Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-49.
I would like to deal with the parental leave under the employment insurance plan. I cannot deny I am happy with the impending chances, even if they are to be implemented over a two year period.
The government keeps repeating that the opposition is never able to give credit where credit is due. I am ready to do it today, even if I do not make a habit of it.
Fifteen weeks of sick leave, plus 15 weeks of maternity leave, and 35 weeks of parental leave add up to 65 weeks off. Last year, the maximum was just 50 weeks. The parental leave can be spread over two years.
I have a disagreement with the government however—after all, I cannot agree with everything all day—over the parental leave for adoptive parents.
The same conditions should apply to them. Under the bill, if a parent adopts a child, and the child is in hospital for three months, the parent will be entitled to EI benefits after these three months, and the benefits may be spread over a period of two years.
However, it seems unacceptable and discriminatory that during the three months the child will be in the hospital, the adoptive parents will not enjoy the same advantages the natural parents do. One can certainly imagine how adoptive parents who have often had to wait one or two years before adopting a child can feel when the child has to be admitted to the hospital.
The government can never do something completely right. It always seems to stop half way. It likes to compel us to challenge it. The government seems to like being spurred on by the opposition.
As the NDP whip, I will try to whip them into shape this morning. Once again, I think the government has gone against its obligation to eliminate this type of discrimination against people. We have fought long enough here in the House to say that there should be no discrimination against adoptive parents versus natural parents.
The government is introducing a new bill and this new bill too is discriminatory.
What will the adoptive mother or the adoptive father do while the child is in the hospital? What does the government have to say to the fact that the mother visiting her child in the hospital is receiving no money?
That was the whole idea behind the employment insurance system and Bill C-49, to allow parents to go the hospital, to take care of their child and extend the number of weeks.
Once again, this is why I say it is unfortunate the government missed the boat. It is unfortunate that the government does not take into account the global recommendations of the standing committee, which examined the issue of employment insurance. There is a $42 billion surplus, and all parties made unanimous recommendations to the government.
In the meantime, the government chose the bit by bit approach, and said, “We are nice. Every three or four months, we are nice”. They give a little bit here, a little bit there, a million here, a million there. They are like a bunch of people handing out peppermints every three months.