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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. That criminal nature is, of course, included to please a specific segment of the population. Over the past year, I noticed that the Conservatives try to paint themselves as the ultimate source of righteousness and impunity. Once again, they are merely trying to convey the idea that they represent the victims, and not the criminals. However, in this case, they are going after children. There are limits to trying to please a specific segment of the population.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-44. It is always pleasant for an elected member to rise and to find that there is basically unanimity in the House. When we make speeches and say that we are all in agreement, there is less fuss and foot-dragging by other members.

However, like the NDP members, I see some flaws in this bill, even though I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois supports it. It was time the government took action regarding what is happening on the victims' side as well.

The previous speaker said the government was boasting about helping victims first. However, since the Conservatives took office in 2006 to form a minority government, they have primarily targeted various types of crimes.

We have nothing against improving our justice system. However, quite often, the government was primarily interested in grandstanding, for example by adding minimum sentences and increasingly tying the hands of judges for all kinds of ideological motives. This time, with Bill C-44, it is looking after the plight of victims, which is a good thing. We fully support this legislation.

However, this legislation is less generous than bills introduced by the Bloc Québécois in previous Parliaments. For example, as early as 2007, my former colleague, France Bonsant, tabled the first bill on victims of crime, precisely so that the parents of these victims could, for example, collect EI benefits.

We know that it is always critical to keep one's job when a tragic event occurs, such as the disappearance of a child or, even worse, the death of a child following a crime. All sorts of events may cause the parents to be absolutely unable to go back to work.

When my colleague France Bonsant introduced this bill, she was working with Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who is now a senator. We are aware of the tragedies in Senator Boisvenu's life. He was the president of a missing persons association. He worked with Ms. Bonsant on that bill and he supported her initiative. That was a long time ago, in 2007. We introduced this bill on other occasions.

During the election campaign, I got Ms. Bonsant to come visit my riding because my constituents made me aware of this issue. Thanks to the Quebec government, parents can maintain their employment. However, even if they manage to keep their job and take leave without pay, the result is the same: they have to quickly return to work because creditors do not have any compassion. These parents have to pay for food, housing and transportation. No one will take into account that something bad has happened to their child. People will sympathize but creditors will not. The parents of a missing child will receive bills and have to pay them.

If these parents keep their jobs but are not being paid, there is a serious problem. This hole needed to be filled, so to speak, and that is what my colleague was doing. In 2008, I decided to make this an election issue since my constituents talked to me about it a lot, given that there were people who were particularly affected by problems in their families. This issue was more than local; it affected many people. I am talking about 2008.

We have come back to this issue again. It is the hon. member for Ahuntsic who introduced this bill again. The government finally took note of all the demands that were coming from across the country, including from the Bloc Québécois, and introduced a bill that favours victims for once. This is a very good thing.

Bill C-44 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. The bill also makes technical amendments to that act. It also amends—and this is important—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. That is key.

I noticed earlier that members were talking about some shortcomings of the bill, and I have the same concerns. We are talking about injured children.

When the government announced the introduction of Bill C-44, the news release stated that the bill would implement the new EI benefit for parents of critically ill or injured children. However, the bill does not define an injured child. This means that the minister has the power to define an ill child. We need more information about that. I am sure this will come up in committee. Earlier, the official opposition announced that it would propose amendments. I would like my colleagues to consider this flaw in the bill as written to ensure that injured children are included too. Saying it in the news release is one thing, but if it is not in the bill, the people who have to rule in these cases will not be able to do their job properly.

There is also the matter of the bill's generosity. I do not want to use unparliamentary language, but we introduced a bill providing for up to 52 weeks of benefits. Bill C-44 limits benefits to 35 weeks. Our bill was also more generous with respect to the weekly benefit amount, which was up to $485, if I remember correctly. In the Conservative Party's bill, that amount is $300 and some. Those are some of the differences.

I am also asking the government to increase the benefit amount. I do not think that we will manage to help all of the families that need help by giving them benefits for 35 weeks. In some cases, the number of weeks could be doubled. In particularly difficult cases, the benefit period could be up to 104 weeks.

I know that, as legislators, we cannot solve every case. We have to work on a case-by-case basis, and sooner or later, we will realize that we missed something, that someone has slipped through the cracks. We have to be flexible enough to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from the measures in this bill.

We introduced our bill three times. People say that being in opposition is a thankless job. Indeed, we introduce bills only for the government to take credit for them and find a way to make it look like they came from the government rather than the opposition. Personally, that has never offended me. The government has done this to the Bloc Québécois several times now.

Consider, for example, some of our justice bills, like the anti-gang legislation or the legislation to reverse the burden of proof, which means that from now on, criminals have to show how they acquired their assets. When someone declares an income of $25,000 a year and has a $450,000 house, an SUV, snowmobiles, motorcycles and beautiful landscaping, sooner or later, you have to wonder who paid for it all. No one can afford that kind of lifestyle on $25,000 a year.

The government, whether Conservative or Liberal—in the case of the anti-gang legislation—has taken credit for either some portion or entire pieces of our legislation—again in the case of the anti-gang legislation.

The goal of legislators is to advance our society when it comes to any given issue so that the community somehow benefits. Our role is just as important.

I see some elements in this bill that come directly from bills that the Bloc Québécois has introduced over the years. I commend this government's efforts to do something positive to help victims by introducing Bill C-44. I repeat, I agree with my colleagues who are in favour of this bill. Despite the shortcomings I have pointed out, we should be pleased and vote to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his speech. He spoke about some shortcomings. We agree because we will support the bill at second reading, but certain shortcomings, certain omissions should be pointed out. I hope that they will be addressed in committee. I am not a member of this committee, but I hope that my colleagues who are will be able to address them.

Aside from injured children, there is also the issue of missing children. I focused on this topic in my speech and in an earlier question. I would like my colleague to comment on the omission of cases of missing children where illegal activities or crime are not suspected of being behind the disappearance. A child may run away, which does not diminish the amount of distress felt by the parents, for whom a program like this one could be appropriate.

Does my colleague have any recommendations to make with respect to this issue?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

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

That goes back to what I was saying earlier when I mentioned that it was not necessarily bad faith. The people who draft the bills cannot always cover everything.

I said that someone could fall through the cracks. I believe that is the case that my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is raising. It is the case of children whose disappearance is not related to a crime. They find themselves at square one. In the end, these people experience just as much distress as the parent of a child who disappears as a result of a crime, and it is no easier for them to go to work knowing that their child is missing.

It is an excellent question to ask the government in committee in order to address this shortcoming and ensure that people in this type of situation are compensated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on that particular point because it is something we raised earlier within the Liberal caucus. There are some issues that we would hope the government would take to committee with the idea of providing some more detailed responses, and this is one of them.

Every year there are hundreds, and I suspect thousands, of people who go missing, even though a good percentage of them are found relatively quickly. However, this is for the others.

Would the member agree that there is a responsibility for the government to, even, give us something in advance of the committee meeting, because I know there would be some interest in hearing direct feedback from the government on this very important issue?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. He did not ask me a question, but the government needs to hear his comments.

My colleague also mentioned it earlier. There are many elements that are missing from this bill, which must be improved. If we cannot do so when studying the bill in committee, members might think about introducing bills to fill the gap. In fact, these parents will experience the same despair as others, and we must not overlook them.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that our government continues to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and I am encouraged today by the debate and the fact that the opposition parties are supporting the bill.

Our government continues to provide support for families, be it by taking over one million Canadians off the tax rolls, providing over $3,000 of tax cuts to the average family, or instituting the working income tax benefit and the universal child care benefit. These are all initiatives that have helped the families I talk to in my riding of Mississauga South.

I wonder if the member for Richmond—Arthabaska would comment on how important all of these measures have been, in terms of a declining poverty rate in Canada?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it may seem strange, but I do not think this is the right moment for the member to engage in a partisan aside and read a list of everything she believes the government has done right.

What we are saying today is that Bill C-44 is a step forward. As for the other budget measures, I could point to the fact that Quebec is suffering enormously because of everything the government decided not to do for the forest industry, for example. It contributed billions of dollars to Ontario's automobile industry and virtually nothing to Quebec’s forest industry. It is a serious problem. We should not mix things up.

It is true that Bill C-44 is a step forward. We established that there were a number of shortcomings, and the member should also be made aware of that and ensure that her government addresses these shortcomings to make the bill even better.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Drummond, the Environment; and the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will of course be pleased to support these changes. These new measures will truly enable workers to take leave and draw employment insurance benefits in the event that their children become seriously ill, disappear or die as a result of a crime. In my view, all the parties agree on that.

I would nevertheless like to state my concerns about employment insurance. It is clear that the employment insurance system needs a reform like this one. The fact is that 1.3 million Canadians are without work and the vast majority of them do not have access to employment insurance. This bill is the first in a long series of changes that would strengthen and improve access to employment insurance.

Knowing what we do about the budget bill, I doubt that the government is seriously committing itself to improving the system. I find this truly unfortunate, because the members of this House have the power to make a genuine difference in the lives of Canadians.

In my riding, the average person’s income is below the average income for Quebeckers and Canadians. I often hear that people do not have access to employment insurance and that they have trouble making ends meet.

I support the substance of the bill and the help it would accord an estimated 6,000 people who can really use the relief it would provide. However, there are aspects of the bill that are badly thought out and I am hoping that the government will see fit to amend the bill at committee. For example, the Conservatives first promised to make this change to EI benefits during the last federal election campaign and at the time they specifically stated that, “Funding for this measure will come from general revenue, not EI premiums”.

Now that the bill is in the House, we find that the government is reneging on this promise and will be taking the funds out of EI to pay for the part of the legislation that would provide benefits to parents with children who are critically ill. It may seem like an insignificant cost but when we consider that, by the Conservatives' own calculation, an estimated 6,000 people will be claiming this benefit, it will come to a large amount when the EI program is already $9 billion in deficit and hundreds of thousands of Canadians already cannot access regular benefits and are slipping deeper into poverty.

It is important to note that the $9 billion deficit is not because EI is an intrinsically unsustainable program. It is because the government and the Liberal government before that did a really bad job of managing and maintaining it. This is the case for so many of our essential public services. These services are being eroded by short-sighted corner cutting that costs taxpayers more money in the long term. Major cuts that came down with the last federal budget are having major impacts in my riding. Every day when I am in my riding I hear from constituents who cannot make ends meet because of insufficient EI, pensions and OAS. I have promised them that I will bring their needs to the House and raise them when I can.

My constituents would say that this bill is good but that it does not go far enough to improve our EI system. We need comprehensive EI reform and we need it fast. I am very proud that today we are helping Canadians who are caring for their sick children but that should not divert our attention from the thousands of other Canadians whose lives could really be improved by extending similar EI benefits to their specific needs.

For example, one of my constituents recently called my office. She said that she had cancer and was undergoing treatment. As people who have undergone cancer treatment know, 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits are not enough to recover and return to work.

My constituent was not even eligible for employment insurance benefits, even though she truly needed them to make ends meet. To be entitled, she would have had to work 600 hours, but had only worked 450.

If the government had deemed it appropriate to adopt the NDP's long-standing position, which would reduce the number of hours for employment insurance eligibility from 600 to 360 hours, my constituent, who worked 450 hours, would have been eligible for these benefits.

If the bill put forward by my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam had been passed, we would have a system under which benefits for serious illnesses would be extended from 15 weeks to 52 weeks. My constituent would then have had the financial security to take care of herself during these difficult times, rather than have to worry about making ends meet and not knowing whether she would be able to pay her heating, grocery or rent bills. That is the situation she is currently in, as she suffers from cancer and tries to undergo treatment to cure it.

This is not the only example I have encountered since being elected, but it is the most recent. There are many others in my riding. We really need to reform employment insurance to help these people.

For example, we need to improve employment insurance for seasonal workers. Since so many of my constituents earn their living in seasonal industries like forestry, farming and tourism, I have a duty to fight for this. It is a question of equity for rural people. All of Canada benefits from the work of seasonal workers. They deserve protection appropriate to the way they live and work.

The other major improvement we could make to employment insurance reform is to introduce compassionate benefits. My constituents are aging. The average age in my riding is higher than the average age in Quebec, which is higher than the average age in Canada.

In view of the shortage of long-term health care services in my riding and the rural factor, the task of caring for the elderly often falls to family members or friends. The Canadian Caregiver Coalition estimates that five million Canadians are caring for a loved one. This is an incredible amount of work that goes unpaid. These caregivers are heroes.

The NDP has frequently tabled bills to extend employment insurance benefits for caregivers, but the Conservatives have always voted against them. This is an area that truly needs improvement.

These are all issues I thought I would use this opportunity to raise.

Right now we have an unemployment crisis. In July 2012, 1.3 million Canadians were unemployed and only 508,000 of them received EI benefits. That means that a staggering 870,000 unemployed Canadians could not claim EI and many of those were barely surviving because of the situation. That means that less than four in ten unemployed Canadians are getting help, which is a historic low. It is the worst it has ever been.

I will be supporting the bill but I want it to be clear that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing seems obvious to me. Here we are talking about employment insurance for parents with children who are critically ill. What happens if the parents are self-employed workers? Are they going to find themselves on social assistance?

In the Conservatives’ first proposal, during the other Parliament, they said that the parents of children who are seriously ill would receive the benefit from the general revenues in the budget. If this were the case, self-employed people could be included. However, when we talk about employment insurance, we are well aware that the self-employed do not have access to it. They are being penalized.

What does my colleague think about this?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an important point. That is just another example of one of the gaps in employment insurance that we are facing in this country. There are other gaps. For instance, we are not talking about allowing the combination of special benefits and regular benefits. We will continue to fight for that for women who are on parental leave.

However, that is only the tip of the iceberg. I could pull out a stack of cases that I have seen in my riding. What I have seen most frequently are people who are really sick but no longer qualify for EI. There are also contract workers who go on maternity leave but cannot claim EI. There is a real gap. As I said, the majority of Canadians cannot access EI. We really need to look at addressing this problem seriously so that all Canadians can make ends meet when they go through changes in their lives.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we are in agreement with the government side but this happens to be one of those times.

However, I find it very ironic that, while the NDP is finding itself in the position of trying to explain the bill, we are not hearing a lot of input from the Conservative side of the House.

There is a side to the bill that needs some clarification. We are talking about federal jurisdiction here. Is the member aware of any process, procedure or any investigation of whether the provinces will be like-minded and move on this? It is important because of that jurisdiction.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. The bill would only affect workers within federally regulated workplaces but this is something that needs to be applied to all Canadians. I hope the government will be working with the provinces and territories to ensure that happens.

We can pass the bill but we should not pat ourselves on the back and say that our work is done. There is a lot more to do and that is part of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's last comment.

As she is probably aware, at one point employment insurance was under provincial jurisdiction. It was not until the 1940s when it was recognized that it would be best if it were under national jurisdiction, which ultimately led to a constitutional change.

There are huge issues with workers' compensation throughout Canada. Many would argue that the federal government needs to be more involved with workers' compensation. Does the member have some insights in terms of that particular issue? Should the federal government be playing a stronger role in workers' compensation?