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.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ministers, both of you, thank you very much on behalf of Canadians and of my constituents specifically. Thank you so much for working so hard with great passion in your respective departments.

As time has shown, this chair will not extend my time, so I will focus my questions on Bill C-44 specifically for Minister Finley.

Minister, I remember working on this file with you initially, when we were talking about how we determine this, how it will be determined and how to define critical illness, etc., and I believe there was some talk about consultation within the medical profession to figure out how to define it. Was there any consultation? If there was, what were the outcomes?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you, committee, for inviting me here today.

I echo Minister Finley's comments. As she has already stated, there are few things that matter more in this life than making sure our government supports and serves Canadians when they need our help the most.

There's no doubt that Bill C-44 fulfills the need. Few people are in greater need of assistance than the families with children facing catastrophic illness or the parents whose daughter or son has disappeared or has been murdered. There can also be no doubt about our government's determination to help Canadian families who have the misfortune of finding themselves in these circumstances.

Now, while our government focuses on strengthening the economy and creating jobs—our overarching objective—we also recognize that there are times when Canadian families need support to deal with exceptional circumstances. Families coping with stress and grief over the illness or loss of a child don't need to add worrying about their work to their list of woes.

Supporting working families is a priority for our government, which is clear from the many progressive measures we have introduced in Bill C-44.

In addition to the latest improvements to the EI program and the new income support grant, which has been outlined by Minister Finley, we're making significant changes as well to the Canada Labour Code to further assist families in crisis.

As a reminder, the federal jurisdiction within the Government of Canada's labour program serves about 128,000 workplaces and about a million people across the country. It's the federally regulated sectors of the economy: transportation, communications, banking, and crown corporations.

The Helping Families in Need Act amends part III of the code to give these federally regulated workers the right to take unpaid leave if they find themselves in one of these tragic situations. In sum, the jobs of parents of a critically ill child will be protected for up to 37 weeks. The parents of a missing child can count on 52 weeks of job protection. And for parents of murdered children, the amendments will provide job protection for up to 104 weeks, which is two years.

Of course, employees are not required to take this kind of leave, and indeed they're not expected to take the maximum time allowed, but they will know that it will be there if they need it.

For other employees not covered by this legislation, labour code protection varies from one jurisdiction to another. The Province of Quebec already provides generous support, and that enables parents to be absent from work in the event of a child being murdered or missing.

I'm optimistic that other provincial and territorial governments will follow our lead and that they will amend their respective labour laws to protect the jobs of parents of murdered or missing children or of children who are critically ill, because that ensures that the affected parents' jobs are protected in their specific jurisdiction. The parents could also benefit, then, from the new Government of Canada income support measures while on unpaid leave, knowing their jobs are protected in their specific jurisdiction.

Mr. Chair, enlightened employers understand that employees may very well need to take time off work to cope with psychological pressure and relentless demands associated with a critically ill, missing, or murdered child. They do recognize that workers who are simply exhausted from this, or who are under extreme stress, are less likely to be attentive, and certainly less productive.

Quite frankly, compassion is never a bad investment. Invariably it will work to the employer's benefit as well, because workers who can get the time they need to recover from a crisis are more likely to eventually return to work and to return in a better state of mind.

I'm proud to say that the Government of Canada and the federal industries that we regulate are offering this support to their employees. As we promised during election 2011, we'll be there to help Canadian parents through some of the most difficult days that they are likely to ever encounter. They look to us for leadership, and that is what it's all about.

Thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for inviting me to talk about Bill C-44, which is our government's latest initiative to help Canadian workers and their families.

Our government is very proud of the Helping Families in Need Act. It delivers on our 2011 election commitment to provide income support for Canadian families when they need it most.

We can all sympathize with a mother or a father who is stricken with illness while taking care of a baby. And we can only imagine what it's like to watch over a child who is critically ill or to cope with the anguish of a child who is missing or murdered.

Our hearts go out to all of these people.

No matter what jobs we hold or what titles we may have, when tragedy strikes, our highest priority is always to take care of our families. Everything else comes second. That's why our government makes the well-being of families a priority.

Our proposed legislation, Bill C-44, will amend the Employment Insurance Act to facilitate access to sickness benefits for parents should they fall ill while receiving employment insurance parental benefits.

Currently, in order to receive EI sickness benefits, a claimant would have to be available for work, if not for his or her illness or injury. As a result, a claimant would not be able to receive sickness benefits during a claim for parental benefits as he or she is not available for work.

With Bill C-44, our government is proposing to waive this requirement for claimants receiving parental benefits. This new measure, which would come into effect in early 2013, would benefit approximately 6,000 Canadians per year and would be available to insured workers and self-employed workers who have opted into the EI program.

Let me speak to you now of terrible circumstances that no parent should ever have to face, one in which a child becomes critically injured or ill. For many Canadian families, this is a terrible reality. But our government is taking action to make life just a little bit easier in such a challenging time. We've stepped up to support the families of children with life-threatening diseases or injuries to ensure that parents in that situation don't suffer undue financial hardship while caring for a critically ill or injured child.

This new EI benefit will be available for up to 35 weeks and can be shared between parents. The benefit is in addition to the 6 weeks of compassionate care benefits for which parents may also be eligible should their child face a significant risk of death within 26 weeks.

The Helping Families in Need Act will also amend the Canada Labour Code to provide job protection for parents who take a leave of absence from their work while they care for their critically ill child. Children with life-threatening conditions need more than just round-the-clock medical care to get better. They need the comfort of their parents. This new benefit will help to reduce some of the financial pressure that parents experience, as they take time away from work to focus on their family.

The third component of this legislation involves providing support to parents of missing or murdered children—indeed one of the most terrifying experiences a parent could ever possibly endure. In April 2012, the Prime Minister announced a new grant to provide these parents with 35 weeks of income support. Parents who must cope with the death or disappearance of their child as a result of a suspected criminal act are also dealing with unimaginable stressful situations, including dealing with the judiciary system.

Amendments are also being made to the Canada Labour Code for these parents, to provide job protection for those under federal jurisdiction.

My honourable colleague Lisa Raitt will speak to those measures in greater detail.

All of these measures, unfortunately, will be providing assistance during some of the most trying or tragic times that a family could ever endure, yet they also represent our government's steadfast commitment to fulfilling our promises, listening to Canadians, and making life better for hard-working families in this country.

As Dan Demers of the Canadian Cancer Society said:

I think it's critically important that we acknowledge that in the last election, this government made a commitment to parents and families who are caring for children in the most difficult situations we can imagine. And today, we're not only seeing the government take action to fulfill that commitment, but they're moving in this town at lightning speed…and they're exceeding our expectations.

He also said:

These programs will strengthen Canadian families and provide them the flexibility and the security they need to help keep their lives as normal as possible through a very, very difficult time.

I'd now like to turn to my honourable colleague, the Minister of Labour, who will speak to you about job protection for these parents through the Canada Labour Code.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

I have a couple of preliminary comments.

First, we're pleased to see both ministers appearing here this morning with respect to Bill C-44.

On the bill itself, we'll have witnesses called, and of course we'll have technical issues when we deal with the clause-by-clause. The bill provides for an amendment to the Canada Labour Code to provide an employee with the right to take leave when the child of the employee is critically ill, or dies, or disappears as a probable result of a crime. It also makes some technical amendments to the act.

The bill also 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. There are then amendments to the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations.

We'll be hearing this morning from both ministers with respect to the bill. There will be opening statements from the ministers, and then we'll have alternating questions from each of the parties.

Having said that, I'll invite Honourable Minister Diane Finley to commence with her opening statement.

Opposition Motion—Omnibus Legislation

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would caution my NDP colleague not to be sucked in by the talking points of the government. We are talking apples and oranges: a 21-page budget bill versus a 400-page budget bill. Do not fall for that stuff.

I would ask my colleague what aspects of the budget would have benefited from a full and thorough investigation by committee.

The fact is that the Conservatives now have a piece of legislation at the human resources committee, Bill C-44, which would impact about 6,000 Canadians. The bill received the unanimous consent of the House and it is now in committee for full hearings with witnesses and testimony. However, on something like working while on claim, which they have just made a mess of and impacts 900,000 Canadians, it gets flushed through in this omnibus bill.

Since the Conservatives have royally jigged up working while on claim, what other aspects of the bill spring to mind that may have been tweaked a little had it had the opportunity to go to committee?

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou speak, and I thought to myself that this really is a Conservative government that is overreaching itself, that is going a little too far beyond the powers it should have. We see it granting itself discretionary powers in Bills C-31 and C-43, and now in Bill C-44. I know there are a lot of immigrants in my distinguished colleague’s riding, especially in the Beauport area. I am also thinking of them today.

In light of what we can see and what my colleague and his whole team can see on the ground in Beauport—the requests they get from those people—I would like him to tell us a little about how the people caught in red tape see things.

Helping Families in Need Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-44.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

(The House resumed at 5:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from September 27 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

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that all of my colleagues have come to hear my speech today.

The NDP supports this bill. It is not a question of ideology or partisan politics, but rather a question of helping families in need. Bill C-44 amends the Canada Labour Code, the Employment Insurance Act, the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations. These new measures will allow workers to take leave and receive employment insurance benefits if their child becomes critically ill or dies, or disappears as the probable result of a crime.

It goes without saying that we on this side of the House support these measures. We believe that they will help ease the suffering of parents in need. It is our duty to do so. Furthermore, in their 2011 election platform, the Conservatives promised that this measure would be paid for out of general revenues, and not out of the employment insurance fund.

The money provided to the parents of missing or murdered children was supposed to come from general revenues and not from EI, but it appears that the Conservatives ignored the promise they made whereby benefits paid to parents of seriously ill children would come from general revenues. This is by far the most expensive measure and comes at a time when the EI fund has an accumulated deficit of $9 billion.

It is important to underline the fact that over the years, successive governments have taken money out of the unemployment, or employment, insurance fund that all Canadians have paid into and put this into a general revenue so that we arrive today at a time when there is a deficit. There is not enough money taken from workers to finance important programs.

The government is not addressing the most pressing problems related to employment insurance. Less than half of all unemployed Canadians are receiving EI benefits. It is shameful. It is unthinkable: less than half of those who need it are receiving EI benefits. Under this government, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get benefits. The NDP will continue to fight for a fair, accessible and efficient EI system for all unemployed Canadians, because it is our duty to do so. In fact, it is the duty of every party in the House of Commons.

While we are addressing the economic crisis and trying to create jobs, we absolutely must protect those who are in need. It is our duty, as members of the House of Commons. For the past few years, there has been less and less money for those in need. Bill C-44 makes a number of amendments to the Canada Labour Code to increase leave for parents. As I said, we agree and see this as a good thing. No bill is perfect, but we support this bill nonetheless.

This bill will extend maternity and parental leave by the number of weeks the child is hospitalized during the leave. It extends parental leave by the number of weeks of sick leave taken during the parental leave, and by the number of weeks spent in the Canadian Forces reserve. It also provides for an unpaid leave of absence of up to 37 weeks for parents of critically ill children.

Moreover, it provides for an unpaid leave of absence of 104 weeks for parents of a child who dies as a result of a crime, and leave of 52 weeks for parents of a child who has disappeared as a result of a crime.

This bill also extends to 17 weeks the period of unpaid leave that may be taken due to illness or injury without fear of a job loss.

These changes apply only to workers in federally regulated sectors. However, it is expected that provincial governments will make similar changes to their own labour codes, as was the case when compassionate care benefits were introduced.

Bill C-44 also makes changes to the Employment Insurance Act in order to allow the stacking of special benefits only. Maternity, parental and sickness benefits fall into the category of special benefits, which is a good thing. Benefits provided as a result of a job loss are considered regular benefits. Thus, special and regular benefits could be combined.

In closing, the NDP will support this bill, not for ideological or partisan reasons, but to help families in need. We want the employment insurance program to be accessible and effective for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for that, at times, touching speech. He referenced the fact that he had a personal experience where his son disappeared, and luckily was found again.

My understanding of what has been proposed in Bill C-44 is support for parents of children who have disappeared as a result of suspected criminal activity. In my own riding there is a family where the young person has disappeared. Unfortunately, the suspicion is that she committed suicide. In this case the family does deserve support, even though there is no suspected criminal activity.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that perhaps it might be useful to entertain an amendment to the bill when it gets to committee to broaden the scope for parents whose children have disappeared.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak 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.

The bill provides that an employee is entitled to take leave when his or her child is critically ill or dies or disappears as the probable result of a crime. More specifically, Bill C-44 amends the Canada Labour Code to establish new types of leave that parents can take. For instance, it authorizes the extension of parents' maternity leave and parental leave by the number of weeks during which their child is hospitalized.

Parents who take sick leave during their parental leave or who take part in the operations of Canada's reserve force will have their parental leave extended by the number of weeks of their sick leave or their absence.

It grants unpaid leave of a maximum of 37 weeks to the parents of critically ill children. It grants unpaid leave of no more than 104 weeks to the parents of a child who was murdered, and leave of up to 52 weeks to the parents of a child who has disappeared as a result of a crime. Finally, it extends by up to 17 weeks the unpaid leave that an employee may take because of illness or an injury without the risk of losing his or her job.

These amendments apply solely to employees working in federally regulated sectors, but it is expected that the provinces will make similar changes to their labour code, as they did when compassionate care benefits were introduced. I am optimistic that the provinces will act quickly, because it is absolutely necessary and possible to apply these measures to all Canadians.

Let me be clear, the bill is not a question of ideology or partisan politics; it is about assisting families in their time of need. That is why I can state that the New Democrats support the legislation, as Canadians from all walks of life deserve economic certainty in situations where they are forced to take time away from work due to the serious illness, disappearance or unfortunate death of a child.

Many of the issues of ill health and disease that children live with, although not fatal, are serious concerns. Some are of concern specifically in the childhood years, while others can have serious repercussions for children upon reaching adulthood. Some of these are, for example, diabetes and cancer.

Each year on average, 880 children under the age of 15 are diagnosed with cancer and 150 die from the disease. Although this makes cancer the second leading cause of death by disease among Canadian children, cancer is still relatively rare in this age group. Over the last 30 years childhood cancer survival rates have improved substantially, from 71% in the late 1980s to 82% in the early 2000s; five-year survival rates have increased for several types of childhood cancers. That is something we can all applaud.

As for missing children, in 2011 the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, reported 25 stranger abductions and 145 parental abductions.

It goes without saying that we support these changes. We believe they would ease the suffering of parents who need help, especially in those times when their children are going through those crises.

In their 2011 platform, the Conservatives promised that funding for this measure would come from general revenue, not from EI premiums. The grant for parents of murdered and missing children would be paid from general revenue and not through EI. However it appears the Conservatives have ignored this promise that benefits for parents of critically ill children would be paid through general revenues. This legislation would be by far a more costly measure and comes at a time when the EI account has a cumulative deficit of about $9 billion.

If we are looking at some facts and figures about EI, the minister has estimated that the bill would benefit approximately 6,000 Canadians per year. While this is a good measure, and I do not want to slam that at all, there are still approximately 870,000 unemployed Canadians who are not able to access regular EI benefits. The bill fails to address some of those bigger issues facing EI. In July of this year, 508,000 Canadians received EI regular benefits, but there were still 1,377,00 unemployed Canadians that month. That means there are 870,000 unemployed Canadians without EI. Fewer than four in ten are receiving EI, a historic low.

We are not the only ones who are talking in favour of this. Looking at some of the other validators out there, the Canadian Cancer Society welcomes this change. It sees it as a way to provide more support for parents of critically ill children through a new employment insurance benefit. The benefit would help alleviate some of the financial burden associated with caring for a sick child.

Prior to this announcement, the only benefit available to family caregivers looking after their sick child was about up to eight weeks of leave under the federal employment insurance program, six of which were paid at 55%. If a child is sick and the parents are worried about medicine or any type of care they need to provide, if their income is at only 55% it truly would be another layer of worry for families and parents, which they do not need.

The Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association is in support of the changes we are seeing. It is the same thing with the Canadian Caregiver Coalition.

In closing, I would like to say that, even though I support the purpose of the bill, I would point out that the government is not dealing with the main concerns raised by the employment insurance system. It is true that less than half of Canadians who are unemployed receive employment insurance benefits. The New Democrats support the bill, but we will nevertheless continue to fight for an employment insurance system that is fair and just.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.