Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, this issue has been referred to not only by members on his side of the House, for which I thank him, but also by the member for Langley who has had a specific constituent concern where I believe the sister of one of his constituents has taken time off to take care of her dying sister.
I have been very supportive of my colleague from Langley. He has raised this issue and has complete and total compassion, not only in the House and in front of the cameras, but behind them as well.
I am not fully aware of what the previous legislation was in March 2003 as I was not a member of the House at that time. However I will look at the new legislation.
I will say that as far as the general principle that the member for Langley and the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore have spoken to, I support the general principle that we should have flexibility in our social spending.
When we consider some of the other uses EI has been put toward, it would strike me as a much more reasonable approach to look at. Again, in principle, until I see the legislation I will not commit to vote for or against. However, in general, I would be supportive of the principle that people be allowed to take time off to look after loved ones who are in need of care in very serious incidences, such as parents looking after dying children or a sister looking after a sister.
My understanding was that it only took an administrative ruling by the minister, which is quicker than legislation. If that is not the case, I would be very interested in discussing it with the member. Perhaps he could educate me more, but in principle I support it.