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.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

Let me pivot to Bill C-44, which significantly expands CSIS' powers. First of all, the matter is now before committee. Have you been invited to appear and to comment on that particular piece of legislation yet, sir?

[Daniel Therrien]

In my opinion, Bill C-44 has an impact on privacy, in that it directly gives CSIS an extraterritorial mandate. That implies that information is being shared between the secret services and certain foreign agencies. That sharing of information is an issue that affects privacy very directly. That is where my concerns lie.

Obviously, CSIS already receives independent oversight from an agency called SIRC. However, as I'm sure you know, recommendations have been made about this. Particularly in the Arar case, Justice O'Connor highlighted the shortcomings in Canada's independent oversight mechanisms. He recommended that all government agencies involved in national security be subject to independent oversight, much like CSIS.

I would add that Bill C-44 deals with CSIS's mandate and, indirectly, the sharing of information by CSIS. However, it is important to know that the information obtained by CSIS is then shared with some federal organizations, which may not be subject to independent oversight. That is the case with the Canada Border Services Agency, for example. It is this lack of oversight by independent agencies that is worrisome.

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

Great. Thank you very much.

Many bills address privacy, including Bill C-13 and Bill S-4. Bill C-44 does not deal directly with privacy, but it expands the mandate of CSIS.

Are you concerned about the lack of parliamentary or civilian oversight related to expanding CSIS' mandate?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

If I may, I will read you one paragraph that I skipped over that I think responds to your question.

I value limited state intervention, but I also value peace, order, and good government. So when confronted with the rare and hard choice between individual freedoms, civil liberties, and privacy on the one hand, and public safety and collective security, it is within the federal government’s constitutional purview and obligation to err on the side of the latter, including foreign intelligence activity. The Canadian public gives Parliament and the security agencies that report to Canada’s political executive the benefit of the doubt.

I would go so far as saying that given the current global security environment, including the challenge of extremist travellers, the federal government has an obligation to Canadians to pass precisely the sorts of amendments that Bill C-44 proposes, and that those are in the vital interest of Canada and Canadians. Tactically, operationally, strategically, and fiscally, this is the sort of way to compensate for the limits on CSIS to engage in foreign human intelligence gathering.

In light of the current global security environment, it is vital that CSIS be able to conduct and have the capacities that are being introduced in sharing with foreign human and security intelligence so the Canadian government can realize its responsibilities.

[Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

I appreciate having the opportunity to speak with you all today, in person for a nice change, regarding your ongoing study of Bill C-44. I'm appearing today on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, an organization that represents over 54,000 front-line civilian and sworn police personnel serving Canada's communities from coast to coast to coast.

My opening statement will be quite brief this afternoon as I hope to leave enough time to answer any questions you might have. I'm going to focus particularly on the area of the protection of human intelligence sources by law enforcement in the course of our duties. That being said, this is my first opportunity to appear here in Ottawa since the tragic events that took place on October 22, which claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo only a few blocks from where we're sitting today. He was shot by a terrorist who would have claimed even more victims if not for the courageous actions of those who are sworn to protect Canadians. To members of the Ottawa Police Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the House of Commons Security Services, I'd like to offer my personal thanks for their efforts that day.

I raise this, particularly in the context of my appearance here today, to highlight the need to adapt our laws in this country to provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to combat the rapidly evolving threats that can very clearly cause tremendous danger here in this country. That is why we're quite pleased to speak in support of Bill C-44 here today.

One of the most important jobs that have been given to our national security services, which would certainly include both municipal and provincial police, is the gathering of the necessary intelligence that would eventually help our members prevent attacks from taking place within our communities. Gathering that intelligence, however, has never been more difficult. Technology has given criminals and terrorists rapidly evolving tools that often allow them to appear to be steps ahead of those who are working to protect Canadians. Whether it is in the national security context or dealing with local street crime, finding and protecting informants is often an invaluable tool for police when it comes to levelling the playing field and obtaining the intelligence necessary; and I firmly believe that Bill C-44 and the provisions within it that deal with the protection of sources will be a positive step in protecting Canadians.

I should also note, particularly with respect to informants, that their use often goes beyond one single case, and that fact underscores their continued importance and the reason so many efforts are taken to protect their identities. Compromising their anonymity can not only put their personal safety at risk but also jeopardize months' and sometimes years' worth of investigations and police personnel time.

Furthermore, informants would often be reluctant to step forward to provide valuable information to law enforcement without as many guarantees as possible regarding their safety and anonymity, as they are often called on to testify against those who may know them best—their former and sometimes even current colleagues, family members, and other people with whom they've developed relationships.

As I mentioned, I did want to keep my opening remarks brief as I understand members may have questions regarding the current practices within law enforcement in Canada, and I'll try to do my best to provide that information.

Once again, thank you very much for the invitation to appear today. I look forward to any questions you might have.

Opposition Motion—Federal Minimum Wage

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Helping Families in Need Act is aimed directly at families who are faced with critical life-changing circumstances in their lives. Our government recognized this. Our government came in with the families in need act and extended the ability for employees in the workforce today to deal with that situation by being able to leave their place of employment and not be fired or laid off as a result of that. That is one key, very important piece of our government's platform for the most vulnerable people in this country.

The second one, the wage earner protection program, protects workers from bankruptcies of companies that go bankrupt and do not have the funds to pay workers their severance, their vacation pay, or any back wages that were not paid. It was our government that brought this bill to the House of Commons, our government that passed it, whilst the opposition voted against it.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on that note I will ask to split my time with the member for Mississauga—Streetsville and I apologize to the Chair for not indicating that at an earlier point.

The earlier speaker from across the aisle was talking about our government having done nothing for workers. The wage earner protection program protects the wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay owed to workers if their employers go bankrupt or into receivership. This has benefited thousands of Canadians. The statistics are this. Since its inception in 2008 and up to July 31, 2014, more than 74,000 Canadians have received $174.8 million in WEP payments. This is the wage earner protection program that our government brought in as legislation, contradicting what was said earlier by the previous speaker. These are wages that are owed to employees by employers who became bankrupt or went into receivership.

To further support employees in the federal jurisdiction we implemented the Helping Families in Need Act. This gives employees the right to take unpaid leave if they have a child who is critically ill, is missing, or has passed away as a result of a probable criminal offence. It is clear that in recent years we have expanded the labour standard protections for all employees in federally regulated enterprises because we have their best interests at heart.

The question of reinstating a federal minimum wage is a moot point. Establishing the minimum wage lies in the capable hands of our provincial and territorial governments who are better positioned to apply a local lens to such policy decisions. Workers in the federal jurisdiction are getting a fair wage under a system that works. There is simply no reason to change it. Therefore, that is why I propose to defeat the motion and I ask the support of my fellow members.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the discussion of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, proposing that the federal minimum wage be raised. For a number of very good reasons already mentioned, I do not support the motion. Not the least of those reasons is the simple fact that since 1996, the federal minimum wage has been paid to the provincial and territorial minimum wage in which the employee is working, so why should we change it now so that employees in the federal jurisdiction can have a higher minimum rate of pay than those in the provincial areas of jurisdiction?

The opposition's argument is that increasing the rate on the federal side will make the provincial governments fall into line and raise their rates to catch up, but the federal government cannot just tell the provincial governments to raise their minimum rates, nor can we be certain that the provinces would follow suit if the federal rate were raised. That is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Perhaps more important is the fact that the greater expertise in the area, particularly with respect to knowledge and understanding of local and regional conditions, lies with the provincial governments. In fact, provincial governments, for the most part, closely study and analyze the whole range of local and regional issues, including poverty levels, unemployment rates, job opportunities, average wage levels, and so on, before making changes to the minimum wage level.

Hon. members may know that over the past few years all provinces and territories have increased their minimum wage rates, in many cases after reviews by minimum wage boards or independent experts. In fact, several provinces have legislation stating that minimum wages must be reviewed every one or two years. Even those provinces without legislative requirements tend to adjust their minimum wage rates on a regular basis. In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan have all announced that they will increase their minimum wage on October 1, 2014. A recent Statistics Canada study has shown that the average growth in the minimum wage across Canada in the past decade has outstripped the rate of inflation.

I also want to point out that increasing minimum wage levels is not the only tool, and not a particularly sharp one, that governments can use to help low-income individuals and families to improve earnings and their standards of living. On the federal government side, these tools include billions of dollars in benefits given to individuals and families every year. I am referring to programs like the Canada child tax benefit; the Canada pension plan; the guaranteed income supplement; the EI program; maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits; the GST/HST credit for those with low incomes, and many more.

I list these few examples just to make the point that there is a great deal more to how we support and protect Canadian workers and families than just a band-aid short-term stunt adjusting the minimum wage. Economic growth and job creation, the top priorities of this government, are what have helped us build a strong and growing economy. They are what will continue to sustain us in the years ahead. Indeed, we are doing much better in that regard than many of our trading partners.

Since the recession a few years ago, we have had steady job growth, low interest rates, and growth rates that are the envy of many other countries. We believe that getting the economic essentials right will continue to keep us on the right track for even greater levels of prosperity and growth in the years to come.

As we all know, the best way to help improve Canadian workers' income is through the creation of good, well-paying jobs. One good example of how we can make adjustments to improve economic prospects is the recent announcement by the Minister of Finance of the small business job credit. This new credit will effectively lower EI premiums for small businesses by 15% over the next two years. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the credit will create 25,000 person-years of employment.

The minister also confirmed that in 2017, EI premiums would go down from the current $1.88 per $100 of earnings to $1.47 per $100 of earnings. This is excellent news for both workers and small business employers.

Our government will also continue to make specific changes and adjustments to a variety of programs to support workers and their families. Chief among them is making sure that all workers who come under federal jurisdiction have a safe and healthy workplace, equal opportunity for hiring and advancement, and the right to engage in a fair and balanced bargaining process.

Since being sworn in, our government has steadily increased occupational health and safety protections and improved working conditions for all employees under federal jurisdiction. This government implemented the wage earners protection program that protects the wages, vacation pay, severance pay and termination pay owing to workers whose employers go bankrupt or into receivership. This government brought in the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, which changed the Canada Labour Code to ensure employees who lose their jobs cannot be deprived of severance pay just because they happen to be entitled to a pension. This government brought in the Helping Families in Need Act that allows employees under federal jurisdiction to take unpaid leave in many different circumstances to care for their families. It also provides for flexibility for parents who need to interrupt their maternity and paternity leave for different reasons.

All of this is to say that we have offered assistance to low-income Canadians as a topic that is broader and much larger than just a discussion of minimum wage levels. Therefore, I urge all members to consider this and all of the other issues that I have mentioned and vote against the motion.

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

This is something that I think this committee has looked at before, in Bill C-44. I know that many of you were on the committee at that time.

From a personal perspective, I think this is extremely important legislation. Those of you who have children or those of you who deal with children know that making sure a parent is with them at a time of need is exceptionally important. I can't really describe to you how important it is to the child, albeit I've seen many times in an intensive care unit what the difference is in their well-being and recovery when their parent is there.

To take the economic burden, the issue of concern for a parent, off their shoulders so that they can focus on what is the most important asset they have—their child—at a time of great stress is, I think, extremely important. The things that we can do—and I'm delighted to say that all members of the House supported this legislation, both the government as well as the opposition parties—have created a phenomenon whereby I think Canadian parents are well supported in one of those most critical times in life.

Safer Witnesses Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I find that very amusing. I sat in the House some time ago on Bill C-44 and commended the opposition on its significant support for particularly ill children. It is important that we highlight there are certain differences between the two parties.

I am pleased the opposition members are supporting the direction of this. I look forward to working with them more in the future, as I did with my critics on the human resources committee with respect to Bill C-44.

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no argument that children are a blessing. I became a pediatric orthopedic surgeon in part because of my love for children, so I understand that the hon. member has only the most compassionate motives in proposing this legislation. However, accepting the bill as it stands would run contrary to the intent of the Employment Insurance Act, as I will explain.

On multiple births, the EI legislation is very clear. It stipulates that regardless of the number of children born or adopted, the maximum number of weeks of EI parental benefits that can be paid as a result of a single pregnancy or adoption is 35 weeks. The legislation allows one parent to receive the benefit, or both parents to share the benefit at the same time or consecutively. The Federal Court of Appeal recently ruled on this issue and the decision of the court affirmed the legislation as it stands and rejected the charter argument on unequal treatment.

The bill seeks to increase the maximum number of weeks during which parental benefits can be paid from 35 weeks to 70 weeks in the case of multiple births or adoptions. Unlike a social welfare program where the financial needs or circumstances of each person are considered in determining eligibility, EI is an insurance program. It is the loss of wages that is being insured against. EI benefits replace a portion of those wages of a person's losses for their time away from work. Allowing this change would undermine the insurance nature of the EI program and change its purpose.

In addition to the 35 weeks of parental benefits, a new mother also qualifies for an additional 15 weeks of maternal benefits. The principle of maternity benefits is that a new mother should be protected from an earnings loss while she is physically unable to work or seek work in the weeks surrounding the birth of a child or children. The EI program ensures that working families who experience loss of income receive support to balance the demands of both work and family by providing the flexibility they need to stay home and care for their children, their newborn or adopted child.

Our government has delivered several initiatives recently to provide greater financial stability to parents facing difficult circumstances, through the Helping Families in Need Act. We amended the Employment Insurance Act to facilitate access to EI sickness benefits for claimants who had fallen ill or injured while collecting parental benefits. Also, a new EI benefit for parents with critically ill children will help ensure that families do not suffer undue financial hardship due to their child's illness.

As a pediatric orthopedic surgeon, I have seen the immense pressure a family faces when they have a sick child. I can say from personal experience, having seen parents present at the bedside of their child, that it is crucial that they be there when their child needs them. As parents in my riding of Simcoe—Grey have said, they are very pleased that the government has made this substantial investment in supporting families in their greatest time of need.

As well, there is a new grant now available to parents of murdered and missing children. These parents face tremendous emotional stress and often have to take time off work to cope with this tragedy or to be part of the criminal justice process.

We recognize our responsibility to help parents balance work and family responsibilities. We have repeatedly shown our commitment to support families and will continue to do so. Through Canada's economic action plan we have strengthened the universal child care benefit to help more than 2 million young children and 1.5 million families every year. Since it was introduced, this benefit has lifted approximately 22,000 families out of poverty.

We are helping working parents by making major investments in creating new child care spaces. Our government has allocated billions of dollars to support early childhood development and child care through transfers to the provinces and territories, direct spending and tax measures for Canadian families. To assist low and middle-income families, we have provided additional support through the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement.

In addition, through foster-to-adopt programs, foster parents are eligible for EI parental benefits as soon as they have taken the necessary steps to adopt a child into their care. Moreover, self-employed persons are now able to opt into the EI program to receive maternity benefits as well as parental sickness and compassionate care benefits. In addition to this, Canadian Forces members who are ordered to return to duty while on parental leave or whose parental leave is deferred as a result of a military requirement also have an extended eligibility window for EI parental benefits.

Regarding the suggested change to EI, we have estimated that the cost to workers and employers would be approximately $100 million per year if implemented. This is in addition to the $4 billion a year in EI measures the NDP would like to create, including a 360-hour work year, that would drive up EI premiums by 16%.

I was fortunate enough to be involved in the EI rate-setting consultations that occurred in the fall of 2001. I heard from businesses and workers all across the country about the importance of stable and predictable EI premium rate-setting. While our government introduced a new rate-setting mechanism to ensure stability and predictability for EI premiums, the NDP is proposing measures that would see EI premiums rise by over 16% in a single year.

Nothing is more important than the role a mother or father plays in caring for their child. The family is the fundamental unit of society, the backbone of a successful country. Time and again our government has demonstrated its commitment to helping families. However, in this fragile economic time when small businesses are concerned about EI premiums, supporting a bill that would result in increased EI premiums would be fiscally irresponsible.

While I certainly understand the good intentions of the hon. member opposite in proposing this bill and fully share her desire to provide greater support for Canadian families, as we done most recently with Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, I cannot support this bill at this time because of the huge negative impact increasing premiums would have on small businesses in my riding of Simcoe—Grey.

I encourage all members of the House to join me in voting against this legislation, which will put a huge burden on the backs of small businesses, employers and employees in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate this morning, not just as the critic for human resources and skills development for the Liberal Party but as the father of three boys. There is a fairly significant storm hitting the east coast today and schools have been cancelled in Cape Breton and in many districts. As my wife teaches at the community college, she is home today. Therefore, I will be very cautious not to try to overstate how much impact I had in those early days in rearing the three boys. However, from my perspective, I was a spectator in something that I thought was pretty impressive with all that goes on with raising three pretty high-energy boys who were sort born in steps and stairs.

Young mothers almost need a third arm, with all the bags, strollers and kids. We can only imagine the impact when they are trying to do this for twins. When there is a situation with multiple births, we can only appreciate the additional effort and work that has to go into that situation. It is certainly not a normal situation. It is not an abnormal situation, but it is certainly one that I think deserves this opportunity to look at the bill that was brought forward by my colleague.

There are a number of points that I want to raise in my 10 minutes. The challenge is to find that balance between the special circumstances that arise in cases of multiple births and balancing good, fair, reasonable social policy against the cost to the people who fund the program. That is where we have to come up with something pragmatic that also makes sense.

Millions of employers and employees pay into the employment insurance fund. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to ensure that changes in legislation and regulation are looked at and vetted here. Unlike what we have seen with the changes to the current EI system, when we look at working while on claim and some of the other changes that have had a significant impact on seasonal industries, I believe it is in Canadians' best interests that these changes be vetted.

However, I have some questions that I think need to be answered before the bill can be properly judged. I do not think we have seen all the information. There have been a couple of points made. I certainly am not confident in the information that I have. I believe the vetting of this issue and the opportunity to hear witnesses on both sides of the issue would serve us well. It would serve the committee well and that would serve the House well, as this goes forward.

However, I do not think that we can dismiss the intent of the bill, which is to help families deal with unforeseen and challenging circumstances. That is why I want to support the bill going to committee so that we can assess the merits of the bill.

Canada is one of the most generous countries when we talk about maternal and paternal benefits. Being a proud member of the Liberal Party, I think there is much that the Liberal Party has done in contributing to the reputation that we hold in the world. In 1971, the government led by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau brought forward the first maternity leave, the 15-week maternity leave. Nineteen years later, Prime Minister Chrétien's government increased those parental benefits to 35 weeks and reduced the hours of eligibility from 700 to 600, allowing more parents to spend more time caring for their children without worrying about losing their jobs or where to find income.

It is noteworthy that my colleague from Durham is speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party. It is worth pointing out that when Mr. Chrétien brought that legislation in to increase the benefits, the Canadian Alliance, in fact, voted against those increases. I was not surprised to hear that he was not ready to get up and champion this particular piece of legislation.

Bill C-464 is admirable in the sense that it is trying to help parents who face a special situation. I think all of us here in the House can agree that multiple births are a very special situation. The Dionne quintuplets were very special and captured the excitement and imagination of an entire country. Many times, in multiple births, there are problems with the pregnancy and delivery, whether it is twins, triplets or quintuplets. There is physical, emotional and psychological stress placed on the parents and children, not to mention the financial burden that comes with multiple births. I think those challenges are high and worth noting.

According to Multiple Births Canada, 57% of twins and 98% of higher order multiples are born pre-term, with low birth weights and postnatal concerns. These facts cannot be overlooked or lessened. They are part of the basis of why this bill should at least be studied.

However, some of the arguments put forward in support of this bill have flaws as well. For example, the fact that some countries, most notably Europe, have additional benefits for multiple births argues that Canada should. However, in many of these countries, the total benefits provided are less than what Canada's current system already provides.

Proponents of the bill say that the additional challenges multiple-birth parents face warrant an additional 35 weeks of unpaid leave and EI benefits; if a single birth parent gets 35 weeks, it would automatically mean that parents of twins should get double, or at least should be viewed as getting double. With twins, I am not sure that there is twice as much work, so to take that correlation and apply it here to simply double the 35 weeks I am not sure is something we are able to do or it makes sense to do.

What we should be charged with as elected officials is to try to get something right, to try to get something that works for the parents that is responsible in terms of protecting the employment insurance fund.

According to the PBO, there are approximately 13,000 multiple births per year, and 6,700 parents would be eligible for this extended benefit. The PBO estimates this cost at approximately $80 million per year. That seems fairly high. However, it is approximately the same cost as Bill C-44, the government legislation that created the new special parental benefits last fall. This is another reason we should absolutely send this bill to committee to have it looked at.

My time is winding down here, so I am just going to sum up. I am sure there are things we can agree on in this House. Multiple births are very much a special circumstance. Whether we ultimately agree that parents of twins, triplets or other multiples should get twice the benefits as parents of single births is not the most relevant question with respect to whether this bill should go forward. This bill is at second reading, so it is about trying to gather more information.

For this circumstance, I believe we should support the bill. Whether doubling is the right way to go, I do not know, but I think we should recognize the challenges faced by the parents of families with multiple births and at least support this legislation as it goes forward to committee.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to both ministers for being here.

Like you, I very much enjoyed the time we shared here together with Bill C-44. Since you enjoy being here so much, I wonder if I could start off by asking whether you'd be willing to be here for two hours instead of just one hour, in the same spirit of cooperation that we showed during the debate on Bill C-44.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, it was only a short while ago that Minister Finley and I were here to talk about Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, and I'm delighted to be back again.

That legislation that we were talking about previously showed our government's commitment to the welfare of Canadian workers and their families. We believe that Canadians are entitled to be treated fairly on the job.

With that in mind, we foster good working conditions, constructive labour-management relations, and healthy, safe workplaces free from discrimination, because by doing all these things, we are making a vital contribution to Canada's prosperity and to our overall quality of life.

That said, we can't ignore that uncertain economic situation in which we are working today.

Some workers in our country are still vulnerable, and they are worried about the ability to provide for their families. We know that when Canadian workers were hit hard by the economic downturn—especially those employees whose employers went bankrupt, closed down, and did not pay their workers the money they were owed—Canadian workers did suffer.

That's why in 2008 our government introduced the wage earner protection program, or WEPP: because we wanted to make sure that the workers who were affected like this received timely compensation for their unpaid wages and their vacation pay.

We expanded the WEPP in 2009, and we included both unpaid severance and termination pay as well.

In 2011 we expanded again, to make sure that workers were covered in situations where a company attempted to restructure but was unsuccessful and ended in bankruptcy.

Overall, since the start of the program in 2008, more than $120 million has been paid to over 53,000 workers. Given the expansion of this program over the time, we are now adding $1.4 million annually in operating funds to ensure that we deliver to WEPP applicants the benefits they are entitled to when they need them most. Therefore, we're requesting additional funding through the supplementary estimates to fulfill this commitment.

We know that in uncertain times, workers suffer, businesses suffer, and indeed the whole country suffers. That's why our government remains focused on creating jobs, on long-term growth and prosperity, but in that, a crucial part is labour peace. We know that good labour relations help create a stable and a reliable environment in which businesses can thrive, but they also give workers the security that they need to be productive and to support their families.

The Federal Mediation Conciliation Service is a part of Labour Canada, and it really does do a remarkable job in supporting the stable, peaceful, and cooperative labour environment.

FMCS has a section for preventive mediation services. That service helps unions and management to build and maintain constructive working relationships that deal with difficult workplace issues as they arise, not necessarily at a point in time when a collective agreement is being bargained. To make this service available to more clients, we are committing half a million dollars in annual ongoing funding.

I want to make a point here on this issue. Despite the impression that may be created by media or by coverage of certain events, cooperative labour relations in Canada really are the norm. Strikes and lockouts are the exception. Indeed, in the past four years 94% of labour negotiations in the federally regulated private sector were settled without work stoppages when FMCS was involved.

Contributing to harmonious working relationships and therefore to labour stability is really only one aspect of the labour program's goals for federal workplaces. As minister, I firmly believe that a healthy and a safe and a fair workplace is a key element to Canada's formula for success. Indeed, I've called the workplace the engine room for the economy.

The workplace is important because where there's more morale, where there's ingenuity, where there's productivity, Canadian businesses are helped to compete with the best in the world, so we promote safe and healthy workplaces through both preventive education and reactive strategies. Most importantly, we encourage workers and employers to take an active role in ensuring the health and safety of their workplaces.

This past fall I visited China, and I'm really proud to say that Canada is recognized internationally for our expertise in workplace health and safety.

Lately, as well, we've been focusing on a different aspect of health and safety in the workplace: mental health.

Mental health in the workplace is a significant concern not only for businesses but also for workers and for families. Half a million people a day miss work because of mental health problems. That can translate into a loss of productivity of about between $33 and $50 billion annually. Quite frankly, this is something that we have to deal with.

That's why the Government of Canada provided $367,000 in funding to the Mental Health Commission of Canada to help develop a voluntary national standard for psychological health and safety in the workplace. My labour program provided the commission with technical expertise. The project is a really great partnership because it received funding from Bell Canada and the Great-West Life Centre for Mental Health in the Workplace.

What's really exciting about this is that it will be the first standard of its kind in the world. It really is an example of how governments and organizations can work together to help modernize workplace health and safety. We're working with businesses and we're working with unions. They were part of the psychological standard creation. With those two parties and with the help of the government, we are creating these dynamic workplaces where cooperation and fairness are the rule, workplaces where health and safety are integral parts of the culture, workplaces where workers and employers can contribute, innovate, and increase productivity for the benefit of all, including the general Canadian public.

Those are some ways that we in the labour program are helping Canadian businesses and families and continuing to strengthen our economy.

Mr. Chair, I hope this overview has been helpful and I'd be very pleased to answer any questions that you or the committee may have.

Thank you very much for your time.

Helping Families in Need Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 19 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 third time and passed.

Safe Food for Canadians Act

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. He mentioned that amendments suggested in committee were simply dismissed, even though the opposition parties worked hard to develop those amendments.

Earlier today we were debating Bill C-44. What I find funny is that although everyone agreed on the principle of the bill, the opposition's suggested amendments were also rejected, without any real argument or debate.

That is unfortunate, because the NDP has been clear that Bill S-11, as it stands right now, might not have prevented the major beef recall we had recently—the largest beef recall in Canada's history—or the 22 deaths resulting from the 2008 listeriosis crisis.

The amendments proposed by the opposition deserve to be seriously considered, which the Conservative government did not do. That is unfortunate. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Helping Families in Need Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with my colleague more. He has made a very valid point.

That is what we are saying about Bill C-44. While we think it is a step in the right direction, it really does need to be improved upon, and we have recommended amendments and improvements to the bill.

We hope the government will recognize that we could be in this together. We could ensure that Canadians have the best possible EI system they could have. They are paying into it. It is their system. Let us work together. Let us not treat it as something that only the Conservatives, or the NDP or the Liberals are doing it. Let us work together and do what is in the best interest of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from York West said, we are supporting the legislation, the helping families in need act. Just the title of the act shows that it is the kind of legislation that one would be inclined to support. Obviously, as my colleague said, it is a step in the right direction but so much more could be done.

The legislation would modify the Canada Labour Code to enable employees to take leave if their child is critically ill, dies or is missing as a result of a criminal act. In addition, Bill C-44 would make substantive changes to the Employment Insurance Act to allow ill claimants receiving parental benefits to also access sick benefits. Finally, the bill introduces a grant of $350 per week to parents who earn a minimum of $6,500 annually and are forced to take leave from their employment because they are caring for an ill child or their child was murdered or is missing.

None of us would ever want to be in that particular position. As my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso said, there is so much more that could be done. What we are trying to do here is convince the government that working together we can make a difference. We could do so much more with a bill like Bill C-44.

Overall, it is a step in the right direction. This has gone on for too long. The legislation is badly needed but it can be improved, and this is what I want to speak to. The government can and must do more to ensure that parents receive financial flexibility during extremely difficult times such as caring for a child who suffers from a critical illness or the tragic death or disappearance of a child.

Bill C-44 legislates two tiers of tragedy by enforcing different supports depending on the unfortunate circumstance. If a parent takes leave from work to care for a dying child, he or she is guaranteed up to 37 weeks off work under the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, but if a parent takes leave because his or her child is missing, the individual gets 52 weeks off work. While away from work, a parent would receive $350 per week.

It is impossible to even imagine the pain and fear that a parent in any of these tragic circumstances would be forced to endure. I cannot even put myself in the place of parents who find themselves in such circumstances. I most certainly support the 52 weeks guaranteed for parents of a missing or murdered child, and I am sure we all do. However, I believe that parents who are caring for a critically ill child and are suffering from many of the same uncertainties should also be permitted 52 weeks instead of only 37 weeks as would be permitted under this legislation.

I agree with the intent of the bill but I believe that the supports must be stronger and more equal. That is why the Liberals introduced amendments at the committee stage that would have improved and strengthened the supports that Bill C-44 would provide. Unfortunately, the committee, as we all know, was comprised of a majority of Conservative members who voted these measures down. Sadly, it appears that some on the committee could not rise above petty partisanship to deliver for Canadian families. In spite of the lack of co-operation that we found on committee, which my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso referenced, we support the bill.

While I welcome the specific improvements this legislation would make to the EI system for Canadian families, Bill C-44 is part of a larger conversation about the EI system and its failure to meet the needs of Canadians.

For many Canadians, the EI system provides supplementary benefits beyond the unfortunate case of loss of employment. For example, the EI system also provides maternity and parental benefits to individuals who are pregnant, have recently given birth, are adopting a child or are caring for a newborn. In addition, EI provides sickness benefits to individuals who are unable to work because of sickness, injury or quarantine.

Yet the question remains, are Canadians receiving the benefits they pay for, and in some cases require, in the manner to which they need them? The simple answer is no. I think if we ask anyone in the House who is familiar with the situations that Canadians find themselves in when they need to access EI, a program they have paid into, in essence their program, we would find that they are not being treated fairly.

Bill C-44 would enhance benefits to those who would find themselves in a very unfortunate and particular circumstance, but it would not solve many existing problems with the inability of the EI system to conform and adapt to the way Canadians need to use it.

Although, from time to time, some may make it seem like the benefits provided by the EI system are gifts from the Government of Canada, the fact is it is a system that is paid into by Canadians. It is in fact a fund that is put in place by Canadians. It is a crime when those Canadians are unable to access EI when they need to and in terms of the amounts that are required.

Because of this critical but often maligned fact, it is extremely important, as members of Parliament and representatives of our constituents, that we take part in a larger conversation with Canadians about how EI benefits are delivered and how they can better be delivered. This is where we really do need to engage Canadians. That is what is missing from the discussion.

The fact is that decisions are made and we design legislation without really doing the proper consultation with the Canadians who will be impacted. No one really knows whether they will be impacted by it. Therefore, it is very important to recognize, as members of Parliament, our constituents who may be working today but may lose their job through no fault of their own. It is that consultation that is missing here, that discussion with Canadians about the EI system and how it can best be administered to deliver for Canadians in the way in which it should be delivered.

One area where benefits need to be looked at is sickness benefits. Currently those who are eligible for sickness benefits are entitled to up to 15 weeks of benefits if they are unable to work because of their illness. Unfortunately many Canadians who are sick are forced to refrain from going back to work long after their benefits expire.

For example, a woman diagnosed with breast cancer is forced to take leave from work so she may undergo treatment. She will face a gruelling treatment regime that is often longer than the 15 weeks allowed for by the current regulation, leaving her stranded, unable to work while receiving treatment and unable to access more EI benefits even though her sickness has left her in a difficult position. In this case, the goal to provide support while she is receiving treatment is not being met fully. Clearly, in a situation like this, and in other similar situations, there is a gap in the program delivery.

How do we explain to people in that situation that we really cannot respond in the way that we should? We know they are going through a difficult time, we know it is a program they have paid into, but we are not there to meet their needs.

More generally, but equally important to this conversation, Statistics Canada reports that from 2010 to 2011, the most recent data available, access to EI benefits was at its lowest level in nearly a decade. According to Statistics Canada, one reason for the decreasing access to EI benefits was the lack of available full-time jobs.

Although all employees pay into the EI fund, only those with a certain number of hours worked can access the benefits for which they pay. That is one of the many reasons why Canada needs a government that spends less on political advertising and actually does more to create the desperately needed full-time jobs that far too many Canadian families are struggling to find.

Instead of focusing on creating full-time jobs, the government hiked the employment insurance rate on job creators, essentially raising a direct tax on employment, not to mention the Conservative government's declaration of war through its changes to the EI system on many of my constituents who are without a job through no fault of their own. This can be found in a lot of rural areas. While people want to work, unfortunately full-time jobs are not available.

Furthermore, with 14 million phone calls from Canadians trying to access their benefits, automatically hung up on by Service Canada that does not have the resources to respond, we are finding they are not getting the services they need.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to continue speaking to this very important bill, Bill C-44. It is an issue that was looked at when the Liberals were in office and something that we had also committed to improving had we become the government in the last election. Therefore, I am pleased that the government is at least picking up the issue. I am not satisfied that the Conservatives have done enough, but at least they are moving forward with baby steps.

As Liberals, we continue to believe that families must not be financially ruined because of an illness or when providing care for a family member who falls ill. I and many other parliamentarians, I am sure, have sat down and talked with families who are in that situation and have had to quit work to stay home and care for a sick child or a dying parent or relative. That is just not the way it should be. This belief is why we campaigned for a family care benefit through EI during the last election. That program would have delivered improved support to Canadians when they clearly needed it most.

We also believe that additional enhancements to the EI system should be studied, including increasing sickness benefits and creating a part-time benefits system to help support people with illnesses and disabilities such as MS. These suggestions would not be difficult to implement, even at this stage in the legislative process. We proposed a number of amendments during the committee's study of Bill C-44 and would be pleased to elaborate on them today, because they are very important. Perhaps this could be an item on which we all work co-operatively and deliver something good to the collective benefit of all of our constituencies and all Canadians.

I would again suggest looking at extending the leave of absence for a parent of a critically ill child from 32 weeks to 52 weeks. This would align with the amount of support a parent of a missing or murdered child is entitled to under Bill C-44. It is just common sense that we would have the two of them aligned, rather than having one at 37 weeks and another at 52 weeks. People have a hard enough time managing and accessing government programs and systems as they are, so why not try to keep things a bit similar? It seems to me that for parents of a child who has been killed or murdered or dies from a serious illness or other very serious issues, these benefits should naturally be consistent.

Also, we should consider extending the period for which a parent of a critically ill child could continue to receive benefits, from the last day of the week on which the child succumbs to 14 days after the child passes away. This proposed extension would acknowledge the period of grief following the loss of a child and would provide parents with additional support during a period of bereavement. We surely cannot ask employees to return to work and expect them to be productive after losing a child, never mind losing another relative.

We also called for a reduction in the labour force attachment hours required of EI claimants, from 600 hours over six months to 420 hours over that same time. Reducing the number of hours required would have the effect of extending benefits to part-time workers who would not otherwise qualify for this special EI benefit.

These are only a few suggestions that could make Bill C-44 a far better bill, and I would again call on the Conservatives to consider them. This is a bill that we can all stand and salute and say that we all had a part in it, because we are providing an important service to Canadians.

I understand that some of these ideas fall outside the technical scope of this bill, as determined by the government majority on the committee. However, I also know that this House has several procedural options available to it, if there were a will to do it correctly. What would be lost by looking at other ways to help Canadian families and parents who are facing some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable?

Today we have a choice. We can stand in our places and enact measures that would truly help those we are all here to serve, and whom I believe we want to serve. We can extend a hand-up to people like those living in my community at Jane and Finch, or we can continue to accept mediocrity. I would like to think that this particular issue is one on which we can all gather together and make a true statement about the kind of Canada we want, that we want a compassionate and caring Canada that is economically strong but knows that when things are difficult we are there to help the people.

I truly hope members of the government, particularly those on the back benches, are listening and are prepared to do the right thing by going along with these amendments so we can ensure that Canadians truly have an alternative in difficult times ahead.

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

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the great member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

I represent the wonderful riding of York West, a constituency that is home to an intersection that lots of people know about when they talk about crime. It certainly has a reputation it does not deserve. That is clearly the area of Jane and Finch, which I am very proud to represent.

I mention this for two reasons in particular. The first is that I like to take every opportunity possible to point out that, despite what people may have heard, the communities in and around Jane and Finch are vibrant, strong and diverse. The second reason is that I view it as a duty to help keep it that way and, hence, the reason for the comments I am making today.

Despite being a warm and caring place, the region of Jane and Finch is not without some difficulties. On occasion, crime and some of the other social ills that face many Canadian cities become a factor, which is why I am speaking on this bill today. Helping hard-working, decent people is always good policy no matter what government puts it forward. Despite the assertion made by the current mayor of Toronto, suggesting that any program designed to help those in need is a hug-a-thug effort, police and medical experts disagree every day. Experts know that providing real support to those in need can have a profound impact not just within a household but across an entire community. I see that every single day with a variety of initiatives and new programs that get set up to help many of the people in my riding find employment opportunities and showcase what we would call a caring community.

Bill C-44 is the first step on that road, and I applaud the government for taking the first step. I just wish it would take the second and third steps. Periodically good policies come forth that we all support, but they are insufficient and need to go much further than the current one. As Liberals, we have argued that delivery of improved services to Canadians could be provided through changes to the EI system, but we continue to maintain that Bill C-44 falls short of what could be done to promote and support a workforce attachment that will aid families and individuals who have to deal with other situations of hardship, such as lost jobs, family illness and, in a worst-case scenario, the loss of a child.

Governments have a clear role to play, and it is not a hug-a-thug effort to live up to that responsibility. It is a moral responsibility to be there when people have difficulties. People who have lost children or are going through very difficult situations need to assist their family members. They cannot simply go through that process, take three days off work and think they can go back to work and function as a successful individual on the fourth day. The impact of the loss of a child, in particular, is extremely difficult and one that needs support and recognition from the kind of caring country that we all say we live in, a caring Canada.

It should be noted that it was a piece of Liberal legislation that started this process by offering enhanced access to sickness benefits during parental leave. This clearly was an initiative we heard much about from many people who clearly needed help.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about 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. Hon. members will recall that some aspects of this bill are very beneficial. I am very happy to say that we, on this side of the House, are prepared to support this bill.

For example, this bill will allow parents to extend their maternity and parental leave by the number of weeks that their child was hospitalized, which is an improvement over the existing provisions of the Employment Insurance Act. This will make it possible for parents to extend their parental leave by the number of sick days taken during that period. The same goes for time spent serving in the Canadian Forces Reserves. This and many other aspects of the bill are quite worthwhile.

We have heard many times, particularly from the government side, that 6,000 claimants will benefit from this amendment to the Employment Insurance Act. There are well over a million unemployed workers in Canada, 870,000 of whom are not eligible for employment insurance benefits. Only 4 out of 10 unemployed workers are eligible for employment insurance benefits; 6 out of 10 ten are not eligible.

I am very pleased that the government is giving benefits to 6,000 claimants in Canada for very worthwhile reasons, and we certainly support that. However, this helps only 0.27% of all unemployed workers in Canada: those who are eligible for employment insurance benefits. There is a great deal of work to be done with regard to employment insurance. We are far from meeting the real needs of Canadians.

Allowing families to collect employment insurance benefits in difficult situations, particularly those involving their children, is certainly a good thing. We completely agree. We must help these people. The health of a child is at risk, as is the mental health of parents, children and the community in a broader sense. For all of these reasons, it is important to support this bill.

However, what is missing here is support for communities that depend on employment insurance benefits. We have not really talked about the terrible hardship that will be created by the other employment insurance bills proposed by the Conservatives. For example, let us remember that, under Bill C-38, which was passed in the spring, thousands of unemployed workers will not be eligible for employment insurance benefits next year and even this fall because of changes that the Conservatives made to the Employment Insurance Act and the pilot projects that they did away with by amending the act.

It is very troubling. I definitely want to help families in situations where they need more support. However, I also want to help communities, especially those in the regions that depend on a seasonal economy. They depend on employment insurance. In order for the economy to keep going during the summer, these people need to be compensated during the winter months.

I encourage the Conservatives not only to help families who are having difficulties because they have a child with health problems, but also to start treating other claimants and unemployed workers with the same respect. The 6,000 claimants who will benefit from this change include parents of abducted children who will qualify for employment insurance.

The Canadian Police Information Centre reported that, in 2011, 25 kidnappings were committed by strangers and 145 were committed by parents. That is very troubling. Clearly, that is 170 too many abducted children.

Once again, I would like to point out that there are many other needs in Canada. I would remind the House that 870,000 unemployed workers are not eligible for employment insurance. Are we also going to abandon the women who lost their jobs when they went back to work after their parental leave?

The bill does not go far enough. It does not permit special and regular benefits to be combined. It gives the impression of helping people, but if we look at this bill more carefully, we quickly see that many parents will not be able to benefit from the bill's generosity.

The Conservatives ignored the promises they made in their 2011 platform. Indeed, during the 2011 election campaign, they said that they would offer enhanced EI benefits to the parents of murdered or missing children and to the parents of critically ill children. However, they said the funding for this measure would come from general revenues. They seem to have ignored their promises. Most of the funding for this will not come from general revenues, but rather from the EI fund.

Governments have a hard time resisting dipping into the employment insurance fund to pay for their bills. I can see why, since it is a healthy fund, but still, the government has to be consistent. If it promises money from general revenues, then it should come from general revenues.

I would like the Conservatives to note that with this bill, they are finally agreeing with the official opposition on changes to employment insurance. During the 40th Parliament, Bill C-343 would have provided employment insurance benefits to allow parents of missing children to take leave. The Conservatives twice voted against that bill. Then there was an election. We never found out what would have happened at third reading, but we can assume that the Conservatives would have continued to categorically say no. What made them change their minds?

I am very glad that they changed their minds in 2011 and that they made a promise. The bill before us is not exactly what they promised, but at least it is a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, some good opportunities were missed in the past to address some of the problems in our society. Once again, and probably mostly for lack of consultation, the Conservatives have not really identified the other problems faced by our communities. If they had held real consultations, they would have understood that allowing extensions and access to benefits for dependent children under 18 might not be enough.

We should be discussing a bill that meets the needs of parents with dependant children or simply dependants. Often, adults have to look after people older than 18 who have mental health problems. Canada also has an aging population. More and more people have to work in addition to caring for their parents. In situations where dependants have health problems or in potentially more serious situations such as kidnappings, why not give them more benefits and support as well?

In Canada, one in 30 people who are 45 or older look after people who are 65 or older. It is estimated that by 2056, one in 10 will have that responsibility. Thus, more and more people will need more and more help. And yet, it seems that it is difficult getting them this help. The bill before us is a step in the right direction. But, quite frankly, the government could have done much more to lend a helping hand to people in need. It is about time that the Conservatives learned that when you consult people you have to take their needs into account. The Conservatives must listen and get out into our communities. I hope that the other bills they introduce will provide more support than the one we are debating.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very interesting speech. I really liked that he focused so much on the nuances of the committee's study of Bill C-44.

The NDP proposed eight amendments that apparently were not taken very seriously by the Conservative Party. That is unfortunate. The NDP listened to the testimony and worked on amendments. These amendments were rejected or dismissed, but nevertheless, the NDP will support Bill C-44, because we believe it is a good first step.

The Conservatives often use the demagogic argument that the NDP is opposed to this or that. I think that today is proof of the NDP's good faith and its desire to work together with the government. Even though the Conservatives are not receptive to the work we are doing on this side of the House, we are prepared to look at all of the options and to support initiatives that truly help families, victims and people in need.

I would like my colleague to comment on that and talk in more detail about the amendments that were proposed in committee and their relevance.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I am pleased to 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.

In September I had the opportunity to speak to the bill at second reading and I am happy to have the chance to speak to it for a second time now as it has returned from committee. It truly is important legislation, which cuts across partisan lines, and is something that we can all get behind and support.

Broadly, Bill C-44 seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Employment Insurance Act, the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations in order to implement new measures to allow workers to take leave and draw EI in the event of a serious illness of a child or the disappearance or death of a child due to a crime.

Specifically, Bill C-44 would make a number of amendments to the Canada Labour Code to expand leaves of absence available to parents. For example, it would allow for the extension of maternity and parental leave by the number of weeks that a child would be hospitalized during the leave. It would allow for the extension of parental leave by the amount of sick leave taken during parental leave as well as for participation in the Canadian reserve forces. It would grant an unpaid leave of absence for up to 37 weeks for parents of critically ill children. It would grant an unpaid leave of absence, 104 weeks I believe, for parents whose children had been murdered as the result of a crime or had disappeared as the result of a crime, and that is 52 weeks I believe. Finally, it would extend the period of absence that could be taken unpaid due to illness or injury without fear of layoff to 17 weeks.

Bill C-44 would also make changes to the Employment Insurance Act that would allow for the stacking of special benefits only. Maternity, sickness and parental benefits are special EI benefits. Benefits paid as a result of unemployment are known as regular EI benefits. Previously, a claimant was unable to stack these benefits, meaning if an individual was collecting regular EI benefits and a circumstance arose where that a person would need a special benefit, he or she would be unable to stack the special benefit on top of the regular benefit and receive the cumulative number of weeks of EI. The bill would create a new benefit for parents of critically ill children that would be stackable with other special benefits.

The bill would also grant an exemption to those on parental leave who needed to take sick leave from needing to prove that if they were not sick or injured, they would be available for work and would allow for special benefits to be taken back-to-back or in various combinations over a maximum of 104 weeks.

Last, the changes to the Employment Insurance Act would provide for 35 weeks of benefits for parents caring for a critically ill child. This is an important component of this legislation, which will benefit many families faced with the unbearable circumstance of having to care for children with dire conditions.

Bill C-44 would also make changes to the Income Tax Act to prepare the ground for a new grant to be paid to parents of murdered or missing children by stipulating the benefit would be considered taxable income but would also be tax deductible.

It goes without saying that New Democrats support these changes as we believe they will help ease the suffering of parents who need help.

However, the New Democrats realize that the legislation is far from perfect. That is why our caucus members moved a total of eight amendments at committee stage in an attempt to improve the legislation to ensure we would pass the best plan possible to assist parents or custodial guardians who were placed in these traumatic and financially difficult situations. Unfortunately, although these amendments were entirely reasonable and supported by witness testimony at human resources committee, the government's tendency to reject our amendments sight unseen was once again realized.

One such amendment would have changed the definition of the child to include dependent children over the age of 18. The importance of this amendment was articulated succinctly by Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. On October 23, she said:

I would just add that with the Canada Labour Code, one of the things we heard from victims on this is that they definitely see it as a positive step forward, but they would offer that the category should be broadened to include—and I think it reflects your comments—first of all, eliminating the age requirement.

We've just heard from Yvonne about the age of her daughter when she was murdered. There's this huge issue of whether your child is 18 or your child is 19, so eliminate the age requirement.

A second amendment put forward by the New Democrats sought to extend the leave for critical illness to two weeks after the child's death to give parents time to grieve and bury their child. According to Angella MacEwen, a senior economist at the Canada Labour Congress:

—after a missing child is found, the parents have 14 days; after a critically ill child dies, the parents have until the end of the week.

I think the labour standard in Canada for leave to grieve is only three days, so that would mean they would have an additional three days after that end of the week, which wouldn't even get them to the funeral, quite honestly.

I think that is almost cruel.

New Democrats sought to address this deficiency through the above mentioned amendment, yet the Conservatives refused to listen to witness testimony and voted against our amendment that would have given grieving parents a bit of relief during such a trying period.

Finally, New Democrats put forward an amendment that would allow the parents of murdered or missing children to take leave on a flexible basis rather than in consecutive weeks, without increasing the total, in order to allow them to deal with the judicial system. Once again, this important amendment was supported by witness testimony. Mr. Bruno Serre stated:

A period of 35 weeks is a good start...But if these 35 weeks must be consecutive, that isn't enough. People will have to attend trials a year and a half or two years later. When the trial or the preliminary hearing starts, people must have more time. During the trial, people can't go to court and then go to work....So a period of 35 weeks would be good. There should perhaps be an additional period. If the case is postponed to a later date, there should be a supplement of a few weeks. When there is a trial or a preliminary inquiry, time is absolutely needed.

Unfortunately, as has become routine in this Parliament, the government members refused to listen to reason when opposition parties tried to improve legislation by repudiating all of the important amendments put forward by the official opposition and, from what I have heard, the amendments from the Liberal Party as well. These were good, reasonable amendments. I emphasize my disappointment that the amendments were not accepted when they might have done a great deal of good for families caught in these unfortunate positions.

I reiterate the importance of giving grieving parents a bit of respite by passing the bill as soon as possible. Although I am disappointed that the Conservatives refused to work co-operatively with their counterparts at committee to improve the legislation, I know the components of this bill will assist many families in their time of need and I hope to see it passed very quickly.

Reiterating a few points, if we look at what was discussed in committee, there were a total of 17 amendments and the overview and theme of many of these amendments was to change the definition of “a child”, which I spoke to earlier, also to extend the leave of critical illness to two weeks after the child's death, benefits for parents of critically ill children and the last day of the week the child dies to give parents time to grieve and to bury their children.

I know no parents should ever have to bury their children. What we see in the bill is a good first step to ensure we can get families the support they need during these difficult times.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing today to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act. We will be supporting the bill, as we have heard in the House this morning, but I do have a couple of comments that are worth noting.

First, I thank the critics on our side of the House who have been working on this and have provided us with very good information. One of my great pleasures since being elected is getting to know people and watching them work. I extend that to all members of the House. The committees often work very well and that is another real pleasure of this job.

It is a good bill because it moves beyond partisan politics in some senses and affects families in their greatest time of need. I will say a little more about this later. In the end, we support the bill because it would ease the suffering of parents.

In terms of background, Bill C-44 is an amendment to the Canada Labour Code and would extend the leave of absence available to parents. It would allow for the extension of maternity and parental leave by the number of weeks that a child is hospitalized during the leave. I cannot even imagine what it must be like to have an ill child. This would go some way to alleviate some of the intense stress that is felt during this period. I do wonder if this includes children who are hospitalized in private clinics or abroad , because that is not specified in the bill. That perhaps is something I will leave for another day, or perhaps, as the bill becomes law and it works through administratively, the extent to which this is extended might need to be revised as we move along.

The bill also would grant an unpaid leave of absence for up to 37 weeks for parents of critically ill children and would extend the period of absence that could be taken due to an illness or injury without fear of layoff for 17 weeks. Therefore, it would provide security for workers in uncertain times. We have had an update from the Minister of Finance, who is usually rosy and perhaps overly optimistic about the Canadian economy sometimes, but we have had a warning that perhaps things are not as rosy as they are made out to be, so anything we can do to alleviate stress is important.

It is also important to note that this change would apply exclusively to federally regulated industries. Hopefully, the provinces will make these changes to their own labour codes. This happened when compassionate care benefits were introduced.

Bill C-44 would make changes to the EI Act to allow for the stacking of special benefits, such as stacking maternity, sickness and parental benefits. That is something that could probably be explored in other areas as well. The new benefit for parents of critically ill children created by the bill would, of course, be stackable with other special benefits.

We support the bill and we are also glad to see that the bill has wider support within the community. For example, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association and the Canadian Caregiver Coalition are all behind it. It is good to know and it is nice that we can all work together and move this forward.

There are some contextual problems that we might want to talk about a bit here, although the bill seems to be sound at this point. We are willing to overlook some of the problems in the hope that they may be amended in the future. At this point, there is a problem with funding. For example, in the Conservatives' 2011 platform, their most recent platform, they promised, “Funding for this measure will come from general revenue, not EI premiums”. It is important to recognize that the devil is often in the details here and we would have preferred the program to be funded out of general revenues. It does look like the Conservatives have ignored their promise. Although they have delivered on the act in substance, the funding could have come from general revenues. This costly measure comes at a time when the EI account has a cumulative deficit of $9 billion. We would be adding a small bit to that deficit.

More important, the government is avoiding much larger problems with the EI system in general. As we are giving comfort to those who are in need here, we also need to make amendments to the EI Act and the process by which EI is garnered by those who are out of work. We should be making changes in order to give those people comfort.

It is very tough to be out of work. We are in the midst of a great change in Canada where we are moving from a primary industry to a manufacturing-based industry and now much a more service-based economy where jobs are fluid. We have a duty federally, through the EI program, to ensure that people's stress is relieved as they go through the strange fluctuations in the job market. Right now, fewer than half of all unemployed Canadians are receiving EI benefits.

The other thing I want to make clear, aside from my general comments, is the idea that this is a very minor change. The minister has estimated, which we have heard in the House today, that this bill would affect approximately 6,000 Canadians per year. I do not want to at all undermine how much help this would mean for the 6,000 Canadians. Any small thing we can do to help people with critically-ill children is important, but it is a small number of people within the larger pool of 33 million-plus Canadians. There are still many unemployed Canadians who are not able to access regular EI benefits and this bill fails to address some of the larger issues at play. Since the Conservatives are willing to open the door a bit on this issue, perhaps we can open it much wider.

If we do the math, over 500,000 Canadians were receiving EI regular benefits in July of this year but almost 1.4 million were counted as unemployed. This means that there are almost 900,000 unemployed Canadians who are not collecting EI. If we think about the stress that means for these people's families, it would seem that some larger remedy is required in this instance, especially when we see unemployment rates of 7%-plus being maintained over the long term. The uncertainty in the global market, which we hear so much about from the other side of the House, means that perhaps 7% will linger for a long time or perhaps even increase, especially if the U.S. goes over its infamous fiscal cliff. That means fewer than 4 in 10 unemployed Canadians are receiving EI, which is a historic low.

I would be remiss if I did not pull this over into my own portfolio as critic for science and technology in terms of unemployment and how the government is dealing not only with unemployment but remedies to it. On the weekend, I met with constituents and heard from a former employee of MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates. This person was involved in the RADARSAT program, a program on which the government has made a policy decision to withdraw funding, although there was an initial commitment. This a four-stage program and the government committed to the first three stages and, in the end, has decided to withdraw funding. Because of this, 60 employees were let go from the Richmond MDA offices in B.C. and there is uncertainty as to whether the hundreds of highly-qualified people will be rehired.

The other day, the President of the Treasury Board bragged about how many thousands of people he has thrown out of federal jobs. I think the number was 11,000 and that the goal of the government was 20,000. This will only move people onto the EI rolls. The best minds will, of course, leave the country but the people who were in jobs of a more technical nature will be on EI. It is really important to ensure that if the government is going to make these moves, which it should not, it should ensure that EI is accessible for the people who need it. In this case, it is short-term pain for even worse long-term pain.

While we support this bill, as it would help families the most in need, it leaves a lot of larger issues unaddressed. We call on the government to follow our suggestions and open this up to a much larger debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

I rise today to once again discuss Bill C-44, which, as we know, proposes changes to the Canada Labour Code and to employment insurance.

Clearly, I welcome the measures proposed by the government as good news because they provide direct assistance to Canadian families that are experiencing great hardship. What the government is proposing will allow families to take time off and collect employment insurance benefits if their children become critically ill or if they die or disappear as a result of a crime. As I have said many times in the House, the NDP will always be there to support parliamentary initiatives that help ease the suffering of parents in need so that they can recover from difficult situations or take care of their sick child.

Although we are nearing the end of the legislative process, we must still debate certain aspects of this bill, which is a good initiative in and of itself. However, we must ask ourselves whether the bill proposed by the Conservatives is being applied in an acceptable way and whether it goes far enough. In short, although we may support the basic idea, we still think that there is room for improvement.

Bill C-44 has already been debated at first and second reading and examined in committee. Obviously, members of Parliament are aware of the content of this bill, but I think that it is relevant to review the proposals in order to shed some light on those that, in my humble opinion, should be improved.

Among other things, Bill C-44 would allow 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 weeks of sick days taken during the parental leave and by the number of weeks spent serving in the Canadian Forces Reserves. It grants unpaid leave of up to 37 weeks for parents of gravely ill children. It also grants a maximum of 104 weeks of unpaid leave to parents of children who are killed as a result of a crime and a maximum of 52 weeks of unpaid leave to parents of children who disappear as a result of a crime. Lastly, it also extends to 17 weeks the period of unpaid leave that can be taken as a result of illness or injury without fear of job loss.

Bill C-44 also creates a new benefit that can be combined with other special employment insurance benefits, but only in the case of parents of gravely ill children.

Many of these ideas are good signs. However, in a previous debate, I expressed my concerns about the fact that the government's proposal did not do enough, since it excluded protection for women who lose their jobs after returning from parental leave, because Bill C-44 does not allow for special benefits to be combined. Unfortunately, this legislative black hole exists and is negatively affecting many Canadian families. There have been some disturbing stories in the news in recent months. It is unacceptable to abandon mothers who are dismissed when they want to return to work after parental leave.

The Conservatives are certainly missing a perfect opportunity to help mothers who are fighting tirelessly for greater justice in terms of eligibility for employment insurance. I would like the Conservatives to explain to Canadians why Bill C-44 is limited 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? How can the government justify this to these families?

The NDP believes that Bill C-44 does not do enough here. We will continue to fight to ensure these women have the right to employment insurance after a dismissal for which they were not responsible.

On another note, I would like to discuss the work done in committee. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the efforts of my opposition colleagues who proposed reasonable, constructive, logical amendments that would expand the scope of this bill beyond the original version. In total, 17 amendments were proposed and studied. We hoped that after all of the meaningful debates and excellent analyses in this House in recent months, the Conservatives would be open to discussing and negotiating certain aspects of the bill that could be improved.

Most of the amendments dealt with the following: amending the definition of “child” in order to include dependent children over 18; extending the period of leave for critical illness by two weeks following the death of a child—benefits for parents of critically ill children end on the last day of the week during which the child dies—in order to give parents the time to grieve and bury their child, at the very least; and allowing parents of murdered or missing children to take leave in a flexible manner rather than consecutively, without increasing the total amount of leave, in order to allow them to tend to legal matters, such as the trial of the person charged with murdering their child.

Not one of the proposed amendments was kept by the Conservatives, which proves that they are not interested in the opposition's good ideas. I have to say that I deplore the Conservatives' unilateral approach in committee, when—as Canadians—we are supposed to enjoy a democratic system that allows for openness, transparency, discussion in good faith and negotiation throughout the legislative process that ultimately shapes the daily lives of Canadians.

It is also vitally important to take into consideration the testimony by experts who specialize in various fields in order to enlighten Parliament and its members in their decision making and in the drafting of bills.

At the October 23 committee hearing, Susan O'Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, said:

I would just add that with the Canada Labour Code, one of the things we heard from victims on this is that they definitely see it as a positive step forward, but they would offer that the category should be broadened...

We've just heard from Yvonne about the age of her daughter when she was murdered. There's this huge issue of whether your child is 18 or your child is 19, so eliminate the age requirement.

In his testimony on October 23, Bruno Serre had this to say:

A period of 35 weeks is a good start. It depends on the person and the situation, but 35 weeks is still a good amount of time.

But if these 35 weeks must be consecutive, that isn't enough. People will have to attend trials a year and a half or two years later. When the trial or the preliminary hearing starts, people must have more time. During the trial, people can't go to court and then go to work. I know this because last year, during the preliminary inquiry, we attended hearings and had to go to work two days later. It is very difficult and it takes time.

When she appeared before the committee on October 30, Angella MacEwen, senior economist with the Canadian Labour Congress, explained that after a missing child is found, the parents have 14 days of leave; after a sick child dies, the parents' leave ends at the end of the week. She thought that according to the labour standards in Canada, leave to grieve is three days, which means that they would have an additional three days after the end of the week, which, quite honestly, would not even get them to the funeral.

I think that is almost cruel.

The Conservatives should take this testimony into consideration, and it must be debated while there is still time. I hope that in light of all of the debates that have taken place on Bill C-44, the government will embark on some thoughtful and careful reflection on what experts and the opposition are proposing. This is about the well-being of Canadian families who are already suffering through terrible tragedies.

However, I support Bill C-44, because it is definitely a step in the right direction. I would like to acknowledge the work the Conservatives did on this bill, even though it is not perfect.

A great deal of work remains to be done, but I am convinced that we are starting with a solid foundation that, regardless of ideologies and partisanship, meets a real need in our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question should be raised with the minister directly. He should talk to her about the concerns he has, which are similar to ones I have had expressed in my constituency office as well. People sometimes wonder why those deductions are made. Sometimes it requires changes to the Income Tax Act as much as other legislation to see the deductions negated if people are not going to qualify for EI in the future.

Bill C-44 is about helping families in need that are dealing with some of the most difficult times in their lives, watching loved ones, their children, suffer very serious illnesses and injuries that are often terminal with no recourse. That is why it is important for us to remember those families. In my home town the Jonathan Watson memorial bonspiel will take place in the next month. That memorial bonspiel is a charity that raises funds to support health care and research for children and children's diseases. I would encourage everyone to participate in not only those types of fundraising events in my riding, but similar events right across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-44, the helping families in need act, which delivers on several of our commitments to support Canadian families as we seek to help them balance work and family responsibilities.

The legislation supports parents of murdered and missing children, and parents of critically ill children. It also provides enhanced access to EI sickness benefits for parents who fall ill while receiving EI parental benefits. The amendments proposed in the helping families in need act will allow us to offer new support measures to Canadian families at a time when they need it the most.

For parents, it means they will not have to quit their jobs to care for critically ill children. For employers, it means retaining valued employees who, otherwise, would have had to give up their jobs to care for a child who is critically ill. For children, it means they can have their parents at their sides during the most difficult times they will ever face in their lives.

Children who are critically ill require not only ongoing care, but they need the love and emotional support of their parents during this time of need. I am extremely pleased to see our government taking action to help the parents of critically ill children. In fact, since I was first elected in 2004, one of my first orders of business was to table a motion calling for just this kind of support.

Before politics and after I was first elected, our neighbours had a son, Jonathan Watson, who was terminally ill with neuroblastoma. We witnessed first-hand his courageous battle, his tremendous spirit and how he was just so loved, not only by his family but by our entire community of Teulon. They farmed just down the road from us. It was an incredible hardship for them to deal with all the emotional stress of caring for their son who for seven years fought this terrible disease, which he finally succumbed to.

Brenda, his mother, had to give up her job to be with him full time. His dad had to take on two jobs just to support the family. They did quite a bit of the surgery and care down in the U.S., because the surgeries were just not available in Canada. It took an incredible toll on the entire family, a family of very dear friends.

Jonathan wanted to raise awareness of the battle he was going through. His parents, Ken and Brenda, wanted to raise awareness of their struggle. Using the Candlelighters organization, which gave them a lot of support, along with the tremendous support they got from the community, there were fundraising events. There was also charitable giving, because we knew of the financial hardship the family was going through. We also witnessed their having to pretty much end their farming careers because they just could not afford to put the time into two jobs and the farm while Jonathan dealt with his reoccurring illness, which finally got the better of him.

One of the things Jonathan did that I was able to participate in a little bit was that he twice participated in a car push. He was the driver of a car and a couple of strong men pushed the car for an entire weekend, ongoing, to break the Guinness world record for the longest car push. It was a fundraising event to raise awareness, as well as to raise support for medical research for children's diseases. It was something he was incredibly proud of and we were all quite proud of his participation in it. It was his idea and he was able get involved with a couple of great big guys and do it over a weekend.

I introduced a motion back in November 2005. Motion No. 309 said:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should provide income support payments, expanded parental leave and tax relief to parents, legal guardians or family members leaving work to provide home care to critically and terminally ill children requiring full-time palliative care as certified in a letter from a medical practitioner.

I called that Jonathan's bill. I was quite pleased that in the following Parliament my seatmate, the member for Leeds—Grenville, brought forward Bill C-542 in the 39th and 40th Parliament, and again in this Parliament, Bill C-371, which called for the exact same types of support for families dealing with children who are critically and terminally ill, and also made sure that we have the EI support and employment protection reforms in place. He carried the ball on that in the Parliaments after I originally tabled the motion. It is something I am very proud of him for doing. He worked very closely with Sharon Ruth of Kemptville, a constituent of his, and she has worked hard on this issue, and I want to congratulate both of them.

Parents of critically ill children face difficult choices. In addition to the emotional and physical stress of caring for a critically ill child, many parents must choose between continuing to work to support their families or incurring financial hardship when they temporarily leave work to care for their child.

Are loving parents willing to take leave from their jobs in order to be with their ill children? Of course they are. Should these parents be provided with as much support as possible so they are not penalized for being with their families in time of need? Most members in the House would believe that is true. I hope all parties would support that and all members would have the same realization as we do on this side of the House. Indeed, in a 2006 study of EI compassionate care benefits, it was found that parents of children receiving curative treatments, such as chemotherapy or having major surgery, are likely to quit their jobs to be with their child regardless of the prognosis. I think all of us as parents would do the same thing.

Between 40% and 63% of families who have children with cancer lose income because they work less while they care for their sick child. Loss of income and out of pocket expenses for travel, accommodation and payment for medical supplies can account for nearly 25% of the total disposable income available to these families. As I mentioned with the Watsons, it was even higher than that because they had to go to the United States for the care, treatment and surgeries for neuroblastoma on Jonathan.

Our government wants to ensure that these parents do not suffer undue financial hardship any longer and that we support them and their families during these difficult times. That is why we have created this new EI benefit that would provide temporary income support for eligible claimants who take leave from work to provide care and support to a critically ill child. These measures would be available to parents of a critically ill child under the age of 18 and would provide support for up to 35 weeks. As I said before, we will also amend the Canada Labour Code to allow for unpaid leave for employees under federal jurisdiction to ensure that their jobs are protected if they take time off to care for a critically ill child.

These changes are not simply worth doing, they are the right thing to do to support Canadian families. I am pleased to hear that the NDP and the Liberals will be supporting the bill. The families that this legislation supports need this help as soon as possible. It is too late for the Watsons, but in talking to Brenda and Ken, they want to see that this help is there for families who are going through the same experience that they went through back in 2005 and the seven years previous to that.

One of the areas that has not received much attention from previous governments is supporting families who have been negatively impacted by crime. This is perplexing because it is quite possibly one of the most difficult experiences a parent could ever go through: the loss or disappearance of a child as a result of a criminal act. That is why parents who work for a federally regulated employer who take a leave of absence from work to cope with such circumstances will also receive job protection under this legislation. We will also be providing financial help to parents through the new federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children. This grant is expected to be available as early as January 1, 2013.

Another portion of the bill that would have a significant economic and labour impact is enhancing the access to EI sickness benefits. Under the bill, the Employment Insurance Act would be amended to allow parents access to EI sickness benefits if they fall ill during the time they are on EI parental leave. If a parent is already on parental leave to care for a newborn and then fall ill with cancer or something that would take them out of the workforce for a lengthy period of time, they could still access those EI sickness benefits after the parental leave.

These combined initiatives, which our government is proposing in the helping families in need act, are just some of the actions taken by our government to help Canadian parents balance work and family responsibilities. The bill is in addition to the measures we have already brought in, such as expanding eligibility for compassionate care, allowing the self-employed to opt into the EI program to access maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits, and improved access to EI parental benefits for military families. The initiatives in the bill underscore our government's commitment to support Canadian families and help them through the times when they are most in need.

I want to thank the Prime Minister for originally introducing the bill and talking about it. I also want to thank the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development for bringing it to the House and, as I said, the member of Parliament for Leeds—Grenville, as well as the families and the non-government agencies such as Candlelighters that have been promoting and lobbying for these changes for so long, families such as the Watsons and the Rudys who have been affected by these unfortunate incidents, as has the hon. member for Brant with his own family.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I do not meet the intellectual quota for the member opposite, but I will say this.

Parents have told us that they need Bill C-44 expediently so that they can benefit from it. Whether they be the parents of a child who is critically ill, a child who is missing or a child who has been murdered, they need that time to be with their family. That is why they want this bill in place immediately. That is why we have expedited it.

I appreciate the support of the opposition to make sure the bill is expedited so that Canadian families can benefit from it immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone on our committee appreciated the stakeholders who came to present. Whether it was a mom who had a critically ill child or someone who had been ill and then had a child and required support, they were all recognized. That is why all parties in the House are supporting the bill.

The most important action we can take here is to support families so that they can stay together in their greatest time of need. I have seen that again and again at bedsides at the Hospital for Sick Children and here at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Children require their parents there when they are becoming well. They need them there. That is why I am delighted that all members in the House will be supporting Bill C-44.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Conservative member who just spoke.

In her view, why does Bill C-44 only apply to special benefits? For example, 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?

[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 for Selkirk—Interlake.

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

As a pediatric orthopedic surgeon who has worked with many families supporting critically ill children, primarily trauma patients, I can personally attest to the absolute need for this legislation to be passed as quickly as possible. I want to thank the opposition parties for their support of this bill and for the timely passage of it through second reading and committee consideration.

This bill is about supporting families who are going through probably the most difficult times in their lives both emotionally and financially. This legislation introduces new employment insurance benefits for parents of critically ill children, which were announced earlier this summer by the Prime Minister. This new EI benefit would provide 35 weeks of income support to parents who cannot work while caring for their critically ill or injured children under the age of 18. To comment on what the opposition member said earlier, this would then be allowed to be stacked on sickness benefits of 15 weeks, as well as compassionate care benefits of six weeks if families require it.

Children with life-threatening conditions need more than just around-the-clock medical care. They need their parents. This new benefit would help reduce some of the financial pressures that parents experience when they take time away from work while they are caring for their children. Our government recognizes the vital and essential role parents play in both comforting and caring for their children. As a surgeon, I can say that parental support at the bedside is essential for a recovering child. As with EI parental and compassionate care benefits, parents would be able to share these benefits between them. This benefit would also provide support for families in the most tragic and difficult times they may be facing.

Clauses within this bill would also enable the creation of new federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children, as announced by the Prime Minister last spring. Our government has continued to champion the cause of victims of crime. In 2007, we provided $52 million over four years to enhance the federal victims strategy. In 2010, we provided additional funding for child advocacy centres and victim services for families of missing or murdered aboriginal women.

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 measure will come into effect in January of 2013.

The measures in this bill demonstrate our government's commitment to providing families with flexibility to balance the obligation of work with the duty to family. I can only imagine the loss or disappearance of a child as a result of a criminal act. It would be one of the most agonizing experiences a parent could ever go through. While there is no way to make this situation right, we as parliamentarians can provide financial support to parents, who then would have the ability to focus on what matters most to them without having to worry about missing a mortgage payment.

To qualify for this grant of $350 for up to 35 weeks, applicants would be required to have a minimum level of income and have taken leave from their work. Income support would continue for two weeks after the missing child is found to allow parents to spend time with their child. Workers who take leaves of absence from federally regulated jobs to cope with such an event would have their jobs protected, as would parents of critically ill children, thanks to amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

The third component of this legislation would provide greater access to sickness benefits for new parents.

With this bill, parents will be able to access 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 requirement to be otherwise available for work or, for self-employed persons, to be otherwise working and to have stopped working because of illness. There are situations where a parent becomes ill soon after a child is born, while receiving parental benefits. In those cases, parents have been unable to access sickness benefits during or after receiving parental benefits because of the way the Employment Insurance Act is written. This bill would amend the EI Act to waive these requirements for claimants receiving EI parental benefits, allowing parents to focus on their own health and getting well so that they are able to take care of their children at the end of the parental leave.

The combination of these new measures in Bill C-44 is proof that our government is taking action to help parents balance work and family responsibilities. We are fortunate to have a Prime Minister who understands the importance of families. As he has stated previously, families are the building blocks of our society.

It is time to stand together and support families in this country when they need it the most.

I thank the opposition parties again for agreeing to support our Conservative government with this bill, so that at a time when parents need it most they would receive support from our government while facing those challenging circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, what it comes down to is that the bill is going to help, I think the anticipated number is, about 6,000 to 7,000 Canadians a year. None of us as parents would ever want to go through an ordeal like that, so for the federal government to stand by them in their time of need is very important.

Again, the means test is an issue for those who are the most vulnerable. If someone is working a part-time job and only making minimum wage, or working for 450 hours a year in a seasonal industry in a remote community, the person is so exposed when something like this happens. They cannot plan for this. They do not say they are looking forward to the day his or her child gets a terminal illness, that they have money tucked away for that. That is not how people live their lives. These families are just rocked to the core and decimated emotionally and, for many of them, financially as well.

Yes, Bill C-44 will help a number of people, but I know that we could have done more. Had we brought it forward during second reading, I know we could have made it better for many more Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought for sure the NDP members would finish their debate first, but you are the person in charge so I will go on your advice.

It is a great pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-44. It is important and worthwhile legislation. The committee has been somewhat seized by it the last number of meetings and by very compelling testimony, which I will refer to as I make my remarks.

At the outset, the Liberal Party believes in the spirit and intent of the legislation. Since the bill was brought forward by the government, It has supported the legislation throughout the process.

The essence of bill is to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations that will offer support to families facing unthinkable and traumatic sad events.

Over the past month, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has heard from medical experts, social service experts, charities, not-for-profit groups and others that are doing good work to help families through incredibly difficult times, trying to care for a critically ill, missing or murdered child.

Most important, we heard from the families. I want to thank them first and foremost for the strength and courage they brought to these meetings and for their ability to advocate for the types of support that would have helped them through times of unfathomable grief.

As I look around at the members in the House today, I think we can all agree that regardless of what the legislation might be, when the bill goes to committee, we have access to people, experts in the field. Many times we are inundated with numbers in the millions and billions. The testimony through these hearings and through the review of the bill was not about millions or billions; it was about the one child who had gone missing or the one child who was lost because of a critical illness. The testimony was about knowing that this was more important than anything else in the lives of people.

It was a very emotional time for those witnesses who came to our committee and shared their stories. I know they hold the appreciation, the thanks and the respect of our entire committee.

Some who gave testimony said that this was a first good step, but there was more that could be done. I will speak about that a little later on when I talk about some of the amendments put forward.

Bill C-44 could have been improved. Many of the witnesses made some very concrete and positive recommendations to strengthen the bill. I had hoped that those recommendations would not have fallen on deaf ears, but unfortunately the government did not feel changes had to be made. The way that the bill was presented certainly took a couple of those amendments off the table. In fact, none of the amendments offered either by the NDP or by the Liberal Party made it through.

We based our amendments around the testimony we heard. We went through the process of gathering that information, and we made the amendments according to the facts that were established during the course of the hearings. We certainly put our amendments forward in the spirit of making the bill better for Canadians.

A number of amendments were declared out of order on the grounds they were beyond the scope of Bill C-44. It was disappointing they were not implemented and the opportunity to strengthen the bill was overruled by the government.

I would like to talk about a couple of the amendments. On behalf of our party, I raised two categories of amendments to Bill C-44. These would have made changes to the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code.

The first one was to extend the leave of absence for a parent of a critically ill child from 37 weeks to 52 weeks. We heard from parents and other stakeholders that 52 weeks would be an absolutely reasonable period of time. Critically ill children are often struggling for their lives well beyond 37 weeks and it seemed unfair and unreasonable to restrict the period to 36 weeks, especially when the legislation would provide for 52 weeks for parents of a missing or murdered children.

As a person, not even a member of Parliament, how do we quantify the amount of pain and grief that one experiences when one has a missing and/or murdered child? What that would take from a person, mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually, would be enormous. However, if parents have to watch their sons or daughters battle with a critical illness, are we in a position to judge which is more distressing or more hurtful? We thought we could apply the same grace to parents of critically ill children by increasing the employment insurance benefit to 52 weeks from 37.

The other amendment was to extend the unpaid leave in EI benefits to 14 days after the day on which a recipient's child died, instead of the last day of the week, to provide parents with additional support during a period of grief.

Both of these amendments asked that the parents of children who died from a critical illness be afforded two additional weeks to grieve. As it stands in Bill C-44, special benefits for parents of a critical ill child would expire on the last day of the week in which the child died. This means that if a child passes away on a Thursday, the child's mother or father would be required to return to work that following Monday. Therefore, the parent loses a child on Thursday and has to return to work on Monday.

If bereaved parents returned to a workplace that required a degree of concentration, maybe it would impact on the safety of others working around them. We would expect people in a position of trust or responsibility to be sound of mind and mentally prepared to perform the duties that are asked of them on a daily basis. I would think if parents are dealing with the death of a child, they would want some time to come to terms with that, to work with their families, their spouses and their other children. We thought it would have been in order to extend that benefit for an additional two weeks. That was ruled out of order as well.

Our amendments would have increased the supports for the parents to receive the same types of benefits through this incredibly dark time.

The other amendment was to eliminate the unequal and unfairness of the labour force attachment by reducing the number of labour force attachment hours required of employment insurance claimants from 600 to 420 that would have to be worked over the six-month period. Reducing the number of hours required would have the effect of extending benefits to part-time workers. We know the number of part-time workers has grown in the country.

In 2004, one in eight jobs were of a part-time nature. Now, one in seven jobs are of a part-time nature. That is fairly significant. It is a big change in the fundamentals of the workforce structure in our country. The amendment we put forward would have addressed the number, especially if a primary caregiver were the mother. The number of women in the workforce who work part-time far exceeds the number of men who work part-time.

We asked the government how it arrived at this number and it could not really provide a legitimate rationale for the 600 hour requirement. We quizzed officials on this and they said that they chose this number because that was what was required to receive special benefits. It was synchronized up like that. There was no other rationale for it. If they had looked at the changing nature of the workforce and the fact that the part-time worker segment had grown so much over the last eight years, they may have been able to alter their perception to improve the legislation.

In analyzing how many parents could potentially qualify, we found a significant percentage would not meet the minimum hourly requirement. In 2011, 25% of parents of children under age 18 worked part-time, a very substantive number, part-time being fewer than 30 hours a week. These parents worked an average of 16.5 hours a week. Had they worked continuously for six months, they would have only worked 430 hours, not enough to qualify for the EI benefit. In fact, 80% of fathers and 75% of mothers who worked part-time, worked fewer than what would be required to reach the 600 hours over the course of 26 weeks. That means 275,000 fathers and 680,000 mothers would not qualify for this new special benefit. It is just wrong to take that number of Canadians and tell them they will be unable to receive the same support as another group of Canadians. It is truly unfortunate and is a missed opportunity.

Had the bill not been introduced so quickly, the opposition may have had time to make improvements at second reading. We heard time after time, almost to a witness, that the age requirement of 18 should be increased. Certainly both opposition parties made a point of this knowing that parents did not stop caring for or trying to support their children just because they turned the magic age of 19. Parents are in it for the long haul. The witnesses believed that the age requirement should be increased.

The bill was brought forward and rushed through second reading. The minister announced the legislation on September 20. The next week, on September 26, the debate at second reading of Bill C-44 began.

However, the technical briefing on the bill, which would amend three pieces of legislation, did not occur until after second reading debate had already begun. We were in the midst of that when the technical briefing took place.

That is the devil in the detail aspect of the way the government has decided it is going to put forward its legislation. We have seen that in the omnibus bill and in a number of other pieces of legislation. Probably the most egregious example would be the budget bill. If they can jam as much as they can in there and run it through as quickly as they can, it would serve some type of purpose. However, if had been given a real opportunity to refine that piece of legislation, we could have put forward the amendments to increase the age and changed the allowable number of hours for part-time workers from 600 down to 420. These changes would have included a greater number of the Canadians who really live on the edges.

However, that is not the way the Conservatives decided to go about it. Indeed, considering the expertise within the public service in the Department of Human Resources, it would have been very useful to have the briefing well before the debate at second reading to provide adequate time to prepare amendments to strengthen this legislation.

I bring members' attention to the fact that in 2002 the Liberal government of the day passed Bill C-49, and I was fortunate to be part of that government. That bill amended the Employment Insurance Act to make the stacking provisions more lenient. The intention of the bill at that time was to ensure that a person who fell ill during a parental leave could also collect EI sickness benefits. What unfortunately happened was that the bureaucracy did not follow the intent of Parliament's legislation and refused perhaps thousands of parents who fell ill during their parental leave.

It was only after one lady appealed the denial of her benefits that the real issue came to light. In 2010, Natalya Rougas, a Toronto mother, was diagnosed with breast cancer while on maternity leave. However, after applying for EI sick benefits her claim was rejected on the grounds that she was on maternity leave and therefore not available for work. She appealed the decision and won her case last year, entitling her to a maximum of 15 weeks of sick benefits in addition to the 50 weeks of maternity and parental benefits that she took after her son was born in January 2009. In his ruling, released in 2011, Justice R.J. Marin said that the legislative changes in 2002 in Bill C-49 were intended to make sick benefits available to women who became ill immediately before, during or after receiving maternity benefits.

Justice Marin later explained that “If the (Employment Insurance) Commission were to give a more liberal interpretation to the provisions of the Act in relation to women who are able to establish a serious illness at the end of their maternal/parental leave, its approach would be consistent with the will of elected officials”. That is a key point, which has been reinforced by a further ruling. Marin also stated that the law was not being interpreted “in the way in which Parliament had intended”.

The lawyer for Ms. Rougas, Mr. Stephen Moreau, expects there are 3,000 or 4,000 such people out there to which this applies. It was funny too that when Bill C-49 was being put forward to make people eligible for those stacking provisions, the Conservatives voted against it. One of their favourite lines is: “These guys voted against it”. Well, they voted against this stacking provision. I do not know where this stands right now and whether these people are being allowed to receive the benefits. However, Judge Marin certainly believes these have always been in order.

I look forward to answering some questions.

(The House resumed at 12:02 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 8 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 third time and passed.

Financial Literacy Leader Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I was very happy to see that we were able to change and adapt our position after we heard from the experts in committee. That is the purpose of committees and it shows just how important they are.

As for his question regarding our support for the bill and whether it is truly a good thing, as I have said many times, it is a step in the right direction, but there is still a lot to be done. At the same time, like with Bill C-44, which we debated this morning, our support should not be misinterpreted. If we support a bill, it does not necessarily mean that we are happy with it and do not think there is still a lot of work to do. There is a difference there and it is important to point that out.

I also thank my colleague for sharing the education perspective. That is extremely important. As I have said many times, when we educate people, we must be very careful, because we must respect their intelligence, their own responsibilities and their ability to invest. We must not fall into the trap of the one-way street, meaning that we must not talk only about savings. We must make people understand the realities of our financial systems and show them how they can use these systems to secure their retirement and bring in positive returns on their investments.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, before we depart to our constituencies and events for Remembrance Day where most of us will be participating in remembrance services in our ridings, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act.

The week of November 19 will continue to see a lot of important action at the House committee level, where we are looking at the budget implementation act, Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, as it advances through the legislative process. The finance committee is supported by 10 other committees looking at it and all together they will conclude the review of this very important bill and the very important job creation and economic measures that are laid out, measures that were first put before Parliament back in our March budget.

Meanwhile, on Monday the House will continue the third reading debate of Bill C-44, the helping families in need act, which we started this morning. Given support for the bill from all corners of the House, I hope it will pass that day so the Senate can pass it before the end of the year.

After Bill C-44, it is our intention to take up the report stage and third reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, which was reported back from the agriculture committee yesterday. I hope we will see strong interest in passing that bill quickly, just as we did for second reading.

Once that bill passes on Monday, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act, if we do not finish the debate today.

That will be followed by second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, the chamber will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-27, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which was also reported back from committee yesterday.

I should also advise the House that on Tuesday when we return from the Remembrance Day week, immediately after question period I will call ways and means Motion No. 14 respecting some technical amendments to tax laws. Let me assure the House that there should be no doubt about this, but the opposition will no doubt be disappointed. This motion will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax.

Finally, on Thursday before question period, the House will resume second reading debate of Bill S-8 and after question period we will take up Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, also at second reading.

Helping Families in Need Act

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House again to continue the debate on 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. Although the title itself does not tell us much, the bill would make a series of improvements, most of them through the employment insurance program, to Canadian families that desperately need the support of their government. For that reason, as I indicated at second reading, my NDP colleagues and I are pleased to support the bill.

However, we take our role as the official opposition seriously. We hold the government to account and even when we agree with the intent of a particular piece of government legislation, we will work hard to ensure it is the very best bill that it can be.

To that end, we went into the committee hearings on Bill C-44 hoping to make the process work. Committee is where we have the opportunity to go through a bill clause-by-clause to question the minister, or in this case ministers, responsible for the bill and to hear testimony from both experts in the field and from individuals who would be impacted by the proposed legislative changes. We then go through the bill with a fine tooth comb to address concerns because, with the current government in particular, the devil is often in the details.

Because we support Bill C-44, we went into committee hoping that a spirit of co-operation would prevail and that we would collaborate to make the necessary improvements to give parents of critically ill, murdered or missing children the support they so desperately needed. I cannot tell members how profoundly disappointed I was when the government members on committee reverted to the old caricature of themselves and refused to entertain a single amendment proposed by opposition MPs. Honestly, it was a disgrace.

I will give one example of an area where we could have made an important improvement to the bill.

In order for parents of murdered or missing children to receive the government grant, they would have to have earned $6,500. Presumably, that threshold was set to show some kind of attachment to the labour force. Leaving aside the broader question of whether it is necessary to prove such attachment in the first place, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development in committee why she chose to adopt a threshold based on earnings as opposed to hours worked. Obviously, under her rules, somebody who worked for minimum wage would have to work many more hours to qualify for the benefit than somebody who made $150 an hour. Why would we create such an unequal threshold when people at the lower end of the wage scale would likely need the financial support even more than those at the higher end?

I encouraged the minister to explore other ways of proving attachment to the labour force. The minister responded by saying that they could not use hours worked to prove attachment to the labour force because:

—that would not be compatible with the eligibility of self-employed workers who have opted into the EI system. Their eligibility for EI special benefits is based on financial figures, on dollars earned, because we cannot measure their hours. There's no way to validate that.

Really? We do not trust the self-employed to report accurately, so we will punish those workers who earn minimum wage or work part-time because the government cannot create a nuanced enough system to ensure that the bill is fair to everyone. Really? Is that what the government is saying to parents of murdered and missing children?

We in the opposition could not move the necessary amendments in committee because they would have been ruled out of order. However, the minister had, and still has, the opportunity to right this wrong. Changing the eligibility criteria is the right thing to do and it would not throw the government into financial crisis.

Let us be clear about the numbers here. According to the Canadian Police Information Centre, there were 25 abductions by strangers in 2012. Helping 25 families will not break the bank, but even if it did, it is absolutely the right thing to do and the minister should not be creating artificial barriers by means testing eligibility for support. The Conservatives' failure to reconsider these provisions is an absolute disgrace and belies the spin that they are sincere about wanting to help families in crisis.

I would say the same thing about the other amendments my NDP colleagues and I were pushing for in committee. I know I will not have time to repeat them all in the House today, but let me continue to highlight some of the most obvious areas where we could and should have found common cause.

I will begin with the most egregious example where the Conservatives' strict adherence to talking points trumped common sense. Clause 5 of Bill C-44 states that leave for critical illness would end on the last day of the week that the child died. New Democrats tried to move a modest amendment that would have extended that leave for another two weeks after the child's death to give the parents time to grieve and to bury their child.

Our proposed amendment was supported by the Canadian Association of Social Workers, Ronald McDonald House Charities, the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Canadian Labour Congress. Fred Phelps, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Social Workers was almost incredulous when he asked the committee, “would compassion not dictate that families require time after death to mourn and bury their child?” For most Canadians, the answer would have been a resounding yes, but sadly, compassion does not appear to be the government's forte and the bill is proceeding unamended.

Let me give another example. The bill as it currently stands defines children as those under 18 years of age. Why is that? In many cases children are defined not by age but by their dependency on their parents. For example, many dental and health insurance plans cover so-called children until they reach the age of 18 or they complete school; 18 is not a hard and fast cutoff. I would argue that this should be the case in Bill C-44 as well. Particularly, it is essential that the definition of child be expanded beyond the age of 18 for disabled children.

As the minister herself acknowledged, the criteria she used were emotional dependency and emotional maturity. Clearly, those criteria would apply to some disabled Canadians who may well be over the age of 18 but for whom the emotional attachment to their parents is every bit as real as for those children who fit the current definition in the act.

As Tyler Hnatuk, representing the Canadian Association for Community Living made clear at committee:

...caregiving responsibilities for parents of children with disabilities often continue much longer in life than for other families, and so certainly I want to recognize the need and the duties that carry on throughout a lifetime.

The parenting of a child with a severe disability is a lifetime commitment.

It would have been easy for us to allow for the expansion of the definition of the word “child” in this bill. That is why the New Democrats on the committee moved an amendment that would add child to the list of terms that could be defined through regulations, which would allow the government to expand the definition to include dependent children over the age of 18. Again, we are talking about a very small number of families who would be impacted, but for those families the concern is very real.

It is not good enough for the Conservatives to vote no just because the amendment came from the NDP. The Conservatives should have put partisanship aside and acted in the best interests of Canadians. That is what they were elected to do, but if they cannot even do it on a bill that has all-party support, how are we ever going to make the committee process work on the more contentious matters that are referred to our committee? Is it really that foreign a concept to the government that detailed scrutiny of its bills may actually lead to better legislation? Committee work used to be an integral part of the legislative process under governments of all stripes, but under the Conservative Prime Minister, that work is wholly devalued.

Here is another example. Clause 6 of the bill provides leave for the parents of murdered or missing children. We all support that provision, of course, but would it not make sense to allow parents to take that leave on a flexible basis rather than mandating that it be taken in consecutive weeks? We were not suggesting that the total number of weeks be increased. We simply wanted to allow parents to apportion their leave to suit their personal circumstances. Oftentimes their dealings with the judicial system occurred months down the road. Why would we not allow them to use some of their leave time during that critical time? Again, that flexibility found broad support among the witnesses who gave testimony before our committee.

Let me give a sampling from the very people whom this bill is intended to help. When asked whether it would be helpful to create flexibility with respect to the leave provisions of the bill, here is what they said.

Mr. Bruno Serre, whose daughter Brigitte was murdered in January 2006 at the age of 17 during her shift at a gas station in Montreal, said:

I think that would be a very good thing.

For example, if this happened to someone and, after 10 weeks, they felt ready, they could return to work. In my case, I went back after five weeks, but I wasn't really capable.

So it would help to have hours or weeks banked. Five probably would have been used and then there would be 30 left, which could be used over the years. But there should be no expiry date. For example, it could be decided that the recipient would have one year to use these 35 weeks, as is sometimes the case in the government. Instead, this should be spread out over two or three years. Some trials can take place three years later.

If someone has used all the weeks and the trial comes up, that person will relive the tragedy. When the trial comes up, you relive the day when you learned about the death of your loved one. So there are other steps to take. If the person doesn't have any weeks left, he or she will have to go through the same situation again that happened at the very start. That person will be lost and unable to work.

Being able to bank the weeks for later would be a very good solution.

Christiane Sirois concurred. Ms. Sirois' son was kidnapped on November 1, 1984, when he was 8 years old. When asked about the desirability of creating greater flexibility she said:

My answer is yes, without hesitation. I support what Mr. Serre said: there should be banked hours, should a person need them.

This doesn't apply for me. I haven't found my son, but I can put myself in the shoes of people who have found their child. I do not dream about finding him alive after 28 years, you can be sure. But I understand. I am suspended. What will happen when I find his little eight-year-old body or what's left of it? This will happen one day, for sure. I will relive 28 years stored up in my memory. It is important to be prepared for this, that is certain.

That is why it is crucial that these victims have a minimum amount of financial assistance to help them survive. Because listen carefully: you don't really live with this, but you survive.

Lastly, let me add the words of Ms. Céline Hotte, whose life changed forever when her daughter was murdered. Here is what Ms. Hotte told us in committee:

For 10 to 17 years after the events, I had to deal with the perpetrator's parole requests and the issue of halfway houses. To contest these requests, you need to put together a file. This takes signatures from people in the village where he lived. This isn't easy to do. You also have to read about everything he did in prison. This isn't easy. You cannot talk to him—that's not what I want to do anyway. You have to read the reports. He never followed the recommendations. Each time, it put me right back into the situation I had gone through.

Clearly there is widespread agreement that every circumstance is different and that there must be enough flexibility to allow for accommodation.

That is certainly the conclusion drawn by Canada's Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, who in her testimony also encouraged the government to allow for flexibility. She focused particularly on the administration of justice and the court process:

We know that if there is a murder, the court case may be several years down the road, so to provide an option and some flexibility—for example, a parent may choose to take a certain amount of time at the time of the crime, and then, if the criminal court process is two years down the road, they may need to have time then as well. Also, in some cases the person responsible may not be apprehended for a while. I'm just saying adding that flexibility would provide parents of murdered and missing children an opportunity to take the time when it's appropriate for them, when they need that time.

Clearly, there was broad-based consensus about what needed to be done to make Bill C-44 as effective as possible for the people it was intended to help. The only people offside were the members of the Conservative caucus, presumably at the direction of the minister responsible and the Prime Minister.

I make these points more in sadness than in anger. We had the perfect opportunity to improve a bill that we all agree is worth supporting. This did not need to be an exercise in rigid partisanship, where the Conservative members of the committee automatically oppose anything proposed by the NDP. Frankly, the victims of crime deserve better. The parents of critically ill children deserve better. The Canadian public deserves better. They deserve a concerted effort from all their elected officials to make Parliament work. In this instance, on Bill C-44, the Conservative members on the human resources committee let Canadians down.

Now at this point members may well wonder whether we will continue to support the bill. Let me reassure them. My NDP colleagues and I will of course vote in favour of Bill C-44. My point is simply that we could have achieved more, that we could have improved the bill in meaningful ways, but that we failed to seize that important opportunity.

That does not mean that baby steps in the right direction are not worth taking.

In fact, as I said at the time of second reading, there are parts of Bill C-44 that were lifted directly from my own private member's Bill C-362. Let me just review which those are.

First, one of the proposals included in the government's bill would amend the Employment Insurance 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 are very often 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 we 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 recognizes that those on parental leave, the very same physically and emotionally drained new parents who sometimes become ill while on parental leave, can find that they have been downsized or laid off, through no fault of their own, while on parental leave.

As it currently stands, parents in that situation are denied benefits. 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 benefit arrangement. I am pleased to see that the government has at least adopted them.

I do want to reflect for a moment on whether the EI program is the best vehicle for delivering the larger package of supports contemplated by Bill C-44. As members can tell from my phrasing, I obviously do not think it is. It bears pointing out that at one time the government agreed with me.

As recently as 2011, the Conservative Party platform stated, “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, senior manager, professional or 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. However, with respect to critically ill children, the Conservatives have ignored their election promise and are paying for their commitment through EI. I don't 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. Therefore, 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.

I know my time is almost up, but I ask that the House indulge me for one more minute so that I can make a final point.

New Democrats support the bill. It is not a question of ideology or partisan politics; it is about assisting families in their time of need. However, let us be clear. The bill does not go far enough to help the families of missing and murdered children, nor the parents of kids who are critically ill.

Also, the bill does not go far enough in making reforms to EI. These measures completely fail to address the greatest challenge with EI, which is the lack of access for unemployed Canadians.

The bill will clearly pass, and by all means let us do it quickly, because we have to get on with tackling the larger question of comprehensive EI reform. We must make EI accessible and effective for all Canadians. Nothing less will do.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and the members of the Liberal Party as well for indicating that they will be supporting the bill. I thank the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso who is the Liberal Party member on the committee. He, too, just like the member for Hamilton Mountain, has worked very hard on the bill, reviewing it at committee and ensuring that it is a strong bill to go forward and ensuring that it will help families.

After this bill is passed, it would be the role of all members of Parliament to have conversations with our respective provincial colleagues to get them to adopt similar labour code changes in their provincial labour legislation to mirror the changes that we bring forward to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that the 90% of the people in our country who are not covered under the Canada Labour Code but are covered by employment standards and labour legislation in the provinces will also be able to get the benefit that federally-regulated business and federal government employees will get through the changes in Bill C-44 with respect to the Canada Labour Code.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on committee. We sat on HUMA together and reviewed this bill in some detail.

I noticed the member could not resist taking some partisan jabs. I will try not to reply in kind, but I want to point out that he ended by suggesting that his party had kept its commitment with respect to the electoral platform where indeed the Conservatives promised in 2011 to “ provide enhanced EI benefits to parents of murdered or missing children”.

We on this side of the House support that commitment and will vote in favour of Bill C-44. However, the member neglected to say that the Conservatives' commitment also said that “Funding for this measure will come from general revenue, not EI premiums”. This is part of the commitment they did not keep.

We know from other debates in the House that the EI system is not serving Canadians well. Only four out of ten Canadians can access EI. We know that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have stolen $57 billion out of the EI fund to pay down the debt and deficit rather than provide the much needed benefits for people who, frankly, paid into the system, which is only workers and employers.

Now we have an about face. We are adding something else to the draw on the EI fund, which is we now have to pay for this bill out of the EI fund as well.

Could the member talk for a minute about why the Conservatives flip-flopped on their commitment that this program would not be funded by EI?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the House today to this absolutely fantastic legislation. The helping families in need act is a bill that would provide help to parents who are going through some of the most difficult times in their lives.

As a new member of Parliament, I very much remember one of the first constituent meetings I had after being elected. I heard from the father of a very young girl who was very stricken with cancer. Our party had made a promise in the election campaign that we would bring in changes to the employment insurance system that would allow parents of critically ill children to claim benefits while they were spending much needed time with their child. I remember him sharing his story, saying how much of a benefit it would have been in their case if his wife had been able to take the time off work and claim EI benefits, enabling her to stay with their very sick child. I am delighted to report that the child has had a great recovery and is doing well.

That is just one example of one family out of thousands that the changes proposed in Bill C-44 would help. As one individual member of Parliament, to hear that story and to be able to rise in the House today and talk about it, knowing that the bill would make a significant difference to families like that, makes me immensely proud.

The proposed legislation supports the implementation of three initiatives: the new federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children, the new employment insurance benefit for parents of critically ill children and enhanced access to EI sickness benefits for parents who fall ill while they are receiving EI parental benefits.

The title of the bill says it all. It is about helping Canadian families. It is about supporting them through situations that are both financially and emotionally difficult.

As announced by the Prime Minister earlier this spring, we will be creating a new benefit for the parents of murdered or missing children. We heard at committee from a number of parents whose lives had been affected by the fact that their child was missing, had been missing and, in some cases, had been murdered. I cannot even imagine as a parent going through that. We listened to the testimony and heard from these parents indicating how much this benefit would have helped them in their situation. Even though they continued to grieve, and they will each and every day for that murdered child, the ability to take time off to spend with the remaining members of the family, to have that level of support, and to know that their job will be secure through the amendments that are proposed in the bill to the Canada Labour Code, will make a significant difference to the lives of those people who showed the courage to come before the human resources skills and social development committee and share their stories with all of us. I know every member of the committee, both opposition and government members, were very moved by the testimony of those individuals.

As a father of two wonderful daughters, I understand how important family is and a parent's desire to protect our children. The loss or disappearance of a child as a result of a criminal act can only be described as the most difficult experience a parent could ever go through.

The new federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children, which would provide parents with financial support of up to $350 per week for up to 35 weeks, is a major step forward. I am delighted, at report stage, that all members of the committee recommended that the bill come back here today for further and final debate, and hopefully passage. We all recognize the tremendous benefit that this support would provide to these families.

The helping families in need act would also amend the Canada Labour Code to protect the jobs of parents who temporarily leave a federally regulated job to cope with the death or disappearance of a child as a result of a suspected Criminal Code offence. We know that the new income support and the knowledge that their job is also protected would help ease the pressure on parents in this unimaginable situation.

Since Canadians first elected a Conservative government, we have been devoted in our support for victims of crime, despite the fact that the opposition parties continually vote against our measures to strengthen victims' rights. However, the bill does transcend party politics. It would provide support for Canadians going through something that is so personal, so devastating and so profound that only those who have been touched by this kind of tragedy themselves will ever truly understand it.

We have already heard a number of very touching speeches in the House by many members of Parliament, including the member of Parliament for Brant. I want to thank him for what I think was a very moving speech and for sharing his family's personal story yesterday in the House on the bill. It just goes to show that there are 308 people who get elected to this place who all come from different parts of the country, different families and so on. Many of us wind up being touched on a personal level by some of these tragedies in life because we know of a relative with a critically ill child or we know of a family where a child has gone missing. Unfortunately, there are some of us who also do know families who have been touched by the fact that a child has been murdered.

I am glad to hear that my hon. colleagues from the Liberal and NDP parties will be supporting the bill, even though the NDP did initially vote against the ways and means motion to get it moving. Let me review some of the measures we have taken to help families, even though the opposition parties either opposed or delayed many of these great initiatives.

Our government has expanded the eligibility for compassionate care benefits to include people considered as family by the person who is ill. We have allowed self-employed workers to opt into the employment insurance program to be able to receive maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits.

In speaking to a number of self-employed people, I know how much in my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville they very much appreciate the fact that they can opt into the EI system. This is especially true of women entrepreneurs because they will then be eligible for maternity and parental leave benefits while they are caring for their newborn, a time when they may not be able to continue to run their own business directly. We have also improved access to EI parental benefits for military families and for foster families who make a demonstrable commitment to adopt the child in their care.

As a former board member of the Peel Children's Aid Society, I know how important it is for foster families to be able to spend the time they need with a new child they have adopted into their family and to be eligible to collect EI benefits just as if it were their own, biological, newborn child. What a great initiative we have brought forward to encourage more families to foster and to adopt children who need wonderful homes.

Our government is committed to making targeted, common sense changes to the EI program to support hard-working Canadian families. We are doing this through the helping families in need act. This support will help people at a time when they most desperately need it.

While we are fortunate to live in one of the safest countries in the world, we are not immune to violence. It is unthinkable but every year in Canada some 1,100 children are reported abducted and about 100 children are murdered. I cannot even begin to imagine what it might be like to lose someone I love more than anything in the world, especially in something as senseless as a child abduction or a murder. It is unthinkable, and families who have to deal with that reality deserve our support.

Our government is taking steps to help families who are dealing with these traumas. We have heard from Canadians that this help is needed and it is long overdue. That is why our government made the campaign commitment to provide support. I am delighted to say we are following through on it right now. This income support will help these parents take time off work to address legal issues and to begin their emotional recovery.

Fortunately, many employers grant unpaid leave to parents in these situations. I think there would be very few employers who would not empathize with their employee and his or her family going through this, and those companies are often very generous in their support. However, it is important that we, as legislators, also make sure that we are doing what we need to do within the laws of Canada and within our employment insurance system to also provide our support.

Fortunately, while it helps parents focus on their families, most parents cannot afford to go without an income for extended periods of time. They also need to know that their job will still be there when they are ready to come back.

We are the one party that is always putting the rights of victims ahead of criminals. Our record has been very clear on this issue. In 2007, we provided $52 million to strengthen the federal victims strategy. In budget 2011, there was an additional $26 million for this initiative. Since Canadians elected our government, we have brought in much needed legislation to protect the victims of crime as well as to ensure that those who do commit crimes pay the price. We will continue to deliver on our commitment to protect all Canadians.

As the parent of two daughters aged 13 and 8, the thought of losing one of them is unimaginable. We talk to families who have been through that situation and all members of the House empathize with what they go through. We as the government have an obligation to support and help families cope during these tragedies, however horrible the circumstances. By providing this much-needed financial support and job protection for parents, we can at least give them some time to begin to heal.

I want to quote a number of different representatives and organizations that support the bill and its speedy passage. Dan Demers from the Canadian Cancer Society stated:

This new EI support will allow parents to focus on caring for their child rather than worrying about how to pay the bills and can they keep their jobs. 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 difficult time.

Terri Odeneal, executive director of the Comox Valley Hospice Society, stated, “By extending these benefits, we can ensure that parents can focus on caring for their child during this difficult time rather than worrying about financial issues”.

Sharon Ruth, who is the mother of a critically-ill child, in a press conference this past September stated:

Every time there was an election, all the efforts died on the order paper and we had to start again. The truth is that I had help from each party, but it 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.

I will quote Sharon Ruth again, because she speaks very passionately about where we are and where we need to go. She said:

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

In conclusion, I want to go back to one of the first face-to-face constituency meetings I had with a resident of the great riding of Mississauga—Streetsville, a father who shared his story with me. He said, “Brad, you guys need to keep your election commitment. You need to get this measure enacted”.

Nothing gives me greater honour and privilege today than to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-44 and tell that father that we have delivered.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-44, An act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations.

The committee has considered the bill and has agreed to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not know anything about a so-called deal that the NDP House leader talked about, I do know the Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance announced a process she was going to recommend to the finance committee to allow study of the bill, which I understand was adopted yesterday. It is a large bill, but it is not as large, of course, as the one that the Leader of the Opposition had when he was part of the cabinet in Quebec.

However, that being said, it is important that it be studied.

Consequently, as our government proposed, next week, 11 committees, including the finance committee, will study the important and necessary economic measures proposed in Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

Yesterday, the finance committee got to work on this bill, not even 24 hours after the House passed it at second reading. This bill will implement key measures, like an extension of the small business hiring tax credit; and let me assure the House, it will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion, job-killing carbon tax.

Turning to business in the chamber, we will start second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, momentarily. I think it will be today.

Tomorrow, we will start report stage—and, ideally, third reading—of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

As a former trade minister, I can tell you that the NDP is opposed to free trade. They have made that clear numerous times by dragging out debate, delaying and voting against free trade agreements here in the House. In fact, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior outlined his party's position when he stated that “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation.” That is the NDP position.

We will continue debating free trade with Panama next week, on Tuesday and Wednesday. This bill will finally put into law our free trade agreement—an agreement which was signed here in Ottawa almost two-and-a-half years ago.

On Monday, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, before question period. Based on the speeches we heard the last time it was before the House, I hope that these two extra hours of debate will be sufficient for it to proceed to committee.

After question period on Monday, we will see Bill C-36, the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act to combat elder abuse, considered at report stage and, hopefully, third reading.

Also Monday will be the day designated, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2)(a), for resuming the adjourned debate on the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Finally, next Thursday, we will consider Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, which I understand was considered clause by clause at the human resources committee this morning. Given the unanimous endorsement the bill received at second reading, I hope it could pass and be sent to the other place before we rise for the constituency week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

All right, I've got your amendments. I think it's fair to deal with both NDP-7 and NDP-8, as they essentially have the same premise and the same basis.

The ruling is as follows. Clause 18 of Bill C-44 states that the benefits under this section end the last day of the week the child dies. Amendments NDP-7 and NDP-8 propose that the benefits end two weeks after the day on which the child dies, or probably the last day the child dies.

House of Commons Practice and Procedure, second edition, states on pages 767 to 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, NDP-7 and NDP-8 represent an extension of the period during which the benefits can be claimed by an employee, which seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendments are inadmissible.

This ruling also applies to LIB-6 and LIB-7, which seek to amend the same lines and achieve the same results.

(Clause 18 agreed to)

(Clauses 19 to 22 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 23)

We will now go to clause 23, which has amendment LIB-8. Can you identify that in the bill for me?

Mr. Cuzner, it seems to be similar. Do you wish to make any comments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

So moved. All right.

Well, it's an interesting way of getting there, but I have to rule on whether the amendment is admissible or not, given the preamble and the clarification.

Clause 18 of Bill C-44 states that benefits can be paid to a major attachment claimant who is a parent of a critically ill child. Amendment LIB-5 proposes to extend these benefits to a minor attachment claimant who has 420 hours or more of insurable employment.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 to 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, LIB-5 represents an extension of the categories of claimants to whom benefits would be available and would seek to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendment LIB-5 is inadmissible.

We have NDP-7. Perhaps you can identify it for me in the bill.

If you wish to move that amendment, Mr. Sullivan, you can read it or just simply move it as we have it.

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

The amendment is as follows :

That Bill C-44, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 16 on page 9 with the following: "(d) defining "child", enlarging the meaning of "critically ill".

That is the amendment.

The point would be to define the word "child" for the same reasons as before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Okay.

All right, so then we will go to amendment NDP-5. Can you identify that for me? NDP-5 relates to page 6.

Move NDP-5, and I'll indicate what it says. It asks:

That Bill C-44, in clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 6 with the following:

“(2), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 104 weeks to which he or she is entitled, or

(ii) in the case of leave under subsection (3), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 52 weeks to which he or she is entitled.”

This amendment would relate to the flexibility of being able to take those leaves, and I'm advised again that this particular amendment is out of order. Clause 6 of Bill C-44 states that leave of absence ends 104 weeks after the day of the death of a child occurs or 52 weeks after the day on which the disappearance occurs. Amendment NDP-5 proposes that these periods be 104 weeks or 52 weeks, notwithstanding these restrictions in the bill.

Again, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 766: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, amendment NDP-5 represents an extension of the period during which the leave of absence may be taken, which is beyond the scope of the bill and therefore inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

It's out of order. I'll indicate why, and then I suppose you can appeal a decision of the chair, if you wish.

Clause 6 of Bill C-44 defines a child as a person who is under 18 years of age. Amendment NDP-4 proposes to extend this definition of child to persons over 18 years of age. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment NDP-4, which enlarges the definition of “child” to persons over the age of 18, is beyond the scope of Bill C-44 and is therefore inadmissible. At this point you can, if you wish, appeal the chair's decision or challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

It's out of order, and I'll tell you why again. Clause 5 of Bill C-44 states that leave related to this part of the clause ends on the last day of the week when the last of the children dies. Amendment NDP-3 proposes that this leave would expire two weeks after the day on which the last of the children dies. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading...is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of NDP-3 represents an extension of leave included in clause 5 of the bill, which is beyond the scope of the bill and is therefore inadmissible. This ruling also applies to LIB-3, which seeks to amend the same line and to achieve the same result. Essentially this deals with much the same idea as the former amendment, as it relates to the one child.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I have a ruling with respect to that amendment. Clause 5 of Bill C-44 states that leave related to this part is of a maximum of 37 weeks. The amendment proposes that this leave be extended to 52 weeks. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading...is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, and pursuant to advice, the introduction of the LIB-1 amendment represents an extension of leave included in clause 5 of the bill, which is beyond the scope of the bill and is therefore inadmissible. I might mention also that LIB-3 is correlated to LIB-1, and this ruling will apply to the LIB-3 amendment as well.

Now we'll go to NDP-2. It relates to page 4 of the bill, clause 5. Amendment NDP-2 essentially talks about the end dates. I'll let the NDP move that motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Lapointe.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To simplify, what we propose with this amendment is to define “child” separately from a definition of “critically ill”, because the definition of “child” right now under Bill C-44 is a cut-off at 18. We want the definition of “child” pulled out separately from “critically ill”, because, for example, in the case of a parent of a mentally challenged person in their twenties, thirties, or forties, say, who has the mental capacity of a child, we would like to have that separate from “critically ill”. That's the rationale for this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Excuse me. Hold on for a minute.

I'm told that you can't move a motion on a point of order. That's a fact, so we won't entertain that. We'll deal with the clause-by-clause consideration, but I can assure you that we have a provision in the agenda to deal with committee business after we do clause by clause. You can certainly move your motion at that point. I so rule.

Okay. Now, we're here to do clause-by-clause study with respect to Bill C-44, as stated pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 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.

In going through the clause-by-clause consideration, we are fortunate to have here with us, from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, Jean-François Roussy, director, self-employed and other initiatives, employment insurance policy, and Lenore Duff, senior director, strategic policy and legislative reform labour program. Of course, we're dealing with amendments that affect both areas, and they're here to answer any technical questions you may have as we go forward.

I might say, just to give you some idea of how we might plan to proceed, that we won't deal with the title initially. We'll wait until the end to do that. We will go through the clauses one by one. I do know that there have been a series of amendments by both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.

When we get to that point, I would then invite you to move your motion. We will deal with it in terms of whether it's in order or out of order and then proceed accordingly from there.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Absolutely, and as a matter of fact, I may just even refer to my testimony last week on Bill C-44. I think we heard very powerfully from families who had lost loved ones to homicide. They talked about the impact on the other siblings in the family in terms of the supports they need.

We heard, again, about the definition of “victim”. For example, in the U.K. they use the words “victim witness”. There are many people who are touched by a crime. In families, particularly in a homicide, people often will say that the siblings are the silent ones who we don't hear from but who are obviously tremendously impacted.

We know from research and studies that many families—I'll just use homicide as an example—will go through not just loss of income, but also the need for supports and other concurrent issues that may recur as a result of their victimization. We need to have those supports in place to ensure that families and victims are able to cope with the aftermath of a crime, through the criminal justice system and beyond.

[Stephen Moreau]

—I do support Bill C-44 because it's clarifying the existence of this sickness benefit during a parental leave. If you want the absolute, frank, honest truth—as in, what does the law provide for today, with or without Bill C-44?—since March 3, 2002, by removing the anti-stacking or by removing what we call the caps, it has already provided for the provision of a sickness benefit during parental leave.

On the example you mentioned about a case...Ms. Rougas was my client. She was given a sickness benefit even though she got cancer in the middle of her parental leave. She was given that because of the Liberal amendments in 2002 to Bill C-49.

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

By the way, I also wanted to say that I share your opinion. This money should not come from employment insurance, as there is not much money in that account as it is.

My next question is for Mr. Moreau.

In the document you sent us, it says that Bill C-44 will not allow a parent to go on sickness leave shortly after taking a maternity leave. In other words, if a maternity leave ends and, a week later, the person finds out they are sick, they will have to work 600 hours to be eligible for sickness leave. Did I understand that correctly?

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

Thank you, Sir, Madam.

Ms. MacEwen, you talked about employment insurance. To be eligible, parents of murdered or missing children have to have earned $6,500 over the course of the year, and not to have worked a certain number of hours. You mentioned that some people had a lower income. So those people will be at a disadvantage, even though their needs are that much greater because of their lower income.

For instance, a person who earns $10 an hour must put in 150 hours, while people who earn $20 an hour must put in half that number of hours.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Can you tell us what kind of amendments could be made to Bill C-44?

[Stephen Moreau, Lawyer, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP]

Thank you, and good morning, members of the committee. Greetings from Toronto, and for Ms. Leitch, greetings from Wasaga Beach, where I visited a cottage a few weeks ago.

I will be brief. I'm speaking very specifically about clauses 15 and 21, which are the clauses that deal with enhancing or clarifying the ability to provide a sickness benefit during a parental leave period. I'm only speaking to that smaller set of amendments in Bill C-44.

I should open by saying that although I'm going to speak a little more narrowly about those particular provisions, the fact that I don't touch on some of the points Ms. MacEwen makes shouldn't be taken to mean I don't agree with her. I think everything Ms. MacEwen said about the employment insurance system and some of its problematic aspects are entirely true.

In fact, the Federal Court of Appeal, in a case called Lazure, essentially echoed some of these comments that the witness made without necessarily finding a violation of what we call section 15 equality rights in the charter, but it did find that the act does disproportionately affect women in the workforce. Insofar as the committee is looking at that, what Witness MacEwen has to say is entirely accurate and should be paid special attention to.

As I said, I'm focusing specifically on clauses 15 and 21, the addition of the sickness benefit. In my view, this is a provision that on its face does call for the committee's support. I believe it is helpful to clarify in the Employment Insurance Act that an individual, and it's predominantly a woman, who falls ill during their parental leave should be entitled to claim a sickness leave benefit.

I approach this from a different perspective from most, if not all, of the witnesses who have presented to the committee. I am a lawyer, and more specifically I'm a lawyer to a number of individuals who have successfully made EI sickness leave claims during or toward the end of their parental leave. My specialty is employment insurance, and I have litigated quite a number of employment insurance cases. From my perspective, the main reason to support this bill is that through my work I've come to believe that the special benefits are of great assistance to working Canadians.

Once you start paying additional benefits to people for socially good reasons, such as caring for children, caring for relatives, taking maternity leave, or because of illness...paying people during temporary periods of unemployment does help with their return to the marketplace. It does serve the main purpose of employment insurance, which is to provide for a gradual return to the market. So I support any additional provisions that provide for additional benefits.

I want to stress, though, and you may have seen this in my brief, that while I support Bill C-44, and particularly again clauses 15 and 21 and those amendments as clarificatory provisions, the reality is that these provisions are not specifically necessary. Bill C-49 in 2002 already provided for those benefits, for the ability of individuals who fall sick during their parental leave to make a sickness claim during their parental leave. Those provisions and that interpretation of those provisions were upheld in the umpire award under the EI Act, which I provided as appendix A to my brief.

To some extent, while I support the bill as a means of clarification, I do not necessarily stand with the idea that the bill is, strictly speaking, necessary. That being said, the fact that historically the House and this committee have supported these kinds of provisions in the past is another reason why we should consider supporting Bill C-44 and in particular clauses 15 and 21.

I don't want to say anything more at this point, as I do want to leave plenty of time for questions, which I always think are helpful.

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to present, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

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

I ask the chair, since we are focused on Bill C-44 and are talking about critically ill children and murdered and missing children, that you request of our presenters that they stay within the scope of what we're discussing today. I'd appreciate her opinion with respect to this bill.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much.

I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is the national voice of 3.3 million workers across Canada. They bring together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour—130 district labour councils whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canada economy, in all occupations and in all parts of Canada. I'll be focusing my comments on the EI portion of the bill.

EI is a critically important program for Canadian workers, especially in tough times like we face today. Introducing 35 weeks of benefits for parents of critically ill children is a welcome addition to employment insurance. This change recognizes that the current six weeks of compassionate care is insufficient in many cases. Critically ill family members often require substantial care, even if they are not terminally ill.

While it's not paid from EI funds, the grants of $350 per week for up to 35 weeks for the parents of murdered or missing children is also good news. However, we feel this grant shares some of the weaknesses of benefits administered through the EI system because it requires applicants to have earned a minimum level of income and to have taken time away from paid work. It should be recognized that parents of sick, missing, or murdered children face costs that go far beyond lost wages, so predicating a grant on labour market income in this situation, we believe, is problematic.

As for enhancements to employment insurance put forward in Bill C-44, we would like to note that our EI program already leaves too many Canadian workers, especially women and low-wage insecure workers, out in the cold. For most of the past 12 months, only four in ten or fewer than four in ten unemployed workers have been able to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. When adjusted for inflation, the maximum weekly benefit of $485 a week is much less than it was in 1996—about 20% less—and the average benefit now is only $371 per week.

This program is worse when we look at how it works for women workers. Cuts in the mid-1990s affecting who is eligible and the amount of benefits paid sharply reduced the supporting role of EI, especially for women. This matters because it is often women who take up the special caretaking benefits.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

I'm going to call the meeting back to order.

I want to welcome Mr. Stephen Moreau and Ms. MacEwen. Thank you so much for being here to give us expert testimony on Bill C-44.

Ms. MacEwen, if you would like to go first, then, Mr. Moreau, I'll ask you to make your presentation, and then we'll do a round of questioning on both presentations at the same time.

Ms. MacEwen, you have the floor.

[Marie Adèle Davis, Executive Director, Canadian Paediatric Society]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Paediatric Society to present to you today.

I'm Marie Adèle Davis, the executive director. I'm pleased to address you on behalf of more than 3,000 pediatric specialists and subspecialists who are our members from across Canada.

CPS members represent the physicians who are caring for the children, youth, and their families who will benefit from the changes proposed in Bill C-44. We applaud the Canadian government for understanding the particular challenges faced by parents of gravely ill children, the need for them to be at the child's bedside in the hospital, their ability to stay home and care for their recently discharged child, and the necessity for parents to be available to make health care decisions on behalf of their child throughout the illness. Further, the proposed legislation recognizes the emotional stress of having a child afflicted by cancer, severely injured in a life-threatening situation, or at the end stage of an incurable genetic disorder.

Like the Canadian Cancer Society, CPS also supports that flexibility be built into the legislation, that it recognize that the parents of a gravely ill child may not be taking all the leave at any one time in a given 52-week period. Given the resilience of kids, even those facing a life-threatening illness, they may be able to return to normal life for periods of time, attending school and other activities. The fact that Bill C-44 would allow parents to re-apply for the benefit, should the child have a serious relapse, is also practical. We also fully support that the benefit can be shared between parents, ensuring that both can be fully involved in the care of their gravely ill child.

The Canadian Pediatric Society can work with the Canadian government to ensure the smooth implementation of Bill C-44.

Since our members make up the majority of physicians who will fill out forms for families, we would like to help design the forms, to ensure their ease of use. The forms must be created by taking child and youth health into consideration, and not just by modifying forms designed for adults' health care needs. We think that, if a family-oriented form is designed, the benefit application process will be much smoother and red tape will be reduced.

It's important to remember that physicians caring for gravely ill children are extremely busy. We want to make sure that they devote their time to families rather than to paperwork and the appeal process.

CPS would also welcome the opportunity to refine the definition of gravely ill, to make it as workable as possible for family pediatricians and the federal employees managing the program. Under the compassionate care benefit, the definition criterion was that death was expected within six months. This is very hard for pediatric specialists to predict. Children are amazingly resilient and can beat seemingly insurmountable odds at various times during a critical illness. So it is very difficult to predict death with any certainty.

Further, the whole practice of pediatrics is based on hope for the future. Pediatricians work hand in hand with the family to ensure that kids have the best possible chance at life. To deliver a diagnosis of certain death within six months is just not something a pediatric specialist can do or will do, as it takes away from the hope that is critical to working towards a positive outcome.

In closing, the Canadian Paediatric Society is very supportive of the changes proposed in Bill C-44. We do encourage the government to work closely with us to ensure the smooth implementation of the bill and to realize all its potential to support the parents of gravely ill children and youth.

Thank you.

[Jane Kittmer, As an Individual]

Good morning.

I am pleased to be here today to tell you my story. I hope it encourages you to pass Bill C-44 and make some much needed changes to the EI Act.

I gave birth to my second son, Nolan, on March 9, 2010. I had a very uncomfortable pregnancy, as I felt very ill and tired, but doctors assured me this was normal for a second pregnancy. In my 36th week of pregnancy it was determined that the baby's growth had slowed or stopped and they decided to induce me early.

Within an hour of giving birth to my healthy baby, the doctors detected a mass in my abdomen. After an MRI it was determined that I had a large tumour that was suspected, and later confirmed, to be from my adrenal gland. I had surgery seven weeks later and the tumour was successfully removed, along with my right kidney and gall bladder. It appeared the tumour hadn't spread. It was confirmed that this tumour was adrenal cortical carcinoma, that is, cancer of the cortex of the adrenal gland. That is a very rare and very aggressive form of cancer.

Although it was hoped that all the cancer had been removed, it was suggested that I take daily chemotherapy, ideally for five years. I started taking daily chemotherapy—it was a drug called mitotane—on July 1, 2010, and I took it until July 26, 2011, when I stopped because the side effects of the drug were greatly affecting and greatly reducing my quality of life. This chemotherapy drug builds up and stores in the fatty tissue of the body, so the side effects have remained, but they're thankfully wearing off as time passes.

During the 16 months when I gave birth, had surgery, and took chemotherapy, I wasn't able to look after myself, my children, and my home without a great deal of help from my husband, my family, and hired help. Two and a half years have passed since this all began and I have still not returned to work because of the lingering side effects of the chemotherapy.

I don't usually tell this story to this many people.

I started dealing with Service Canada before my surgery in 2010 and I am still dealing with them. I assumed it would be an easy conversion from maternity benefits to sick benefits, but I was shocked when I was told from the beginning that I wouldn't get sick benefits. I have spent many hours talking to people about this. I appealed the denial of the sick benefits to the board of referees—and I have done this all while I was sick.

In my case, I did not fall ill after the start of my maternity leave. I was very ill prior to giving birth and prior to the start of my maternity leave. My condition was finally diagnosed immediately after giving birth and after the start of my maternity leave.

My fight for additional benefits was more about the time I lost with my sons than the financial penalty of not getting sick benefits.

An additional 15 weeks of benefits would have been a welcome improvement; however, it wouldn't have seen me through the chemotherapy. To say this was a difficult, stressful, and devastating period is a gross understatement. I don't think that anyone should have to fight for sick benefits when they need it the most.

Changing the legislation to allow stacking EI benefits would be extremely beneficial for those who are sick when on special benefits. It would give a person additional time to hopefully improve, health-wise, so they don't have to return to work sick, or give them more time to make major life decisions.

l'm sure there are more mothers who are facing the same situation, and many of those need the financial benefit and recovery time of sick benefits. I am very happy to see there are proposed changes to the existing system.

Thank you.

[Denise Page]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning. I am Denise Page, Senior Health Policy Analyst for the Canadian Cancer Society.

On behalf of cancer patients and their families, we thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to speak about problems in access to special benefits and to highlight the improvements Bill C-44 will bring.

The Canadian Cancer Society is a national, community-based organization of volunteers whose mission is to eradicate cancer and enhance the quality of life of people with cancer. For a few years, the society has been calling for special benefits for parents of children with cancer. We want those benefits to reflect the reality the parents face. Currently, the only benefits parents have the right to are six weeks of compassionate care benefits, if a physician certifies the death of their child in the next six months.

I want to begin by talking to you briefly about childhood cancer. It is estimated that, in 2012, 1,400 children will be diagnosed with cancer and 160 will die from the disease. Although the five-year survival rate, for several types of childhood cancer, is 82%, cancer remains the second leading cause of death in children over one month of age, after accidents.

We are recommending that the committee ensure the flexibility of the new benefit program for parents, and here is why. The progression and the treatment of the disease vary depending on the cancer type and the child. Although each patient is different, chemotherapy treatment, for a child, takes about six months, but it can range from three to twelve months.

When radiation therapy is used as the main cancer treatment, it is usually administered once a day, five days a week, over three to eight weeks. Treatment may also be longer, and hospitalization periods may be more frequent or longer—or both—and not always ongoing. In addition, specialized pediatric oncology treatment is available only in certain Canadian cities, so many parents have to travel more than 100 km to have access to the required medical care for their child.

Taking care of one's child after a cancer diagnosis is not optional. It is critical for parents to participate 24/7 in the care of their child.

Cancer in children and youth creates a disproportionate impact on health and social services systems, as well as on the economy. Having a child with cancer is a difficult experience whose significant repercussions go beyond treatment. An estimated two-thirds of childhood cancer survivors have at least one chronic or late-occurring effect from their cancer therapy, and up to one-third of these late effects are considered major, serious or life-threatening.

One of the important things for this committee to keep in mind is that, in the case of cancer, more children are treated over a longer period of time, but not always on an ongoing basis. Cancer treatment is episodic. Pediatricians strongly encourage that children resume a normal life as soon as they feel better.

For that reason, we recommend the committee ensure that the program is flexible, so that parents can take time off from work when necessary, and resume a normal life when their child does. The idea is to recognize the non-continuity of treatments and the flexibility regarding benefit renewal in the event of a relapse or late side effects.

I will now briefly talk to you about combined benefits. Ms. Kittmer will be able to explain that better by sharing her personal story.

The combining of benefits is an important improvement that will stem from Bill C-44. It will allow an individual receiving parental benefits to claim sickness benefits in case of illness. Cancer cases during or following a pregnancy are not very common. The type of cancer most often related to pregnancy is breast cancer. We don't know exactly how many women in Canada are affected, as that data is not collected. However, in the United States, 227,000 breast cancer cases are diagnosed annually, 7,000 of which are supposedly related to pregnancy.

Like Ms. Kittmer, many women told us about how difficult it was for them to access sickness benefits. They were going through the best time of their life and their worst nightmare at the same time. They are very happy about this improvement.

Unfortunately, given the surgery, chemotherapy treatments and radiation treatments involved, the 15 weeks of sickness benefits expire before the end of treatment. We are recommending that the committee ensure the program's flexibility when it comes to combined benefits, so that it will be easier for parents to go from sickness benefits to parental leave during the treatment, or vice versa, and so have the time to recover without losing any quality time with their child.

The job protection component of this legislation will help many Canadian families. As a number of people have mentioned, this will unfortunately not apply to many jobs that come under provincial and territorial legislation. That is why the Canadian Cancer Society is urging the committee to ask the federal government—at the next meeting of the relevant federal, provincial and territorial ministers—for a clear commitment to discussing the need to amend provincial and territorial legislation in order to provide the same job protection to all Canadians.

Last February, the Minister of Finance said that the new family caregivers tax credit is a first step. We see this bill as another important step. We will work with the members of this committee and all the governments on moving this issue forward. The Canadian Cancer Society feels that the next key step is to enhance sickness benefits.

Thank you.

Ms. Kittmer will now share her story.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

As I was saying earlier, most criminals in Canada are defended through legal aid. That costs each province about $50,000, as all those criminals go before the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the jury's verdict. That was my case. Those proceedings take from five to seven years. Of course, if each province gave to families the amounts given to those criminals, the situation would be ideal. However, as I am a realist, I think this bill is the first step. Time will tell whether those compensations actually meet families' needs.

It should also be understood that victim assistance programs in Canada are improving. In 2002, Quebec gave $600 to families whose loved ones were murdered. That's what I received. Today, they receive $5,000. In Quebec, compensation is not provided to murdered victims, but it is provided to surviving victims. We will continue working with the provinces to help them improve their own programs. The provinces are responsible for assisting victims, and the federal government is responsible for assisting criminals. So we will continue to put pressure on the provinces to provide better compensation to the victims.

All that aside, what the federal government is trying to do with Bill C-44 is very significant. This will mark the first time in Canadian history that a federal government will give victims the same compensation, from coast to coast to coast.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Senator, CPC, Senate]

Thank you very much.

I would like to apologize because I didn't have enough time to translate my presentation into English, so I will go in French.

I can stay as long as members have questions; don't worry about that. I have another committee after this one, but I'll stay for your questions.

I want to thank the committee members for inviting me to speak about Bill C-44.

I would like to begin by commending the commitment shown by the Conservative government and by our Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. After taking office in 2006, he made victims rights a priority, bringing them to the forefront of Canada's justice system. I also wish to highlight the fantastic job that the Minister of Human Resources, the Honourable Diane Finley, has done in putting together this bill, an effort that I contributed to as best I could given my commitment to helping victims of crime.

The impetus for this bill—which I urge all members to support—comes from both my personal experience and that of the victims who belong to the organization I founded in 2004. I and three other fathers whose daughters had been murdered established the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared. Allow me to begin with an overview of my personal history, which is at the heart of my ardent support for this bill.

In 2002, the course of my life changed after my eldest daughter, Julie, was murdered by a repeat offender. That event spawned my political commitment as an advocate for the rights of families of victims of crime. When my daughter was killed, the Government of Quebec was offering a meagre $600 to families whose loved ones had been murdered. No psychological support, no legal support, absolutely nothing. Conversely, the government was spending an average of $50,000 on legal aid to ensure that criminals could exercise their right to fair representation in our justice system.

That reality was unacceptable, underscoring the severe and unfair imbalance between criminals' rights and victims' rights. In creating the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared, I decided to bring together families who had experienced a similar tragedy. The organization helps families, supporting them through the legal process and providing them with psychotherapy resources.

Since its creation, the association has begun administering the Isabelle Boisvenu Fund, named after my second daughter, who died in a car accident. The fund provides two yearly scholarships to students in the field of victimology. This research will help us better understand the full impact a crime has on families. Clearly, it's devastating.

As the association's chair, I personally met hundreds of families. In many cases, either the father or the mother had to stop working in order to take care of their families in the wake of the crime. And in some cases, both parents had to stop working.

Last week, the committee heard from the parents of Brigitte Serre. They gave you a poignant account of their experience following their daughter's murder. You can be sure that hundreds of families in Quebec and across the country go through the same thing every year. I could tell you dozens of stories equally as heart-rending as the Serre family's.

It is a fact that many Canadian parents have a private benefit plan that allows them to stop working in order to look after their families. But since its creation, the association has worked to help those fathers and mothers who don't have any income support, either because they are struggling to make ends meet or they are self-employed. That is the case for about 50% of families.

The choices these families face are painful. Either the parents are forced to go back to work too soon, resulting in serious psychological problems, or they choose to stay home with their families and risk losing their jobs. As long as there is no assistance or support for them, no matter what they decide, these mothers and fathers will have to live through another traumatic event.

Let me give you an idea of what reality is like for these families, the collateral damage, so to speak. The statistics speak for themselves: 80% of couples separate within a year of their child's murder or disappearance; 50% more brothers and sisters quit school following the tragedy; and 50% more fathers take their own lives after their child has been murdered.

I could go on about people losing their jobs, suffering from emotional stress, developing chronic illnesses, going bankrupt and so on.

These families need support and recognition. That is why the passage of Bill C-44 would represent a tremendous victory for these fathers and mothers. The bill before you delivers everything my association has been calling for.

Parents whose children have been murdered or have disappeared as a result of a crime will receive adequate support during the most critical months because of the benefits provided. On top of the 35 weeks of benefits, parents could qualify for an additional period of EI benefits. What's more, the Canada Labour Code is being amended to provide employees working in areas of federal jurisdiction with job protection for two years, similar to Quebec's Labour Code.

Ladies and gentlemen, to its credit, this measure will give victims guarantees that will be applied, regardless of where they live or where the crime took place. As I see it, this bill paves the way for the fundamental protection of victims across the country, from coast to coast. In 2012, we, as a nation, must not allow victims of crime or their loved ones to be treated differently depending on the province they live in.

I urge every member on this House of Commons committee to make this important measure a reality, one that will give more than a thousand families the ability to rebuild their lives so they can better support their loved ones in the wake of the devastating loss of a son or daughter.

Thank you.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

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

Mr. Speaker, it might not be fair, but I am going to ask my colleague from the NDP to try to figure out the government's thinking in this particular case.

The bill that has come forward in fact changes a number of different aspects of the EI system. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently looking at Bill C-44. We have allocated five days for the study of that. It should maybe impact 6,000 people in Canada each year. However, the changes made in the bill will impact 750,000 to 900,000 people, and yet there is no study of it. It is being rammed through in this particular piece of legislation.

What would my colleague see as the government's rationale for doing something like this in making these changes to the EI system?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies, thank you very much for being here.

As you're probably aware, Bill C-44 proposes to change two different systems. The first is the Canada Labour Code, which governs federally regulated industries. Obviously, federal government employees would be covered under that. They're only about 10% of all the workers in the country, so we're going to need some help in lobbying our friends in the provinces—and I hope you will help us do that—to encourage them and to make sure that each province adopts companion legislation to make sure that the other 90% of the people who work in this country can avail themselves of the same benefits.

Of course, the second part of the bill makes changes to the employment insurance system to allow for these compassionate benefits to be claimed in a number of different areas. That is obviously exclusively within the federal realm of jurisdiction.

I think it is important to make that clarification, because I'm not quite sure that all of the witnesses have completely understood what the bill does—that we're dealing with those two different areas, and that certainly on the labour code side, we can only do what we can do within the federal jurisdiction.

I'm sure you would agree that both of these changes are a positive step forward. We can certainly get into the discussion about what number of weeks should be allowed to be claimed for EI benefits, and I'm sure the committee will continue to have some discussions around that. I very much appreciate the advice you've provided, and that of the CEO of Ronald McDonald House, which gave us an idea of the average window of stay within their facilities. I think that may give the committee something to give some consideration to.

Beyond what has been proposed in those two areas, and based on your individual experiences and the other programs that are available out there to support medical costs and to support compassionate leave for families and caregivers, as well as some of the tax credits, etc., that we've actually brought in as a government, are there other areas?

Are there any other areas of advice that you would have for us as we look at these changes and what we can do to make sure we're getting it as right as possible the first time in making this a new benefit? Do you have any specific advice beyond what we're doing in this bill that might be good food for thought for us as committee members?

[Nathalie Roy, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Nathalie Roy. My 16-year-old daughter, Sabrina, has Hodgkin's disease. She has stage 4B cancer, the last stage. She was diagnosed in May of this year, so not that long ago. She has a younger sister who is 14. This is a trying time for our family. As a teenager, Sabrina has dealt with all kinds of stress and self-esteem issues.

She really needs her parents now, and we are always there. I have been on leave from my nursing job since May, so I can be home with Sabrina. I go with her to her chemotherapy treatments, as a result of which, she has been repeatedly hospitalized. She finished chemotherapy in August but is now undergoing daily radiation treatments, which will last eight weeks. She also has oncology appointments.

The passage of Bill C-44 is essential from a support and care perspective. Sabrina is outraged, fed up. She's a teenager. This week, she just wanted to throw in the towel. We are close. It is vital that parents be near their child. In our case, we were able to spot Sabrina's distress quickly, and then give her encouragement and explain how important it was that she not give up on treatment.

Forgive me, but this is very difficult. I had prepared a statement, but now I'm just speaking from the heart.

Sabrina often says to me, “Thank goodness you're here, mom. Otherwise, what would I do?” In the oncology ward, you see children who are by themselves all the time. All of you are probably mothers or fathers. All of you have obligations, a house, a car, a family to feed and so on. So you have to work. It pains me to see kids there by themselves because their parents have obligations. If this bill is passed, it will likely mean that kids no longer have to go through the experience alone. It's not fair for a child to have to do this on their own. Even an adult has a tough time coping; just imagine what it's like for a child. As we face this ordeal with Sabrina, we feel a lot of sadness, guilt and anxiety, but I have the satisfaction of being there with my daughter. We go with her to all of her appointments. She isn't alone.

The passage of this bill would be a boon for children. I am speaking for the children, but also for their mothers and fathers. I lost a little girl, so I know what it is to grieve, and I know how impossible it is to go back to work under those circumstances. Everyone must go through the grieving process. If they go back to work too soon, they will most certainly fall into a depression. We are human beings. We need to face adversity with family around us; we need to take a step back to mourn and say goodbye. People who don't have that option suffer untold anguish. They become depressed, and sometimes they even try to commit suicide. In some cases, there is no telling how far it will go.

I had a lot I wanted to say today, but there is one thing I want to say above all else: Please pass this bill. You must do so for the sake of our children, your children and your grandchildren. We never know what life will throw at us. I would never have thought that cancer would befall my daughter.

Thank you very much.

[Tyler Hnatuk]

As I mentioned, our perspective on Bill C-44 is that extension of compassionate care benefits would provide that small window in the context of such great need, but with respect to those modest amounts of support, parents of children with disabilities can do so much with that. As you spoke to in your experience with an 80-year-old parent of a child with a developmental disability, it's a lifetime commitment.

There is certainly a blend of supports that are needed. The scope of this current bill is not going to address all of the needs, nor would extension of the compassionate care benefits. Really, a blend of supports and a strategy are needed for caregiving.

The situation is really similar to those of the parents who began our movement more than 50 years ago. Out of the decision to pursue a good life for their sons and daughters, they decided to keep them at home rather than send them away to an institution. They did so without any support whatsoever. It still remains the case that parents who decide to provide so much care to their child have not been recognized sufficiently by our policy and financial incentives for our caregivers.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Wow.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning.

My question will be to Ms. Loblaw.

First, I want to thank your organization for doing all the good work that you do in helping families and communities in Canada.

As you know, Bill C-44 has been introduced by the government to help families to balance their work and family responsibilities. As far as your organization is concerned, it will introduce new benefits for the parents of critically ill children.

In your experience you must have faced some challenges and be in a position to be aware of the challenges parents have been facing during a difficult period. It's emotionally very hard to start with, and when you add the work risk and other stresses, it is really hard.

Do you think the government is going in the right direction or that this is a positive step forward? If you agree with my comment that it is positive, then I'd like you to elaborate on why you think it is positive.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Phelps, I have a question for you.

You mentioned you'd like to see Bill C-44 extended to cover adult family members who have to look after their parents, for example, if they become critically ill.

I asked this question of the minister last week when she appeared before the committee. She mentioned there are programs in place right now for people who need to look after critically ill parents. I think that kind of help only lasts a handful of weeks. You also outlined how you'd like to see these types of benefits extended to, say, parents of runaways.

Can you elaborate on that? You'd like to see the benefits extended to people with adult family members who are critically ill and runaways. Who else would you like to see covered?

[Fred Phelps, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Social Workers]

Good morning.

On behalf of social workers across Canada, I would like to thank the committee for your consideration in bringing the voice of our profession to the discussion and debate on Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act.

As background for committee members, the Canadian Association of Social Workers exists to promote the profession of social work in Canada and advance issues of social justice. As the executive director, it is my distinct honour and privilege to bring the voices of front-line social workers to this committee.

The comments I'll be making today come directly from front-line social workers, who bear witness to the emotional and financial impact of serious illness on families and individuals as well as the overwhelming experience of grief and loss when a child dies or disappears as the probable result of a crime.

I apologize in advance if some of the questions and concerns raised by social workers have already been addressed by other witnesses or members of this committee. In addition, some of my comments do not directly address Bill C-44. Nonetheless, the issues addressed are pertinent to the overall objectives of providing front-line social service providers with the economic tools to adequately support children and families in crisis.

To begin, the membership of the CSW health and children's interest groups was unanimous in its support of Bill C-44, calling it a step in the right direction in providing relief to parents in the form of limited financial help and ensuring that they do not lose their jobs because of tragic circumstances beyond their control.

As CSW understands Bill C-44, the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code will apply only to workers in federally regulated sectors. It is apparently expected that provincial governments will make similar changes to their labour codes, as was the case when compassionate care benefits were introduced. CSW has to ask if there have been discussions with provincial jurisdictions to ensure that there will be compliance.

The matter of compassionate care benefits was also raised by a number of social workers and their provincial organizations in consultations on Bill C-44. The changes in this act do not address the challenges faced by caregivers of adult family members or by individuals who require a period beyond the 15 weeks of medical EI coverage. Consequently, I would be remiss if I did not convey that social workers request the Government of Canada to consider expanding the compassionate care benefits program to include caregivers caring for adult family members and to consider extending sick leave benefits beyond 15 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks for those who require it.

Specific to Bill C-44, the Canadian Association of Social Workers also supports any and all improvements to programs that provide relief to families when tragic events occur, such as the disappearance or death of a child following a crime. However, it is not always easy to determine at the outset whether a disappearance is the result of a crime. Consequently, social workers had a number of questions meant to clarify the meaning and intention of this act.

First, will consideration be given to providing benefits to parents who are looking for their runaway or lost child? Who will determine if foul play is suspected and when benefits can be provided?

The Canadian Association of Social Workers applauds the initiative of this legislation to provide help and support to family caregivers looking after critically ill children. However, questions remain. What about the children who are injured as a result of an accident or the children who are seriously ill? Who decides whether and for how long parents need to be at their side and away from work? When or why can an employer refuse leave? Will there be an onus on parents and employees to prove they deserve or require this leave? What kind of documentation could the employer request? Is a medical note not enough?

Why is the definition of a child limited to those under 18, and should adult dependants not be considered for extension of coverage under this act?

It is our understanding that benefits end the week of the death of a child; would compassion not dictate that families require time after death to mourn and bury their child?

Finally, is there any requirement for parents or employees to seek counselling and other supports to help them recover so that they can return to work healed to some degree, or is the leave only to allow them time and benefits to care for their child?

Social workers ask these questions for clarification, as social workers will be involved in the interpretation of the act and in helping people learn how to access benefits. They will be advocating for people who seem unable to qualify because of unfortunate glitches or issues not readily understandable within the act.

Any application process, social workers note, that is onerous may cause a family to turn away, given that they don't need any more stress at this point in their lives.

It is the front-line experience of social workers that people often do not access services that would have eased some of their distress because the process at the front end was more than the family could manage at the time. Consequently, social workers encourage the Government of Canada and this committee to seriously consider that ineffectively delivering this type of benefit can add to, rather than, as it is intended to, subtract from, the immense stress families are already experiencing with their deep personal loss in tragic circumstances.

The CASW will be actively monitoring this act and its implementation, primarily to advocate for clarification and to lobby for changes where needed, and perhaps will be be involving advocacy for provincial legislation where people can now qualify and more assistance is needed.

Again, on behalf of social workers across Canada, I thank the committee for your consideration in hearing the views of our profession on Bill C-44.

Thank you.

[Tyler Hnatuk, Policy and Programs Officer, Canadian Association for Community Living]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

On behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living, I want to thank you for the invitation to participate in the committee's study of Bill C-44.

My name is Tyler Hnatuk, and I am a policy and programs officer with the Canadian Association for Community Living.

The Canadian Association for Community Living, or CACL, is a family-based association that assists people with intellectual disabilities and their families to lead the way in advancing inclusion in their communities. Our association was founded in 1958 by parents of children with disabilities who wanted supports and services in their home communities rather than institutions. Since that time, our association has grown into a federation of 13 provincial and territorial associations, made up of over 300 local associations and more than 40,000 members.

Our association has in the past called for changes to the Canada Labour Code, Employment Insurance Act, Canada Pension Plan, and Income Tax Act in order to recognize the support and care that family members provide to a child with a disability. Over the past decade we have participated in community consultations, coalitions, and policy reform processes aimed at recognizing the challenges and disproportionate financial impacts faced by families of children with disabilities.

I'd like to say from the outset that we are encouraged by the direction of Bill C-44 and its proposal to recognize the challenges faced by families in these extraordinary circumstances. By recognizing the situations of parents of a child who has been a victim of a crime, is missing, or is critically ill or injured, this proposed bill recognizes the extraordinary caregiving responsibilities that some families face and the impact on their labour force attachment. As such, we wholeheartedly support the direction of the bill and the window of support and flexibility that it provides to parents in terribly difficult circumstances.

When compassionate care provisions were first introduced to employment insurance, we joined others in calling for enhancement of these measures to recognize the extraordinary caregiving situations that parents of children with severe disabilities face. We continue to be of the view that recognition is needed for families of children with severe disabilities, and we have developed detailed proposals with respect to an overall strategy for addressing the disproportionate caregiving situation that these families are in, of which these changes are one modest but important piece.

In my brief submission, I would like to provide a bit of a profile of parents of children with disabilities through our analyses of national data sets and other Canadian research, look to the current Canadian policy context in Canada for support for caregivers of children with disabilities, and look to the lived experience of families who are a part of our movement in order to outline the challenges that they face today.

To begin, just by sketching some of the profiles of families of children with disabilities, we know that children with disabilities and their families endure greater and disproportionate rates of low income than others in Canada. Data from the participation and activity limitation survey, or PALS, as people call it, from 2006 indicate that children with disabilities are more likely to live in households that fall below the low-income cut-off than children who do not have a disability.

It should be pointed out that this measure doesn't take into account non-reimbursed costs related to disability, and therefore the low-income situation is likely understated. When we consider employment, we know that parents' ability to maintain a career is significantly affected by having a child with a disability. Again, PALS 2006 found that parents of children with disabilities report that as a result of their child's condition, 38% worked fewer hours, 37% changed their work hours, 26% did not take a job, 22% quit work, and a further 20% did not take a promotion. We know also that most often it is the employment situation of mothers that is most affected, with 64% of mothers being the most affected, while 8% of fathers are the most affected.

One of the major disability-related supports that people require throughout their lives is help with everyday activities. Of children with disabilities whose parents require help, nearly 26% have parents who received help but needed more, and about 40% have parents who received no help but needed some.

Of these parents needing additional help, nearly three-quarters cite cost as the main reason they can't get it, and more than a third say out-of-pocket expenses.

The bulk of disability-related support for everyday activities in Canada is provided by family members. This includes help with personal care, health care, housework, and transportation, and includes matters such as personal advocacy, planning, coordination and brokering of needed services, emotional support, communication assistance, and so on.

I would like to illustrate these facts and figures with just a few of the stories that we hear from thousands of parents throughout the country who have children with intellectual disabilities. We hear regularly from families who are struggling to make ends meet as the sole result of their decision to push for what they believe is best for their child. Driven by a vision of inclusion and a good life, families are increasingly being pushed into hardship and desperation, in many cases to the brink.

Consider a plea received this month from a Saskatchewan mother of a young son with a disability. They are a single-income family on what would otherwise be a modest income, but they are below the poverty line and have filed for bankruptcy. This mother was recently advised that she should put her child in care, a course of action that she has no intention of following.

Consider the numerous stories that have appeared in print and television media over the past months of parents who have dropped off their adult children with community support agencies because they can no longer fulfill the duties of caregiving.

Consider the plea of an Ontario mother who recently spoke at a provincial hearing on government services and whose voice resonated with families across the country as she detailed the 15 years her family has spent on waiting lists for support and the two hours per week of support that allow her adult son to have a shower once in a while.

These families and thousands of others across the country have spent their lifetimes providing billions of dollars worth of what would otherwise be paid care for their children with significant needs.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recently reviewed Canada's third and fourth reports to the committee and concluded with observations that Canada must ensure that children with disabilities and their families be provided with all necessary support and services to ensure that financial constraints are not an obstacle in accessing services and that household incomes and parental employment are not negatively affected.

We believe it is quite clear that for families of children with severe disabilities, the activities of caregiving reach far beyond the typical duties of parenthood. As I mentioned earlier, CACL has developed detailed and more comprehensive proposals that could provide recognition for these extraordinary circumstances. In the context of a broader strategy, extension of employment insurance benefits would form one small but critical contribution toward mitigating the current financial impacts related to raising a child with significant needs.

As we know well from research, early intervention can be critical in shaping outcomes later in life. These interventions might be related to medical procedures, intensive therapies, educational activities, and so on, or the interventions may be the less formal added demands of parenting that relate to doing the inclusion work in the context of communities and systems where parents of children with disabilities still encounter so many doors slammed shut in generic services, programs, and supports. If parenting is a full-time job, then the inclusion work of parents of children with disabilities is far above and beyond what can be expected to be regular caregiving responsibilities.

The work undertaken by parents of children with disabilities to better their communities and build better lives for their sons and daughters needs to be recognized as the extraordinary task that it is. An extension of employment insurance benefits to parents of children with severe disabilities may seem a small window in the context of the overwhelming need for support, but these forms of recognition are critical. The consequences of missing these small windows of opportunity can be significant, as we see with the finding that 40% of kids in child welfare systems have disabilities, and as we see with the media stories of parents dropping off their children with community agencies.

While we recognize that something like employment insurance benefits may seem like a small window in the context of such great need, it's with these modest amounts of support that parents of children with disabilities can do and have done so much. It would further mark a tremendous step forward towards recognizing the contributions of family caregivers of children with disabilities.

We urge the committee to recognize that some families face extraordinary caregiving responsibilities that have a direct impact on labour force attachment, career development, and family well-being. We believe that this should be the focus for the purposes of the employment insurance system. It's not so much the source or cause of extraordinary responsibilities and challenges that is the policy issue but the fact that some families in this country, through no fault of their own, face extraordinary challenges, which have a direct impact on parents' labour force participation. It's the labour force impact of those challenges that could be a focus.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear, and would be pleased to address any questions or comments that you may have later.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, folks. We're continuing our study on 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.

We're very happy to have with us today Fred Phelps, from the Canadian Association of Social Workers; Tyler Hnatuk, from the Canadian Association for Community Living; and, of course, Cathy Loblaw, from Ronald McDonald House Charities.

We'll start with your comments of five to 10 minutes and then we'll open the floor for questions. We very much appreciate your coming here today to help us with this study.

Ms. Loblaw, we'll start with you.

[Darlene Ryan]

I agree with my husband in the sense that it should be spaced out. The way the justice system works, not to hurt the case, you don't know how your child died; you just know they passed away. We found out 18 months later, through the coroner's report, live, in court with everybody else. Because we were reserving as much time off as possible, and there was a two-day break in court, we found out how our child died and we went back to work the next day, and then we had to take another day off because the court started up again. Obviously we didn't even last the day. We tried, but we couldn't do it.

In some cases, I think it's hard to measure how much time would be enough. For some people, it'll never be enough. It's a case-by-case scenario, but we have to start at some point.

If I could just add to one of the comments that was made regarding the same question, it's admirable that you want to add spouses or siblings to be eligible for these measures. I was Brigitte's step-mother. According to how C-44 is written right now, I wouldn't be eligible for that help, but that's okay. The main thing is that you have parents who are going to be in need of it now. It's an urgent measure that should be passed, and in my case, if my husband at least had been at home taking care of the children, taking care of other things, it would have alleviated part of my burden. I wouldn't have been A-one—far from it—but it would have taken such a load off my shoulders. I would have been better able to at least concentrate on some things, instead of trying to patch holes all over the place. So it's okay.

[Céline Hotte, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Céline Hotte, and I am pleased to be here today to support Bill C-44.

At the time of the crime, I had two daughters, and I was living with my spouse, who is a paramedic in the Buckingham area of Gatineau. Annick, the eldest, was 15 years old at the time. She had decided to go live with her father. Everything was going well until, one day, our lives were turned upside down. A gratuitous murder was committed. I had four weeks left of a contract, but I was unable to return to work because time had stopped for me.

The bills continued to come in regularly. It was very difficult with only one income. Let me give you some examples. My spouse made the minimum payments to all the creditors, often less. The telephone got cut off. Hydro called us nonstop. We lived with another stress: money. This added to all the sorrow the murder had caused. It was very painful for us. I was also worried about my daughter, Pascale, and concerned that she continue going to school and being involved in her sports activities, but especially that she eat properly, which was not always possible.

We also had to pay for half the funeral costs and all the other expenses incurred by the situation. We really needed specialized psychological assistance. This is why Bill C-44 is indispensable for the relatives of victims. The $350 weekly payments over 35 weeks are very important to lighten the financial burden on victims and to help them continue to live with a little less worry because, I should mention, it is very difficult to carry on with the realities of life after such a tragedy has happened.

Following this trauma, I was diagnosed in 1999 with fibromyalgia, and this was a result of the murder. I was experiencing too much stress at that time. This is an incurable disease. There was also the stress related to parole, which plunged us back into it after 10 years, 12 years; he is trying for parole each year. After 17 years, he was reincarcerated because he did the same thing to another girl. We are witnessing that. We are being thrown back into it. We are in it almost all the time.

I would like to thank you for listening to me. It is important because other families will unfortunately experience similar situations. But, they will have the opportunity to get money to meet their needs.

Thank you very much.

[Christiane Sirois, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Christiane Sirois and this is my story.

My son, Sébastien Métivier, was kidnapped on November 1st, 1984, when he was eight years old, close to 28 years ago. Today, I am supporting the assistance that Bill C-44 will give to parents of missing children. This morning, I would like to give you a few examples from my personal experience in order to stress the urgency of adopting this bill as a whole as soon as possible.

As a single mother, I was the only financial support for my family at the time. I had two children: Sébastien, who was eight years old, and Mélanie, who was seven years old. I worked as an administrative secretary at the time. The tragedy that occurred in our life was so emotionally intense that it took all my energy.

After the disappearance, I was unable to work and live in a balanced way, given the events that I just described. So I had to hand in my resignation to my employer and stay home. Since this was a disappearance because of a kidnapping, I kept waiting for my child to return home, which unfortunately did not happen. I used various services, those of psychologists and other people. At the time, this type of event was not familiar to them.

No one has the right to live in this kind of disarray without resources. I had to face these events without financial or psychological resources. My daughter, Mélanie, and I were in an endless corridor. We were directed toward last-resort services meant to help people. We submitted a financial aid request for compensation to victims of crime in Quebec.

Despite the financial assistance we were given, we had to use last-resort services. I worked very hard to make up for what we were lacking. I returned to work and, as a result, had to abandon the large file of research on the disappearance of my son for a few years.

This is why the assistance proposed in Bill C-44 would have improved my life at the time. Even if modest financial assistance had been available at that time, it is clear that our suffering could have been lessened.

[Bruno Serre, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Bruno Serre. I am the vice-chair of AFPAD and Brigitte's father. Brigitte was murdered in January 2006 at the age of 17 during her shift at a Shell station in Montreal.

When Brigitte died, not only did my life as a father fall apart, but so did my life as a worker. On the morning of January 25, 2006, I was at work. Never would I have thought that my life would be turned upside down and changed forever.

At around 9 a.m. that day, two detectives came to my work and asked to meet with me. I went to see them. After asking me a number of questions about my children, they gave me the bad news about my daughter Brigitte. That is the precise moment when my life as a father changed forever. I could not believe that something like that could happen to my daughter at her workplace.

The days that followed the tragedy will be engraved on my mind forever. I closed myself off in a bubble to protect myself, to escape the tragic events that I had just learned of and to be able to live. I was no longer the strong and solid man that I used to be. I was questioning my role as a father, as the man of the house, because, in my view, a father is supposed to guide and protect his children on their life journey.

But I was not there to protect her that night. That was my state of mind at that time. Have I failed as a father? That is the question I kept asking myself every day. What could I have done? Why her? Those questions were going through my head over and over again.

For a number of weeks, I second-guessed myself, I was angry and I could not understand what had happened. I was no longer living, I was just there. I was no longer listening to my other children. We had three other children with us at home. I was lucky to have an amazing partner. She supported me and comforted me during my moments of anger, rage and great pain.

Five weeks after the tragedy, I decided to go back to work. My partner had already been back to work for a week. In my mind, I told myself that I was also ready to go back. Other factors contributed to my decision to return to work, including financial insecurity, additional debts that were piling up and the fear of losing my job.

So I showed up at work, one morning in March, hoping to resume my work. Needless to say, my return to work was not the way I pictured it. My colleagues at work were avoiding me. When I walked down the hall, they would look somewhere else. When I entered the cafeteria, people would stop talking and would avoid any eye contact with me.

My partner, who worked in the same place as me, became my only friend. She would comfort me by saying that it was normal for people to avoid me because they did not know what to say to me. But I could not understand why they were avoiding me. I told her that I was the father. I could not see how I could go to work every day and live in silence.

During the following weeks, it was no longer the silence that I had to deal with daily, but the questions that people were asking about the tragedy. My colleagues either wanted to know how I was living with this and what had happened exactly or they would tell me that they understood my pain and what I was going through. Those were questions and comments that I did not necessarily want to address.

My biggest concern was how I was going to get through the day. At that point, three months had passed since Brigitte's death. So I asked myself what I had to do. The answer was simple: I had no choice; I had to work, regardless of my questions. There were basic living expenses, the mortgage, the accounts, groceries, the children's school and the big fear of losing my job if I was away for too long. Above all, there was the pride, the pride of the man of the house who wants to bring home the bacon. I also remember evenings, after work, when I was burnt out and no longer had the energy to take care of myself or my family. I wasn't the solid man of the house anymore. This situation lasted for several months.

During the year, I had to be absent from work or leave early a number of times. I was not 100% productive. As a conscientious worker, it was a situation I had difficulty accepting. Poor mental health and exhaustion has a very serious impact on daily life. During that period, I had to see my family doctor for chest pains, frequent stomach pains and headaches, and dizzy spells. After he examined me several times, the doctor simply told me that what I was experiencing was normal. In fact, what I was going through following the tragic death of my daughter was tremendous stress for any parent. Only time and rest could remedy all my physical and mental health problems. At that point, I understood that no parent who loses a child tragically is ready to return to work in the months following the incident.

Bill C-44 is an indispensable measure for any parent who has to regain their health, take time for their family and themselves, to better deal with life that moves on. I would like to thank Minister Diane Finley, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and the Conservative government for keeping a promise that gives renewed confidence to victims like me. I applaud the government's willingness to help us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I'd like to bring the meeting back to order.

I would like to indicate that we will adjourn a little earlier this morning because we have some committee business. We want members to be mindful of that.

We welcome the new panel. Thank you very much for attending today as we study Bill C-44.

I know that at least some of you had the opportunity to be here during the first panel. It was very touching and compelling testimony. We can hardly imagine what it must be like to appear before a committee. We certainly commend you for your courage and for the fact that you have taken the time to personally invest in these issues and come before us and answer questions.

I understand we will start with Mr. Serre. Go ahead.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to tell you a little bit more about what our office can do. As indicated, I am the federal ombudsman, and as everyone on this committee is aware, the majority of direct services to victims of crime are offered at the provincial and territorial levels, so there is a large variability among what services are available to victims of crime, depending on what is offered by the province or territory.

I'd like to build on some of the comments Yvonne made. One example I can use that exists for victims of violent crime is criminal injuries compensation, but that framework is not available in the northern territories or Newfoundland.

What is available to victims of crime does vary among the provinces and territories, and those decisions are made based on their communities, their needs. One of the things that expanding the Canada Labour Code.... In my comments I also offered that perhaps this committee...and I realize it is not part of the actual Bill C-44, but it is in conjunction with it, because what we're trying to do is provide the best benefits possible for victims of crime. So if in fact the provinces and territories came on board with their amendments, this would be an example of bringing some consistency across Canada in what's available to victims of crime—if they came on board with similar changes.

I always like to say, on the subject of what we can provide, that, for example, if there were a category added to EI that was similar, which was expanded—I really echo the comments, and I'm just going to use age as an example, because we really should be eliminating age as a criterion in terms of the financial needs of victims of crime. When we look at whether EI can be amended—and I recognize your comment as well, because, for example, under EI, you're right that the criterion for adherence to that is more stringent than in the federal income support program—we would recommend a category be added to that, which is broader. So if people were ineligible or in fact would receive more—because of their incomes—than the $350, they should then get the option of the federal income support plan. In actual fact, I understand that the top limit on EI is $485 per week, so there would be a potential for increased benefits to victims of crime.

There are different resources available. You're quite right, for example, that in some communities there may be a higher level of victim services at the local level, based on what's available. What we see across the country is variability. We see capacity and needs and gap needs. It's no surprise to anyone on this committee that if you happen to be in a northern community, capacity is an issue. It's not just how you are going to get it.

I want to reflect Mr. Surprenant's comments about the availability of the right support. I realize that counselling is something that's available for funding, but there is, for example, in some provinces—I think Yvonne highlighted it, that to deal with the grieving process you need that counselling support and the availability. Your ability to afford that is different, or there is that variability.

So, yes, there are services available at the provincial and territorial levels. There is a large amount of variability across the country.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of you for being here today.

I'd like to get a little bit more information about the role of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Some of us and our communities are certainly familiar.... In Mississauga, Ontario, which I represent, I'm quite familiar with Victim Services of Peel, for example, and with the role they play in supporting....

Obviously, the goal of Bill C-44 is to provide financial support in some ways for parents who are going to need to take time off work to deal with the difficult circumstances in their family and to make sure they qualify for employment insurance and are able to get those financial benefits. That's part of it.

The other part, of course, is the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, which would allow an individual to take unpaid leave and still have their job secured—in the federal realm, obviously, because it's the Canada Labour Code. I think Ms. Harvey said it very well: we're hoping the provinces will consider coming on board with this in their jurisdictions.

Here is what I'd like to know. When you have the case of a family in which there has been a murdered child or a missing child, are there any other financial supports for families, either at the federal level through your office or at the provincial or local levels? In some cases, obviously, if a family member is not working to begin with, they wouldn't qualify for EI benefits, but they likely would be going through quite a fair number of expenditures, I would think, for the family, etc. Are there any other financial support mechanisms that you're aware of for families at either the federal or provincial level or at the local level, beyond what we're talking about in this bill today?

[Yvonne Harvey, Chair and Co-founder, Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc.]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to address the committee on Bill C-44. My presentation will focus primarily on the benefits that the bill will provide to those individuals whose employment is regulated by the Canada Labour Code.

My name is Yvonne Harvey, and I am the chair and co-founder of Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims, which is a national charitable organization, first formed in 2009, to provide ongoing emotional support, education, and assistance to parents and to all survivors of homicide victims, while promoting awareness and education for all Canadians.

When a wife loses a husband, she's called a widow. When a husband loses a wife, he's called a widower. When a child loses his or her parents, the child is called an orphan. But there's no word for a parent who loses a child, because that's how awful the loss is.

I'm here today in support of Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act. As the mother of a murdered child, I can attest to the unexpected burdens that parents, through no fault of their own, are challenged with in the aftermath of murder. In the next five minutes, it would be impossible to explain in any depth the emotional, psychological, physical, and financial impact that a parent experiences when a child has been murdered.

Few people can appreciate the true impact of murder on a family, yet any one of us could find ourselves in this position. One day we are leading a normal life, and the next day we are thrust into a foreign world, through no choice of our own, having to deal with police, lawyers, courts, and intrusive media at the very same time that we are dealing with having just lost our child to murder.

The day that changes one's life rarely comes with a warning, yet in an instant, in the time it takes to pick up a telephone, life as we once knew it disappears. The future becomes a struggle between moving on and hanging on.

We are left with a hole in our soul. We are now challenged with reconstructing our lives. There is no guidebook to tell us how to do this, because everyone's journey is as unique as one's fingerprint. Living in the aftermath of murder is a constant emotional and spiritual struggle.

Unpredictable and complex challenges flood into our lives. These are challenges that threaten to, and often do, destabilize the family unit. We may be facing an unexpected financial burden as a result of a child loss, because in the initial months following the murder, we may be incapable of performing our jobs in a productive and competent manner. There are unforeseen health issues that are brought on by ongoing stressors, very often from re-victimization as a result of dealing with the criminal justice system and the intrusive media.

In my case, I had to return to work just five weeks after my daughter was murdered due to financial and work obligations. I did not have the benefit of having the critical time necessary to seek support and focus on addressing my own trauma. It is now five years, nine months, and two days since my daughter, Chrissy, was murdered. I don't believe that progress through this life-changing event is attainable without the time to address the trauma and the complicated grief that accompanies murder. We can go on for years emotionally paralyzed.

Bill C-44 will amend the Canada Labour Code by providing an unpaid leave of absence for up to 52 weeks for parents who have a child missing as a result of a suspected criminal act, and for up to 104 weeks for parents whose child has been murdered, while ensuring job protection.

This is a very progressive, necessary step forward. Every parent of a murdered child can benefit from a leave of absence. It will provide the much-needed time for parents to help themselves and their families through this difficult ordeal.

In conclusion, I want to address the addition of the financial subsidy under the recently announced federal income support program. This subsidy will be critical in alleviating some of the additional financial hardships that parents of murdered children encounter, by providing $350 per week for up to 35 weeks to those parents whose employment does not fall under the Canada Labour Code. These initiatives are unprecedented. CPOMC applauds the Conservative government for these common-sense changes.

Thank you.

[Michel Surprenant, Chair, Board of Directors, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

Good morning. My name is Michel Surprenant. I am here today as the chair of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared (AFPAD).

As its name suggests, our association brings together 500 families of murdered or missing persons in Quebec. My daughter was abducted in 1999 on Castille Street in Terrebonne. She was 16. Her disappearance has turned my life and that of my family upside down.

As you can imagine, going back to work after such a tragedy and focusing on work when all you think about is that you have to look for her and that perhaps she needs help is very difficult. When Julie disappeared, a great many things were going through our heads. We were looking for her, we were wondering what happened.

In addition, Julie had a sister. They were 13 months apart. They were almost like twins. I had to be there for my other daughter, because a lot of things were going through her head. She was at risk of getting into drugs, committing suicide, and so on. For parents, when you are at work, thinking of all those things, and when you sometimes have to leave work all of a sudden, an initiative like this is important.

AFPAD is in full support of Bill C-44 that was introduced by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Ms. Finley. The financial assistance initiative for parents of murdered or missing children will come into effect in 2013 and it will support 1,000 families a year. AFPAD made the request for the new income support benefit a number of years ago. The compensation is $350 a week and it will be provided for 35 weeks.

Some of our members lost their jobs because they did not have the strength to go back to work after a murder or disappearance. By helping parents take a few weeks of respite, we enable workers to get their strength back and to be better equipped to return to the workforce one day.

I urge all members of Parliament to vote in favour of this bill, thereby sending a clear message to victims. We have to help victims get through the very difficult months that follow the death or disappearance of their child. This period is crucial for a father and a mother.

On behalf of AFPAD, I would like to thank the minister and Senator Boisvenu, who have made it possible to turn this historic request from AFPAD into a reality. Put yourselves in the shoes of parents whose children have disappeared or have been murdered. You will understand that this bill is fair and that it is high time that it was passed.

Thank you all, and thank you for voting in favour of this important bill for victims of crime in Canada.

[Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would provide for unpaid leave for parents of murdered and missing children.

As you may know, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this through our mandate by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims; promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime; providing information and referrals; promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime; raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims; and identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact on victims of crime.

The office helps victims in two main ways: individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today to speak about the amendment to the Canada Labour Code providing for unpaid leave. I will also raise some points for consideration related to the federal income support for parents of murdered and missing children.

I would like to begin by stating that our office was pleased to hear about the introduction of Bill C-44, which includes an amendment to the Canada Labour Code to provide for unpaid leave for parents coping with the death or disappearance of a child. We are also encouraged by the announcement of a new federal income support program to help ease the financial hardship of parents of missing or murdered children.

While we support both of these measures, it is apparent that the new provisions for unpaid leave and the income support program do not address the circumstances of many victims of crime, and could be more inclusive in their eligibility and reach. Therefore, our office will be asking the committee to consider amending and broadening the reach of unpaid leave and income support in order to be more inclusive of the needs of victims of crime.

To provide some context, the trauma associated with victimization can have devastating psychological and socio-economic impacts on the family. A recent study from the Department of Justice estimates that almost 83% of the costs associated with crime are borne by victims. These costs include lost productivity and wages, costs of medical and psychological care, and time away from work to attend criminal proceedings.

A study of families bereaved by homicide, conducted in the United Kingdom in 2011, confirmed that physical health and the ability to work, maintain relationships, care for children, and manage new financial burdens were all significant problems for families who had experienced the homicide of a loved one.

The same study revealed that 70% of respondents stopped working for a period of time as a result of the bereavement. The amount of time taken off varied from under a month to over a year. Several respondents in the study noted that they had lost their jobs as a result of the impact of the loss of their loved one. This speaks directly to the need for unpaid leave and accompanying income support.

It should also be noted, however, that respondents in this study were not all parents of children. The study also highlighted the impacts on spouses, siblings, and co-residing extended family. If one considers losing a spouse to homicide, the financial impact may be similarly devastating.

For this reason, I would like to highlight that the proposed amendments to the labour code need to be more inclusive and to recognize the impacts of crime on other family members—for example, spouses and siblings. They should also recognize the impact of victimization when someone is older than the age of 18. Moreover, the amendments should also address other circumstances outside of homicide or disappearance. In this way, the unpaid leave provisions would address the impact of victimization within the family unit and recognize the tremendous impacts of other types of crime—for example, serious physical or sexual assault.

Taking this into account, I would respectfully request that the committee consider the following recommendations. Widen the reach of the Canada Labour Code amendments to be more inclusive to victims of crime, to include, for instance, leave for spouses and siblings, and remove the age limit of 18 years of age. Create a separate employment insurance category for victims of crime to ensure that Canadians who are impacted by crime are able to access the existing EI structure. In such instances where family members may not meet the employment insurance eligibility requirements, or if the benefit would be less than $350 a week, we recommend that they be eligible for a program similar to the federal income support, based on the same inclusive eligibility. This program could ensure that the income support needs of more victims of crime are addressed.

In conclusion, our office strongly supports the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code and income support for parents of murdered and missing children. However, we recommend that the unpaid leave provisions be available to a broader range of victims and their family members, as they too carry a heavy burden in the aftermath of a crime.

My office hears from victims across the country on a daily basis that there is a lack of tangible support available to them. We hear from victims about going into immense debt, suffering ill health and relationship issues, and their difficulty in getting the help they need. They often tell us about their struggle to access the supports they need to deal with the practical realities of life following a crime.

While the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code included in Bill C-44 are indeed a positive step forward, creating more inclusive leave provisions for victims of crime, with an accompanying employment insurance benefit, would not only serve as a recognition of the long-lasting impact of victimization, but would significantly strengthen the supports available to victims of crime in Canada.

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Good morning, everyone. I welcome you to our committee hearings. We're here, of course, studying Bill C-44. This morning we are looking at provisions relating to a new federal income support benefit for parents of murdered or missing children, amending the Canada Labour Code to protect the jobs of parents who take a leave of absence relative to the critically ill or injured child, and of course parents of children who are missing or murdered as a result of a suspected Criminal Code of Canada offence.

It is certainly a topic that will be difficult for some, but we appreciate having with us today Susan O'Sullivan, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, who will begin sharing with us. We also have Michel Surprenant, the chair of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared. We also have Yvonne Harvey, the chair and founder of Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc.

Generally, what we do is have each party present. Then we have questions from each of the party representatives, alternating party to party. With that, I invite Ms. O'Sullivan to go ahead with her presentation.

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

The eligibility requirements for these conditions described under Bill C-44 are very clear: they are not tied to other EI programs, except insofar as they are stackable in many cases. That's a good thing. That's something that has been fought for, for a long time. In designing these programs, we included stackability because that would be for the benefit of all Canadians.

But in terms of other changes to other parts of the EI system, there's no direct connection with these eligibility requirements. For each of these programs it is very clear and independent of the rest of the EI system.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

What I was going to say was that the changes that have been introduced to employment insurance are far-reaching, are going to impact every nook and cranny of this country. All I was wondering was whether or not the changes that have been introduced will impact the people who are going to be affected by Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act.

Will any of these changes that have been announced to EI affect any of these people who would be eligible for benefits under Bill C-44?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses, the ministers.

Minister Finley, you threw out a couple of numbers that I found just shocking in terms of the numbers of parents who would be eligible for these kinds of benefits. You mentioned as many as a thousand for murdered or missing children and as many as 6,000 for parents of critically ill children, but for me, coming from a place like Newfoundland and Labrador, that number of a thousand for murdered or missing children is just shocking. On the 6,000 for those who are critically ill, I can relate more to that, because everywhere, unfortunately, we have critically ill children.

The whole time you were speaking, I was thinking about adults with elderly parents, adults whose parents are critically ill. I know that this bill, the Helping Families in Need Act, is specifically for parents of critically ill children. When you talk about families, I also think about adults with critically ill parents.

Will there come a time when we can extend this? Or is it possible to extend this type of benefit for an adult with a critically ill parent?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

Our hearts go out to all of these people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Dan Demers of the Canadian Cancer Society said:

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

He also said:

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

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

I have a couple of preliminary comments.

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

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

The bill also amends the Employment Insurance Act to provide benefits to claimants who are providing care or support to their critically ill child and to facilitate access to sickness benefits for claimants who are in receipt of parental benefits. There are then amendments to the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations.

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

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

Opposition Motion—Omnibus Legislation

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

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

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

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

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

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

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

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

Helping Families in Need Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

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

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Helping Families In Need Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-44 amends the Canada Labour Code to provide an employee with the right to take leave when a child of the employee is critically ill or dies or disappears as the probable result of a crime. The bill also makes technical amendments to that act. It also amends—and this is important—the Employment Insurance Act to provide benefits to claimants who are providing care or support to their critically ill child and to facilitate access to sickness benefits for claimants who are in receipt of parental benefits. That is key.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In their 2011 election platform, the Conservatives promised:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for his kind comments about co-operation. It is true that we have been working together in a co-operative fashion on the bills he mentioned. In fact, without utilizing time allocation, after nine days of co-operative debate on things that everybody agrees on, we have been able to have one vote on one bill at one stage. If members wonder why it is difficult to get things done, that indicates why: we all agree on something and it still takes nine days to get one bill to one vote at one stage.

Anyway, this afternoon, we will continue with our helping families in need week with second reading debate on Bill C-44, which will undertake several steps to help hard-working Canadian parents in times of need.

Based on discussions, I expect that we will finish debating Bill C-44 today. If so, I will then call Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans), tomorrow.

I understand that there is interest in all corners of the House to see this legislation referred to committee quickly. I hope so, because I believe that all parties want it passed. We may be able to make that happen.

Next week we are going to focus on making our streets and communities even safer. From Wednesday through Friday we will consider second reading of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which will firmly show that Parliament does not tolerate criminals and fraudsters abusing Canadian generosity.

On Monday and Tuesday, we shall have the third and fourth allotted days. Both days will go to the official opposition. I am eagerly waiting to see what we debate those days. Perhaps the New Democrats will use the opportunity to lay out their details for a $21 billion carbon tax which would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Perhaps I should correct the record; it would be a $21.5 billion carbon tax. I know there are some in the press gallery who want us to be precise about that.

If we have a hard-working, productive and orderly week in the House which sees debates on Bill C-44, Bill C-21 and Bill C-43 finish early, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which the official opposition supports, despite debating it for four days last week; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week on the Thursday question we asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to respond to a sincere offer by the opposition to make Parliament work for Canadians by listing a number of bills on which the opposition was willing to work with the government. In response to that question, the government House leader spent a great deal of his time fabricating New Democratic Party policy rather than doing the job of House leaders, which is to formulate a strategy to make this place function for Canadians.

If the government spent at least 50% of its energy working with the opposition on such bills, it might acknowledge the progress on such bills as Bill C-42, Bill C-21, Bill C-44, Bill C-37, and Bill C-32. They are proof of the opposition's willingness to make this place function for Canadians. They also disprove the myth that the government had to use closure out of necessity rather than its own ideology and perspective of how a democracy ought to run.

The clear question in front of the government is twofold. When will we see the opposition days in the coming calendar for the official opposition? Also, a question which is on the minds of many Canadians with respect to a second budget implementation bill is, will we see a repeat of the one we saw in the spring? Many people called it a Trojan horse bill because it contained many measures that had absolutely nothing to do with the budget.

Helping Families in Need Act

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me formally welcome back all hon. members to the House of Commons from their productive summers in their ridings, which I trust they had, working with and listening to constituents.

On the government side of the House, we heard loud and clear that the priority of Canadians remains the economy. It is our priority too. Not one person raised with me a desire to see a $21 billion carbon tax implemented to raise the price of gas, groceries and winter heat. I do not expect the member will see that in our agenda.

I also want to extend a warm welcome, on behalf of Conservatives, to this year's class of pages. I am certain that their time with us, here in our hard-working, productive and, I hope, orderly House of Commons, will lead to lifelong memories.

Yesterday, we were able to pass Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, at second reading. I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation on that.

I am optimistic that we will see similar co-operation to allow us to finish second reading debate tomorrow on Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about.

This afternoon, of course, is the conclusion of the New Democrats' opposition day. As announced earlier this week, Tuesday will be a Liberal opposition day.

On Monday, the House will start debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. This legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal from Canada and it sends a strong signal to foreign criminals that Canada is not a safe haven. I hope we will have support from the opposition parties for rapid passage of the bill designed to make our communities safer.

Starting on Wednesday, the House will debate Bill C-44, the helping families in need act. Once the opposition caucuses have met to discuss this important bill, I am confident they would want to support the early passage of this legislation as well. It would enhance the income support provided to families whose children have been victims of crime or are critically ill.

If we have additional time tomorrow or next week, the House will consider Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the Defence of Canada Act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

We are interested in Bill C-21, which deals with accountability for political loans and making that consistent with the other political contribution provisions. If we have a consensus among parties to bring that forward, we will certainly do that.

Similarly, if we can see a consensus among parties on passing Bill C-32 as it has been presented to the House, we would be pleased to do that on unanimous consent.

Helping Families in Need Act

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

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)