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

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

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today in support of Bill C-44, Helping Families in Need Act.

The government is delivering on our commitment to support Canadian families by introducing new income supports for them in times of sickness and tragedy.

Our government listens to Canadian families. We know that raising a child is one of the most important responsibilities that someone will ever have, so when a parent has to struggle with illness while balancing other responsibilities, whether at work, home or both, the whole family is affected.

We have heard from families all across this great country about situations where a parent becomes ill soon after a child is born and while the parents are still receiving parental benefits. In those cases, parents have been unable to access EI sickness benefits during or after their receipt of parental benefits because of the way the Employment Insurance Act is written.

Our government is taking action and changing the rules for ill parents.

Bill C-44 will enable parents to receive employment insurance sickness benefits if they become ill while they are receiving parental benefits.

This new measure will benefit approximately 6,000 Canadians per year and will come into effect in early 2013. Additionally, as part of the bill, we are including changes for other income supports for families when they need these the most.

As the Prime Minister announced in April of this year, we will provide financial support to parents who are struggling with the disappearance or death of their child as a result of a crime. This measure will come into force in January 2013.

I would like to point out that Senator Boisvenu has worked tirelessly on moving forward with this issue.

I must pause here before proceeding. Everyone I have spoken with and heard from has applauded the introduction of these changes, acknowledging that our government will be providing families in the most tragic and difficult situations with up to 35 weeks of income support.

However, I was absolutely stunned last week when the NDP actually voted against helping these Canadian families. In the ways and means motion that was required to introduce these changes, NDP members turned their backs on parents who need our help. Our strong, stable, national, Conservative, majority government stood up for parents of murdered or missing children last week.

NDP members, as we know, never say no to spending. It seems that that is all they know how to do sometimes, along with providing massive tax increases. However, last week, without any sound rationale, they said no to parents who really need our support.

I am hoping that they have changed their minds since then. Perhaps they heard Bruno Serre's story. It is a tragic story about when he lost his daughter to crime. Perhaps they heard the story as he related it at the launch of the bill last week.

Bruno Serre is the vice-president of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared and the father of Brigitte, who was murdered in January 2006, at the age of 17, while working a shift at a Shell gas station in Montreal. This is what he said:

I would like to thank...the Conservative government for keeping its promise, a promise that gives families like mine renewed confidence in our government's willingness to help them.

The third component of this legislation was also previously announced by our Prime Minister this summer, that we will offer employment insurance benefits to parents of critically ill or injured children.

Every year about 19,000 children get sick enough to require prolonged treatment in intensive care units.

To heal, seriously ill children not only need doctors day and night, but they also need the comfort that their parents can provide. This new benefit will help alleviate some of the financial hardships experienced by parents who have to miss work to spend time with their families.

They need the comfort of their parents. This benefit will help reduce some of the financial pressure that parents experience as they take time away from work to look after their family. Working parents in this situation have to use up their vacation and any other leave and allowances they may have. Then they will likely have to take unpaid leave from work, often with no clear idea of when or if they will be able to get back to work.

Our government has committed to helping and we are doing so with this legislation. Conservatives have been working hard for families for years and some of the work on this new EI benefit was actually started in 2008 by my colleague, the MP for Leeds—Grenville, who introduced a private member's bill on this topic. That bill and the subsequent discussions helped create the policy for parents of critically ill or injured children, and I thank my colleague from Leeds—Grenville for his efforts.

When announcing the tabling of this legislation last week, I was particularly touched by the story of Sharon Ruth, an advocate for parents of critically ill children. Sharon's daughter, Colleen, was six years old when she was suddenly diagnosed with cancer. Sharon's world was suddenly and completely changed. At the podium Sharon said:

[I]t wasn't until our country finally got a majority government that I'm standing here today with all of you on the brink of what I hope will be revolutionary change to help those families that are in need and most vulnerable.

The most important news is that Colleen is now cancer free and is enjoying life as a healthy and very active young woman. Sharon's worlds were clear on behalf of all of the parents who continue to struggle:

My hope is that this legislation passes quickly and without incident. I know all too well what it's like to suffer the emotional and financial devastation of a child with a cancer diagnosis. The sooner our government can bring relief to those thousands of families across Canada currently navigating this life-altering journey, juggling jobs, bills, treatment and hope the better.

To Sharon I say, I hope for that too.

Family, as well as the importance we attach to it, is one of the fundamental values that unite us as Canadians.

When times are tough, sometimes beyond what we could ever have imagined, that is when we support each other. That is what we do as Canadians and that is what we are doing as government. After all, the last thing that a parent should have to worry about at such a time is how to make a mortgage payment or how not to lose their job.

On that note, changes will also be made to the Canada Labour Code as part of Bill C-44 to provide job protection for parents under federal jurisdiction who take a leave of absence while coping with having a critically ill or injured child, or a murdered or missing child.

All of these measures will be providing assistance during some of the most trying or tragic times that a family could ever endure. 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 stated:

[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 this commitment, but they're moving in this town at lightening 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 could not agree with him more, and I can only hope for all the parents who could benefit from these changes that the NDP will realize that this is not time for partisan games and needless dissent.

It is time to work together and help families in this country when they need it most.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister for keeping a straight face when she said that she thought we should debate this bill without partisan games and began her speech by launching into a fully partisan game.

Leaving that aside for the moment, I am happy to say that we will be supporting this bill on this side of the House. There are some significant measures that will help parents of critically ill children and children who were murdered or have gone missing, and we are proud to do that on this side of the House.

I have a question for the minister, though. I wonder if she could tell us why, in the Conservatives' 2011 election platform, they made a commitment that the support for parents of critically ill children would come out of the general revenue fund and not the EI fund, which is where they are now drawing the money from. It is an important distinction. Canadians deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent and what the integrity of the EI fund will look like in the future. I would like the minister to respond.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to sincerely thank my colleagues in the NDP for seeing the light and supporting this bill. This is good news and we welcome their support, as do, I am sure, Sharon and Bruno Serre and all of the families that are going to be affected by it.

We took a look at the best and fastest way to provide these supports to parents of critically ill or injured children and parents who need access to sickness benefits while on parental leave. EI was the most efficient and effective way to do this.

In terms of supporting parents of murdered and missing children, we found that we would be able to provide the service much more quickly, efficiently and effectively if we were to provide the service outside of the EI system. That is why we are proceeding this way so that we can support families as effectively, efficiently and quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of Bill C-44 and the Liberals will in fact be supporting it as well.

I cannot help but recognize the minister's change of heart because when Liberals made a similar policy announcement, her comment was that there were other options for people trying to care for their loved ones, including the fact that “Most employees do have vacation leave that they can use”. That was her comment last year.

It is strange that we are having this debate today and then having a technical briefing tonight, but at least there is going to be a briefing and this bill will go to committee. This impacts maybe 6,000 Canadians, but the changes to the EI working while on claim provision impacts about 850,000, and those changes never went to committee.

This is a better way to do it, to shed light on it and find out about any unintended consequences. Does the minister not think that if we had also done this with the changes made to the working while on claim provision, we would not have the sort of mess we now have with low-income earners?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are here to discuss Bill C-44. During question period I addressed the hon. member's issues with employment insurance. In terms of employment insurance, what is relevant right now is Liberal support for Bill C-44, which will be using the employment insurance fund to help parents who become ill while on parental leave and support parents dealing with critically ill or injured children.

I have to say that I am delighted with and welcome the support of the Liberals on this bill. I thank them very much.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the minister on her speech and for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. As a member of Parliament from Mississauga, I have heard from many parents who have critically ill children who have been requesting this kind of support.

I am glad to see that the NDP and the Liberals have decided to support the bill. I have to say the NDP caused us a bit of concern earlier when its members voted against a ways and means motion, but I am glad to see they have made the right decision to support this bill.

Would the minister comment on what she has heard from parents of critically ill children about the need for this bill?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week after we tabled the bill in the House, we had a launch for the bill. It was one of the most moving events that I have been to in a very long time. There were parents who have been through these tragedies with their children, such as Sharon Ruth, whose daughter was suddenly diagnosed with cancer at age six. Some of my colleagues in this House have been through similar circumstances. Senator Boisvenu, the founding president of the murdered or missing persons' families association, was there and is very appreciative. All of them recognize that families need support. They gave us full credit for recognizing that need and being able to deliver on these supports to help them out. It really was a love-in and it was a privilege for me to be there with these folks.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one part of the bill that puzzles me and I truly am looking for clarification. I look forward to the minister's briefing on the bill, which we obviously did not have the privilege of having before we had to debate the bill.

There is one part in the bill that deals with missing children. I certainly understand and support the intent of the bill as far as it goes, but I wonder if the minister would explain why it only deals with children who have gone missing as a result of a suspected breach of the Criminal Code, as opposed to children who have gone missing? All of their parents, I assume, would be equally worried. It would be a traumatic experience to know that one's child is missing, and yet the minister puts a caveat on that part of the bill.

I am sincerely looking to the minister to explain why that limit would be put on that provision of the bill.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that whenever a child is missing, it is a terrible thing for the parents to deal with.

We had a lot of consultations before bringing in the bill. It was determined, based upon the advice that we received from the law enforcement community, from the legal community, even from parents who have been through this, that when a child is missing due to a suspected criminal act, there are a lot of other circumstances that come into play that require attention, things like dealing with the police, dealing with the legal system, potentially dealing with ransom demands. While they are all terrible circumstances, it was recommended that we include a limitation, and that is why we have done that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the number of Canadians who will be impacted is fairly modest, some 6,000. Would the minister share with us what the cost of the program would be with 6,000 people?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the portion of the program that is for parents of critically ill of injured children, this would have a positive impact on some 6,000 families, at an estimated cost of $60 million per year, which would be funded through the employment insurance account.

We believe that is a reasonable price. We have taken a look at it. We believe that is the level of support that would help these families in their hour of need.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming 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 St. Paul's, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Immigration.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today 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.

Bill C-44 would provide a series of improvements, most of them through the employment insurance program, to Canadian families who desperately need the support of their government. For that reason, we are pleased to support this bill.

In fact, some of the provisions of the bill were lifted straight out of my private member's Bill C-362, and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I will consider myself flattered. Let me review which parts of Bill C-44 were lifted from my bill.

First, one of the proposals included in the government's bill would amend the EI Act to allow mothers and fathers currently on parental leave to access EI sickness benefits if they fall ill during their parental leave. This is a welcome and long overdue amendment. There are few Canadians who would disagree that new parents, who very often are already stretched both physically and financially, should not be penalized if they become ill while on parental leave.

I am a little puzzled though as to why the minister would have stopped short of extending this benefit further. If she appreciates the injustice of denying sickness benefits to those whose circumstances change while on parental leave, then why did she fail to apply the same consideration and logic to workers who are laid off while on parental leave? Why would she solve one injustice and at the same time wilfully ignore the other?

My bill does take that extra step. It would fix that wrong. It points out that those on parental leave, the very same physically and emotionally drained new parents who sometimes become ill while on parental leave, can through no fault of their own find that they have been downsized or laid off while on parental leave. As it currently stands, parents in that situation are denied benefits and, inexplicably, the government is content to leave them twisting in the wind, unsupported by even the meagre support provided by EI.

On the upside, my private member's bill also includes provisions to cover the self-employed in this benefits arrangement, and I am pleased to see that the government has at least adopted that.

Let me move on to special benefits that Bill C-44 would provide for parents caring for a child with a critical illness or injury.

While support for these parents is important and, frankly, long overdue, I am concerned that parents are only eligible if they have worked a minimum of 600 insurable hours over the past year. More than anything, this raises the question for me of whether the EI program is the best vehicle for delivering this parental support.

I would point out that at one time the government agreed with me. As recently as 2011 the Conservative Party platform read, “Funding for this measure will come from general revenue, not EI premiums”. The Conservatives were right to adopt that approach.

Whether one is a waged worker, a senior manager, a professional, or a stay-at-home parent, the devastation of a critically ill child is the same. All Canadians who find themselves caring for their seriously ill child are incurring a myriad of expenses that go beyond lost wages, and they all deserve our support.

What happened to make the government change its mind? The grant for parents of murdered and missing children will be paid from general revenues and not through EI, but with respect to critically ill children, the Conservatives have ignored their election promise and are paying for their commitment through EI.

I do not need to remind anyone in the House that the EI fund is not the government's money. It is a fund to which only workers and employers contribute, so for the government to draw on that pool of money to create a photo op on a policy announcement no matter how positive is surely beyond the pale.

As tempting as it is for me to go on about that theme at greater length, let me leave the Conservatives' partisan antics aside and return to the policy itself.

Mercifully, I have never experienced the anguish of parents whose child is diagnosed with a serious illness. I can scarcely imagine how difficult and frightening it must be. It is precisely at life-altering moments like those that we all need not just our friends and families, but our communities and our government as well. At the very least, government must ensure that their burden is not increased by adding financial worries to the heap. Surely that is one of the principal ways in which government directly serves the needs of the community, of people, of taxpayers.

I am pleased that the government has finally moved to provide a basic level of financial assistance for those Canadians. It is not enough of course. Families going through serious illness incur enormous expenses, and EI benefits are a maximum of 55% of income, but it is a start.

Having said that though, a few other questions must also be addressed.

The government says that it intends to make these benefits available to the parents of children who are “critically ill or injured”. I am deeply concerned about how the government intends to define “critically ill or injured”.

As it stands now, compassionate care benefits have been available to parents of a child who faced “a significant risk of death within 26 weeks”. That incredibly cold and narrow definition of serious illness will certainly keep program costs down, but it fails a huge number of the very same Canadian families the government says it wants to help.

Serious illness just does not work that way. Health care does not work that way. Families do not work that way. The Canadian Cancer Society points out that parents of critically ill children have been reluctant to submit claims for financial support because they did not wish to acknowledge that their child had a significant risk of dying.

Of course, through the advance of research, survival rates are, thankfully, increasing. For example, over the last 30 years, childhood cancer survival rates have improved substantially. They have gone up from 71% in the late 1980s to 82% in the early 2000s, and the five-year survival rates have increased for several types of childhood cancers.

Obviously, I am not a health care professional, but I cannot imagine that the government's insistence on a formal declaration of near imminent death is medically wise, never mind emotionally tolerable. Rarely are parents or doctors comfortable being so categorical about a child's prognosis, and to put parents in the position of requesting such a declaration so they can access desperately needed financial assistance is, to me, unconscionable.

In reality, many childhood illnesses that were considered terminal even five years ago are no longer so. Childhood cancers are notorious for peaks and valleys, remissions and recurrence, and increasingly, cure. The current black and white definition of critical illness means the parents of the child that faces a difficult and uncertain course of chemo or an organ transplant, but whose child has a reasonable chance of survival cannot currently access this benefit. Surely the minister appreciates that those parents need support too.

It is a situation that the minister must ensure is remedied in the regulations attending this bill. The definition of “critically ill or injured” must not be conflated with “significant risk of death within 26 weeks”.

Let us move on to some of the other provisions in the legislation before us.

Bill C-44 provides for changes to the Income Tax Act that will facilitate a direct grant to the parents of missing or murdered children in Canada. Importantly, there is a caveat. The missing child must be missing on account of a suspected breach of the Criminal Code.

A couple of concerns come to mind immediately. First, while this grant is unique in the legislation insofar as it is not part of the employment insurance system, it is nonetheless tied to the income of the parent. In order to apply for the benefit, a parent must have earned a minimum of $6,500 in the last calendar year. I wonder what the government has in mind with respect to stay-at-home parents, for example, whose child is missing as a result of a suspected breach of the Criminal Code. That parent, who may have other children to care for, who may be a caregiver for an elderly parent, who undoubtedly has responsibilities in his or her own home and community, has no access to this benefit.

Why has the government tied this grant to income? Surely all parents of children missing in a suspected criminal case need and deserve the financial support that permits them to focus on the crisis in their family.

Second, and I spoke to this in response to the minister's speech just a few minutes ago, I am still not sure I understand the rationale behind providing support only for parents whose children are missing “as a result of a suspected breach of the Criminal Code”. If I am understanding this right, if a family were to go wilderness camping, say, and their toddler wandered away from the campsite and ended up missing, the parents would not be eligible for any support during their time of frantically searching for their child. Why is that? Why is that awful situation any less worthy of support? Did the government's need to feed the rhetoric of its law and order agenda take precedence over good public policy here? I am simply not understanding why the Criminal Code caveat was deemed necessary to add in this bill.

That takes me to the larger context of the bill. I have acknowledged that the legislation before us today provides a small but important improvement for new parents who get sick while on parental leave. I welcome the additional support for parents of critically ill or injured children and those whose children are missing or murdered. Those are indeed positive changes, and I am pleased to see that the government is taking steps, tentative though they are, toward developing an understanding of working Canadian families and the struggles that they face.

What the legislation does not do speaks volumes about the government's view of the appropriate use of the EI fund. At a time when at least 1.4 million Canadians are out of work, the government crafts EI legislation that provides a benefit only for people who are not, in fact, unemployed. How ironic is that?

While the official number says unemployment sits at about 7.3%, we all know that the number is much closer to 14%. The government knows that as a result of its policies, hundreds of thousands of Canadians are not included in that number. Those no longer looking for work or who are employed in part-time, temporary or casual employment are not counted in the official figures.

The real unemployment rate is a frightening indictment of the government's failed economic policies. The fact is that 300,000 more Canadians are unemployed today than during the recession. This is a government with no industrial strategy and a government that is overseeing the decimation of the manufacturing sector.

The fact is that Statistics Canada pointed out last spring that there were almost six unemployed workers for every reported job vacancy in Canada. The fact is that the government's failed economic policies have devastated workers and families across the country. Its economic action plan is comprised of little action and lots of advertising.

To add insult to injury, while Canadians continue to suffer the consequences of the Conservatives' discredited and ineffective trickle-down policies, the government has moved to restrict and undermine the very social safety net that was designed to help families weather such economic downturns.

Less than half of unemployed Canadians now qualify for EI benefits. Fully 60% of unemployed men and 68% of unemployed women get no support whatsoever from EI and 870,000 Canadians have no access to EI benefits, despite the fact, again, that employment insurance is a program entirely paid for by workers and employers, a program funded without a nickel from the government's treasury. That is an historic low.

No doubt the government is proud of successfully shutting more than half of unemployed Canadians out of the insurance system for which their own hard-earned wages have paid. It hurts workers, small businesses and communities, but it helps build that EI surplus, which successive Liberal and Conservative governments have raided to the tune of $54 billion to pay down their debts and to finance more corporate tax cuts.

The government has no understanding of the devastation that job loss can bring to a family. There are 1.4 million Canadians officially out of work. Those families are on the knife-edge of poverty. They are losing their homes and savings. Their kids cannot join sports teams or travel with the school band or, far too often, start the school day with a decent breakfast.

However, the Prime Minister betrayed his lack of compassion and understanding for unemployed Canadians when he told the American Council for National Policy, in 1997:

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

Who knew that when Mitt Romney accused 47% of Americans of being work-shy layabouts, that he stole the line from the Prime Minister? Not to be outdone, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said, “We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it”.

With that kind of cabinet leadership, it is no wonder that the prevailing attitude of Conservative backbenchers toward the unemployed is, in the now infamous words of the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, they are “no-good bastards'”. What a way to blame the victims for the government's failed economic policies.

The Conservatives say that they are focused like a laser on jobs, but clearly their focus is on job cuts not job creation.

The stark reality is that unemployment in Canada is unacceptably high and access to employment insurance benefits is at a record low. When one of the 40% does manage to jump through the myriad of hoops designed to disqualify people from benefits, they can only get benefits that max out at $485 per week and are available to them for shorter and shorter periods.

I will remind members again that all of that must be seen in the context of one overriding truth, and that is the employment insurance system is 100% funded by employees and employers. Indeed, the Conservative fondness for Tea Party politics is evident again.

EI begins to look more and more like U.S.-style private health care coverage. Sure, companies offer insurance, provided people are young, healthy, have no pre-existing condition and are statistically unlikely to ever claim a nickel from them. So it goes with Canada's EI.

Sure, we have employment insurance. Individuals and their employers will have to fully finance it with significant premiums, of course. However, goodness, if they ever actually want to use the safety net they paid for, the government will throw up as many roadblocks as it possibly can. They have to wait two weeks without any money, even after filing their claim, and they cannot get benefits if they have not worked immediately prior to their claim, even if they have paid into the fund for many years. If they somehow manage to clear those hurdles and they do get benefits, it is only 55% of their wages. Retraining for a transitional economy, new skills? Oh dear, no, the government does not do that.

Where is the comprehensive study of the employment insurance program? Where is the strategic analysis and the comprehensive reform the system so clearly needs? Where is the jobs strategy, the skills training, the second career program, the forward-looking, aggressive and progressive programs to get Canadians' skill sets renewed and retooled and to get Canadians back to work? Where is the vision? Where is the leadership? In fact, there is none in the bill, not from the government.

We have before us a bill that provides important support to, by the government's own admission, perhaps 6,000 Canadians. However, we are puzzled. None of those 6,000 Canadians are actually unemployed. Do they need and deserve government support? Absolutely. Can I remind the minister of the very first line of the Service Canada website, which stipulates, “Employment insurance provides temporary financial assistance to unemployed Canadians who have lost their job through no fault of their own while they look for work or upgrade their skills”.

The bill before us today would do absolutely nothing to support that mission statement. It would provide financial assistance to not a single, unemployed Canadian. It fails completely to address the urgent needs of the at least 1.4 million Canadians without work, without a paycheque and, increasingly, without hope.

On this file, the only leadership is coming from this side of the House of Commons under the leadership of the member for Outremont, the leader of the official opposition. We are the only party that offers policies to extend access to EI benefits, not to limit it further.

When will the government listen to Canadians, as we have done, and undertake a strategic review of the entire program, with a view to: extending EI stimulus measures until unemployment falls to pre-recession levels; eliminating the two week waiting period; returning the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment; raising the rate of benefits to 60%; and improving the quality and monitoring of training and retraining?

That is the kind of support unemployed Canadians, and the Canadian economy, needs from the government.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's comments with some interest. I want to note that the bill does not actually fix one of the most egregious problems of the EI system, and that is its discrimination toward women.

Women are the only sex that I am aware that can have babies. As a result, women are the only sex that can take maternity leave, and in large measure, of the maternity and parental leave, most of them are taken by women.

I am aware of at least six in one of the workplaces I dealt with where women had taken maternity leave and did not have time to accumulate enough hours before their permanent layoff from their employer. As a result, those women, in my view, were being discriminated against. It was only women who took maternity leave and therefore those women were not eligible for regular benefit when they were subsequently laid off from the employer. They were back at work for a month or a month and a half, so they did get a few hours in, but they were not able to collect regular benefits.

Would the member like to comment on the lack of government response to this issue?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member points to one of the most serious flaws with our current EI system.

As I mentioned in part of my speech, I introduced Bill C-362, which we have called “EI for moms”. The member is quite right, we cannot currently stack EI benefits. If individuals are on maternity leave and their company closes down, they are no longer eligible for EI as their colleagues would have been.

It is not just true for maternity leave and regular benefits, it is also true for sick benefits, for all special benefits: none of them can be stacked. It is one of the most serious flaws in the EI program. I am really appreciative that my colleague pointed out the particularly discriminatory impact of those policies on women in our country.

We had incredible support for Bill C-362. As I said earlier in my speech, the minister has poached some parts of that bill and incorporated it into Bill C-44. I would strongly encourage her to also adopt the rest of the bill.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member went on about all of the deficiencies that she sees in EI, but did not really talk to the real crux of the issue, which is Bill C-44 and the great work it would do toward supporting families.

I have first hand experience with this. Neighbours of mine had a child who was ill from getting cancer treatments for seven years. The family could not find any support in the system at that time. They pleaded with me, as their member of Parliament and as their neighbour and friend, to find a way to get solutions to help support families that were dealing with children who were critically ill and often terminal so they would not have to worry about the financial flows from day to day.

I want to ensure that the member will support the bill because it takes the right approach to support families that deal with so many circumstances if their children are ill, injured or fall victim to violent crimes.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure how to respond to my colleague. I know you were listening to my speech intently and will know that the first half of my speech dealt specifically with the impact of Bill C-44 on parents of critically ill, missing or murdered children. I am sorry the member missed that part of my speech. I said at the outset, as well, that we would support the bill.

At this point I am looking for some direction from the Chair. Should I ask for unanimous consent to redo the first half of my speech so the hon. member can have the benefit of that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the view shared by my colleague. As she indicated from the outset, the NDP will be supporting the bill at this time.

As the minister indicated in her comments, and as has been brought up by the Conservative members, the NDP did not support the ways and means motion on that. Obviously, there was something in the bill at that time that was of concern.

Perhaps my colleague could share with the House what the concerns were around the bill initially, because it has a tremendous impact for those who will be impacted by it. Therefore, could she share some of the concerns around the ways and means motion and why her party did not support it at the time?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. The member is quite right that this bill will have a significantly positive impact on those 6,000 estimated Canadians who will be impacted by the changes under Bill C-44.

With respect to the financing of the bill, I think I was clear in my speech on the matter. In their 2011 platform, the Conservatives promised that the financing of the bill would come from general revenues. Instead we see in the bill that the money will now come out of the EI fund. The EI fund is not the government's money. It is easy for the government to offer new programs when it does not have to pay for them.

The way Bill C-44 is written now, the support for parents of critically ill children would come out of a program that was initially designed to help unemployed Canadians. That mission has been completely lost in the bill. Therefore, we are concerned about how the government is proceeding with financing the new initiatives in Bill C-44.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for her tenacity and dedication to the issues that she cares deeply about and has been working on for many years.

I would also like to commend her good grace in noting that there is parliamentary work to be done and suggesting that we support this bill so that the committee can discuss it further. She is a shining example of how we should operate: acknowledging good work when we see it and refining it in committee.

We all know that the members opposite see the employment insurance fund as a treasure chest to be plundered at will. Does my colleague believe that the Conservatives' decision to use the EI fund to provide support for families with gravely ill children suggests they would like to clean the fund out completely?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe that it is our role as parliamentarians here to protect the integrity of the EI fund. Those people who were watching not just the debate this afternoon but who perhaps tuned in a little earlier during question period will have seen us take on the Conservative government about the way it has treated two pilot programs with respect to EI. One is to stop all help for seasonal workers. The other is to make it more difficult for people on EI to make a bit of extra money while they are on claim. That was the working while on claim pilot project. We have been going hard after those issues, because they impact literally thousands of Canadians.

The member is quite right in saying that it is up to us to hold the government to account for those changes and that it is up to us to maintain the integrity of the system. That is why we exposed the fact that both successive Liberal and Conservative governments have stolen $54 billion out of the EI fund to pay for corporate tax cuts, to pay for debt reduction. It was not their money. That money was there to help unemployed Canadians.

Members can imagine the program expansion that could have been funded with $54 billion. Instead, it went to corporate tax cuts. What did we learn from Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of Canada? We learned that businesses are not even investing that money to create jobs. They are hoarding that money, and he called it “dead money”.

That is why we need a strong official opposition like the one we have under the member for Outremont to challenge the government on its handling of this very important EI system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to joining and contributing to this debate. As I indicated earlier in my question to the minister, the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill. We see it as a positive gesture in that it will have a positive impact on Canadians who are in a very traumatic position, who are battling and going through some great personal challenges. For Canadians who are facing such hardship and facing such emotional, physical, mental and spiritual pain, the anguish they go through in these types of situations should never be compounded by a further financial burden.

This bill would certainly go toward that. I know my friend and fellow member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development, the member for Brant, is going to speak on this issue. I know he can speak first-hand and I look forward to his intervention and comments today on this piece of legislation.

As I tried to impart to the minister at the time, it is a bit strange that we are debating this today and then we are invited to the technical briefing on the bill later this evening. We are debating what we think the bill is going to include and how it will impact Canadians and how it plays out, but we have seen that the track record of the government is not great on actually saying and implying it is going to improve on a particular issue in a particular situation. The old adage is that the devil is in the details, and when those details finally unfold, we see that there are unintended consequences or that the consequences have such a negative impact on a group that it makes no sense whatsoever for the government to have proceeded in this manner.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain made note of the working while on claim provisions. I would like to welcome the New Democratic Party to that discussion, because we started that when the House opened. We have been pounding that one, so it was nice to see NDP members getting engaged today and giving it the old college try. We appreciate the support, but we have been hammering all last week on it. It was probably the article in The Globe and Mail that finally sparked them to see that there might be something going on there that they might want to pay attention to.

What we have seen from the minister and her handling of the working while on claim file would make the NFL replacement officials blush with competency. Whatever took place through the genesis of that bill, whatever is going on there, there are people being hurt, and that is the part about the devil being in the details. That is why we look forward to the technical briefing. That is why we support sending the bill to the committee.

This bill impacts 6,000 people. This is an important piece of legislation, an important piece of assistance. An estimated 6,000 people will benefit from this change. We will go through this at committee.

The same cannot be said about the other changes, because they impact 850,000 Canadians. When we look at the unemployed, we see they number 1.4 million, but 850,000 Canadians received some type of support through the EI program last year, and they would be impacted by the changes made by the government.

Again, I do not know if there is a great deal of trust between Canadians and the Conservative government. The minister is now saying that the best way to support this program is through the EI system. However, she is clearly on the record in response to an announcement made prior to the last election about a family benefits package, much of which is in the bill here, when she said that there are other options for people trying to care for loved ones, including the fact that “most employees do have vacation leave that they can use.”

She felt that people could take vacation to accommodate some of the time needed to care for those loved ones in a tough situation. This shift in her position might cause some concern, and members can understand why we look forward to the technical briefing.

Again, it is great to come in and read a speech, but it is about understanding the files. When there are a couple of variables within the files, all Canadians want to know is the truth about how it will impact them.

The minister went out on a nationwide public relations initiative this year to sell the working while on claim program. However, even today in the House, she responded to a question posed by the member for Bourassa by saying that under the old system, workers were only allowed to earn $75. However, that was the minimum; members know that it is 40% of their EI earnings, so if a person was earning maximum dollars, they would be able to earn $194 before dollar one was clawed back.

I think that is about the minister not understanding the files. She can read her eloquent speech here, but I look forward to sitting down with the bureaucrats to see how this would impact Canadians. I will put my trust in the bureaucrats.

The minister gave two examples today in answer to questions and cited examples in relation to someone working for three days. However, when the EI benefit variables are changed and the maximum EI benefit is used, in both of her examples they would have lost under the new program as well. She is being a little cute with some of her answers, and totally disingenuous.

We look forward to going to the technical briefing this evening and quizzing the officials on how they see this rolling out and the impact it would have on Canadians. Whenever we work with and make changes in the EI program, it does have an impact.

I think the comment that was made by the member for Hamilton Mountain was worthwhile. If somebody utilized this program within the EI system, used 35 weeks of leave, but was then unfortunate enough to lose their job, what happens then? Certainly a stand-alone program may make more sense in this particular situation.

My friend and colleague for Sydney—Victoria came forward with a private member's bill in the last Parliament. It was supported by the NDP and the Bloc, but it was not supported by the Conservatives. The bill was for the extension of EI benefits for those facing additional hardship.

Right now, the benefit runs for 15 weeks. However, there are a number of different statistics. The representatives from the Canadian Breast Cancer Society had talked about the normal period, especially if somebody is going through chemotherapy, running about 35 weeks. To have one's benefits run out after 15 weeks poses an incredible hardship on somebody who is battling a disease like cancer. Representations were also made by the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation.

When the bureaucrats, the people who work at Service Canada and the employment insurance offices, have to phone somebody who is fighting a catastrophic illness and tell them that his or her benefits are running out and can no longer continue, they know the hardship and the stress that they are placing on that person. They advocated for the changes that were being advocated by the private member's bill put forward by colleague from Sydney—Victoria.

It comes down to those types of choices. It comes down to who we are going to be able to provide for. I think it would have been a worthwhile initiative to support that bill.

There are some concerns, even with the EI, about the information we are using when we make these decisions. It has been said that the Conservatives are not that interested in facts or science. They never want to let the facts interfere with sound ideology. My colleague from Malpeque says the only science they believe in is political science.

In 2010, the EI tracking survey conducted by Human Resources and Skills Development shed some light on the inadequacy of the current 15 weeks off. In that survey, 16% of respondents who took time off work due to illness required 13 to 25 weeks off, while 20% required over 25 weeks off from their workplace. There is evidence from medical stakeholders that reaffirms that these timelines are pretty standard.

That tells us that the current EI system takes us part way, but not all the way.

This bill is a good first step, I think, and it is a nice gesture. However, I think there is so much more that can be done.

Other nations recognize that. European Union countries, Lithuania, Japan, all look at 22 weeks for sick benefits, while we are still at 15. Again, 22 weeks is not enough but it is closer to the standards that are being advocated by stakeholders that know these issues.

There are some other changes that could be made. There are worthwhile changes being put forward in Bill C-44, but there are other changes that could be made.

I am sure all members of the House have had an opportunity to work with and to listen to people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. My office manager is an MS patient. She is a tremendous lady, but there are peaks and valleys. There are times where she is able to work full out but then there are times where she needs rest. It is the disease that dictates how much energy one has on a particular day. It is a terrible affliction.

If there were some flexibility within the EI system then we could accommodate a worker who is skilled and trained and wants to work, and who works in a job that has some flexibility within it.

The government talks at great lengths about skills shortages and the need for skilled labour. Someone could be dealing with MS for many years and still be a valuable contributing member of the workforce. If there is a bit of accommodation through the EI program, then that is a good fit for everyone. It is a good fit for the person, it is a good fit for the employer and it is a good fit for the economy.

Bill C-44 is a good step. It is an important gesture and a good gesture, but much can still be done within the system without costing a lot to the system, especially trying to accommodate those who suffer from MS. It just makes so much more sense to try to make sure that the person is a productive and contributing member of the community.

We on this side of the House have stated before that we understand the impact on these families. It is an intense expectation on these families. It is one that no family wants to go through. When people are dealing with an illness, when parents are dealing with a son or daughter's affliction, we as Canadians are compassionate enough to do what we can to help them through that situation. I think Bill C-44 would at least go some ways toward that.

My party and I look forward to supporting the bill.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Liberals will be supporting the legislation. The NDP have obviously been shamed by the Canadian people into supporting what is a very good bill, a bill which would help a lot of Canadian families.

Obviously we all hope that we are never put in that situation, but thankfully the government has brought the bill forward.

The member served in a Liberal government and in an opposition that cut two deals with the NDP. One was to keep the Liberals in power over a budget bill and the second was a coalition agreement. NDP members always talk about how the Liberals raided the EI fund. I am wondering if in either of those two deals, the NDP ever made it a condition that the funds the Liberals took from the EI system would be put back into the EI system. Did the NDP ever make that a condition or is it the usual NDP garbage of saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite?

The NDP has absolutely nothing. Those members do not care about Canadians, workers or the economy. They will do anything to get from that side to this side of the House and they know Canadians will never let them do that.

Could my colleague tell me if the NDP ever asked to have that money restored back to the EI fund?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been here 12 years now and that is the best question that I have ever been asked.

For my colleague's benefit, the fact is that the EI fund was never a stand-alone fund and all Canadians realize that now. The Liberals took power in 1993 and the unemployment rate was 12.5%. Let us remember that. The unemployment rate in this country in 1992-93 was 12.5%. There was a stand-alone EI fund that was totally bankrupt. Under the Auditor General's advice, the operation of the EI program fell into general revenues. It fell into the general pot.

Under the stewardship of the Liberals the unemployment rate went from 12.5% down to 6.5%, inflation went down from double digits to single digits, interest rates at 12.5% went down to prime. More people were paying into the EI program then because more people were working and fewer people were drawing money out. Obviously there was a surplus but that was then and this is now.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about commitment, or rather a lack of commitment. My colleague said that the bill would extend the number of weeks of employment insurance for people who are seriously ill. For example, people like Marie-Hélène Dubé, who lives in Laval, if I am not mistaken. A big campaign was organized in that regard.

My colleague spoke about a bill from the last Parliament, but there was another one in this Parliament. After the last election, we had the opportunity to vote on it. Once again, only the Conservatives were opposed.

I would like my colleague to tell me why the government is proposing changes when, at the same time, it has no clear vision about improving things for other people. This seems to be a problematic tendency on the part of this government. Changes are made to the immigration system, but other things are left out.The same can be said about employment insurance.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on this very troubling problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I remember that campaign. My colleague from Sydney—Victoria already had his bill positioned and it was on the table. There were two ladies who worked in his office, one who had fairly severe heart problems and the other who was battling cancer. The bill was sort of inspired by those in his office and by speaking with officials. However, I recall very well the campaign by the young lady.

EI is about making decisions. It is like the tax structure. The Conservatives have boutique tax credits that cause people to question whether they really impact any behavioural change. With EI, we want the system to work for the vast majority of Canadians who lose their jobs and are out of work. That is what it is there for. Beyond that, we are compassionate people in a compassionate nation and we have to care for and provide for those going through those horrific situations.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member if he was given any explanation by the House leader, the minister or the parliamentary secretary as to why the debate was this afternoon when, indeed, the technical briefing is not until this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, we were not given any indication as to why. The cart arrived and then we got notice of the horse shortly thereafter.

I look forward to meeting with the bureaucrats tonight. We will get an appreciation for where the areas of concern are going to be and we will have an opportunity to quiz those who deal with this day in and day out. Frankly, what we are getting from the minister is a mile wide and an inch deep, and that is not unique at all to this situation.

We know about the famous letter to The Guardian newspaper, in which the minister said that 80% of EI recipients were getting their cheques in 21 days, when they were actually getting notice of either payment or non-payment. It is tough putting groceries in the fridge with a notice of non-payment. For some reason, Sobeys does not cash notices of non-payment.

We will see the officials tonight. We anticipate a good exchange of ideas and we will be better briefed tomorrow. It would have been more advantageous to have it prior to this debate today so we could quiz the minister. However, since that is not the case, we will take those questions to the bureaucrats tonight and pass them on to the minister maybe in subsequent question periods.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for almost answering that question. He can help me if I am wrong, but I think what he did say is that the NDP never once talked about this when it was cutting deals to keep the Liberal government in power, or when it was cutting deals to try to circumvent the popular will of the Canadian people when they voted to put this government into office. Principle is not something the NDP actually stands on. The NDP members like to make great speeches that they do not really believe in, but when push comes to shove it is all about their trying to get on this side of the House. They do not actually stand for anything.

I say to the NDP that it is probably not a strategy that works very well because look what it did for the Liberals when they stood for nothing. They got into that little corner of the House.

Could the hon. member reiterate for me if he believes this is a good policy. Does he and the Liberal Party believe that this will actually help Canadian families who are in need? Is he and the Liberal Party, unlike the NDP which always makes its decision before actually reading anything, willing to work with the government to actually improve the situation of Canadian families across the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking me to say something nice about the piece of legislation, but I will wait for the technical briefing. I stuck my neck out. I actually believed the Minister of Human Resources when she said she was going to increase the amount Canadians could earn working while on claim from 40% to 50%. She said nothing about taking away the allowable earnings. She said nothing about that at the time. That came out six months later.

When she came out with a grand plan, I said “kudos” to the minister. My colleagues in the committee would know I did. I said it made sense, that it was a good pilot project to go from 40% to 50%. How they jigged that up, I am not sure. They must have people staying awake at night wondering how they can stick it to the most vulnerable in our country.

If we go to the briefing tonight and the bureaucrats can answer our questions satisfactorily, then I might come back and say yes, it is good for Canadians.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-44, the helping families in need act.

Before I make my formal remarks, I would like to extend my appreciation to both the NDP and Liberal Parties for their support of this bill, even though at this point it sounds like there may be some conditions around that. I think this is a great example of what some parents and groups across the nation consider a revolutionary change and, certainly, a compassionate new way to recognize those most in need.

The bill contains three measures that will help Canadian families at a time when they most need it. These include EI benefits for parents of critically ill children, enhanced access to sickness benefits for parents receiving EI parental benefits, and federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children.

Thankfully, we have a Prime Minister and government that understand that families are the building blocks of our society and recognize that parents should have the option of being with their children at a time of crisis, without fear of losing their job or financial security.

I would also highlight the work of the member for Leeds—Grenville in his private member's bill on this matter in the last two parliaments, which acted as a catalyst for these changes to be made in this very compassionate bill. As well I would recognize the member for Selkirk—Interlake who moved a motion in 2006 on this topic and has been a determined advocate for parents of critically ill children.

Today presents a rare opportunity for me as a member of Parliament to connect with an issue so personal and so close and to tell a story that I have never told in public before. I stand today to speak for the many families whose lives will suddenly be turned upside down and irreversibly changed when told that their child has a life-threatening critical illness, or has been murdered or is missing and cannot be found.

The Canadian Cancer Society reports that today and every day in Canada four families will receive the news that their child has life-threatening cancer diagnosis. That is four today, four tomorrow and four every day.

Twenty-four years ago my family and I received the news that our two-year old son was critically ill with a very high-risk, life-threatening leukemia. The odds of his survival were slim.

The news was delivered on a Saturday afternoon, and our son was transferred immediately from our local hospital to the McMaster oncology unit in Hamilton where toxic chemicals were injected into his body to arrest the blood cells gone wild. Remission happened two weeks later, and an aggressive two-year chemotherapy and radiation protocol was put into place after the McMaster team of doctors determined that is what would be necessary to cure our son.

We spent over 270 days in hospital over those two years. Our son went through cranial radiation, spinal cord injections, and toxic chemicals were regularly put into his body. However, there was always one parent by his side. We quickly realized that we were not unique: there were 8 to 12 other families at the McMaster oncology unit at any point in time, at different points in the process.

It is true that cancer does not discriminate. It does not discriminate by social situation, economic situation or, for that matter, any situation that people find themselves in.

I was self-employed and, frankly, I had never had the opportunity to participate in EI. It was never available up until the time our government changed it to enable self-employed people to become part of the EI program. Now our government has set the platform for self-employed people to become part of the EI program. Even then, some 24 years ago, that was not possible. Our government corrected that.

We also learned at the time that for those with life-threatening conditions, much more is needed for them to get better than just round the clock medical care. Our children need the comfort of their parents and their family beside them.

Our son Jordan is a miracle child. Now 26, he is here with us today in Ottawa, a cancer survivor after having beaten the odds. He is a unique young man because, like many who received the same treatment protocol, he suffered brain damage as a result of the combination of cranial radiation and a very aggressive chemotherapy used in his treatment protocol. There are many families who face such circumstances and no parent should have to choose between a job and supporting a loved one.

I can tell many stories of the families we met at the McMaster oncology unit. However, I will tell one that has stuck with our family ever since we spent two years at that unit. It is the story of a 16-year-old girl who was in the room next to our son's. There were times we could go home and then back. As I said, we spent over 270 days in hospital. However, every time we went back, she would be on the ward, experiencing yet another trial of a bone marrow transplant or some other experimental drug to try to save her from this dreaded disease. The one time we were there, her entire family had gathered around her because all of the treatment options had been exhausted for her. There she was, a beautiful young girl aged 16, with her family around her saying goodbye to her because the end was near. This is not an unusual story, as there are children of many ages who are being treated today at many hospitals across this country.

As we have said here today, this would immediately help 6,000 families. It will help everyone as it goes forward. When we are told by the opposition that their support is conditional, we say that it should not be conditional. This should have happened a long time ago under previous governments, for all the people who are currently experiencing this.

What Sharon Ruth said at the announcement last week about her daughter and her situation absolutely parallels our experience and that of many other families. She has been such a strong advocate through the years, via the member for Leeds—Grenville, to bring it to where it is today. Therefore, criticism from the opposition saying that this is conditional is absolutely unacceptable to my mind.

As was also mentioned, the helping families in need act will also provide federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children. I would be remiss if I did not highlight the work of my caucus colleague, Senator Boisvenu, for his tireless advocacy on behalf of victims of crime. It is based on his personal experience from the tragic loss of his daughter, who was murdered. He took up this matter and his advocacy work has led to this part of this proposal. For far too long, families who are touched by a traumatic circumstance of a criminal act committed against a family member have not received the support they need and deserve. As Senator Boisvenu would say, the unique situations families face when seeking justice within the criminal justice system require a unique measure to support them during such a trying time. These measures expand on and complement other government supports for parents, many of which have been strengthened by our economic action plan.

Our government recognizes that it is difficult for working Canadians to balance their job and their desire to care for family members with a serious illness or disability, or cope with the trauma of a missing or murdered child. I personally cannot imagine what receiving that news would be like.

I am hopeful that the opposition will be supporting this legislation as they said they would, because this legislation needs to be passed quickly to meet our government's ambitious timelines for implementation.

I cannot put it better than Sharon Ruth, the mother of a cancer survivor. She spoke last week when we announced this new bill. She said the following:

My hope is that this legislation passes quickly and without incident. I know all too well what it's like to suffer the emotional and financial devastation of a child with a cancer diagnosis. The sooner our government can bring relief to those thousands of families across Canada currently navigating this life-altering journey, juggling jobs, bills, treatment and hope, the better.

It is pretty hard to argue with that. I call on all members of the House to support the speedy passage of Bill C-44, so we can deliver this much needed help to families in incredibly difficult circumstances.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments and the quite touching stories and family histories he gave us.

While we do support the notion of the bill, I think some on the other side might agree that this is only the beginning of the changes to EI that are necessary to make it easier for families in this country.

For example, women are discriminated against because if they are receiving maternity benefits, they cannot quality for regular EI if they are laid off after they return from maternity leave.

The Liberals brought in a measure which lowered the rate payable from 60% to 55%. It was supposed to be temporary because of a temporary blip in the economy, but it has been there ever since and no government has ever done anything to put it back to what it was.

Would the member comment on these two issues and whether these things need to be fixed in the EI system as well?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today's discussion is about a totally different subject matter than the hon. member brought up.

However, if he looks at the track record of what our government has done since we have taken office to help improve employment insurance for those who are in true need, he will see about six steps to set the platform to where we are today. I alluded to one in my speech, which is with respect to people who are self-employed. They are typically small business owners like myself. I had a small company with a workforce of about 15 to 20 individuals, yet I could not be part of an EI program. Our government corrected that.

Our government has gone on to provide more benefits, greater benefits, with the things we have done to employment insurance since we have been elected than any of the previous governments that I have watched through my lifetime.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for sharing his very personal and moving story and how it applies to the legislation before us.

Would the member please describe the program itself, the new benefit, how long it lasts, who qualifies, and how it is different from the compassionate care benefit?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is proposed, if the legislation passes, to be a 35-week additional benefit of income support for parents over and above their regular EI benefits to get them through that critical period of time when helping their child get through a life-threatening illness. The key element is that it will add to the current EI protocol by 35 weeks.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brant for outlining what has to be a very difficult personal story.

My problem with the legislation and some of the comments made today is the experience we have had with the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. We had a debate in the House yesterday and the minister in question period today came back with different examples than she has been using all along. The minister said that everyone would benefit and we know now that is not the truth.

We have not had a briefing on this legislation yet; it will not happen until tonight. I know what the legislation says is wonderful and in glowing terms. In fact, I agree with what it says in the summary of the bill. Many of us have been advocating for a long time that the sick leave under the current EI legislation is not adequate for MS, cancer and many other cases.

Could the member give us some assurance that at the end of the day we are not going to get caught short by the minister again, who obviously does not know her files, who put previous changes into the act which were found to be wrong? There are people suffering in my region as a result of that.

Can the member give us any assurance that what the minister claims is accurate?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the sentiment of the question, but it is quite a characterization he has given to a minister who has actually stepped up to the plate and held an election commitment. Let me read what Dan Demers who represents the Canadian Cancer Society said at the press conference:

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 this commitment, but they're moving in this town at lightning speed--

That is in total conflict to what the member just described. The minister realized there was a need, created the legislation to take care of that need, and put it together while being advised by people like me and Sharon Ruth who are in the situation.

I assure the member that we have this right. This is the right step to take and it is because of the commitment of the minister.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, similar bills have been introduced, some of them even by Conservatives. Several bills about this issue were introduced in previous Parliaments. Other bills have focused on other issues, other important changes that should be made to employment insurance. Earlier, I asked another colleague a question about this. Who could forget Marie-Hélène Dubé, who urged the government to extend the employment insurance period for people with critical illness?

We support these measures, but we think it has taken too long. This seems a little piecemeal. It is as though the minister is trying to make us all forget the many disappointments there have been so far on the employment insurance front.

Can my colleague tell us, first, why it took the government so long to introduce these measures, and second, when the Conservatives will do more to help the people who have to resort to the employment insurance system?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments and question are somewhat misdirected. We are witnessing a government bill which was introduced in previous Parliaments in private members' bills and motions. He is absolutely correct about that.

The Conservative government has said we need to take the first steps in making sure we provide the supports that families who are in true need have to have, so they do not have to worry about the economics of their situation.

In previous Parliaments those motions were opposed. The opposition was stalling and not allowing this kind of legislation to go forward.

That is the history of this. We are taking action.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to congratulate my colleague from Brant not only on a great speech but on the amazing care and compassion I have witnessed his family give to Jordan over the years. I had the privilege of meeting Jordan yesterday in the lobby.

My colleague outlined a number of the changes that have occurred in terms of self-employed individuals, which our EI system now recognizes, as well as the number of weeks that are provided. There is one key element that is different and which was discussed in the parliamentary committee on compassionate care. It was the change to the definition of when people could use the EI benefit being the parent of a terminally ill child or the parent of a gravely or critically ill child.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on how important that is to parents and how important it would have been had that been in place when his family faced its very difficult situation.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is most critical is the continuity of parents being with their child throughout this. The child could be less than a year old up to 18 years old. Families and parents need the ability to focus on the continuity of the care of the child and making sure everything possible is done to create the circumstances to make the child well.

I believe that is what the member was asking. This bill accommodates that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to resume debate, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her at 5:30 p.m., at the end of the time provided for government orders.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to this bill. Before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time.

My parents know what it is like to have a sick child at home. It was very difficult for my family at the time, and not only in terms of finances. It is especially worthwhile that the bill provides something for parents in this situation.

We in the NDP support Bill C-44 to amend 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 were to become critically ill or die, or disappear as the probable result of a crime.

Bill C-44 makes a number of amendments to the Canada Labour Code in order to increase the amount of leave parents can take, which I think is a very good thing. We do not always disagree with the members opposite. The bill allows parents to extend their maternity and parental leave by the number of weeks that their child was hospitalized, and to extend their parental leave by the number of sick days taken during the parental leave, and the same goes for time spent serving in the Canadian Forces reserve.

It grants unpaid leave of up to 37 weeks for parents of gravely ill children. It also grants 104 weeks of unpaid leave to parents of children who are killed as a result of a crime and 52 weeks of unpaid leave to parents of children who disappear as a result of a crime. It also extends the period of unpaid leave that can be taken as a result of illness or injury without the fear of being laid off after 17 weeks, which is also worthwhile.

I must point out that the Canadian Caregiver Coalition congratulated the federal government on the new, extraordinary employment insurance benefit that it proposed for parents who take a leave of absence to care for a child who is critically ill or injured. We are talking here about parents but, in all cases, caregivers are the invisible backbone of our health care system. We must not ignore that fact, and we must help these people. They take on various key roles in caring for children, parents or other family members who need assistance as a result of an injury, a long-term illness or a disability. The coalition estimates that approximately 5 million Canadians provide unpaid care to their loved ones, many of whom are their children or other family members.

We support this initiative, which is designed to help families of murdered or missing children so that they do not have to worry about money. When parents have a sick child at home, they do not need the added burden of worrying about how they will make ends meet, how they will pay for food, their rent and their child's medication, which is extremely expensive. This is a worthwhile measure for parents and for sick children who need their parents.

I would like to speak a little bit about my own experience. I had a little sister who was sick when I was young. My mother was able to stay with her, but how many times have I seen parents who are heartbroken at having to leave their child alone at the hospital because they have to go to work? It is an indescribable feeling. I am not a mother; I can only imagine what I would be like.

We support this initiative to extend parental leave and to provide financial benefits to parents of sick children, whose priority is to be full-time parents.

We also support the new right to combine special employment insurance benefits. Thus, a parent who becomes ill or is injured while on parental leave will not have to give up time with their child. Parents with sick children often suffer from burnout.

Support for this bill has nothing to do with ideology or partisan politics. It is a matter of helping the families who need help, both parents and children, since we know that when we help parents, we automatically help their children.

However, I find it deplorable that these measures do not address the more challenging issues with employment insurance, such as Canadians' lack of access to employment insurance benefits. We have been working on this for a long time. We want a comprehensive reform of the employment insurance system.

These are worthwhile measures, but we could do even more. We want employment insurance to be accessible to and effective for all Canadians.

As for the provisions that will enable parents to apply for sickness benefits while receiving parental benefits, the minister estimated that this could help about 6,000 Canadians a year. Although I think this is a good measure—I have said that from the beginning—about 870,000 unemployed Canadians are unable to receive regular employment insurance benefits. Moreover, this bill does not address some important issues, such as the fact that about 500,000 Canadians received regular employment insurance benefits in July 2012, while there were over one million unemployed Canadians that same month. This means that more than 800,000 unemployed Canadians were not entitled to employment insurance. In fact, fewer than 4 out of 10 unemployed workers receive employment insurance, which is the lowest rate ever.

For example, in Saint-Hyacinthe, in my riding, the current unemployment rate is 6.7%, and in Acton Vale, also in my riding, the rate is 7.9%.

In the past year, there has been no real change in Saint-Hyacinthe's unemployment rate . On the same day last year, the unemployment rate was practically the same. This year in the winter period, when there is usually an increase in the unemployment rate due to seasonal workers, there was an unusual spike in the unemployment rate. The same phenomenon was also noted in the Acton Vale region. These are rather eloquent examples of the problems related to employment insurance.

It seems that unemployment rates are not declining, which means that more and more people must resort to employment insurance. In its current form, the employment insurance program is not accessible or effective.

The measures in Bill C-44 are good and might be effective, but I do not believe that they benefit enough people. In fact, parents could find themselves in this situation and not be entitled to employment insurance.

It goes without saying that we support these measures because we believe that they could help alleviate the suffering of some parents in need. Unfortunately, these measures will not help enough people.

In conclusion, we will support these measures, but there must be adequate funding for them. We need to completely reform employment insurance and include such measures.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed from September 26 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.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-44. This is a bill that we support at second reading because obviously this is an issue of helping families. It is not a question of ideology or partisan politics; it is about helping families in their time of need.

As members well know, Bill C-44 would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Employment Insurance Act, the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations to allow workers to take leave and draw EI in the event of their child's serious illness, disappearance or death due to crime. These are all very serious and challenging circumstances which unfortunately too many Canadian families are dealing with.

It goes without saying that we agree with supporting families in their time of exceptional need and at a time when there is suffering and trauma going on in a family. However, I do want to remind the House that during the 2011 election campaign the Conservatives campaigned on a promise to fund this measure from general revenue and not the EI fund.

We note that the grant for the parents of murdered and missing children would be paid from general revenue. That is what is being proposed here. However, it appears that the Conservatives have ignored their own campaign promise, in that the benefits to be paid to the parents of critically ill children will not be paid through general revenue but will be paid through EI.

This is by far the more costly of the benefits because of the number of people involved. This is at a time when the cumulative deficit for the EI fund is at $9 billion. This is at a time when we have a sluggish economy, persistent exceptionally high unemployment in Canada, and sadly at a time when the government has been attacking and rolling back the benefits to which Canadian families can have access. That is extremely problematic.

The Conservatives are making this proposal at a time when more than half of Canadians who are unemployed cannot access EI benefits. That is simply unacceptable. New Democrats will continue to fight for an EI system that is fair, accessible and available to Canadians right across this country in their time of need.

I do remember some years back when the Conservatives also agreed with that. At one point in time they had called unemployment insurance, as it was called at that time, the best adjustment program that we have in this country. It is an adjustment program that is necessary during periods of downturn in the economy, but also during periods of great economic change in our society.

New Democrats have spoken many times in this House about the deindustrialization that is taking place under the watch of the current government and the previous government. We have seen hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs leave this country. Far too many people ultimately do not get access to EI benefits. They end up in jobs that are very low paying, contract or temporary positions, and face a dramatic decline in their standard of living.

The EI system was designed to help working people during these periods of adjustment in a changing economy. What has been so grossly unfair is that the current government and the previous Liberal government plundered tens of billions of dollars out of the EI fund to balance the books. The money in the EI fund was paid by workers and employers across the country and ought to have been available to people in their time of need when they faced unemployment.

Today we are left with this legacy of more than half of unemployed workers not being able to access benefits. We have a deficit in the fund, and benefits have been reduced. I want to make the point that further tapping into this fund for a new benefit, which is in complete contradiction to the Conservatives' campaign pledge, is simply not acceptable. Of course we do support the principle of helping Canadian families in their time of need.

There are many tragic stories of Canadian families that have been affected by the critical illness of a child or children who have been victims of very serious crimes, including murder.

Recently I spoke with a constituent in my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto, a mother who is a strong community activist. She lives in Toronto community housing, so it is a family of limited means. This woman is a single parent and her only child, her son, was walking in broad daylight on a Saturday afternoon and was the victim of a drive-by shooting. Fortunately for all concerned, this 15-year-old man survived, but the bullet went through his abdomen. He was severely injured. He remains at home. He has been completely traumatized by this incident. He will have a permanent disability as a result of his injuries. This is through no fault of his own. By all accounts from people in the community, he is a good kid who does well in school and helps out in the neighbourhood, but he was the victim of a random crime in his neighbourhood.

It is frightening. I am a parent of three sons, and I imagine that could happen to children anywhere in this country. The woman said that because her son has been so traumatized, he has not been able to return to school. They are being forced to move not only out of the Toronto community housing building, but they are looking to move out of Toronto because her son has been so traumatized. He does not want to go out of their apartment. He is afraid to go to the window because he fears for his life.

This is one example. We get a sense of what some families are dealing with because, through no fault of their own, they have been victims of crime. We support the goal of assisting families in their time of need, whether it is a child who has been a victim of crime or whether it is a child who is critically ill. This means parents have to take time off work. In some cases they have to travel some distance to deal with the crisis they are facing.

We have difficulty with imposing more costs on the EI system at a time when this fund is already stressed, at a time when more than half of unemployed workers cannot claim the benefits for which they have paid and to which they ought to be entitled.

I hope that we can have a good debate about the best way to implement this goal of helping Canadian families. I hope the government will take the opportunity to consider constructive proposals to make the bill better so that it serves the needs of families in crisis, but also does not negatively impact the far too many Canadian workers, more than one million, who are unemployed.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech, which was very interesting.

Everyone here today agrees that this bill can help families who have been the victims of various tragic situations. That is why it is important to support this bill at second reading.

However, as the hon. member also mentioned, several aspects of it are less attractive. Specifically, when the Conservatives promised to introduce this measure, it was supposed to be paid for out of general revenue. But now we see that the money will be taken from the employment insurance fund.

Does the hon. member believe that this is the right thing to do? Employees and employers pay into the employment insurance fund, although the government stopped paying into it around 1995; the government no longer invests a single cent in that fund. Does the member believe that taking money from the EI fund is the right way to go about this?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's goal of wanting to help families in need. Right now, fewer than 4 in 10 unemployed Canadians are getting EI benefits. This is an historic low in this country at a time of tremendous economic transition. We see massive deindustrialization of the manufacturing heartland in this country. It is a disgrace that we are losing our manufacturing and economic powerhouse in central Canada. Yet, as working people go through this transition, they are losing one of the anchors of benefits to help them transition to other kinds of employment.

So, while I share his agreement with the goal of the bill, the measures, as they are proposed, do not coincide with an election promise of the government. We believe they would be problematic, not just for the families for whom these benefits are intended, but for all Canadians who today or in future hope to get employment insurance.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that a bill has been introduced in this House to support families in their time of need.

I have been hearing about a bigger issue from my constituents over the last number of months. A number of cases have come into my office where the constituents are having difficulty getting their EI cheques on time. This is a bridging time for them. When they lose a job, they need that money in order to bridge to the next job.

Would the member for Parkdale—High Park talk about the constituents in her riding who have had difficulty getting their EI cheques?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to dig down a bit deeper into these statistics, there are more than 870,000 unemployed Canadians who are not getting EI. Even those who qualify for EI are having a terrible time trying to get access to benefits, just as he said.

I had people in my office, in tears, before the holidays last December, because they kept getting this awful voice mail system and no one ever got back to them, They could never get to speak to a real person. There were people whose claims were refused pro forma. If they had had the chance to speak to a real person and to clarify their claim, we know that, in the majority of cases, they would have received their benefits right away. It was a terribly stressful time for people.

And it still exists today. We have seen cutbacks of the staff who process EI claims. Increasingly, people are forced into an automated system that they are not familiar with, resulting in people who ought to be entitled to benefits not getting those benefits.

We agree with helping families who are in traumatic circumstances because of their children. However, we also believe in an employment insurance system that works for all Canadians who are unemployed and need that bridging benefit.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr.Speaker, I am very happy today to rise in the House and express my strong support for Bill C-44, the helping families in need act.

As Canada's Minister of Labour, my focus is on the Canadian workplace. I think and I hope this act would be welcomed by both workers and employers because it brings support to families at a time when they need it most. As members know, supporting working families is a priority for this federal government. There is no more important time to do that than when parents are grieving the loss of their child, dealing with the disappearance of their child, or caring for their critically ill child. That is why this bill intends to amend the Canada Labour Code to create a new unpaid leave to address the needs of parents who are faced with this kind of unthinkable hardship.

Working parents face a lot of pressures. Parenthood can be a challenging time. Careful planning and organizing can certainly help, but a bit of bad luck can throw all that careful planning and organizing out the window. Some scenarios for parents are predictable and can be handled with ease. If someone has a common cold, that affects the whole family; a school can close because of a snowstorm; or there may be an injury requiring basic medical care. These situations can pretty much be expected by parents. I am sure most of us have dealt with these things and can relate.

However, there are scenarios that parents cannot foresee or even imagine. Heaven forbid the doctor telling parents that their child has something much more serious than a cold or the flu. Suddenly, they find themselves in the hospital keeping vigil over a little person who has been hooked up to tubes and wires. At a time like that, do they think about the emails they have not answered or the deadlines they have missed at work? They do not. Unfortunately, though, the world does not stop while they are dealing with their child's illness. The bills keep coming in even if they have taken a leave of absence from work. They still need to eat, heat their house, and put gas in their car. Indeed, they may likely have extra expenses to cover because their child is in the hospital.

Then there is the anguish that parents feel when a child is missing, possibly the victim of crime. What if the unthinkable happens and the parents' worst fears are confirmed and they are told that their child will never be coming home? As a mother, I cannot even imagine the pain that a parent can feel at that time and my heart goes out to those in these terrible situations.

These are situations that, as parents, we never want to be faced with.

I am glad that our government can offer these families more than just sympathy. We can also give them financial help. Canadians told our government that existing EI benefits are inadequate for the parents of critically ill children and we listened. They told us that parents of missing or murdered children need more assistance and we saw that they were right. We were also told that people on parental leave sometimes fall ill and they need to be able to access EI sickness benefits so we took action. That is why in Bill C-44 the federal government has launched important new initiatives.

I will give a brief overview of the initiatives in general and then I will focus on the impact that these changes would have on the Canada Labour Code.

On April 20, 2012, the Prime Minister announced our government's intent to offer a federal income support for parents of murdered and missing children. Every year, approximately 100 children in Canada die as the result of a Criminal Code offence such as homicide or aggravated assault, and 1,100 children are reported missing as a result of abduction. Parents who lose a child to illness or injury must make many end-of-life decisions, including arranging a funeral. However, parents of murdered or missing children must also deal with uncertainty, sometimes for an extended period of time. They are involved with the police and with the courts. These are not quick processes. Currently, parents of murdered or missing children have access to limited financial assistance. The victims fund reimburses expenses incurred by Canadians who are victims of crime abroad. In addition, the RCMP's travel/reunification program provides free transportation to reunite a parent with a child who was abducted by the other parent.

Parents who are sick due to the emotional trauma related to the death or disappearance of their child and are unable to work for this reason may also be entitled to up to 15 weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits.

However, once implemented, the new federal income support will be a substantial improvement. It will provide payments of $350 per week for up to 35 weeks in a one year period to parents of children under 18 who have gone missing or have died as a result of a suspected Criminal Code offence. This income support program is expected to be operational by January 1, 2013.

I have a few words to say about the provincial benefits. Parents whose child has died or is missing as a result of a suspected Criminal Code offence have varying levels of support across the country when they take time off work. All provinces, except Newfoundland and Labrador and the territories, provide varying degrees of compensation and financial assistance for victims of crime, which may include parents of murdered or missing children. For example, Nova Scotia provides a maximum of $4,000 for counselling expenses, whereas Manitoba has a more comprehensive program with no maximum amount. This new federal income support will complement these initiatives and will help lessen the burden on parents.

Parents of critically ill children will also get more help. Under the existing legislation, working parents may be eligible under some circumstances for up to six weeks of EI compassionate care benefits if their child is so sick that he or she is in danger of dying in the following 26 weeks. However, the current criteria for medical eligibility excludes many parents from qualifying for support under this compassionate care benefit, even though their child may be critically ill and in significant need of care. Therefore, on August 7, 2012, the Prime Minister announced our government's intention to bring forward legislative changes to the Employment Insurance Act to address this issue.

Through this bill, we are making these changes and we are creating a new EI benefit for parents of critically ill children. This new benefit will provide up to 35 weeks of temporary income support to eligible parents who take leave from work to care for a critically ill or injured child. This income supplement is expected to be available to claimants in June 2013.

In the face of overwhelming difficulties, such as a child who is missing or critically ill, I think employers understand that employees may need to take time off work. Employers recognize that workers who are simply exhausted or are under stress because of these personal challenges are a lot less likely to be attentive and certainly less productive. I am sure most employers would be relieved if they knew that their employees were getting a basic income while they lived through such challenging times and that at least some of the financial stress was lessened.

Workers who can get the time they need to recover from a crisis are more likely to return to work and to return in a better state of mind. Therefore, parents who take leave from their job to care for a critically ill child or to deal with the murder or disappearance of a child often have two additional worries on top of their pressing crisis: first, they worry that their money will run out; and second, they worry that their job will disappear while they are away from work and focused on their child.

Our government's position is clear: No employee should have to worry about losing his or her job when dealing with a traumatic experience like the death, disappearance or serious illness of a child. That is why we have proposed through Bill C-44 to amend part III of the Canada Labour Code to give employees in federally-regulated workplaces the right to take unpaid leave if they find themselves in one of those unfortunate situations.

For parents of a critically ill child, the Canada Labour Code will be amended to provide job protection for up to 37 weeks, for parents of murdered children the amendments will provide job protection for up to 104 weeks, and for parents of a missing child for 52 weeks.

For employees in other jurisdictions, the Canada Labour Code protection may vary. Therefore, I do hope that other provincial and territorial governments will follow our lead and amend their respective labour laws to protect the jobs of parents of murdered or missing children and critically ill children. That way these parents will also be able to benefit from these new Government of Canada income support measures while knowing that their jobs are protected by their specific jurisdiction.

Employees would not be required or expected to take the maximum time allowed but it will be there if they need it. These measures will support federally regulated employees to take time off work in various scenarios. Should they require time to grieve, to address the severe psychological impact of the death of their child, to attend judicial proceedings or just to deal with psychological shock, the provisions will be available in the Canada Labour Code.

This legislation can only have a positive impact on workers in a great time of need. The measures in the bill will give Canadians a greater sense of security. We need to do everything we can to treat workers facing a personal crisis with compassion. I know employers will support these measures because they will be of crucial importance to the workers who need them.

I thank hon. members for their support of the bill. I trust that we will do the right thing and we will support the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of my concerns is a little outside this particular bill but it is still relevant in terms of the need to look at employment insurance and how we support individuals who might need some form of compassionate care. I am thinking of parents, siblings or a spouse who need to have a family member at their side, especially in terminal care cases.

To what degree is the government prepared to expand those types of compassionate benefits to those individuals? It is something that I and many members of the Liberal caucus talked a great deal about in the last campaign. To what degree is the government prepared to entertain those types of progressive moves?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are focusing on supporting families and helping them balance their work and their family responsibilities. We are narrowing in on these very difficult circumstances that parents face much to their surprise and much to their sadness.

These amendments would allow us to offer new support measures to Canadian families at a time when they need them the most, and we have identified these periods of time: when a child is missing because of a Criminal Code offence, when a child has died because of a Criminal Code offence and if a child is critically ill. Those things are there to supplement what we currently have in place. We are very proud of the legislation that we have brought forward.

However, we always end up listening to our stakeholders and the Canadian public because we do extensive consultations. I am sure many people have indicated to the minister improvements that could be made, but at this point in time this is exactly what we are delivering on and this is what we said we would do for parents and families. That is exactly why we brought the bill to the House.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that probably unites everyone in the House is that we have all met the mother who has told us about her child who is suffering from cancer treatments and that her EI will not cover her expenses. We have all had to deal with the bureaucracy. We have all had to deal with the fact that mothers like this have been falling through a black hole. I am glad that all members of the House recognize the need to provide that bridging.

The original promise had been to take the money out of general revenues. I am not opposing the principle but with the pressure on EI right now, with over 1.3 million unemployed, should we be looking at another way to augment this so that the EI fund that is already in deficit is not put in a worse position?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's support on the matter because it is the right thing for us to do.

With respect to the technicalities of the general revenue fund versus the EI fund, the reality is that we are here to support families. We have various tools that enable us to do so. It is appropriate that we look to the workplace because that is exactly what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a workplace issue. We want to ensure we protect an employee's ability to go back to work and that his or her job is secure. We want to ensure we provide employees with a basic level of income so they can continue to do what they should be doing and that is looking after their child or helping with respect to murdered or missing children.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill in a way but it is only a baby step.

The minister said that the Conservative government was listening to groups and to people. However, I previously introduced a bill in the House that dealt with individuals with cancer and changing the weeks for EI from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. Many times it takes that long for an individual on chemotherapy to be cured.

If the government had been listening to these groups, whether it is the Canadian Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke Foundation or the Diabetes Association, it would know that these people need more than 15 weeks. We need to give them 50 weeks. Time and time again it has been shown in other countries that if we help people through that bridge, they become more productive citizens and do not fall through the cracks.

I would like the minister to comment on my bill. If she is listening to these groups of people, is she hearing what I am hearing?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being a parent of a critically ill child there are all kinds of different timing issues. There are all kinds of different illnesses that could happen, quite frankly.

I am very pleased today with respect to Bill C-44 because in this place we have agreed that this is something we should do. I am very happy that as parliamentarians we are moving in the right direction.

I hear the member when he says that he would like to see more. The EI special benefits for parents of critically ill children is a new 35-week benefit that will be on top of the 6 weeks that are already available under the EI compassionate care benefit. That is approximately 41 weeks available to parents in cases where the child is critically ill. It is certainly better than what they currently have. The reality is that we have listened to what is needed out there and this is the appropriate measure that we are introducing today.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost moved by the minister's comments, because I know what she is talking about. I had a child who was lying in a hospital bed, hooked up to tubes. I understand her intention, but I have to wonder if the minister realizes that it is still employment insurance, which has been compromised by cuts, that is supposed to handle these files, which, by definition, are extremely complex.

People who go through these terrible experiences have no desire to confide in a voice mail system or go online to fill out a bunch of forms. I wonder how people will react when they have to go through 12 steps in an automated menu just to be told to leave a message.

That is the only aspect about this bill that worries me.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the men and women who work for Service Canada are professionals who do an excellent job of delivering the benefits, answering questions and helping people with the forms. As a result, I have great confidence in their ability to administer and deliver this program in a compassionate way.

We were all children once. Whether we are all parents is irrelevant. We all certainly want what is best for kids and parents who are struggling at that point in time.

With respect to EI itself, as I stated in my remarks, this is a measure, I believe, as Minister of Labour, and having great contact with the federal private sector workplace, that employers and workers will embrace and appreciate. Those are the ones who pay into the EI fund. I have great confidence that they know it is the right thing to do and it is the right place to deal with it.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. minister clarify something I am still not clear about after the technical briefing last night.

I understand that, in the amending statute, the Canada Labour Code will reflect the fact that jobs are protected in the case of missing or murdered children. However, I was told last night that the grant itself is not in the amending bill and will not appear in the statute. It will be a grant.

I am wondering if she happens to know where in the system that grant would come from. Will there be regulations. Is it simply a policy of some sort? I am just wondering about tracing the trail of the money on this.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as indicated already, the new grant is a taxable income support grant. It would be available January 1, 2013, and provide $350 per week for up to 35 weeks for parents of murdered or missing children.

We estimate, because of the thousand families who are expected to benefit from this new measure, a yearly cost of approximately $10 million. The grant would be funded through general revenues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

New Democrats will be supporting 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. In part, what Bill C-44 would do is make a number of amendments to the Canada Labour Code to expand leaves of absence available to parents. The bill would allow for the extension of maternity and parental leave by the number of weeks that a child is hospitalized during a leave. It would allow for the extension of parental leave by the amount of sick leave taken during a parental leave, as well as for participation in the Canadian Reserve Forces. It would grant an unpaid leave of absence of up to 37 weeks for parents of critically ill children, 104 weeks for parents whose children have been murdered as a result of a crime, and 52 weeks for parents of children who have disappeared as a result of a crime. It would extend the period of unpaid absence due to illness or injury up to 17 weeks, without fear of layoff .

These changes would apply to workers in federally regulated industries only, but it is hoped that the provinces would make similar changes to their own labour code as happened when compassionate care benefits were introduced.

New Democrats are supporting the bill, but hopefully at committee there will an opportunity for some exchange about how the bill could be enhanced.

One of the pieces that came up when the member for Hamilton Mountain spoke in the House about the bill was the fact that the Conservatives actually changed their approach to this. I want to quote from her speech. She said:

While support for these parents is important, and frankly, long overdue, I am concerned that parents are only eligible if they worked a minimum of 600 insurable hours over the past year. More than anything, this raises a question for me of whether the EI program is the best vehicle for delivering this parental support.

I would point out that at one time the government agreed with me. As recently as 2011 the Conservative Party platform read, “Funding for this measure will come from general revenue, not EI premiums”. The Conservatives were right to adopt that approach.

Whether one is a waged worker, a senior manager, a professional, or a stay-at-home parent, the devastation of a critically ill child is the same. All Canadians who find themselves caring for their seriously ill child are incurring a myriad of expenses that go beyond lost wages, and they all deserve our support.

That is a very important point, because we all know that sometimes family members are not in the waged economy. A child may become ill and there is very little support for families who are not in paid employment. Therefore, although this measure is a good step, it does not look at the larger picture.

I heard the Minister of Labour talk about the fact that there is an expectation, a hope, a wish that provincial governments would line up and make amendments to their labour codes because this only deals with federally regulated workers. I would like to quote from an article in Moneyville, entitled “New EI benefits for parents of sick kids won’t protect jobs”. It highlights the challenges that we have, and I will talk a bit more about jurisdiction issues on another matter. It states:

Prime Minister Harper’s recent announcement of up to 35 weeks of Employment Insurance benefits for parents of critically ill children beginning in June 2013 is laudable. However, unless parallel changes to provincial labour standards are made, parents who are off work to care for sick children may not have a job to go back to.

Since 2004, Canadians have had access to up to six weeks of Compassionate Care Benefits from EI after a two-week waiting period if they have to be away from work temporarily to provide care or support to a family member who is gravely ill....

However, few employees have applied for EI Compassionate Care Benefits and Ontario’s Family Medical Leave because to be eligible for both, claimants need a doctor’s certificate that the patient they are caring for has a specified, serious medical condition with a significant risk of death occurring within six months. This has been a particular problem for parents with seriously ill children.

On that point, there has actually been very little uptake on that six weeks of compassionate leave because of a very complicated set of reasons. Part of it has been this almost requirement that families give up hope that their loved one will recover. For many people, at one time when a diagnosis was given it may well have been a death sentence. With improvements in medical care that are now available, people do recover.

Part of the challenge with the uptake on that compassionate leave piece was the fact that it was acknowledging that the person or the child was going to die. Therefore, there is a need for more latitude and discretion around what serious illness is. Hopefully that will also be clarified.

The article goes on to say:

It is also important to recognize that [the government’s] recent announcement does nothing to correct the fatal flaw in the EI Compassionate Care Benefits program as it applies to non-parents who need time to care for ailing loved ones. If the federal government is serious about offering support to family caregivers, the requirement for medical certification of imminent death should also be eliminated so non-parents can more readily claim up to the six weeks of compassionate care benefits currently available.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you have done a tremendous amount of work around the issue of palliative care and recognize how important it is sometimes for non-parents to provide support for somebody who is seriously ill.

Many of us in the House have aging parents. I am blessed that my mother is very healthy, but a few years ago my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer. There was no way for family members to support him other than to take unpaid time off work.

It is very important with our aging population and other changes happening in our society that we recognize that non-parents are often caregivers and need to be recognized in this legislation.

I want to briefly touch on the jurisdictional issue. Again, we have heard that the government is hopeful the provinces will step up and be part of this granting of leave for compassionate reasons and to care for somebody who is seriously ill.

A number of years ago I was fortunate enough to introduce Jordan's principle in the House, which was a direct result of a critically ill child and jurisdictional issues. I want to quote from this article on Jordan's principle:

Very often it is the harmless innocents that get caught in these jurisdictional black holes and in this case it was a baby from Norway House, Man., named Jordan. He was born in 1999 with a serious genetic and medical condition. It soon became apparent that he would have to be placed in long-term care. After two years the medical staff determined he could be released from the hospital and sent to a special foster-care home. Unfortunately he got caught between competing bureaucracies. The provincial and federal governments quarrelled over who should pay for his care. The tragic outcome was that Jordan spent two more years in hospital and died before there was any resolution. Following Jordan's tragic life and death there was an outcry from the First Nations community and front-line health workers. The result was the drafting of a statement of principle that put the child first when it comes to funding and jurisdictional disputes. It's called “Jordan's principle” in his honour.

In the case of critically ill children, I would argue that at times it could be a stretch to hope that the provincial governments will come to the table with what the federal government has offered. In Ontario there has been some movement around the granting of compassionate leave, but just to assume that all provinces will come to the table and grant this leave under their own labour codes so that non-federally regulated workers are included might be a bit of a pipe dream.

Jordan's principle was passed in the House five or six years ago but we have still not seen the present federal government moving to take leadership and make sure that children and their families actually do come first. I remain to be convinced that this is going to work.

We have seen the Conservative government tinker with parts of the Employment Insurance Act and disregard some of the very serious deficiencies. I heard a member talk about the lack of resources. This is not about the good front-line workers in employment insurance. They are doing what they can, but they cannot cope with the volume. This is not about the fact that only 40% of workers actually qualify to collect employment insurance. It is not about the fact that there has not been significant changes in the amount of money that people are being paid as our economy has continued to stagger.

Although we welcome this bill and think that it is an appropriate thing to do, I urge the government to take a look at why it is that Canadians who have paid into this fund simply cannot collect benefits in this day and age.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech, and I would like to congratulate her.

She spoke about caregivers. In my riding, there is a group of caregivers. They are very concerned by the fact that they have to take time off work, because taking care of a sick family member is really a full-time job. They are often looking after a spouse or parents.

I know that the NDP has thought long and hard about this issue. Therefore, I would like to ask my colleague to explain to the House how the NDP proposes to help this portion of the population, which still does not have the support needed to take care of a family member.

I am pleased with this bill because it will actually help the parents of sick children and children who, unfortunately, are the victims of crime. However, we must also consider this other portion of the population, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason the NDP is supporting this bill is that we agree there need to be measures in place to work with families who need to take compassionate leave or other leaves of absence.

What we need is a program that actually deals with not only people who are in the waged economy but also people who are not in the waged economy. We need to take a broader look at whether it is just parents and family members who are caregivers. We need a much broader perspective.

As I pointed out earlier, we need to deal with some of the underlying problems that do not allow Canadians who have paid into the system to actually collect. Again, there is the whole issue about this only being applicable to federally regulated workers. This is a really big problem because there are a lot of Canadians out there who are not federally regulated. How do we develop a system that is actually going to deal with those families as they go through these kinds of crises?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting door that the member opens, to have people receive some benefits from employment insurance even if they or their employers have not necessarily contributed to it. It would be great to actually have a good, fulsome debate on that particular issue.

One of the concerns we have in the Liberal caucus is that this particular bill is somewhat limited and that we could, in fact, be doing more. We appreciate and recognize the valuable change it is going to make, and we will support the bill going to committee and ultimately passing.

I am wondering if the member recognizes, as we have been talking about for the last number of years in Liberal Party, that we should be looking at how we could be expanding services, particularly for those people who have terminal illnesses, to allow family members, spouses, siblings or a child to receive a benefit so that they could stay home with their loved one in their time of need, and that there is a role that employment insurance could play to help facilitate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. What we need to do is take a broader view of who can collect employment insurance benefits and who is not eligible.

The member briefly mentioned resources. It is not just about resources for Canadians who are on employment insurance for sickness, maternity, parental or compassionate leave, it is also about the workers who are there for regular benefits.

We need to take a comprehensive look at what is happening with the employment insurance fund. I know one of the members opposite talked about how Service Canada employees are doing a great job, and they absolutely are. This is another look at resources.

What is happening, though, is that cuts to the department have meant that Canadians who have paid into the fund, whether for sickness, maternity, parental or regular benefits, and are trying to collect benefits cannot get answers from the department. This is not because people are not working hard but because they do not have the resources to answer the phone calls and to deal with people.

I have had people come into my office simply because they have tried for two days to get through to the department and have not been able to talk to a live person. When we are talking about these benefits, it is fine to talk about putting these benefits in place, but we actually need to make sure the department has the resources to ensure that people get paid and get the answers they need.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today in support of this bill at second reading. New Democrats support this bill. This is not about partisan politics. This is about doing the right thing. It is about assisting families who are going through some horrendous times, whether it be the loss of a loved one or the serious illness of a young child.

As I look at this and the most humane way to approach this whole area, the thing that comes to mind is how much we need to change our EI system and the way we look at serious illness or the loss of loved ones. There is no one in this room who does not know of someone whose child or family member has been seriously ill or who has lost someone under tragic circumstances or after a lengthy illness. Each and every one of us knows what that loss means to the families involved.

When people are struggling with an illness in the family or a loss, we also know the pressures those families are under and the very last thing families need to worry about are finances. It is about paying their bills, putting food on the table and feeling the pressure of having to work because they may not keep their jobs or spending time with their loved one who may not have long to live.

I have had the privilege of working in a cancer institute, reading stories to patients. It was a very pleasurable activity, in one way, to read to young children, but when dealing with the children and families of very young children as they struggle with a terminal illness, one sees the toll it takes on the families. It is because of those personal experiences, both as a volunteer in my early work experience and then later as a teacher, that I can absolutely say without any reservation that I am pleased to see us moving in this direction.

Does it go far enough? We have to take baby steps at the beginning and this is the beginning of the baby steps. One thing that hit me when my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan made her eloquent presentation was when she talked about this only applying to federal jurisdictions and that the provinces would have to make similar changes. It reminded me of how haphazard that is going to be and how diverse and disparate the treatment is going to be across Canada.

I arrived in Canada in 1975. My daughter was born in 1977 and I was shocked at the time that there was no paid maternity leave but women could collect some weeks of EI. I had come here from England where there was full paid maternity leave for a very lengthy time. It took Canada a long time to recognize and implement fully paid maternity leave and that, again, was haphazard. I am hopeful that the provinces will follow suit and I want to acknowledge the very comprehensive support that the Government of Manitoba provides for its citizens.

EI is a tool we are going to use to recognize and support the suffering of families who lose loved ones. I am reminded of a commitment of the Conservative government, which promised that funding for this measure will come from general revenues, not EI premiums. That is a critical point we have to take a look at here. This is a measure we need to implement. At the end of the day we have to think it is more important to do this, but this is going to place extra pressure on a fund that is already operating with a $9 billion deficit, a fund that many people cannot seem to access right now. They cannot get the assistance they need because of the closure of offices or because of the way the rules are being changed.

Right now about half of all unemployed Canadians are receiving EI benefits. That is a very concerning number, less than half of people who are eligible are receiving EI benefits. We need to reform our EI system so that it is fair, accessible and effective for all unemployed Canadians.

At the same time, I have to say that this benefit is very much needed, so I will focus on that and urge the government to live up to its promise of finding that money out of general revenues instead of placing extra pressure on a fund that is already stretched to the limit.

A number of people have spoken in support of the bill. The Canadian Cancer Society welcomes the government's announcement, and it talks about approximately 1,310 children who are diagnosed with cancer every year in Canada. It is a very specific number. The word “cancer” has an impact on all of us. We all know either a friend or a family member who have been touched by this very unforgiving disease. In my family we have been touched by this disease on more than one occasion.

We also know that, before this change that is proposed, the only benefit available to family and caregivers of sick children allows for only eight weeks of leave, six of which are paid at 55% of average insurable earnings if there is a significant risk of death for a family member. However, parents of critically ill children were less likely to submit claims for financial support because they did not wish to acknowledge that their child had a significant risk of dying. That is where the bill is the humane thing to do. It is the right direction for us to go.

I cannot imagine, if I had a child who was diagnosed with cancer and I knew he or she had a very short time to live, that at that time I would even care or know about the additional financial pressures. But having this kind of security would relieve families of a financial worry that would place extra stress on those families and could lead to further long-term absences and long-term periods of depression, which I also have seen time and time again, and therefore being out of the workforce for a very long time.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her impassioned speech. This is an issue that touches many broader issues around how we support parents who are looking after sick children and who are going through a variety of traumas, and so that is why we think this bill is going in the right direction.

However, we do have concerns, one of them being that over half of unemployed Canadians cannot access EI in the first place.

Many of us have seen the real struggles that families go through. I have seen them when I go through my own riding, meeting parents who are looking after sick children, or when we are in the hospital, as I have been with one of my children.

Would my hon. colleague speak to some of these larger issues and why we are interested in seeing the bill go in the right direction? There is much more work to be done on this file.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to limit my answer to the Conservatives. Even before the Conservatives formed government and got a majority, the Liberals also attacked EI, unemployment insurance. They changed the qualification system from weeks to hours, chopped the duration of benefits, dropped the maximum benefit and lowered the income level for the 30% clawback of benefits to $47,000 a year. The Liberals made such changes that in the 1970s and 1980s between 70% and 90% of the unemployed qualified for UI benefits, but after 1996 between 40% and 50% qualified.

Under the Conservatives, now, we have seen more changes. Day in and day out in this House, and even yesterday during question period, we have heard the opposition raise stories about single mothers who are working hard to try to make ends meet and are having their benefits clawed back by the current government.

As much as we applaud this step in the right direction to address the needs of those who have young children and family members who are critically ill, we are just as adamant that the current government needs to address the major issues and problems that both the Liberals and now the Conservatives have compounded in the area of employment insurance.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Newton—North Delta for her presentation. It is the first chance I have had to speak to the bill and I am looking forward to voting for it. I am looking forward to seeing it go from second reading to committee.

There are aspects of the bill that I think we need to pay some attention to, in committee, amending it to make sure it applies appropriately to children who are critically ill and children who are missing and to further refine those circumstances.

However, I take the points of the hon. member for Newton—North Delta on the chiseling away of EI benefit rights. I am particularly concerned about what we did in Bill C-38, with taking seasonal workers and placing them in a circumstance where they are almost treated as if they were recidivists in a criminal justice system instead of workers in Canada who happen to be in industries that require of them that they are not working year round.

I wonder if my hon. friend has any comments on that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very thoughtful comment and question.

All of us, right across Canada, know the impact of the EI changes. As I said, we are hearing about them here. Particularly hard-struck are seasonal workers.

Whether it is on the west coast, whether we are talking about agricultural workers in the Niagara Peninsula, whether we are talking about seasonal workers in the north or on the west coast, I will say that those groups of workers are beginning to feel as if they have done something terribly wrong, simply because their particular area of work is seasonal due to climate. It is not something they control. We live in a country that has a huge geography, and the workers are being punished because their employment is seasonal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Leeds—Grenville.

I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-44, the helping families in need act, and I thank the opposition for its support of this bill.

As a pediatric surgeon who has taken care of many families of critically ill children, whether it be from trauma or disease, I can personally attest to the need for this legislation to be passed as quickly as possible. This bill is about supporting families who are going through some of the most difficult times in their lives, both emotionally and financially. This legislation introduces new employment insurance benefits for parents of critically ill children, as was announced earlier this summer by the Prime Minister.

It also contains modifications to the Canada Labour Code to protect the jobs of parents who work for federally regulated companies, who are on leave to take care of their critically ill child or to cope with the death or disappearance of their child as the result of a suspected Criminal Code offence. In the latter case, parents would be eligible to receive a new federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children, announced by the Prime Minister last April.

Finally, it contains amendments to the Employment Insurance Act to allow parents enhanced access to EI sickness benefits if they fall ill while receiving EI parental benefits.

I will take a moment to focus on how this bill would help families who have a child under the age of 18 who is critically ill. Each year, approximately 19,000 families end up with a child in an intensive care unit. I encourage all members to think about this situation if they have a child. They get up in the morning and have breakfast with their child and their child goes to school, and they get a terrible telephone call at 2:00 in the afternoon that their child is being taken to the emergency department. The parents arrive at the emergency department to meet someone like me, with whom they have a conversation about their child being in a coma in the intensive care unit and we physicians not knowing when their child will waken.

The children have special needs in those circumstances but so do their parents. In addition to worrying about their child's health, parents are often faced with having to take unprecedented unpaid absences from work or even quit their jobs to take care of their ill child. Medical, travel and accommodation expenses only add to this burden.

Our government and, I think, all members of this House recognize the vital role parents play in comforting and caring for their children. As a surgeon, I have seen the impact parents have on the recovery rates of their children. That is why this bill introduces new 35-week EI benefits to support parents who leave work to take care of their critically ill children. As with EI parental and compassionate care benefits, parents would be able to share this benefit. The definition of a critically ill child includes those children who have life-threatening illnesses, as was mentioned by my colleague with respect to cancer-care children, or injury like those I take care of, who may be involved in various phases of their illness and need continued parental support.

This benefit would fill a gap that existed in the EI system, when parents have children who are so seriously ill they need full-time parental care but, fortunately, when their children are not at immediate risk of dying.

From my medical practice, I saw first-hand the agony this caused parents as they tried to balance their financial obligations, their work and taking care of their children. In the unfortunate situation that a child's condition deteriorates, parents or family members may also be eligible for an additional six weeks of EI compassionate care benefits, if the children are at significant risk of death within the next six months. Hopefully members would never have to utilize that benefit.

The Canada Labour Code would also be amended to allow unpaid leave for employees under the federal jurisdiction, to ensure their jobs are protected while they care for their critically ill children.

Our government has also continually championed the cause of victims of crime. In 2007, we provided $52 million for four years to enhance the federal victim strategy.

As announced by the Prime Minister in April of this year, we will provide financial support to parents who are coping with the disappearance or death of a child as a result of a Criminal Code offence. This will come into effect in January of 2013.

As announced by the Prime Minister in April, we will provide financial support to parents who are coping with the disappearance or death of a child as a result of a criminal act. It is important to know that the agony parents go through in these most difficult situations is overwhelming. While there is no way to make this situation right, we as parliamentarians can provide support to these parents so they do not need to worry about missing a mortgage payment while figuring out how to cope with this horrible situation.

To qualify for this $350 grant, parents can apply for up to 35 weeks. Applicants will be required to have earned a minimum level of income and have taken time away from work.

Workers who take a leave of absence from a federally regulated job for such an event will have their jobs protected, as will parents of critically ill children, thanks to amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

The third aspect that we are introducing in this legislation is greater access to illness benefits for parents themselves.

With this bill, parents will be able to access employment insurance sickness benefits if they fall ill while receiving parental benefits.

Currently, EI claimants cannot access sickness benefits during a claim for parental benefits because of the requirements that they be otherwise available for work or, in the case of self-employed persons, that they be otherwise working but have stopped because of illness.

The bill would amend the EI Act to waive those requirements for claimants receiving EI parental benefits.

The combination of these new measures in Bill C-44 is an example of the common sense measures that our government is taking to help parents balance work and family responsibilities. As the Prime Minister has previously stated, families are the building blocks of our society. Family and its importance is a fundamental value that truly connects all of us as Canadians.

It is time to work together and provide support for families in this country, when they need it the most.

It is time to stand together. Once again, I appreciate and acknowledge the support of the opposition for the bill as we stand together in support of families in this country when they need it the most.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I can assure her that I will support this bill at second reading because its goals are laudable. She can count on my assistance and that of my colleagues in thoroughly reviewing this bill and improving it if possible.

Still, I must say that I am a little annoyed by what I see as inconsistency among the government's employment insurance measures. Having collected employment insurance benefits at various time in my life, including during a time when I was a single father, I have to say that excluding a significant number of employment insurance claimants also has consequences, such as making it difficult for a parent to pay for housing and decent food in order to provide adequately for his or her family.

How can my colleague tolerate that kind of contradiction? Will she try to improve the entire employment insurance program to bring it in line with this bill?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his support for this bill. It is greatly appreciated.

The bill is focused on making sure that families and parents are supported in their time of greatest need. I encourage all of us to focus on exactly that. That is what this is about. It is about making sure that we help parents who have a critically ill child, such as the child I mentioned, who may have been hit while running onto the street because he or she left the schoolyard, or a missing child. That is what we need to focus on here.

I agree with the member. We want to make sure that this bill is as good as possible to benefit those families who are in their time of greatest need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member and recognize that there has been a great deal of concern recently about other issues related to employment insurance, and for good reason.

This morning I asked about the need to look at other areas where we can extend that compassionate hand. There is no doubt that no one in the House of Commons today would vote against this particular bill, because we recognize its value and want to support parents the best way we can.

To what degree does the member believe the government has a responsibility to look at the entirety of employment insurance and its benefits and at how government decisions are impacting people currently on EI, and to consider additional compassionate grounds and ways of getting money into the hands of people who need the money?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite and his colleagues for supporting this legislation.

We held significant consultations with people to find out exactly what they needed and desired. It was very evident that families with a critically ill child need help, whether that child be suffering from cancer, as my colleague from the NDP mentioned, or another serious illness. Indeed, the parents I meet in the emergency department are in need. It is a very tough time for them and we want to make sure that they are well supported. This is a specific and targeted bill to make sure that those families are supported in their time of greatest need. This legislation would benefit over 6,000 families with critically ill children and over 1,000 families with murdered or missing children.

I appreciate that everyone in the House has been supportive of this measure.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to rise in the House today to speak to the helping families in need act.

When first elected back in 2004, I began to champion this cause. I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-542, in the 39th and 40th Parliaments, and once again introduced that same bill in the current parliament, Bill C-371.

I am absolutely delighted to see the government moving on this. It embodies what I was trying to accomplish in Bill C-371, and therefore at this time I plan on withdrawing that bill. I am delighted to see all of this hard work coming to fruition in this exceptional piece of legislation.

However, it is not just me. I have to thank a constituent of mine, Sharon Ruth, for her tireless efforts in helping families who are truly in need and have gone through the tragedy of having a critically ill child. I will tell the House a little more about Sharon's story later.

Not only had we been advocating for this, but it also fulfills our Conservative Party's platform commitment to support the families of murdered, missing and critically ill children. Dan Demers of the Canadian Cancer Society so eloquently sums up the commitment of our government in this quote:

[I]t'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 this commitment, but they're moving in this town at lightening speed....

I am encouraged by what I have heard from the opposition today, because it is very important that we move quickly. This much needed legislation will support the implementation of three initiatives: the new federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children, a new EI benefit for parents of critically ill children, and a measure to enhance flexibility for parents who fall ill while receiving EI parental benefits.

Since our government was first elected back in 2006, we have been working tirelessly to implement policies that help Canadian families. We Conservatives know that the success of our nation is built upon the foundation of healthy families, which is why we remain committed to supporting policies that benefit hardworking Canadian families.

The measures in the bill demonstrate our government's commitment to providing families with the flexibility to balance the obligations of work with the duty to family. I am confident that with thoughtful consideration of the text of this legislation, all members will support it. As I said, I am encouraged that everyone who has spoken today supports moving this as quickly as possible. The bill is about providing financial support to families when it is needed most desperately.

The case I am most familiar with personally is that of Sharon Ruth, her family and her daughter Colleen. I met Sharon during the election campaign in 2004 and she told me what her family had been dealing with.

Her daughter, Colleen, was just six years old when, without warning, she was suddenly diagnosed with stage one Hodgkins lymphoma. Within hours of that diagnosis she was admitted to hospital and doctors started working tirelessly to treat her.

The result for Sharon's family was that they spiralled into a financial abyss as they made the choice that every parent would make to help treat their daughter and save her life. It meant that at least one parent left work and gave up a salary.

She was in the midst of this chaos when she first spoke to me, and since then she has been a tireless advocate for compassionate care leave, spreading her message across Canada and joining others who seek the same assistance that she so desperately required. She chronicled her family's struggles in a book called The Guinea Kid. The good news is that her daughter Colleen, now 16, is in remission.

I have to commend Sharon's stamina on this issue as she watched bills die on the order paper, election after election, but stuck to her fight for these changes.

We are now meeting our commitment to introduce a new EI benefit to support parents of critically ill children. Starting next June, eligible parents in this situation would receive up to 35 weeks of temporary income support through the EI system.

This measure is expected to help an estimated 6,000 families each year who are going through the most trying times in their lives. This support is in addition to the EI compassionate care benefit, and parents of the most seriously ill children may apply for the compassionate care benefit if, after claiming 35 weeks of the new benefit, their child is in danger of dying in the next 26 weeks.

When their child is critically ill, many parents have to make what seems like impossible choices: continue to work and be away from their child or endure the financial hardship that can result from leaving work to provide ongoing care.

Caring for such an ill child is not only emotionally trying, it can also be financially crippling. Between 40% and 63% of families who have children with cancer lose income because they work less while caring for their ill child. The added expense of travel, accommodation, often near the hospital, and medical supplies can consume 25% of their total disposable income.

To alleviate some of the worry parents have about being away from work, we would also amend the Canada Labour Code. This would allow for unpaid leave for employees under federal jurisdiction to ensure that their jobs are protected while caring for a critically ill child. This means that parents would not have to quit their jobs to care for their critically ill child.

We have heard from Canadians that this legislation is desperately needed and long overdue. We know that roughly 250,000 children are hospitalized each year. Of these, approximately 19,000 are critically ill and are confined to intensive care units for extended periods of time. It is no surprise that these children need their parents' care and support to recover and in some cases to even survive.

Since our Conservative government was elected, we have been committed to supporting Canadian families and helping them balance work and family responsibilities. With this legislation, we show Canadian parents that we recognize the vital role they play in the lives of their children and that we value what they do.

This legislation would now allow us to offer new financial support measures to ensure that parents have support when they need it the most. I cannot help but reiterate how encouraged I am to hear that all parties and all members seem to be supporting this important legislation. This bill is not about politics, it is about helping Canadian families when they need it the most.

I would like to talk about a situation I learned about in a discussion with another constituent of mine. I just recently became aware of the situation of the family of Nicole and Craig Tobias, and their son Sam. Their son is critically ill. They brought their plight to me. I explained what was happening, and how, if we move this along, families like the Tobias family and the Ruth family will not have to face what so many families have had to face in the past number of years.

I am going to close with a quote from Sharon at the announcement of this bill by the minister last week. She said:

I want to thank the minister who has genuine concern for families and their suffering, for receiving myself and Colleen and Edwina Eddie last November, listening to what we had to say. She believed that changes needed to be made and worked toward making this day happen.

I thank the minister and the Prime Minister for showing us that everyday people like Sharon can make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I thank all members. I look forward to seeing all members agree that these are the very reasons that all of us came to this Parliament and why we became involved in serving the Canadian public.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one concern with respect to the part about leave in the case of a death or disappearance, where the bill clearly specifies that this applies only if a crime occurred, defined as “an offence under the Criminal Code, other than one that is excluded by the regulations”. Parents will be eligible for this program only if their child has disappeared as the result of a crime under the Criminal Code.

I am concerned about parents who lose a child under other circumstances. Their child may have drowned in a river or disappeared in some other way not associated with a crime; in other words, the child may not have been killed. The child may also have committed suicide. Bill C-44 is about children under the age of 18. Such parents will be just as sad, but they will not be eligible for this program if the death or disappearance of their child is not the result of a crime.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. I also appreciate the member's support for this bill.

The member has an excellent point. There are many situations that families have to deal with. In this particular bill, we are focusing on those whose death or disappearance is a result of a suspected Criminal Code offence. That does not in any way lessen what families who are dealing with other situations are going through.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this bill demonstrates the compassion in the House. I applaud all that I am hearing this morning. There appears to be cross-party agreement that this is a good bill. I also want to applaud my colleague for his vision, work, and persistence in the development of this bill, something I know he has had in his heart for a long time. I applaud him for seeing it through.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question with regard to the 35 weeks of EI benefits. Would he speak in a little more depth about the help it would provide to parents of critically ill children in balancing their family and employment obligations?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Don Valley West for all of his efforts on this bill. I have received significant encouragement from my colleagues to continue doing what I have been doing to work toward having Bill C-44 here today.

To answer the member's question, we know that when parents can be with a critically ill child in the hospital, it can actually save the child's life. We hope that through this legislation, parents will not be having to make the choice between being with the child and paying the mortgage or car or even putting food on the table. This would help many families and that is why there is support from all sides of the House today for this very important legislation.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a concern. As hon. members know, all of our suggestions in the more general area of employment insurance have been systematically rejected despite appeals to the government.

I would like to check with my colleague to see whether the government will be open enough to seriously examine and potentially accept any suggestions or amendments we might have to improve Bill C-44, a bill that is full of good intentions and that we recognize and support.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the support for this bill and the fact that so many people have had input into it. When we send this to committee, hopefully very soon, I hope we will hear from people and members of the committee to see if improvements can be made. As the bill stands right now, I think it is a very good bill. It is well thought out and there has been input from many groups and people across the country. I look forward to seeing it in committee as soon as possible and then back in the House for another vote.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had a chance to stand in the House since you were elected and I want to congratulate you. I know the House will benefit from your knowledge and your wisdom. I have benefited, as have many newer members in the House. I look forward to working with you.

I will be splitting my time with my fellow British Columbian, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act. My colleagues in the NDP support the bill. It is not a question about ideology. It is not a question about partisan politics. It is about assisting families in times when they need the help most. It goes without saying that we support these changes that would help ease the suffering of parents who need the help.

Parents who have children who are ill and parents of children who are victims of crime deserve our support so that they do not need to worry about financial support when they are struggling to cope with very difficult situations. In situations where children are in a hospital the parents need to do the parenting and not worry about financial decisions that need to be made.

It is a good bill in that sense. We also support the new right to combine EI benefits so that if people get sick or injured while on parental leave, it does not take time away from their children. The bill is definitely a step in the right direction but I do have some concerns.

My understanding is that the Conservatives promised in their campaign literature in 2011 to provide enhanced EI benefits to parents of murdered or missing children and parents of gravely ill children. This was their promise. However, the Conservatives also promised that the funding for this measure would come from general revenues, not EI premiums. The grant for parents of murdered and missing children would be paid from general revenues and not through EI. However, it appears that the Conservatives have ignored their promise that benefits for critically ill children would be paid from general revenues.

I am curious as to why they have made this choice and gone back on their promise that this would not come out of EI. We have an accumulated deficit of $9 billion in the EI fund and that deficit has occurred under the current government.

A few years ago we had a surplus of $50 billion in the EI fund that was paid by the workers and employers so that when the fund was needed it was there. However, we have seen the government take that money out of the EI fund and put it in general revenues. The money that was there for people to use EI has been taken away by the government and now we have a deficit of $9 billion in the fund.

On top of that, we have seen the government increase EI premiums both for the employer and for working people. That happened this year and that is not fair.

We in the NDP have been very clear. We want comprehensive EI reforms. We want to make EI accessible and effective for all Canadians when they need this insurance policy. These measures also do not address the greatest challenge with EI, the lack of access for unemployed Canadians. I am concerned that the government is avoiding the biggest problems with EI. For example, fewer than half of all unemployed Canadians are receiving EI benefits.

As of July 2012, about 500,000 Canadians receive regular EI benefits. We have 1.3 million unemployed Canadians looking for work. This means that we have over 870,000 or 40% of unemployed Canadians who are without EI benefits. I would remind the House that is an all-time historic low. That is why the NDP will continue to fight for an EI system that is fair, accessible and effective for unemployed Canadians.

Over the last number of months, we have seen changes to the EI program itself as well as service cuts brought through the omnibus Bill C-38. The effects of those changes are trickling into every corner of this country. I have seen this firsthand in my constituency. People who have come into my office are struggling to access their benefits because of the maze that has been created. They are having difficulty resolving issues, getting through on phone lines and even talking to a live person over the phone because of the service cuts.

On top of that, we have seen the changes brought in by the Conservatives through Bill C-38 strip away the benefits from workers who have contributed into this fund. They are not able to receive the benefits that they should be receiving. I have had many cases where people have waited months to receive their first cheque. People pay into the EI program to collect the benefit when they are laid-off. It is a bridging for them until they find another job.

We know that Canadians are burdened with high consumer debt and living from cheque to cheque. When people lose their job and apply for EI, one would think they would get their cheque as soon as possible. However, under the Conservative government, people are waiting for months. One gentleman who came into my office waited two and a half months for his cheque. He had paid into the EI system for decades and had never collected EI benefits before but, unfortunately, he lost his job. He was literally on his last box of macaroni and cheese. In fact, he had to go to the food bank to get food for his family. After two and half months, one would expect his cheque to be there. When he phoned EI, there was nobody live to talk to. In fact, there was a small administrative issue that could have been dealt with many weeks earlier. However, this fellow was getting nowhere. We were able to help him, but, again, a person who paid into the system should not have to wait that long to receive EI benefits.

I could go on because I have seen first-hand how these types of changes are affecting everyday families in my constituency and right across this country.

This is a small change but a good initiative that will help Canadian families throughout the country, and we welcome that. As we have said, we would like to discuss the changes made in Bill C-38 in committee so that we can get to the bottom of the bigger issues, which is the broken EI system that has been put in place by the Conservatives.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, concerning the 35 stackable weeks of special benefits, my concern is that it is not 35 extra weeks. It is a maximum of 35 extra weeks up to 55 weeks. A parent of a critically ill child has 40 regular weeks so the extra weeks for caring for that child could not be more than 12 weeks.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that this technical aspect has not been clearly presented in the bill, that it is not 35 extra weeks but is in fact up to 35 extra weeks.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the overall direction is the right direction to help families in need when their child is sick or their child has been a victim of a crime. The bill would provide critical benefits to families in their time of need.

There are a number of technical aspects to the bill that need to be clarified and we hope to do that at the committee stage when we look into the details of the bill.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to what I asked a government member earlier.

I have some concerns about the provision of this bill that deals with leave related to death or disappearance. The provision clearly specifies that the death or disappearance must result from a crime, which is defined as “an offence under the Criminal Code”.

Thus, parents who lose a child in some way other than as a result of a crime, for example by drowning or suicide, will not have access to this program. The bill talks about leave but only if the death or disappearance of the child is the result of a crime under the Criminal Code.

In his response, the hon. member said that he wanted to focus only on cases resulting from crime. Does he not think that this provision could be expanded to include all parents who have lost a child?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are compassionate enough to provide support to families who have a sick child or who have lost a child, whether as a result of a criminal act or a natural act such as drowning. In times of need, be it financial or otherwise, parents need to spend time with their child or time with family members who are in difficult situations. It is critical that we look at these issues and that we in the House provide support to Canadian families who are dealing with tragedies.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, a bill that has some very good ideas to help families who are in very critical situations. All Canadians have compassion for parents of critically ill children and, of course, for families who have lost a child.

The bill looks at provisions in both the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act to try to help out those families in crisis. These include extending 35 weeks of EI benefits for parents caring for a critically ill child, plus a number of amendments that would allow for the stacking of benefits. Stacking sounds like a negative thing but in this case it is a very positive thing because it would mean allowing for the extension of benefits, like parental and sickness benefits, if they happen to coincide with care for a critically ill child. Obviously, on this side of the House, that is a concept that we believe is worthy of support.

There are also amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would remove some of the worry about job losses when one is caring for a critically ill child. It does so by extending parental leave and allowing extensions of unpaid leaves of absence so parents, if they are forced to take time off to care for their child, do not need to worry that their job will be gone when they return.

I am not only looking forward to the debate in committee on these positive ideas but I am also looking forward to considering a couple of other points in committee. Those will be the limitation on these new benefits to those in paid employment. There are lots of other families in similar situations to those who would be receiving these benefits but who are not presently in paid employment. I would like to hear ideas from the government, as we will be looking for ideas ourselves, as to how those kinds of families could also be assisted.

A second point, and an important one always, is how we will pay for this benefit. In their campaign, the Conservatives said that these new benefits would be paid for out of general revenues. Instead, we find in the bill that the benefits for parents of critically ill children would actually be paid for out of employment insurance premiums. I am looking forward to some discussion with the government about its previous promises on that.

I will now turn to the title of the bill for just a minute. The Conservatives like to give catchy titles to their bills and, in this case, it is called “helping families in need act”. While it does help families in very critical situations, in my riding there are many other families who struggle quietly every day to make ends meet. I am concerned that, while these are good measures, the policies of the government, in general, are putting further stress on those other families who may not have a critically ill child but who may have trouble putting food on the table or a roof over their heads to take care of their children. How do we ensure that the government keeps its responsibility to do something about the economy that would help those kinds of families, as well as those with these more tragic circumstances?

Last weekend, when I was at home, I was at a community event where I met a family of two parents, one of whom is self-employed and the other was in waged employment. They have one small child who, I think, just had his second birthday. The mother, who is self-employed, is expecting her second child within the month. Her partner was just laid off. They were renting a house, which they could no longer afford, so, being responsible and trying to take care of themselves, they moved to a basement suite. However, there is very real fear in that family about where they go next if they cannot find more employment for the one partner who has been in waged employment. As he is working only one day a week, they can barely afford the rent on their basement suite. It is very easy for those of us in more fortunate circumstances to forget that some people fear every day that they will end up out of work, with kids and eventually be among those who are homeless.

At a time when unemployment is rising, Parliament needs to pay attention and the government needs to pay attention to all those families who are struggling every day to make ends meet.

In my community, since 2008, food bank use has increased by 15.5%. It means that during the last year over 19,000 people in greater Victoria accessed the food bank and, among those, according to the food bank's annual report, were 5,500 children. When we are talking about families in need, there are many more families in need every day in my community.

Forty-nine per cent of those people who visit the food bank are families with children. Many of those people have jobs, but they are working in minimum wage jobs and it is becoming impossible to make ends meet. I just saw statistics that in greater Victoria, one in six workers has two or more jobs to try to support his or her family.

Since 2010, we have the very unfortunate circumstance in my community that by March the food bank begins to run out of food. Looking at statistics across B.C., 38% of the food banks have been forced at some time to reduce the size of their hampers. The majority of food banks limit visits to one per month and provide hampers which will provide food for five days or less.

Yes, the bill goes in the right direction for a very limited number of families, but I want to see some action from the government in trying to find measures to help all those families in need across the country.

In particular, my concern about funding these measures goes back to the EI fund. I want to ensure that with what we are doing here we are not taking away with one hand what we have given with the other. We are taking money out of that EI fund to fund these new benefits, but at the same time, we see the government restricting the income of part-time workers by clawing back their income. When they finally find a job to supplement their EI benefits to try to keep a roof over their heads, the government is reaching into their pockets and taking money back.

We have to ensure there is not a contradiction in the way we finance this new benefit and in the needs of all those other families in times of rising unemployment. We are still awaiting action from the government as the recession deepens. We are still waiting for the government to provide some relief to those families who are facing unemployment.

In my community, unemployment rates this year have been steadily rising. We have seen a rise of more than .1% a month, starting last spring through the month of August. If this trend continues through the winter, we are going to have a lot more families in need in my community in particular, because in greater Victoria costs are very high.

I want to cite a report that was just published by the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness. It is called the “Quiet Crisis: Homelessness and At Risk in Greater Victoria”.

On any given night in my community, over 1,000 people are in temporary accommodation. During the last year in my community, shelters ran at 111% capacity, meaning people were actually sleeping on a mat on the floor. They did not have a bed in the shelter. During the year, 1,617 unique individuals use the shelters in my community.

What does that have to do with this bill? This is about helping families in need. Unfortunately, a lot of people who use the shelters in my community are families with kids. Why is that? On average, rents have increased more than 20% in my community in the last five years, yet the benefits that are available to people have not kept pace. People must earn significantly above the minimum wage in greater Victoria to be able to afford to keep a roof over their heads.

The Community Social Planning Council estimates it takes $18.07 an hour working 35 hours a week for a single parent with a child to keep a roof over their heads. That is almost double the minimum wage in Victoria, and that is if one is lucky enough to have a job.

Some 12.8% of households in my community have been evaluated as being in poor housing, meaning they are living in overcrowded housing or housing that is in disrepair, or they are spending more than 30% of their income on housing.

Again, I think the benefits in Bill C-44 are worthy of support by all members of Parliament. I think all Canadians have compassion for parents who are having to care for a critically ill child or who have lost a child through violence. There is no doubt about our willingness to support those things.

However, when we are having this kind of debate and taking these measures, I am asking that we keep in mind those many more families who struggle quietly every day to make ends meet, to take up their responsibilities by finding a job and ensuring that job will actually pay enough so that they can support their families in the long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition parties for their support of this very important piece of legislation.

One thing we all have to keep in mind is that a substantive portion of the bill is about critically ill children. It is about ensuring that those families are well supported when they absolutely need it the most.

I do not know if any members in the House have experienced receiving a telephone call, asking them to come to the hospital to see their child or grandchild, but it is a horrible circumstance, I am sure.

I would like to ask the member opposite why he wants to mix all the messages here. I think we are all in common agreement. We all believe this is something that should be moved forward expeditiously. Why is there all the mixed messages when we should be focused on ensuring that this happens as expeditiously as possible?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that I am not trying to give a mixed message on the benefits. As I have said, all Canadians have the compassion to want to assist families that are in the most dire crisis.

I am trying to point out that in my community there are many parents who worry every day about their ability to put food on the table and provide shelter for their kids. For them that is a crisis. They want to make sure they can actually make that happen. I do not think any of us here would diminish the angst they feel at the end of every month when the food starts to run out and they have to go to food banks, or when they wonder whether they are going to have enough money to pay the rent or end up in a shelter.

When we talk about families in need, I agree with providing benefits to this narrow range of families in severe crisis, but let us not forget the other families in need in all of our communities.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. This is not a partisan issue. All parliamentarians have been pushing for many years to provide benefits for families who have critically ill children. In terms of jurisdiction, there are very few areas where the federal government does anything directly for children, except first nations.

Yesterday the United Nations issued a scathing report on the government's attitude toward children in crisis and children in care. A lot of what was contained in that report came from first nations children themselves. Before Shannen Koostachin died, she told the government she was going to go to the United Nations and challenge it on its failure to read the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. After Shannen's death, first nations youth rose up and went to Geneva last February and explained to the world the abusive, negligent conditions in which first nation children live day after day in terms of substandard education and the failure in child welfare. Yet we see the government continue to spy on the people who are speaking out, like Cindy Blackstock, and continue to try to deny court cases.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why it is that in 2012 we are still having to fight for basic fair rights for first nation children so they are not treated as second or third class citizens in this country.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's dedication to making progress on aboriginal issues in this country is well known. I certainly thank him for his hard work.

I do not have the answer to his general question of why we failed so badly as a Parliament to address the needs of aboriginal people. When I look at those in my own community who use the food banks, only about 5% of the population of greater Victoria is aboriginal, but 15% of those who use the food banks are aboriginal. When we look at families that are in danger of becoming homeless, 12% of them are in danger, but aboriginal households make up a far higher percentage of those who are in substandard housing and are in danger of becoming homeless.

I come back to my point. Yes, let us help the families in critical need, but let us also go on to help the broad range of families, including aboriginal families, who through no fault of their own have trouble making ends meet and taking care of their children every day.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-44, which amends the Canada Labour Code to provide an employee with the right to take leave when a child of the employee is critically ill, passes away or disappears as the result of a crime. While this bill is a step in the right direction, it does not go nearly far enough to help thousands of Canadian families, many, for example, that must face chronic conditions or diseases day in and day out for life.

Perhaps the bill does not go far enough because key questions need to be asked about our nation's children. What is the state of childhood in Canada, and does anyone care? How much do federal and provincial governments spend on children in Canada, and does anyone know? How does Canada compare to other countries, and do we have the data? Who speaks for children and ensures that every child matters? Are children asked and listened to? Do we have the right government structure and policy agenda to ensure effective advocacy for children? Has there been enough serious public and political debate in Canada on the results of two key reports: UNICEF's “Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries” and the OECD's “Doing Better for Children”? Do decision makers really know what it is like to be young today? Is all well with services to support children's needs? Are children's rights taken seriously? Are children valued sufficiently?

Our children are the most precious resource of any nation. Ensuring every child is able to develop her or his full potential should be everyone's concern. We need change for children. We must put children at the centre of our policy. Nurture demands political advocacy for children's best interests starting with the basics of love and care and seeing through the eyes of children. That is why we so desperately need a children's commissioner in Canada, as the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie is advocating, who is independent and can speak for the most vulnerable in society.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international treaty, and governments give promises to children for protection, provision and participation through its 42 articles. Moreover, every government that signs the convention is held to account in a five-year periodic review process conducted by the UN. Canada is being reviewed right now. United Nations officials say they are concerned that vulnerable Canadian children may be falling through the cracks of a fractious federal system that lacks accountability and a clear strategy. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child said that Canada needs to raise the bar on how it protects the rights of children, especially when it comes to aboriginal, disabled and immigrant children.

I will provide two concrete examples of conditions that affect children for life, namely autism spectrum disorder, ASD, and fetal alcohol syndrome disorder, FASD, and what might be done to help these children and their families.

ASDs are pervasive disorders which affect one person in 110. They are characterized by social and communication challenges and a pattern of repetitive behaviours and interests. ASD is lifelong, profoundly affects development and life experience and exerts immense emotional and financial pressures on families. I have worked with children with ASD my whole life. I love my children but their families often struggle to get needed therapy, struggle for schools to understand and often fight tooth and nail for the help they need. In my riding, ASD is so prevalent among the Somali community that we have two Somali autism organizations. When I attend their summer picnic, there are over 100 teenagers. Most of them are non-verbal because their families who are newcomers to Canada cannot afford the tens of thousands of dollars for therapy each year. We have single moms with two and three children with ASD.

A bill such as this one would not help these families. It would do nothing to help one of our families whose son has broken his mother's nose three times because the family could not afford treatment. It does nothing to help a young woman who has finished high school and who has waited three years at home for a spot in college. It does nothing for a young teenager who has been shuttled from one school to the next or for the single mom who must stay at home to care for him.

Why the failure to act for these families? More importantly, what would help them? First and foremost, the Minister of Health should establish, in collaboration with the provinces and territories and relevant stakeholders, a comprehensive pan-Canadian ASD strategy based on the best available evidence, including awareness and education campaigns; child, adolescent and adult intervention; and innovative funding arrangements for the purpose of financing therapy, surveillance, respite care, community initiatives and research.

I have worked with practitioners and researchers across this country to develop ASD motions 375 to 380. Bill C-219 also calls for the establishment of a national strategy for ASD.

A second concrete example of a condition that affects children for life is fetal alcohol syndrome disorder, FASD. To the child who was exposed to alcohol in utero, the mother's drinking during pregnancy can cause miscarriage, stillbirth or, worse yet, a range of lifelong disorders known as FASD. When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, so does her unborn baby. Children with FASD might have the following behavioural problems: poor coordination, hyperactive behaviour, difficulty paying attention, poor memory, learning disabilities, poor reasoning and judgment skills.

The government should recognize that FASD is a complex biomedical and social problem and that adequate support is required for families, communities and within caregiver and education systems. Most important, it should recognize that children born with FASD should be afforded supports that will give them the best chance at a life equal to those of other Canadian citizens.

Should the government be interested in learning more about what could be done to help these children, who suffer through no fault of their own, I have worked with practitioners and researchers across this country to develop motions 343 to 350 and would ask that the government study them.

Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

Children have the right to say what they think should happen, when adults are making decisions that affect them, and to have their opinions taken into account.

This means participation and not consultation. Participation means that children and young people are seriously engaged in making decisions that affect their lives. Consultation implies that adults merely ask questions and adults decide.

How many bills have children and young people participated in? Perhaps I should ask, for how many have they even been consulted? Merely asking children and young people, and ticking a box is simply not good enough. What, if any, feedback has been provided to them on how their views have been considered, let alone the impact they have had in changing policy or practice?

In closing, I wonder if children and young people are being meaningfully consulted by the government and what they would be asking for. Perhaps it is time we put the right structure in place so we can meaningfully consult.

We need federal and provincial concerted advocacy, effective advocacy, for children: a cabinet-level minister for children and young people, a cross-government policy agenda, a commissioner with clout and power, a clinical director in government responsible for children's health, and appropriate financial underpinning.

Is it not time we listened to the voice of the child in Canada?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my hon. colleagues call for action for children. The only question I would have for her is this.

We already have the standards. Canada is a signatory to the rights of the child convention, just as every other country in the world is. Yet Canada has systematically ignored the rights of the child convention, systematically ignored the basic needs of children on isolated first nation communities and has left children in negligent systemic abuse decade after decade. This is not just the present government. This is going back over the course of the last century.

We see a court case before us now where the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society is challenging the government on the systemic apartheid that exists when it comes to child welfare, where first nations children are given much lower funding than children in provincial systems. It is the same in education. Yet instead of working with the children, we see the government opposing them and undermining them using spin doctors.

Yesterday the United Nations hammered Canada for its failure to live up to the rights of the child convention, as a direct result of the voices of first nation children who had to go all the way to Geneva to plead their case.

Therefore, I ask my hon. colleague this. Why does she think it is that our children are having to go to Europe to ask that Canada represent the rights of children, while the government continues to stand in their way and refuses to act?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we must respect that convention. It is unconscionable that in a country like Canada our first nations children and hundreds of thousands of Canadians go to school hungry. It is unconscionable that in a country like Canada we have tuberculosis rates on first nation reserves that are equal to that of sub-Saharan Africa. Canada must do better.

I will just talk a bit about FASD, which is also a huge issue. It is estimated that one in a hundred children are born with FASD. This is likely a conservative estimate as most people are never diagnosed. When a child is born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder the bills pile up: extra visits to the doctor, psychiatric care, special education fees, foster care, prisons and policing, damaged property, lost wages.

According to one study, Canadian taxpayers and families shoulder a burden of $5.3 billion each year just for the health care, education and social service needs of people living with FASD. It is the leading cause of developmental and cognitive disabilities in Canada.

It is entirely preventable. If children are assessed and diagnosed early in life, it is also potentially treatable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, I appreciate the caring attitude the member has toward the children of our country.

As for whether the Liberal Party will be supporting the legislation, I would ask her if she could provide further comment on the lost opportunities of not being more aggressive in looking for other ways to enhance employment insurance so it takes into consideration, for example, people who are terminally ill in a home environment, and how that should have been incorporated into the legislation.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is important. It is about changes to the Labour Code, the Employment Insurance Act and the Income Tax Act, which is an important step. However, we need to be addressing wider issues.

The UN has been clear that children with disabilities are falling through the cracks, so I would like to provide a third example, that being cerebral palsy, which is a group of disorders affecting body movement and muscle coordination due to an insult to the developing brain.

At its most severe, CP results in virtually no muscle control and profoundly affects movement and speech. These effects may cause associated problems such as difficulties in feeding, poor bladder and bowel control, breathing problems and pressure sores. People with CP have a normal life expectancy and their families need real help.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

I am pleased to speak today to debate Bill C-44, which proposes changes to the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act. I am even more pleased that this government has finally proposed some real solutions that will help improve the living conditions of many families and will ease the burden on other families.

These new measures will finally give a bit of respite to families and will enable workers to take a break and receive employment insurance benefits if their children are seriously ill, disappear or are killed as a result of a crime. In this specific case, support for this bill goes far beyond differing ideologies and partisan politics. It is a matter of helping the families who need help, which should always be at the heart of the concerns and actions of every politician.

When it comes to supporting Canadian families in an economically responsible way, especially when these families are struggling, the NDP is always there to support these measures. However, after having examined the bill we are currently debating, I believe that certain proposals could be slightly amended or improved. I will use my time today to share my thoughts with the government.

First, let us look at what has been proposed. More specifically, Bill C-44 proposes a series of amendments to the Canada Labour Code to increase leave for parents. For example, it would allow parents to extend maternity and parental leave for the weeks during which a child is hospitalized. It would allow parents to extend parental leave by the number of weeks of sick leave taken during the parental leave, as well as during participation in the Canadian Forces Reserves. It would allow for unpaid leave of up to 37 weeks for parents of children with serious illnesses. It would allow unpaid leave for parents of children who are killed as a result of a crime—104 weeks—or who disappear as a result of a crime—52 weeks. Lastly, it would allow parents to extend, by 17 weeks, the unpaid leave period that may be taken as a result of illness and injury, without worrying about losing their job.

The NDP will always be the party that sides with Canadian families. Therefore, we are in favour of what has been proposed by the Conservatives today. It is also important to note that some of these measures, or similar measures, were already presented during previous parliaments in private members' bills from NDP members, who saw some flagrant injustices in the current system.

Before I address the concerns I have regarding this bill, I would also like to commend this initiative for the support it provides to the families of missing and murdered children.The Canadian Police Information Centre reported that, in 2011, 25 kidnappings were committed by strangers and 145 were committed by parents. This is completely unacceptable and I hope this measure will be able to provide some relief.

Another aspect of this bill needs to be discussed at length. Bill C-44 also makes changes to the Employment Insurance Act, which will allow claimants to combine only special benefits. We know that maternity, parental and sick benefits together form a special category of employment insurance benefits, and that the benefits paid out when someone loses their job are considered regular benefits.

In the past, EI claimants were not allowed to combine both kinds of benefits. Bill C-44 creates a new benefit that can be combined with other special benefits in the system, but only in the case of the parents of gravely ill children.

This initiative is, in itself, good news, but I think we need to ask ourselves why the government did not go further in its proposal by offering protection to women who lose their jobs after returning from parental leave.

There is a real legislative black hole in that regard, which is negatively affecting many Canadian families. I was made aware of this problem in recent months after hearing some very sad stories about women who returned to work only to be told that they were being laid off because their position had been eliminated or because the company underwent restructuring.

This terrible situation has happened to many women, including some residents of my riding of Charlesbourg, who feel they have been treated unfairly by a system they have paid into their entire working lives, before taking a break in order to start a family.

Why do the Conservatives not extend coverage to new mothers? It is obvious that the government is missing out on a good opportunity to support mothers who are working hard for fair access to employment insurance.

Why does Bill C-44 only apply to special benefits? Why does it not allow women returning from parental or maternity leave to receive regular benefits if they return to work and discover that they have been laid off or that their job has been eliminated?

The government should answer all these questions. This measure will not cost a lot. This does not happen often, but it has serious consequences for those families affected.

In short, the NDP believes that this bill does not go far enough and does not permit special and regular benefits to be combined.

The NDP will continue to fight for a woman's right to access employment insurance benefits if she loses her job immediately after her parental leave has ended.

Another thing we should discuss is the fact that, in their 2011 platform, the Conservatives promised that funding for this measure would come from general revenues and not employment insurance premiums. From what I understand, the benefits for murdered and missing children will be funded by general revenues and not employment insurance. However, it seems that the Conservatives have ignored their promise to pay benefits to parents of seriously ill children out of general revenues.

This measure would be covered by the employment insurance fund to which employees and employers contribute. This is completely different from what the Conservative's proposed in their platform.

In my opinion, this broken promise raises concerns. It is by far the most costly measure in the bill, and the Conservatives' proposal comes at a time when the employment insurance fund has a cumulative deficit of $9 billion.

We will have to give some thought to how to fund the excellent initiative that this bill proposes. I think that the money should come from the general revenue fund, which is what the Conservatives promised in their election platform.

I think it is also worth mentioning what a shame it is that, despite having introduced this bill, the government has so far avoided giving any thought to the greater problems facing the employment insurance system as a whole.

Currently, less than half of all unemployed Canadians receive employment insurance benefits, even though everyone contributes to the fund. In July 2012, 508,000 Canadians received regular employment insurance benefits. There were 1,377,000 unemployed Canadians during that same month. That means that 870,000 unemployed Canadians did not have access to employment insurance benefits even though they contributed to the fund.

A comprehensive reform of our shared employment insurance plan is therefore long overdue. EI is a social safety net that all workers and employers contribute to, and they have the right to expect support when they are in need at some point in their lives. The NDP will continue to fight for a fair, accessible and effective employment insurance system for unemployed Canadians.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for this bill, but I hope that the Conservatives will be open to true dialogue and the constructive exchange of ideas in the interest of refining the proposals made here today so that Canadians can have the best possible system.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague highlighted the fact that the Conservatives promised, in their 2011 platform, not to take part of the money already in the employment insurance fund and transfer it to another benefit, but to take the money from the general fund. They must not dip into the employment insurance fund yet again.

The Conservatives estimate this new benefit, which we support, at $30 million a year. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

Does she think the government intended to keep its promises by using the money of the employees and employers who contributed to this fund?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. During the last election campaign, the Conservatives promised that the employment insurance fund would be financed out of the general fund and not by the contributions. As the member said, the fund is financed by employers and employees. It must not be used to finance all of the programs that are implemented. There are programs that must be financed by the general fund, and that is the case here.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that we on this side of the House support these changes to the Employment Insurance Act. They will help Canadian families at a time when they need the benefits the most.

Many people have come to my riding office who have told me they are not getting their benefit in time and cannot get access by phone. There are many cases of people waiting months to receive their first EI benefit cheque, and this from a fund they have paid into and unfortunately have to access after losing their job.

I wonder if my colleague could tell me about her experience in her riding. How are people being affected by these drastic changes to EI and the service cuts that were part of omnibus Bill C-38?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent question. This is unprecedented. Canada is currently experiencing a disastrous situation. No one is answering the phones at Service Canada anymore. There have been so many cuts to staff that sometimes there is only one employee left for an entire region, and that person is wondering how he or she is going to meet the demand. One employee can see nine people over the course of a day. This includes all those who have difficulty filling out their applications, those who have a disability and those who cannot read. We are seeing this more and more in our ridings. Employees will be under the same pressure to respond to the needs of Canadians across the country. It is false to say that everyone is able to use the Internet effectively.

Since I have time, I am going to talk about a woman in my riding. She has a doctorate and is thus extremely intelligent. She has a young daughter under the age of two who has scoliosis. This woman constantly has to leave the labour force and then try to find another job. She does what she can, but this is a black hole for her. She completed a doctorate so that she can teach one day. She wants to work, but she is in the difficult position of having a child that is sick.

I hope that this bill, for which I must congratulate the Conservatives, will be able to meet some of this woman's needs. However, it does not go far enough because every eight months she has to return to the hospital with her child, who has setbacks.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today 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 and to express my support for this bill at second reading.

New Democrats have long been calling for changes to the current EI system, as well as support for families who find themselves in the situations that are identified in the bill. The NDP is the only party that calls for extending EI stimulus measures until unemployment falls to pre-recession levels. We called for eliminating the two-week waiting period for people to qualify for EI benefits, returning the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work regardless of the regional rate of unemployment, raising the rate of benefits to 60% rather than what it is today and improving the quality and monitoring of training and retraining across the country, so that individuals have the ability to improve their skills while they are on EI benefits.

Though I am going to be speaking in support of the bill today, what I do find somewhat troubling is that the government is still choosing to ignore the largest problem with our current EI system. As of July 2012, four in ten unemployed Canadians are actually eligible for EI, which means 60% of the people who are unemployed are not receiving EI benefits because they do not qualify. They are part-time and temporary workers, people who are forced into many precarious forms of employment.

Further to this, the funding used to provide the support promised in this legislation to these families is actually going to be coming from EI premiums rather than the general revenue fund, which is exactly what the Conservatives promised in their 2011 election platform. They said it would come from the general revenue fund rather than the EI fund. Not only is this an example of the government breaking yet another election promise, but this is by far the most expensive option and comes at a time when the EI account has a cumulative deficit of $9 billion.

With that in mind, I must also add that the EI program is not one that the government has been paying into. It is one that only employees and employers pay into, and yet the government has decided to have these special benefits come from the EI fund rather than the general revenue fund, as it promised.

Keeping in mind what I just mentioned, I do not think it is appropriate that the funding for this comes from the EI program or that EI is the appropriate vehicle to deliver these special funds. It leaves out a large portion of Canadians who will not have worked the 600 hours that are required to make them eligible for the program. Once again, EI is not a fund that the government pays into. Only employers and employees pay into it.

While this bill addresses some of the issues with the current EI system, it leaves out a large proportion that could be easily changed and would further help parents and families. This bill does not address layoffs during parental or maternity leave. If a woman is laid off by her employer during the time she is on maternity leave, it does not address that situation. Largely it does affect women. Only women are eligible for maternity leave. Women generally take parental leave after the initial maternity leave is complete, so it also does not address the issue of being able to stack any EI regular and special benefits. If I, as a young woman, am on maternity leave and my child becomes critically ill, the bill allows for the stacking of special benefits but does not allow for the stacking of special benefits on top of regular benefits.

New Democrats will continue to fight for an EI system that is fair, accessible and effective for all Canadians. That being said, the changes to this legislation, it goes without saying, will help ease the burden on some of the suffering parents and families who need help.

Across the country, we hear far too many stories of families struggling to make ends meet. With the suffering and emotional burden of a critically ill child or a child killed or missing through an act of violence, finances are the furthest thing from the minds of family members. This is when they need the support of family, friends and the community to come together. These families also need the support of the government to help them through this trying time.

While Bill C-44 does take a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough to support these families. I already mentioned that a large number of families would be left out, as they may not reach the required minimum 600 hours to qualify for EI, and the bill does not include any other support for these families. Also, EI benefits still amount to only 55% of a claimant's income up to a maximum of a certain amount. Furthermore, the bill will not help with the cost of drugs or child care services for other children who may not be ill.

These families also need a pharmacare plan and a catastrophic drug plan to help them through this difficult time, especially with a child who is going through multiple rounds of chemotherapy. Some catastrophic drugs are not covered under provincial drug plans.

Also somewhat problematic is that the bill does not address the concerns about the very black and white definition of critically ill or injured. As it stands, to qualify for these benefits a critically ill or injured child is one who faces significant risk of death within 26 weeks. While this keeps the number of parents eligible to use the program down, it also leaves out many families who are suffering through chemotherapy treatments or organ transplant programs. It also forces parents to make the very difficult admission that their child is likely to die within the next 26 weeks.

It is very unlikely that a parent would reach the stage where they would be able to make such an admission. We know that doctors are hesitant to make such a categorical statement. Families always want to remain hopeful that their child will turn the tide and do better. With the advancements in our medical system, it is completely reasonable that they would hold onto hope.

We have seen many illnesses that a decade ago were considered terminal become more and more treatable, and maybe even curable today. To force families into a position where they must make this categorical statement is quite unfair.

The bill includes a change to the Income Tax Act that would allow for a direct grant to the parents of a child missing on account of a suspected breach of the Criminal Code. While I am supportive of the creation of this much needed support for these families, I am left wondering why it would only be available to parents of children who go missing on account of a suspected breach of the Criminal Code. Why not all parents of missing children?

Regardless of why or how one's child went missing, the child is still missing. Do not all parents deserve and need government support during this trying time when they are frantically searching for their missing child?

I was happy to see the inclusion of changes to the Income Tax Act to allow for a direct grant to the parents of a murdered child. Members may know that this summer we saw alarming incidents of violence in communities in Scarborough, where I am from, and in the greater Toronto area.

One example was the Danzig mass shooting, which saw 23 people injured and two young people lose their lives, 14-year-old Shyanne Charles and 23-year-old Josh Yasay. This shooting and other acts of violence committed in our community are tragic. They have left the entire community and the city mourning the senseless loss of two bright young lives.

The families of these children need support that, unfortunately, was not available to them until now. I am happy that families in the future would have the ability to receive it.

I spent my summer talking to people in the area and the community. I heard time and time again that they wanted to see federal leadership to address violence in our communities and the root causes of crime.

While we know this is a great initiative by the government in taking steps to help the parents of murdered children, parents never want to have to bury their child in the first place. They want preventive measures so their child is not murdered through crime.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and all members of the House of Commons have seen the value of this legislation's specifics and ultimately want to see it pass. Having said that, there is some disappointment because there is good reason to do a lot more in looking at ways we can provide assistance on compassionate grounds.

For a good while the Liberal Party has advocated looking at seniors and people who are ill and who need family support and, ultimately, allowing people in the workforce the opportunity to provide care, maybe including some form of palliative care, by giving them access to employment benefits.

Could the member comment on that issue? Would she support providing employment benefits for a longer time to those who want to care for a sibling or parent who is terminally ill?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen some improvements in Bill C-44, and as my hon. colleague pointed out, we would like to see further changes that would help families in very difficult situations provide support for an elder in the family. As boomers age, we will see many more people in the sandwich generation taking care of their children as well as their elderly parents.

It would be a very welcome addition to see these type of changes to the EI system that would allow people who are taking care of their children as well as their elders to have these kinds of support.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are good changes that will help families in time of need and we fully support them. However, I want to highlight the bigger problem with the EI program. We have seen the gutting of the EI program by the Conservative government. Bill C-38 not only gutted the benefits paid to Canadians but also cut services for people who want to access these benefits.

I have seen this in Surrey North, where hundreds of people have come to my office. They struggle with the maze that is in place when phoning and getting either no answer or no live person answering. Not only that, but people are also having difficulty accessing the EI benefits they paid for. After two and a half months they have not received their first cheque. Under the Conservative government we have seen the highest personal consumer debt rate among all Canadians, so people who lose their jobs need the money to bridge that gap.

Has my colleague heard these sorts of complaints in her constituency?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard very similar stories in my constituency of Scarborough—Rouge River, but I must go one step further. We have extremely high levels of unemployment among adults and youth. My constituency has the highest youth to population ratio in all of the GTA and we know that youth unemployment is skyrocketing. It is the highest in our history and continues to skyrocket.

We know that 4 out of every 10 unemployed workers have not qualified for EI benefits as a result of the continued cuts and clawbacks and changes to the EI legislation from the omnibus Bill C-38, along with other changes that the Conservative government continues to make. These will continue to erode the benefits that employers and employees have paid for.

Finally, we have to remember that the EI benefits fund is one that only employers and employees have paid into, and if the government is not paying into it--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the bill, although I would say it is critical support. I say this because in many respects the bill is inconsistent, as some of my colleagues have already indicated, in terms of what benefits are covered for what people. I will speak to that concern a little bit.

I first want to acknowledge some of the very important aspects of the bill that we should celebrate and thank the government for moving on. Currently it is the case that employment insurance claimants can access sickness benefits and subsequently access parental benefits. However, at the moment, those same claimants cannot access sickness benefits during or right after they claim parental benefits, because of a technical problem with how the law works. Bill C-44 would amend this. It is extremely welcome and I thank the minister for moving on that.

The Canada Labour Code code changes that will protect the jobs of people who have taken time off work because a child has gone missing or, worse, been murdered as a result of a Criminal Code offence, or a suspected Criminal Code offence, are also welcome. We can all understand the deep trauma and debilitating effects on parents when a child is lost in that way. Therefore, making sure that they are not penalized in the workplace is very humane. The fact that it is 2012 and this is coming into effect only now suggests that many elements of good sense do, unfortunately, take a bit too long to make their way into our legal system. Nonetheless, I thank the minister for her earlier speech outlining this change in the law.

I would like to talk a bit about some of the problems. I mentioned inconsistencies in how this is being approached. Some of the inconsistencies stem from a general problem with our employment insurance and federal benefit system of approaching things in far too ad hoc, piecemeal a fashion, not looking at the overall picture and structural dimensions of unemployment and other related or similar causes for people needing assistance. Instead, we are ending up more and more with an employment insurance system that looks a bit like the tax code, which we are all so keen to attack for it being unprincipled and full of all kinds of piecemeal provisions, without any overarching coherence. Our employment insurance system is approaching that point, and although the benefits in Bill C-44 are very welcome, they add to this piecemeal, ad hoc approach.

Let me give a couple of examples of why we are concerned that something is being moved on but in an inconsistent way that speaks to the rather limited ad hoc approach the bill feeds into.

It is great that once the bill is passed, the labour code will protect the jobs of those who are employed. Obviously I am talking about parents who lose their children, where a child goes missing or is killed through a criminal offence. The labour code in these cases will protect the parents' jobs, and that is great. That should be the case. However, there is no good reason to tie the benefit itself, the grant to the parents, to the fact of someone being employed, especially when the funding is coming from general revenue and is not considered an employment insurance benefit. We do have a problem with the fact that not all the funding for the bill will come from general revenue, but at least this benefit, the benefit to parents who have a missing or murdered child, will come from general revenue. Therefore, there is no technical reason not to be consistent in who receives the benefit. Yet it is being treated as if it is somehow an employment insurance benefit, because it is being linked and limited to those who received $6,500 a year of earned income in the previous year before the benefit.

There is no logical reason why parents who lose children in the way this bill is contemplating merit the benefit if they have been employed in the past to a certain threshold level, while parents with lower incomes, who are unemployed or otherwise, would not qualify by this standard if they also lose a child in the exact same way. The trauma is no different. The debilitating effects are no different. The undermining of their responsibilities, even if they are not responsibilities in the workplace, is no different. Others have responsibilities in their lives, whether they are employed or not, that would be undermined, indeed made impossible to fulfill, if a child is abducted or worse, murdered.

Here are two examples that anybody could recognize as valid. There are stay-at-home parents who are not earning a formal income in the workplace. They are working and in this day and age we all recognize the fact that this is work. Many of us would hope that the system would eventually evolve to the point that this work would be recognized as a form of employment but at the moment that is not the case. There are stay-at-home parents who have other children they are taking care of or an elderly parent or they are trying to hold things together in the house, and they lose a child in the same circumstances as somebody who is employed or had been employed to the $6,500 rate.

The second example is of an unemployed parent who, according to our system and our cultural values, has to spend a lot of time looking for work. That is what we expect somebody to be doing. That person would be undermined by the same event in their life as somebody who is employed. Somebody who is employed would be affected by losing a child and the ability to get back into the job market would also be affected. That inconsistency is something I would love to see looked at in committee, especially because this would be funded from general revenue.

I forgot to mention at the beginning that, if possible, I would like to split my time with the member for Pontiac.

Here is another example of this inconsistency. Precisely why is the benefit to parents who lose a child limited to parents whose children are missing or killed only as a result of a suspected breach of the Criminal Code? Is there something quite arbitrary in drawing the line there? We all have no problem understanding the debilitating effects of crime. There is indeed something hard-wired in all human beings to perhaps react a bit worse when a crime has befallen our family; it is not just the loss of the child but how the child has been lost and I accept that distinction. Yet we can have as much trauma and debilitating effect when children go missing or are killed in other ways.

I draw on the very good speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. In her reply speech to the minister's introduction of the bill she put it so well when she said:

If I am understanding this right, if a family were to go wilderness camping, say, and their toddler wandered away from the campsite and ended up missing, the parents would not be eligible for any support during their time of frantically searching for their child. Why is that?

She went on to say:

Did the government's need to feed the rhetoric of its law and order agenda take precedence over good public policy here? I am simply not understanding why the Criminal Code caveat was deemed necessary to add in this bill.

I echo this concern. As the minister said in the House yesterday, it is not adequate to say that it was judged to be a good public policy because of response to consultations with Canadians. Surely Canadians, upon reflection, would not begrudge extending the benefit to analogous circumstances. Are Canadians so fixated on a crime agenda that they would not see the inconsistency? I very much doubt it.

I end here because I want to hear what my colleague from Pontiac has to say after I take a few questions.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP members for their support for this important piece of legislation. However, I do want to point out perhaps some of the falsehoods that I keep hearing in some of their speeches. They keep claiming that only 40% of workers are eligible for EI. This is clearly wrong; 84% of Canadians are eligible for EI and those who are receive EI benefits. I just want to state that for the record.

Could the member opposite comment on how important these benefits are for families who truly need them?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but agree and echo the fact that for the families receiving these benefits, they are absolutely important.

My only point, made with some considerable emphasis in my speech, was that other families in directly analogous circumstances would equally benefit from and welcome the same benefits. That was my only point.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a small step in the right direction. However, the Conservatives have taken giant steps backwards when it comes to Canadians getting benefits and how they qualify. During the time Canadians are getting benefits, if they want to work part-time or earn extra income, the Conservatives are cutting back on the take-home pay people are able to make.

I have watched Conservatives in this House as they constantly play with the numbers. We are seeing that right now. In fact, 40% of unemployed Canadians receive benefits. The other 60% are not receiving any EI benefits at all.

Bill C-38 and the cuts Conservatives brought in to services and benefits are a big issue.

Would my colleague agree that this is a small step in the right direction to help families, yet the Conservatives have taken large steps backwards in providing benefits to the unemployed?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree that that is generally the case.

On behalf of my party, I would ask that, as we continue with question period, we get some straight answers from the minister on what the latest changes in the EI system actually mean. We have heard some backing away from her earlier statements to make it look like the new system is 100% good with respect to receiving income while on employment insurance, only to have some fudging in the last question period.

This is an example of why Canadians are losing trust in our political system. We are getting answers that appear to be inaccurate, and then we are not hearing a straightforward acknowledgement when a mistake has been made. If the minister continues to mislead Canadians, I think we are going to have a problem.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member has to update his information. He alluded to the fact that there was some discrepancy between what he said and what the minister said this morning. I quote, “People on parental leave from their employer are not considered to be available for work, so they do not qualify for sickness benefits.”

That is old information. Under this bill, the government is waiving, and taking out, in other words, this requirement for parents receiving EI parental benefits so that they can qualify for sickness benefits if they fall ill subject to remaining qualification criteria. The new data is here. It is noteworthy and should be on the record.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to correct the record. I was actually complimenting the government for that exact change. What I was speaking about at the beginning of my speech was the current law. Until this bill is passed, it is not the current law. I was saying the current law is as the member described but that the law will change, and I was thanking the minister.

There is no need to correct the record, because I was completely accurate.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to contribute to a very important debate and to express my support at second reading for 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. This bill is important because it can help all parents who are in a very difficult situation through no fault of their own.

Members may know that I am the proud father of two young girls, Sophia and Gabriella, and even though they are in very good health, thank God, as a father, I am very concerned about this issue. It is not always easy to be a parent nowadays, and it must be much harder when one's children are critically ill.

I believe that this bill can alleviate the suffering of parents who are in need because their child is critically ill or has disappeared or, worse still, died as the result of a crime. It is important to implement measures that can alleviate parents' suffering at such times. That is our duty as compassionate human beings. It simply makes no sense for parents and families not to have access to reasonable government support so that they can take care of their children during very difficult times.

More and more, the sad reality is that informal caregivers are being abandoned and yet are becoming the backbone, albeit invisible, of our health care system. They must take on various crucial roles, including the care of children, aging parents or other family members who need support as a result of injuries, chronic illness or serious disability. They are even more important in the current context, since investments in health care are clearly insufficient and are being increasingly challenged by this government.

For instance, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition estimates that over 5 million Canadians are currently providing unpaid care to loved ones, many of whom are children and family members.

As an elected official, I am here to say that we absolutely must do more for these people. They deserve to have an accessible employment insurance system that addresses the various problems I just mentioned.

The facts are astonishing. Serious unintentional injuries are not only a significant cause of death for Canadian children, but also the leading causes of morbidity and disability for children and youth in Canada. Many people do not know this. They account for 15% of the hospitalizations of children under the age of 12.

Furthermore, many of the issues of ill health and disease that children live with, although not fatal, are of serious concern. Some are of concern specifically in the childhood years, while others can have serious repercussions for these children when they reach adulthood. Consider, for instance, asthma, diabetes and cancer, which are all becoming more common among children. Every year, an average of 800 children under 15 are diagnosed with cancer, and 150 of them will die from the disease. Cancer is the second leading cause of death among Canadian children.

Fortunately, however, there is hope. Over the past 30 years, the survival rate for young cancer patients has improved significantly, increasing from 71% in the late 1980s to 82% in the early 2000s. Fortunately, the five-year survival rate has increased for many types of childhood cancers.

However, even if I support this bill at second reading, I do not believe that it goes far enough in addressing all the problems we have with our employment insurance system, which must be reformed no matter what it takes.

For example, women who lose their jobs immediately after their parental leave ends should have the right to obtain employment insurance benefits. This bill does not go far enough in this regard. Why do we not allow women to receive regular employment insurance benefits and why do we not allow the stacking of special and regular benefits? That would make sense.

It seems to me that the government also missed a good opportunity to help hard-working mothers obtain more justice with regard to eligibility for employment insurance.

I am also disappointed that Bill C-44 is limited to special benefits. It seems that the government is avoiding addressing recurrent problems with the employment insurance system.

The sad reality is that, of the 1,370,000 unemployed workers in Canada in July 2012, only 508,000 received regular employment insurance benefits. That means that 870,000 unemployed Canadians did not receive employment insurance benefits. In fact, fewer than four in 10 unemployed workers are receiving employment insurance benefits, a historically low level in this country. That is completely unacceptable. Basically, it means that there is hidden poverty and that this type of poverty is on the rise in our society.

Clearly, we must continue to fight for an employment insurance system that is fairer and more accessible and effective for all unemployed Canadians.

However, this bill does go ahead with significant reforms that I support, for example, the reforms related to families of murdered or missing children. I support this bill so that families do not have to worry about money when confronted with such difficult situations that are almost impossible for us to imagine.

For parents of young children who are not lucky enough to be in good health as mine are, I support the initiative to extend parental leave and provide financial benefits to parents whose children are sick and whose priority must be parenting. They should not have to worry about money at a time like that, but should be able to focus on being a parent.

I also support the measure to combine special employment insurance benefits if a parent becomes ill or is injured while on parental leave. This would mean that parents would not have less time to spend with their children at the very moment when parents and children need to spend more time together.

Although the bill would not do everything that perhaps myself or my party would like, it would do some key things on a fundamental humanitarian basis.

As a father of two young girls, I cannot imagine being in a situation where one of them falls terminally ill or is victimized by a violent crime. I cannot imagine being in that situation but I know a number of my own constituents who are. They expect their elected officials to be compassionate and to make changes in laws and regulations so that they could be supported financially by the state at such a difficult time. That is the fundamental motivator behind the bill and that is the reason I am proud to stand up for my constituents to support it at second reading.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague from Pontiac comment a bit on the structural situation we find ourselves in financially with employment insurance?

We have talked a lot about inconsistencies and about the need to have a broader federal approach that is humane, but it is the case that we lost a huge amount of money from the employment insurance fund under previous governments, Liberal and Conservative. It was only in 2010 that the employment insurance fund went back to a separate operating fund. A surplus of $57 billion was drawn down and not put back in before the Conservative government created a new, slightly better system than the Liberals had left.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on our ability to make employment insurance work in terms of--

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

It was done under the advice of the Auditor General. You should get the facts straight.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I will end my question because I was trying to catch what the peanut gallery behind me was saying.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the principle here is simple: Who pays into employment insurance? Who owns that money? The reality is that the workers of this country own that money. To have governments pull workers' investment in employment insurance is tantamount to theft. The reality is that this began a long time ago with the Liberals. The two traditional parties are not blameless in this situation.

We in the NDP start with the principle that the EI fund is Canadians' money, that it is up to Canadians to draw on it when they need it and that they do draw on it most of the time when they need it, which is absolutely normal.

I would like to answer my colleague's question a bit more. The other change with regard to employment insurance that frustrates me is how it attacks the possibility for seasonal workers to make their living. Seasonal workers in my riding are essential, whether they be in the forestry industry, the food industry or the agricultural industry. Those seasonal workers need to be able to work within their expertise.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at times, the holier-than-thou attitude that the New Democrats have on social programs is, unfortunately, not well grounded. While the member chooses to criticize the Liberal Party, he should also be aware that it was the Liberal Party that created the program. If he wants to talk about criticizing the worker and the average individual, he should take a look at workers' compensation, for which the provinces are responsible, and he will see the abuse that the New Democratic government of Manitoba has inflicted on the workers in Manitoba by cutting them off from those funds.

I would suggest that the member not throw stones in glass houses because he will find that the windows will break and cave in on the New Democratic Party.

This bill deserves the support of all political parties inside this chamber because it expresses compassion to those who need it. The real issue is whether we should be looking at ways to extend that compassion. We in the Liberal Party believe the answer to that is yes.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the assumption by the hon. member in his question is that we in the NDP live in a glass house, but we do not. Our house is solid. We have always supported social programs that are robust and help reduce income inequality in this country. We are not the party that took $57 billion out of the EI fund. The only party that did that is the Liberal Party. That is why we are $9 billion in debt.

The thing about the Liberals is, as the old saying goes, they put signal left but they turn right. There is a complete inconsistency fundamentally in their ideology because they have none. It would be nice for a Liberal on that side of the House to stand up for something for once.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I will begin by stating that I will be supporting Bill C-44. Perhaps some of my colleagues have children, and they know as well as I do that the most difficult thing in the world is to watch their child suffer or to learn that their child has suffered. I do not even want to imagine what a parent goes through when their child disappears or dies as a result of a crime. It is far too painful. A mother or father never recovers from such a blow, and it must take a long time for the pain to subside even a little. I still think of my grandparents, who died 25 or 30 years ago, and that is nothing compared to the loss of a child.

Bill C-44 will allow parents who go through such turmoil and grief to take the time to heal a little before returning to work. It will also prevent them from suffering serious financial difficulties in the meantime. Parents of a seriously ill child will be able to take the time to be with their child during that difficult period. When my children were young, one of them played baseball with a young boy whose younger brother had a serious illness. The little brother was about five years old. He was being treated and often stayed in hospital. You do not leave a five-year-old child alone in the hospital. Both parents had used up their holidays and other leave, but the illness obviously did not go away by the time they had exhausted their leave. They had to ask for unpaid leave. Their finances suffered and they were afraid of losing their jobs. That is exactly the kind of family that could have benefited from leave with benefits.

Helping parents in such a way is an excellent initiative. However, I find it somewhat maddening that the Conservative government is prepared to amend the Canada Labour Code to help one group of parents but not another. When the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie wanted to bring changes to the same code to protect pregnant or nursing women, the Conservatives slammed the door in his face. This really smacks of partisanship and cynicism. The purpose of his bill was to prevent miscarriages and health problems in newborns by ensuring that pregnant and nursing women whose jobs fall under Canada Labour Code jurisdiction were not subject to dangerous situations at work.

Why show kindness and common sense to one group of parents, but not to another, when in both cases, we are talking about the life of a child or unborn child? The trauma is similar. It makes absolutely no sense. The only plausible answer to my question is that Bill C-44, which we are discussing today, was introduced by a Conservative minister, while Bill C-307, which sought to compensate and protect pregnant women and their unborn children, came from an NDP member. Is that what the Conservatives call democracy now that they have a majority? The public will remember that come 2015.

There is another problem. Just a year ago, when the Conservatives promised the public that it would help parents of murdered, missing or seriously ill children, they also promised to do so out of general revenues. That is what Bill C-44 proposes in the first two cases, but not in the third. Benefits for parents of sick children will be taken from the employment insurance fund. Why do I see a problem with that? There are many reasons.

First, the employment insurance fund has a deficit of $9 billion. Second, employment insurance money is supposed to be a safety net for unemployed workers. Third, once again, the Conservatives did not do what they said they would do.

Let us talk about my first point: the employment insurance fund has a deficit of $9 billion. The anthropologist in me would like to give a quick history lesson. In the 1990s, under a Liberal government, the state stopped funding employment insurance. Instead of having three contributors to the fund—the worker, the employer and the state—there were only two contributors, the worker and the employer. So the pot was already shrinking.

In the late 1990s, the Liberals took money that had been set aside for workers and rolled it into the general revenue fund to balance the budget. That money did not belong to the government because, as I just said, it had been contributed to the fund by workers and employers.

When the Conservatives came to power, they continued to chip away at the employment insurance fund. What a surprise it was when recently, there was no more money in the fund to pay claimants. The government had to increase workers' and employers' premiums. That is not fair. People paid for that insurance for years, and then they were told there was no more money and they would have to pay more if they wanted the benefits to which they were entitled.

If a private investor takes off with our savings, we call foul, but is it any different when the government does the same thing?

Second, I mentioned that the employment insurance fund is supposed to be a safety net for workers who lose their jobs. That is why it is called “insurance”. Maybe we should stop calling it “employment insurance” and start calling it “unemployment insurance” like in the old days because it is insurance against unemployment, not for or against employment.

The money in the fund comes from workers and employers and should be used when a person loses his job and has a hard time finding another one, or when the nature of his work does not make it possible for him to work all year long. Everyone knows what I am referring to because we have been talking about seasonal workers a lot lately.

This fund could be used to address a number of other problems directly related to employment. For example, over the years, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who was the NDP employment insurance critic, made dozens of proposals to expand the scope of the program. Less than four out of 10 unemployed people receive employment insurance benefits. This shows that there is a fundamental problem with the system. The money in the fund should be used to address these problems.

Benefits for parents of sick children should come from general revenues—as per the Conservatives' election promise—and not the employment insurance fund.

All the money pillaged from the employment insurance fund—$54 billion—could and should be used today to help workers affected by the latest economic crisis, those workers who recently lost their jobs as a result of all the Conservative government cuts. There are 300,000 more unemployed people today than before the 2008 crash.

To conclude, I support Bill C-44 because it supports parents going through painful times, and who should not have to add financial problems to their stress. However, I would like to ask the minister to keep the promises made by her party to use general revenues and not the employment insurance fund to cover these measures. I would also like to ask her to consult Canadians in order to learn about the real problems faced by thousands of unemployed people, in order to make reforms to the system that will make it fair for everyone. I can assure her that she will have the complete co-operation of the NDP for such a project.

Finally, I would also like to ask the government to show as much compassion for the parents of children who have disappeared in circumstances that are not related to a crime and also to caregivers who find it difficult to survive on the meagre resources currently provided by governments, as requested by the Canadian Palliative Care Association.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually noticed more or less the same thing. Earlier, I spoke about a problem with the bill on missing or deceased children where no crime has been committed. I feel as though there is a vacuum here. The answer that I got earlier from the Conservatives was that the today’s bill focuses on missing or deceased children where a crime has been committed. However, it is just as dramatic for a family when a child commits suicide, for example. No crime has been committed, but a child has died nevertheless. This program would not apply in such a case, because we are only talking about cases involving the Criminal Code, cases where a crime has been committed.

Does the member agree with me that the bill could be more inclusive and provide relief to grieving families?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Yes, I obviously agree with him when he says that there are gaps in the legislation. I support the bill, but I have already indicated that it has problems. In fact, that is precisely why I cannot understand why there are so few Conservatives rising to speak about the bill and support it. Is it because they are in the majority and they think that the bill will be adopted regardless, or is it because they think the bill is so perfect that there is no need to discuss it?

In my opinion, their way of thinking smacks curiously of 16th century colonialism where certain nations believed that their way of thinking was the only right way to think. I feel that history has proven that this was not a particularly enlightened way of thinking. One only need ask the first nations, for example.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very excellent speech, including the experiences of her constituents and her anthropological expertise.

My question to her is about some of the gaps I have identified as well. New Democrats will be supporting this bill because it is a welcome change from the constant cuts we see the government make. It is implementing some changes that some members on this side of the House have been proposing for many years. The specific question I have is about the inability to stack benefits. Even though we see the proposition in this bill of the ability to stack special benefits, such as maternity leave with the new grant or, if a child becomes ill, being able to stack those up to a maximum of 104 weeks, what will happen if somebody who is on regular EI benefits has a child who becomes ill?

The government seems to be very unclear and, in this bill, does not articulate whether a person who is already on regular EI benefits would be able to take time off to support his or her child. Would she like to see that type of broader change brought in to ensure that all families with children are included in this change in legislation?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her excellent question.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill favours certain groups, but unfortunately other groups have been forgotten. There is a distinction made between various groups of people. However, it would be really unfortunate if one particular group of people, a group of parents, for example, were forgotten when it would be so easy to make amendments to this bill.

The NDP is in favour of referring this bill to committee. I hope that the committee will consider all the issues raised by the NDP, including this one, and others raised by the Liberals. The committee will be able to make key amendments to ensure that all parents faced with difficult situations such as these might benefit from this legislation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in the House representing the people of the region of Timmins—James Bay. This debate is on Bill C-44, which would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Employment Insurance Act, the Income Tax Act and income tax regulations, to allow workers to take leave and draw EI at times of serious illness of their children or of a child who has disappeared or been killed as a result of a horrific crime.

This is the kind of debate that is instructive for Canadians, because they look more and more on this Parliament as an increasingly dysfunctional place, where people are trained like seals to speak through a little message box, to bark when they are told to bark and to stand when they are told to stand. Yet in this debate we see that this is where our expertise as members of Parliament really comes together, because there is not a member in the House who has not dealt with one of these instances or who has not sat down with a family member or a young mother whose child is going to CHEO in Ottawa or SickKids in Toronto, whose need for EI benefits is so obvious. They come to us. All of us across party lines have experienced a situation where we see the system and we see that people are falling through the cracks.

Therefore, I am glad that within this Parliament, which sometimes seems so fractious, we can show Canadians that this is the kind of work that gets done outside of the House within our offices and that we can come together and try to find some good solutions.

I think of the young people whom I have dealt with in my office. As the years go by I seem to have a little shrine for the little ones we have lost along the way, like Sylvain Noël, a wonderful young boy. I have a picture of him with us and the Timmins firefighters as they made him an honorary member just before he passed.

I think of young Trianna Martin, age four, who died in a house fire in Kashechewan when there was not a single firefighting unit in the community to save her. I have her picture.

I keep a picture of Charlie Hunter who died in a residential school and nobody even bothered to tell his parents. For 40 years his family worked to get that little boy's body home. I was so proud to be there when Charlie Hunter did come home.

I think if Courtney Koostachin from Attawapiskat, one of the many young people from the James Bay coast whom we see suffering with cancer. I have her picture.

Of course I have a picture of young Shannen Koostachin, who was the great youth leader from Attawapiskat.

I know each of their families and each of their stories. I think of the other young people who fortunately did get treatment and lived, but I also know the struggles the families went through, so this bill touches all of us.

The bill also speaks to a need to look at how the economy is structured in this country, because I have heard it said by some of my Conservative friends that technically there is no unemployment, rather there is just a gap between the market and services, as though people are just widgets and digits that we can move around: if we have a high level of unemployment in the Maritimes, just ship them to Fort McMurray and everything will be fine. However, we know that this blind belief in the market, to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, is really about being blinded by the horrible mysticism of money, that it is not just widgets and digits, that there are people and communities.

Employment insurance was part of the fundamental driver to build a sustainable economy in Canada. It is not a honey pot to be raided, as it was raided during the Paul Martin years to the tune of $50-something billion to be used elsewhere. It is not something to be seen by some, such as the present Conservative minister, as a disincentive wherein easy access to EI benefits allows people to stay on their couches. That is a misunderstanding of what insurance is. People have a right to free public health insurance. People have house insurance because they need insurance in times of need. Therefore, employment insurance, just like car insurance or house insurance, provides people access to it in time of need

Why is that important for the economy? At the present time, we are suffering through a long-drawn-out economic downturn. We have 1,377,000 Canadians out of work at this time. We must think of the effects of that on those families.

Up until the 1990s, if they paid into EI, or unemployment insurance as it was called then, which most of them would have done, 70% to 80% of those people would have been eligible for benefits. As the crash hit them, their families would have been cushioned until they managed to get a bit of breathing room and they moved, found other employment, or were retrained. However, of the 1.37 million unemployed Canadians right now, there are 870,000 who are not eligible at all.

When these people are not eligible, what happens is their savings are eaten up right away, and if they are still not working, they lose their other assets. That has a long-term impact on the economy because people are going from being contributing members to society to watching whatever security they have being eaten away. That is why EI is so important. It is to get people through that period so they can get back on their feet.

Bill C-44 plays a small but very crucial role for the families who at the time when they are receiving benefits, and again, only 40% of the people who are eligible are getting them right now, their child gets sick. We have seen this, where their benefits suddenly are not able to help.

With this bill we are seeing the recognition by all parties that within the statistics there are times when the role of government is to ensure that we are there for individuals. It is a basic principle of what good government is about. Good government is about setting policy that ensures we see the value of the individual citizens of the country. The government cannot do everything. That is understandable. It cannot serve all needs. In every one of our offices we meet people who would like government to do this, that or the other thing. It is simply not possible. However, we can set the terms to ensure that at specific times of crisis and need, the program will be there.

I cannot think of a situation harder for any family than the death or sickness of a child and the stress that it puts on the larger family. Not just looking at it from a social point of view, or from a moral point of view, but it has an impact as an economic driver. When a family is in crisis like that and more and more relatives are having to be drawn out of the workforce to help a young single mother or the family, it has an impact. The overall effect of the bill would not be large, but for the families affected, it could have a huge impact.

We have a number of questions about taking this bill to committee. We need to do due diligence with the bill. One concern the New Democrats have is the promise that the funding was going to come out of general revenues. Why is that important? The problem is that since the EI fund has been raided over the years and since we are in a major economic downturn, we are seeing a deficit in the employment insurance account. We want to make sure that it is sustainable. It has to be sustainable. Programs need to sustain themselves. We are concerned that if we are adding more draw on EI we are going to find ourselves with a greater deficit, and we are going to see the government turn around, tighten the screws and make eligibility requirements even more difficult. When only 40% of the people right now in a time of great economic distress are receiving EI benefits, we do not want a situation where the government comes back to us and says that the deficit is getting worse and we now have to deal with a new EI problem.

Within the House there should be the goodwill to ask how we ensure that employment insurance remains sustainable, how we keep it from being raided in the future and how we ensure that we have the programs in place to help the parents of sick children, or children who have been victimized, missing or murdered, that allows the family the space to grieve and to deal with that. How do we do that and sustain the program? That is our job as parliamentarians.

I look forward to the bill going to committee, hearing the witnesses and coming back with a final version of the bill that we can all look at.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think members of the House all agree that this is a small step in the right direction to help parents of young children who may be sick or victims of crime.

We are seeing the effects of Bill C-38, the omnibus crime bill, in our communities right now. In my constituency of Surrey North, I have seen people who are struggling to get their cheques on time. People are trying to speak to a live person on the other end of the phone line. People are struggling to qualify for these benefits that they have paid into. I heard from one of my constituents who has paid into the EI program for decades.

Is my colleague hearing that people are having trouble getting someone live on the phone? Is he hearing these sorts of complaints from his constituents?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to hear of that experience in a densely urban riding. My riding is larger than Great Britain. For the folks back home, it is cheaper for someone in Toronto to fly to Paris for the weekend than for a resident in Kashechewan to fly down to see me at my office. That shows the extent we are dealing with in our regions and we have no government services. The Conservatives pulled government services out. The MP's office is often becoming the point of contact in a vast region. We do our outreach clinics and we do what we can, but we are finding it is like one of those carnival huckster games. They say to people that all they need to do is call them, but good luck getting through, or go to the website and good luck getting an answer. We have seen people in desperate situations who actually are losing their houses because they are waiting to hear back and no one is calling them.

That is not part of the social contract that should exist between citizens and their government. If people have a right to a service, they should be able to receive it. Unfortunately, it has become a dead letter office for many people who need to access the services.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have introduced several bills which, in their opinion, will help victims. On this side of the House, we have trouble believing that these bills will help victims, especially Bill C-10. Of course, the bill contained a number of measures, but it did not seem to directly help victims. Finally, we have a bill that is going to do exactly that.

What distinction does my colleague see in the way that the Conservatives have tried to make people believe that they are really helping victims and what is actually going to help victims? Can the member do a better job of explaining this contrast?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We see a very politicized and dumbed down approach to crime. I have never seen people who want to hug thugs as much as that group does. The Conservatives hold them up and cannot get enough of them and yet their solutions seem to be so poorly thought out.

What is nice about this is for a change we see the meek and mild-mannered Conservatives are not even standing to speak to one of their few good pieces of legislation in the last six years. It is as though they are confused. They have come forward with a really good bill and something very reasonable, but they cannot froth at the mouth about it so they are all sitting there. They do not know what to do because they want to jump and down.

I would invite them to work with us, get a more progressive and positive attitude, get some better bills and get away from the crazy claptrap of the Conservative backbenches.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

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

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