Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak on Bill C-206. It is legislation that certainly seeks to assist those who need help to be able to provide care to a close relative, father, daughter or son who is seriously ill.
However, with respect to this bill, the funds allocated under the 2003 budget deal specifically with this problem.
I can well understand the thinking of our hon. colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore who has worked so hard to advance Bill C-206. However, while I fully share the values of compassion, caring and dedication that lie behind his bill, I believe it has some serious shortcomings.
Our government has pledged in the Speech from the Throne to find a way so that workers will not have to choose between taking care of a family member and their job.
As usual, we were quick to deliver on our commitments. Actually, the government has announced in the 2003 budget the establishment of a six week leave with employment insurance benefits. This initiative seeks to ensure that Canadians can provide compassionate care for a seriously ill or dying child, parent or spouse without putting their job or income at risk.
Beginning in January 2004, six weeks of compassionate care benefits, along with eight weeks of Canada Labour Code job protection, will be available so eligible workers may take a temporary absence from work without fear of sudden income or job loss when a parent, spouse or child is dying or falls gravely ill.
Of course, at first glance, this leave may appear inadequate to my colleague, who is suggesting leave of up to 52 weeks. However, several analyses we conducted in the medical world showed that the average absence of a relative taking care of a seriously ill family member was six weeks. This is why the government suggested a six week leave paid by employment insurance.
Contrary to what my colleague from Vancouver East said, when she was drafting her bill, I am not so sure that our hon. colleague carefully researched the financial impact of her proposal on workers, employers and society as a whole.
Her bill includes not only close relatives such as children, parents, spouses, as does the government proposal, but also brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, as well as in-laws and step family members. This definition of family will be very costly for our society.
It gets worse when we consider the idea of impairment involved in the bill that applies to a wide range of care services entailing significant costs for Canadians.
I have noticed that no one here has mentioned any numbers. Let us talk numbers. Just to give members an idea, our compassionate care plan should cost the public purse approximately $86 million in 2003-04, and $221 million in 2004-05 and subsequent years. Clearly, Bill C-206, which would entitle more Canadians to this kind of leave and would make the leave almost nine times as long, would be very costly.
I do not believe that we as a country can afford this measure. The idea behind the measure is an idea that the government has already put forward and the government's position is one where we acknowledge the need, we try to answer the need, but there is certain limit to which we can go and this is a financial limit.
Bill C-206 runs contrary to the very principles on which we laid the new foundations of the employment insurance system, since it requires those who want to take care of their relatives to quit their job or be fired to be entitled to support.
The government proposal stresses that it is important for individuals to keep their jobs as long as possible. Unfortunately, I am out of time but, believe me, it is important to have a balanced approach.