Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak on this important bill. I must congratulate my colleague from the NDP for having introduced Bill C-206 as well as for having managed to convince the subcommittee on private members' business that it should be votable.
I am a bit constrained by the need for secrecy on the deliberations of that subcommittee, being a member of it. I do want my colleague to know, however, that this bill will be voted on because its subject was found to be highly relevant.
We must point out that, above all else, a Parliament is a forum for individuals of varying backgrounds, varying visions, and varying political ideologies and allegiances.
In the case of the Bloc Quebecois sovereignists, we have a different vision of the relationship that should exist between a sovereign Quebec and the rest of Canada. I believe that this is democracy, and it is within this view of democracy that our two new colleagues were elected in the Monday December 9 byelections in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and Berthier—Montcalm.
The reason I have referred to these differences in backgrounds is that the member's bill transcends party lines and political ideologies and allegiances.
When a bill addresses compensation, remuneration for natural caregivers, someone who has had to leave a job in order to look after a sick person, there must be no attempts at partisan politics. Our approach has to be people-centred. In matters such as this, we cannot be technocratic or number-obsessed. We cannot start asking how it will be funded. In this connection, I do have some suggestions as to how it could be financed, but that ought not to be the focus of the debate.
I am convinced that the question we have to answer as parliamentarians—and I am basing this on what I have heard from the colleagues who preceded me—is whether we would be capable of obtaining a unanimous vote in this assembly so that this matter can be settled. I am sure that, with some good will, this bill could be passed.
I have been fortunate in that I have not had to deal with this situation in my own family. I do, however, have friends who have had to leave a job in order to take care of a sick father or mother or some other close relative, or to be with a child with cancer during the child's last days on earth.
It is important to ensure that these people are compensated. This will not cure the sick; it cannot ease the terrible suffering of the caregiver. However, it can, at the very least, ease someone's mind, quiet a concern, and it might allow the caregiver to face the terrible illness of the person under their care with greater peace of mind.
So, this would eliminate all financial worries. Then again, when I say all financial worries, I should say some financial worries, because it is not possible to reimburse all the expenses incurred when someone loses their job.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the lawyers who help us parliamentarians draft bills, because we do not all have a law degree. Fortunately, we have benefited from the assistance of very competent lawyers, although unfortunately there were too few of them. I think that there are plans to increase the number.
The purpose of the bill is to introduce important definitions. Among them, we find “caregiver”. I want to quote subsection 23(1) of the bill:
“caregiver” means a person who leaves employment voluntarily or whose employment is terminated because the person is unable to carry out work or attend work at the times required by the employer by reason of caring for a member of the person's family—
Further on, the word “family” is defined. It says, and I quote:
“family”, with respect to a person, includes
(a) a spouse or common-law partner; and
(b) a child, grandchild, parent—
Most eventualities are covered.
The bill would also allow the person to collect employment insurance benefits. This is found in clause 4 of the bill. It reads:
—no benefit is payable to a major attachment claimant under this section—for more than 52 weeks in total in one or more periods in any two year period.
Finally, another important element of this bill is that it also refers to caring for a person who:
(a) has an impairment as defined in section 118.3 of the Income Tax Act; and
(b) is not an in-patient in a medical facility or a resident of a long term care facility or home.
This refers to situations where people make the decision to live out their final days at home, among their things, in their own bed. I have had the opportunity to visit people—not in my own family—whose families had to literally adapt a room, for example, having a hospital bed. Some diseases, such as bone cancer, are so painful that a normal bed cannot be used. The family must get a special bed.
It is more and more common in our society for people who know they have a terminal illness to say they would like to end their days surrounded by family at home. I think this should be encouraged.
I believe that the surplus in the EI fund—I talked about this with my hon. colleague in charge of the file—is currently around $6 billion. Let us not forget that the Liberal government helped itself to more than $42 billion of the EI fund surpluses. Let no one say that the current regime is unable to take on these new responsibilities and fund these new measures. I think that with the EI fund surplus, we now have enough to compensate these people. That is basically what I wanted to say.
As this is probably my last intervention on a bill, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues in this House a Merry Christmas and a wonderful 2003. I would also like to wish a happy holiday season to those watching. This year, fresh from this bill, I would like us to take a moment to think about those who will be spending the holidays alone, or those who are sick and staying in long term care or in a hospital.
As parliamentarians, let us try to take the time for someone who might not otherwise receive any visitors over the holidays. Evidently, the holiday season is a very difficult time to spend alone. Food for thought.