children who are victims of crime, and especially who are injured or die, for their terrible tragedy. This bill will give them a way to overcome their situation. This will be a contribution by the members in this House to help them deal with this situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech.

He started his speech talking about employment insurance. The Conservatives broke their promise. They said that they would finance this fund with money that did not come from the employment insurance fund, but that is what they will be doing.

In light of all the cuts being made by the Conservatives, what does my colleague think about their attitude?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This is a problem for us because it has to do with a Conservative philosophy I have a hard time understanding.

Among the bills that have been previously introduced, there is a very similar bill that the government opposed. A criticism was made in the House on December 10, 2009:

Right now, because of the global economic situation of the past year and because previous governments used EI premiums for non-EI spending...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.

That was the Conservatives' story in 2009. Now, in 2012, they have a whole other story, in which they are saying that they will use the employment insurance fund instead of general revenues. That raises some questions. I would like some answers from the Conservatives. I sincerely hope that the question will be seriously asked in committee.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. I have a question regarding the notion of crime that my colleague spoke about. I would like to hear more on the subject.

In his own view of the proposed bill, at what point are suspicions justified and who will ultimately be called upon to address the issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, when I raised the issue, I pointed out that the Conservative government was specifically excluding such cases from the bill. I can quote verbatim what other members, including the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, said in committee. They used dramatic examples to justify the exclusion and to view victims solely from a law and order perspective.

As a parent, in many of the situations that could put my child in a difficult position—for much less serious crimes, I hope—I have the opportunity to get involved as a guide, as the person responsible for helping my child make good choices. This philosophy is in contrast to the Conservatives', which is to punish not only the child who could be hurt during the incident or under some other circumstance, but also the parent, and to prevent the parents and the people in the situation from fulfilling their role as guides.

That is why I have some serious questions that, once again, the Conservatives seem unwilling to answer. I hope that this issue—why this exception is written into the bill—will be raised in committee, because I think it is very important.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks on this bill to help families in need by reiterating that I rely on my legal background every day in carrying out my duties as a member of Parliament.

Early in my career, the time I spent working for legal aid right after passing the bar was a true education. I learned so much working there. My regards to all of my colleagues at the Sept-Îles legal aid office.

Returning to the matter at hand, in 2007, six months after I joined legal aid, one of my first cases involved a young man who had been taken hostage in 1997. Given the relatively small population of Sept-Îles, the incident, which took place in a local high school, received significant media attention. Other young people, including me—I was not very old at the time—were aware of the problem because we knew the young man involved. He was taken hostage in a classroom.

Another young person, not much older than high school age, but who was in CEGEP, went off the deep end—pardon the expression—and decided to go into a high school classroom with two jerry cans of gas, a Rambo-style hunting knife and a pellet gun. He decided to take the entire class hostage and tied the students up with tape. My client decided to intervene and was stabbed and suffered a punctured lung. So it was rather serious.

I remember this event, because I was in CEGEP at the time. When word got out around Sept-Îles, I went to the hospital to see how the young man was doing. That is when I saw how distraught his parents were. They were completely shaken and without any means.

This event came back to me when I began litigating in 2007. The same young man, whom I knew, came to see me in my office. The case still had not been settled 10 years later. The case had gone to an organization in Quebec known as IVAC, which stands for indemnisation aux victimes d'actes criminels—basically an organization that processes applications for compensation for victims of crime. The case was being challenged and had gone before Quebec's administrative tribunal. It was a question of anatomicophysiological deficit, or APD. There were differences of opinion.

My first instinct was to send my client for further psychological examination, because he was suffering serious repercussions. Thus, another psychiatrist met with him in the Quebec City area. This increased his APD diagnosis by a few percentage points, so we were able to reach a settlement in the end.

I wanted to share this particular case with you because there had been a 10-year delay and when the incident happened, the parents had no resources whatsoever. I know that, because the young man's father, whom I saw that day at the hospital, was completely distraught. Very little support was offered to the parents by either the school system or the government.

I am talking about this case here today simply to illustrate that it is no secret that these terrible incidents happen on a regular basis.

What is interesting about this bill is that it is a pragmatic response to the financial difficulties experienced by vulnerable families as a result of tragic and fortuitous events. That is why my party supports the proposed measures, since they would ease the added financial burden on parents in need.

There is talk of integrity and threats to the physical integrity of a child. I say that parents are often distraught. But this is not just when a young person is the victim of a crime. When I worked in a legal aid office and in my own law firm, I saw the same type of reaction. I represented young people who were under psychiatric care. They were often children admitted into psychiatric care because they presented with symptoms of toxic psychosis. In my community, Uashat-Maliotenam, and also in the city of Sept-Îles, there is a serious problem right now with methamphetamines, commonly known as speed. Some young people are inhaling them by turning them into powder. This is commonly referred to as sniffing speed. They inhale four or five of these pills. After sniffing four or five speed pills, a person decompensates and becomes incoherent and violent. That is not always the case, but it can happen. These young people end up under psychiatric care, and the parents are distraught.

I noticed that there was a lack of resources available to them, because the health and safety of these young people as well as their physical integrity were in jeopardy.

When I was working on my speech for today, I was reminded of these things from my past experience at the itinerant court and the civil court. Often, these were prison custody cases heard in civil court. I was reminded of these things, and I make mention of them today. I believe that it is important to share this information with the Canadian public.

In passing, I would like to point out the innovative nature of the compensation for parents of missing children, a measure that addresses a deplorable reality in Canadian society.

I would like to talk about missing children. I agree that the presumption that a crime has been committed can be problematic. However, in many communities, including aboriginal communities, the disappearance of children is a fairly widespread and growing phenomenon, when we compare the number of aboriginal young people who go missing to the total number of people in the community.

This type of measure will most likely be well received by aboriginal communities across the country. When I was working on this file, I was reminded of the posters of young Maisy Odjick and other young people from aboriginal communities. A criminal investigation is most often launched if suspicious circumstances exist. Many cases of missing children involve a criminal investigation, a police investigation. This always depends on the analysis of the judge and arbitrator, the person who makes the final decision as to the moment at which suspicions of a crime or criminal activity come into play.

I hope that the members opposite agree, but in my opinion, this criterion would be easily applicable. In most cases, when a child goes missing, there is a criminal investigation and suspicions can therefore be confirmed. It remains to be seen how these proposed measures will actually be implemented.

That being said and despite the highly commendable nature of the proposed measures, we must reassess the relevance of withdrawing money from the employment insurance fund for parents of critically ill children given that this fund has a cumulative deficit of $9 billion, which is not just pocket change.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, I wish to inform hon. members that there have been more than five hours of debate on the motion before the House. Consequently, the time allocated for all subsequent interventions shall be ten minutes for speeches and, as usual, five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the excellent speech delivered by my colleague and it reminded me of the time when I worked as a high school teacher. I taught young teenagers who had serious behavioural problems. There were, of course, many young offenders among them. Some even robbed convenience stores. I put myself in their parents' shoes. Most of them were professionals. We always think that it is the poor who have children with behavioural problems.

If a child injures himself while committing a crime and ends up in hospital, his parents cannot even help him. This means they suffer a double punishment. In addition to knowing that their child has a problem that will haunt him throughout his life, they are punished because they will not be able to support their sick child. If they do, it will be at their own expense.

What does the hon. member think of that situation?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I submit the following distinction to the Conservatives. In our justice system, when an offence is committed by a young person under the age of 16, 17 or 18, the Youth Criminal Justice Act automatically applies. The Conservatives should nuance their approach in the case of a young person who is injured while committing an offence that would be dealt with under that legislation.

Based on my own understanding, such an exclusion should be provided. Regardless of whether a criminal activity took place or an offence was committed, the parents of the young person should not be penalized if the case comes under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. As my colleague pointed out earlier, these young people are in their formative years. Parents should not be automatically excluded when their child is injured. They deserve to be compensated. There should be an exclusion clause.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks. He shared his experience with groups that had problems related to drugs, violence and all those things that we do not like to hear about.

However, despite many speeches like this one, which tell things as they happen in real life, I notice that there are often people who are forgotten in the bills introduced by the Conservative government.

Is it because members opposite are simply out of touch with local reality, or is it for the sake of ideology? I wonder if the hon. member could enlighten some members.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I sometimes ask myself the same sort of questions. When I see the legislation contemplated by the Conservatives, I wonder if their reality is the same as ours. I wonder if they do their groceries, or if they have loved ones, because their approach often seems dehumanized.

I know they have a rather hard party line that leans towards the right. It is becoming rather obvious with their proposed measures. However, they should sometimes show a bit of humanity and put themselves in the shoes of ordinary citizens, because this would make them aware of specifics and personal experiences.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.

Sometimes, children may disappear because they sniffed something. Why does the support provided by the government regarding children who disappear not apply when it is believed that a Criminal Code offence was committed?