Debates of Nov. 19th, 2012

(Return tabled)

Question No. 953

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) how many active members are currently enlisted in the Canadian Forces, broken down by (i) Royal Canadian Air Force, (ii) Royal Canadian Navy, (iii) Land Forces, (iv) location of current deployment, for each of (i) through (iii); (b) what is the net change in strength of each branch since 2006; (c) how many Canadian Forces members are officers and how many are non-commissioned members; (d) of the officer ranks, how many are senior officers and how many are general staff; (e) of the active Canadian Forces members, how many are employed in (i) the trades of the combat arms, namely artillery, armoured, or infantry, (ii) non-combat roles; (f) of the active Canadian Forces members deployed during the combat mission in Afghanistan, how many were employed in (i) the trades of the combat arms, (ii) in a supporting or logistical role; (g) how many public servants are currently employed by the Canadian Forces, broken down by location of employment; and (h) since 2006, what is the yearly change in strength of (i) the regular force, (ii) the reserve force, (iii) civilian employees of the Department of National Defence?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, finally, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations, be read the third time and passed.

Helping Families in Need Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for York West has six minutes left to conclude her remarks.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to continue speaking to this very important bill, Bill C-44. It is an issue that was looked at when the Liberals were in office and something that we had also committed to improving had we become the government in the last election. Therefore, I am pleased that the government is at least picking up the issue. I am not satisfied that the Conservatives have done enough, but at least they are moving forward with baby steps.

As Liberals, we continue to believe that families must not be financially ruined because of an illness or when providing care for a family member who falls ill. I and many other parliamentarians, I am sure, have sat down and talked with families who are in that situation and have had to quit work to stay home and care for a sick child or a dying parent or relative. That is just not the way it should be. This belief is why we campaigned for a family care benefit through EI during the last election. That program would have delivered improved support to Canadians when they clearly needed it most.

We also believe that additional enhancements to the EI system should be studied, including increasing sickness benefits and creating a part-time benefits system to help support people with illnesses and disabilities such as MS. These suggestions would not be difficult to implement, even at this stage in the legislative process. We proposed a number of amendments during the committee's study of Bill C-44 and would be pleased to elaborate on them today, because they are very important. Perhaps this could be an item on which we all work co-operatively and deliver something good to the collective benefit of all of our constituencies and all Canadians.

I would again suggest looking at extending the leave of absence for a parent of a critically ill child from 32 weeks to 52 weeks. This would align with the amount of support a parent of a missing or murdered child is entitled to under Bill C-44. It is just common sense that we would have the two of them aligned, rather than having one at 37 weeks and another at 52 weeks. People have a hard enough time managing and accessing government programs and systems as they are, so why not try to keep things a bit similar? It seems to me that for parents of a child who has been killed or murdered or dies from a serious illness or other very serious issues, these benefits should naturally be consistent.

Also, we should consider extending the period for which a parent of a critically ill child could continue to receive benefits, from the last day of the week on which the child succumbs to 14 days after the child passes away. This proposed extension would acknowledge the period of grief following the loss of a child and would provide parents with additional support during a period of bereavement. We surely cannot ask employees to return to work and expect them to be productive after losing a child, never mind losing another relative.

We also called for a reduction in the labour force attachment hours required of EI claimants, from 600 hours over six months to 420 hours over that same time. Reducing the number of hours required would have the effect of extending benefits to part-time workers who would not otherwise qualify for this special EI benefit.

These are only a few suggestions that could make Bill C-44 a far better bill, and I would again call on the Conservatives to consider them. This is a bill that we can all stand and salute and say that we all had a part in it, because we are providing an important service to Canadians.

I understand that some of these ideas fall outside the technical scope of this bill, as determined by the government majority on the committee. However, I also know that this House has several procedural options available to it, if there were a will to do it correctly. What would be lost by looking at other ways to help Canadian families and parents who are facing some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable?

Today we have a choice. We can stand in our places and enact measures that would truly help those we are all here to serve, and whom I believe we want to serve. We can extend a hand-up to people like those living in my community at Jane and Finch, or we can continue to accept mediocrity. I would like to think that this particular issue is one on which we can all gather together and make a true statement about the kind of Canada we want, that we want a compassionate and caring Canada that is economically strong but knows that when things are difficult we are there to help the people.

I truly hope members of the government, particularly those on the back benches, are listening and are prepared to do the right thing by going along with these amendments so we can ensure that Canadians truly have an alternative in difficult times ahead.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do support this particular bill. It would help a number of people in that bracket. However, there is a bigger issue around the EI program itself. In my riding, people have had a hard time reaching out to Service Canada to fill out their claims. They are having difficulty reaching somebody at Service Canada, which is because the Conservatives have cut the EI program for many years. Four out of 10 people who need EI are having trouble qualifying for it.

Has my colleague heard similar complaints about EI issues in her riding?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a variety of complaints about people having difficulty accessing the various services. Clearly, the closing down of so many offices around Canada makes it difficult.

I recently visited Service Canada and the lineup of people was out the door. The number of people who did not know how to use a computer and were asking for help was quite overwhelming. If people have sick children or ailing loved ones and they need to go to the government for help, it should be easy to do. What I saw last week and what I am hearing from my constituents and colleagues is that it is very difficult to access it. It is great for the 20-year-olds but I saw an awful lot of people last week who were probably in their late thirties who do not work with computers, were not able to access the system and had to wait in a long line for Service Canada people to help them.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that stands out in my mind is the way the Conservatives have ushered this legislation through. I know my colleague supports the spirit and intent of this legislation. Who would not as it would probably help 6,000 to 7,000 Canadians each year. However, it could have been better. Had the government provided an opportunity for amendments at second reading, some changes could have improved the lives of Canadians because a lot of them will be excluded.

Canadians would require 600 hours of work in order to qualify for this benefit but more and more Canadians are working part time now. The Conservatives like to pat themselves on the back for the jobs they have created, but the fact is that where it used to be that one in eight jobs in Canada were part time, it is now one in seven jobs. More Canadians are working part time and, if they do not qualify, they will not benefit from this support.

The Conservatives presented a technical briefing at the end of second reading. Does the member see this is another example of the government abusing the process of the House in order to pass the legislation it wants to pass? It is an abuse of the procedures of the House. This could have been a better piece of legislation to serve more Canadians.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time, so we should not be surprised at the government's tactics on a variety of things.

There are thousands of people who are not eligible to access the EI program and others. The government can say that it did this but who is eligible? It is a very small pocket of people who would be eligible. It can brag about how it brought in this great program but very few people can access it. This is not the first time. We have seen it happen with many other programs. The government likes to tout about all the wonderful things it does but when we get beyond the press releases, it really is not doing very much.

The Liberals are supporting this legislation because it is tiny step toward rectifying a huge problem if we want a compassionate and caring Canada.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from York West said, we are supporting the legislation, the helping families in need act. Just the title of the act shows that it is the kind of legislation that one would be inclined to support. Obviously, as my colleague said, it is a step in the right direction but so much more could be done.

The legislation would modify the Canada Labour Code to enable employees to take leave if their child is critically ill, dies or is missing as a result of a criminal act. In addition, Bill C-44 would make substantive changes to the Employment Insurance Act to allow ill claimants receiving parental benefits to also access sick benefits. Finally, the bill introduces a grant of $350 per week to parents who earn a minimum of $6,500 annually and are forced to take leave from their employment because they are caring for an ill child or their child was murdered or is missing.

None of us would ever want to be in that particular position. As my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso said, there is so much more that could be done. What we are trying to do here is convince the government that working together we can make a difference. We could do so much more with a bill like Bill C-44.

Overall, it is a step in the right direction. This has gone on for too long. The legislation is badly needed but it can be improved, and this is what I want to speak to. The government can and must do more to ensure that parents receive financial flexibility during extremely difficult times such as caring for a child who suffers from a critical illness or the tragic death or disappearance of a child.

Bill C-44 legislates two tiers of tragedy by enforcing different supports depending on the unfortunate circumstance. If a parent takes leave from work to care for a dying child, he or she is guaranteed up to 37 weeks off work under the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, but if a parent takes leave because his or her child is missing, the individual gets 52 weeks off work. While away from work, a parent would receive $350 per week.

It is impossible to even imagine the pain and fear that a parent in any of these tragic circumstances would be forced to endure. I cannot even put myself in the place of parents who find themselves in such circumstances. I most certainly support the 52 weeks guaranteed for parents of a missing or murdered child, and I am sure we all do. However, I believe that parents who are caring for a critically ill child and are suffering from many of the same uncertainties should also be permitted 52 weeks instead of only 37 weeks as would be permitted under this legislation.

I agree with the intent of the bill but I believe that the supports must be stronger and more equal. That is why the Liberals introduced amendments at the committee stage that would have improved and strengthened the supports that Bill C-44 would provide. Unfortunately, the committee, as we all know, was comprised of a majority of Conservative members who voted these measures down. Sadly, it appears that some on the committee could not rise above petty partisanship to deliver for Canadian families. In spite of the lack of co-operation that we found on committee, which my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso referenced, we support the bill.

While I welcome the specific improvements this legislation would make to the EI system for Canadian families, Bill C-44 is part of a larger conversation about the EI system and its failure to meet the needs of Canadians.

For many Canadians, the EI system provides supplementary benefits beyond the unfortunate case of loss of employment. For example, the EI system also provides maternity and parental benefits to individuals who are pregnant, have recently given birth, are adopting a child or are caring for a newborn. In addition, EI provides sickness benefits to individuals who are unable to work because of sickness, injury or quarantine.

Yet the question remains, are Canadians receiving the benefits they pay for, and in some cases require, in the manner to which they need them? The simple answer is no. I think if we ask anyone in the House who is familiar with the situations that Canadians find themselves in when they need to access EI, a program they have paid into, in essence their program, we would find that they are not being treated fairly.

Bill C-44 would enhance benefits to those who would find themselves in a very unfortunate and particular circumstance, but it would not solve many existing problems with the inability of the EI system to conform and adapt to the way Canadians need to use it.

Although, from time to time, some may make it seem like the benefits provided by the EI system are gifts from the Government of Canada, the fact is it is a system that is paid into by Canadians. It is in fact a fund that is put in place by Canadians. It is a crime when those Canadians are unable to access EI when they need to and in terms of the amounts that are required.

Because of this critical but often maligned fact, it is extremely important, as members of Parliament and representatives of our constituents, that we take part in a larger conversation with Canadians about how EI benefits are delivered and how they can better be delivered. This is where we really do need to engage Canadians. That is what is missing from the discussion.

The fact is that decisions are made and we design legislation without really doing the proper consultation with the Canadians who will be impacted. No one really knows whether they will be impacted by it. Therefore, it is very important to recognize, as members of Parliament, our constituents who may be working today but may lose their job through no fault of their own. It is that consultation that is missing here, that discussion with Canadians about the EI system and how it can best be administered to deliver for Canadians in the way in which it should be delivered.

One area where benefits need to be looked at is sickness benefits. Currently those who are eligible for sickness benefits are entitled to up to 15 weeks of benefits if they are unable to work because of their illness. Unfortunately many Canadians who are sick are forced to refrain from going back to work long after their benefits expire.

For example, a woman diagnosed with breast cancer is forced to take leave from work so she may undergo treatment. She will face a gruelling treatment regime that is often longer than the 15 weeks allowed for by the current regulation, leaving her stranded, unable to work while receiving treatment and unable to access more EI benefits even though her sickness has left her in a difficult position. In this case, the goal to provide support while she is receiving treatment is not being met fully. Clearly, in a situation like this, and in other similar situations, there is a gap in the program delivery.

How do we explain to people in that situation that we really cannot respond in the way that we should? We know they are going through a difficult time, we know it is a program they have paid into, but we are not there to meet their needs.

More generally, but equally important to this conversation, Statistics Canada reports that from 2010 to 2011, the most recent data available, access to EI benefits was at its lowest level in nearly a decade. According to Statistics Canada, one reason for the decreasing access to EI benefits was the lack of available full-time jobs.

Although all employees pay into the EI fund, only those with a certain number of hours worked can access the benefits for which they pay. That is one of the many reasons why Canada needs a government that spends less on political advertising and actually does more to create the desperately needed full-time jobs that far too many Canadian families are struggling to find.

Instead of focusing on creating full-time jobs, the government hiked the employment insurance rate on job creators, essentially raising a direct tax on employment, not to mention the Conservative government's declaration of war through its changes to the EI system on many of my constituents who are without a job through no fault of their own. This can be found in a lot of rural areas. While people want to work, unfortunately full-time jobs are not available.

Furthermore, with 14 million phone calls from Canadians trying to access their benefits, automatically hung up on by Service Canada that does not have the resources to respond, we are finding they are not getting the services they need.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that under the Conservative government we have seen cuts to the EI program, where people are having a hard time accessing it. Not only that, only four out of ten people who are unemployed quality for EI benefits.

Would my colleague agree with me that we used to have a $54 billion surplus in the EI program? What happened to that under the Liberal government?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, but the reality is that there was a surplus and the auditor general of the day actually recommended that we use that money in terms of general revenue.

To try to suggest that the Liberals did something that was outside of what should have been done is really being a little deceptive. I would really appreciate it if the hon. member recognized that. If he did not know this, then I appreciate that as well.

Clearly, we have to ensure the fund is available for our constituents, Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When they need it, it should be there for them.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite expressed concern over employers that were required to pay more toward the contributions, as well as the employees on their deductions. However, in the previous budget, and extended into this one, our government provided a $1,000 tax benefit to employers so they could encourage more employment. From one tax year to the next, if employers pay up to $1,000 more in employment insurance, that can be reduced.

Why did the member not vote in favour of that budget measure the last time or this time?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to know why we could not vote for a budget that had so much thrown into it. This is a prime example of the kind of manipulation the government undertakes when it throws so much into an omnibus bill. The government makes it impossible for members to vote for anything for which they would like to vote.

Whether I would vote for that measure or whether I would vote for something else, the member knows only too well that what has to be done is we have to have a budget bill that deals just with the budget, not a bill that has so much thrown into it, which makes it impossible for anyone to vote, no matter how they would like to vote.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to say that it has created 800,000 jobs since it took power.

I just got back from Fort McMurray. Any jobs that have been created are in Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as some in Newfoundland. That is where the jobs are being created. They are not in Ontario, Quebec or anywhere else in the country.

The guys in Alberta know that it was because of the regulatory regime that was brought in 2002, and they refer to it as “Chrétien's fix”. That is why there are five new plants out there creating jobs.

The jobs that the government has created are part-time jobs. Those guys failed to make provisions in this legislation for people working part-time. If the legislation had been brought in like it should have, so that changes could be made through second reading, then maybe we could have helped those Canadians, but they did not.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with my colleague more. He has made a very valid point.

That is what we are saying about Bill C-44. While we think it is a step in the right direction, it really does need to be improved upon, and we have recommended amendments and improvements to the bill.

We hope the government will recognize that we could be in this together. We could ensure that Canadians have the best possible EI system they could have. They are paying into it. It is their system. Let us work together. Let us not treat it as something that only the Conservatives, or the NDP or the Liberals are doing it. Let us work together and do what is in the best interest of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the Question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.