If Mr. Lessard had been patient...I expressed at the outset, and I will say it again, that it leaves me confused in terms of intent and framing of this bill. I think that's relevant to my remarks. I wish Mr. Lessard would just hold his fire until one gets through and makes the point and asks the question.
I am confused, insofar as that record prior.... I am also concerned because it does lead me along the path, in terms of previous bills to this, to what I think is a fatal flaw.
I think Ms. Bonsant means well here. I think there are some good elements in this bill.
But I have to tell you, frankly, as members, as witnesses, so far have done, that the part in the bill I mentioned before that talks about the presence required by the employee's child under 18 years of age who has suffered a serious physical injury during the commission of a criminal offence, or as a direct result of a criminal offence, that renders that child unable to carry on regular activities..... I am told that's in reference to a child who has actually injured themselves during the commission of a criminal offence. They were the ones who perpetrated the crime, and this bill would then provide that child's parents with the ability to take time off work and collect EI and so on. I have a concern about that.
I have more remarks to make. I do think it's something that is fatal in terms of the bill. I certainly understand what parents say, and I want to pre-empt by saying I am a parent. I have four children and eight grandchildren. I understand all of that. I don't need to be lectured in respect of that because I certainly have some understanding.
I have taught my children, whether they always agree with me or not, that there are consequences for actions. I assume that as parents and grandparents you'd do the same. If my child committed a crime, I certainly don't want to be encouraging enabling behaviour. That is what I want to avoid.
I want to be there for them, available to them, but to favour something like this is a step beyond. To say I should be there to make their meals and do their laundry, and those kinds of things, might be enabling. I want my child to show regret, repentance, a change of ways...I guess you would say it's a bit conditional, from that point of view. I believe in consequences of actions and that kind of thing, as I would hope is the case with our person who framed the bill.
I do want to ask Michel and Arlène and Martin whether they think that's a problem in the bill.
Do you support the fact of a child carrying out a criminal act and then there also being provisions for those parents?
I need to ask the question to our witnesses because I'll be asking it to the public. I don't believe the public in my riding would support this, but I probably need to frame that question to them as well.
But I want to ask the question on whether you think that's a problem in the bill as it stands now. Or are you totally accepting of the fact that a child perpetrating a crime is totally covered, as would be a victim of crime, which I thought this bill was more focused on?
