Debates of Sept. 27th, 2012

Helping Families In Need Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Drummond, the Environment; and the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will of course be pleased to support these changes. These new measures will truly enable workers to take leave and draw employment insurance benefits in the event that their children become seriously ill, disappear or die as a result of a crime. In my view, all the parties agree on that.

I would nevertheless like to state my concerns about employment insurance. It is clear that the employment insurance system needs a reform like this one. The fact is that 1.3 million Canadians are without work and the vast majority of them do not have access to employment insurance. This bill is the first in a long series of changes that would strengthen and improve access to employment insurance.

Knowing what we do about the budget bill, I doubt that the government is seriously committing itself to improving the system. I find this truly unfortunate, because the members of this House have the power to make a genuine difference in the lives of Canadians.

In my riding, the average person’s income is below the average income for Quebeckers and Canadians. I often hear that people do not have access to employment insurance and that they have trouble making ends meet.

I support the substance of the bill and the help it would accord an estimated 6,000 people who can really use the relief it would provide. However, there are aspects of the bill that are badly thought out and I am hoping that the government will see fit to amend the bill at committee. For example, the Conservatives first promised to make this change to EI benefits during the last federal election campaign and at the time they specifically stated that, “Funding for this measure will come from general revenue, not EI premiums”.

Now that the bill is in the House, we find that the government is reneging on this promise and will be taking the funds out of EI to pay for the part of the legislation that would provide benefits to parents with children who are critically ill. It may seem like an insignificant cost but when we consider that, by the Conservatives' own calculation, an estimated 6,000 people will be claiming this benefit, it will come to a large amount when the EI program is already $9 billion in deficit and hundreds of thousands of Canadians already cannot access regular benefits and are slipping deeper into poverty.

It is important to note that the $9 billion deficit is not because EI is an intrinsically unsustainable program. It is because the government and the Liberal government before that did a really bad job of managing and maintaining it. This is the case for so many of our essential public services. These services are being eroded by short-sighted corner cutting that costs taxpayers more money in the long term. Major cuts that came down with the last federal budget are having major impacts in my riding. Every day when I am in my riding I hear from constituents who cannot make ends meet because of insufficient EI, pensions and OAS. I have promised them that I will bring their needs to the House and raise them when I can.

My constituents would say that this bill is good but that it does not go far enough to improve our EI system. We need comprehensive EI reform and we need it fast. I am very proud that today we are helping Canadians who are caring for their sick children but that should not divert our attention from the thousands of other Canadians whose lives could really be improved by extending similar EI benefits to their specific needs.

For example, one of my constituents recently called my office. She said that she had cancer and was undergoing treatment. As people who have undergone cancer treatment know, 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits are not enough to recover and return to work.

My constituent was not even eligible for employment insurance benefits, even though she truly needed them to make ends meet. To be entitled, she would have had to work 600 hours, but had only worked 450.

If the government had deemed it appropriate to adopt the NDP's long-standing position, which would reduce the number of hours for employment insurance eligibility from 600 to 360 hours, my constituent, who worked 450 hours, would have been eligible for these benefits.

If the bill put forward by my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam had been passed, we would have a system under which benefits for serious illnesses would be extended from 15 weeks to 52 weeks. My constituent would then have had the financial security to take care of herself during these difficult times, rather than have to worry about making ends meet and not knowing whether she would be able to pay her heating, grocery or rent bills. That is the situation she is currently in, as she suffers from cancer and tries to undergo treatment to cure it.

This is not the only example I have encountered since being elected, but it is the most recent. There are many others in my riding. We really need to reform employment insurance to help these people.

For example, we need to improve employment insurance for seasonal workers. Since so many of my constituents earn their living in seasonal industries like forestry, farming and tourism, I have a duty to fight for this. It is a question of equity for rural people. All of Canada benefits from the work of seasonal workers. They deserve protection appropriate to the way they live and work.

The other major improvement we could make to employment insurance reform is to introduce compassionate benefits. My constituents are aging. The average age in my riding is higher than the average age in Quebec, which is higher than the average age in Canada.

In view of the shortage of long-term health care services in my riding and the rural factor, the task of caring for the elderly often falls to family members or friends. The Canadian Caregiver Coalition estimates that five million Canadians are caring for a loved one. This is an incredible amount of work that goes unpaid. These caregivers are heroes.

The NDP has frequently tabled bills to extend employment insurance benefits for caregivers, but the Conservatives have always voted against them. This is an area that truly needs improvement.

These are all issues I thought I would use this opportunity to raise.

Right now we have an unemployment crisis. In July 2012, 1.3 million Canadians were unemployed and only 508,000 of them received EI benefits. That means that a staggering 870,000 unemployed Canadians could not claim EI and many of those were barely surviving because of the situation. That means that less than four in ten unemployed Canadians are getting help, which is a historic low. It is the worst it has ever been.

I will be supporting the bill but I want it to be clear that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing seems obvious to me. Here we are talking about employment insurance for parents with children who are critically ill. What happens if the parents are self-employed workers? Are they going to find themselves on social assistance?

In the Conservatives’ first proposal, during the other Parliament, they said that the parents of children who are seriously ill would receive the benefit from the general revenues in the budget. If this were the case, self-employed people could be included. However, when we talk about employment insurance, we are well aware that the self-employed do not have access to it. They are being penalized.

What does my colleague think about this?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an important point. That is just another example of one of the gaps in employment insurance that we are facing in this country. There are other gaps. For instance, we are not talking about allowing the combination of special benefits and regular benefits. We will continue to fight for that for women who are on parental leave.

However, that is only the tip of the iceberg. I could pull out a stack of cases that I have seen in my riding. What I have seen most frequently are people who are really sick but no longer qualify for EI. There are also contract workers who go on maternity leave but cannot claim EI. There is a real gap. As I said, the majority of Canadians cannot access EI. We really need to look at addressing this problem seriously so that all Canadians can make ends meet when they go through changes in their lives.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we are in agreement with the government side but this happens to be one of those times.

However, I find it very ironic that, while the NDP is finding itself in the position of trying to explain the bill, we are not hearing a lot of input from the Conservative side of the House.

There is a side to the bill that needs some clarification. We are talking about federal jurisdiction here. Is the member aware of any process, procedure or any investigation of whether the provinces will be like-minded and move on this? It is important because of that jurisdiction.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. The bill would only affect workers within federally regulated workplaces but this is something that needs to be applied to all Canadians. I hope the government will be working with the provinces and territories to ensure that happens.

We can pass the bill but we should not pat ourselves on the back and say that our work is done. There is a lot more to do and that is part of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's last comment.

As she is probably aware, at one point employment insurance was under provincial jurisdiction. It was not until the 1940s when it was recognized that it would be best if it were under national jurisdiction, which ultimately led to a constitutional change.

There are huge issues with workers' compensation throughout Canada. Many would argue that the federal government needs to be more involved with workers' compensation. Does the member have some insights in terms of that particular issue? Should the federal government be playing a stronger role in workers' compensation?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, we are hearing a lot about it wanting to take control again. This reminds me of that can of worms. However, everybody needs to ensure that we are addressing the problem. I hope we can do that here to ensure that all Canadians have easy access to good benefits and are able to live in dignity, especially when they are going through times in their lives when they need the support. That is why I think we should be doing more.

I hope that we can all work together here where we can really make a difference for all Canadians to make that difference happen concretely.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to 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.

The bill provides that an employee is entitled to take leave when his or her child is critically ill or dies or disappears as the probable result of a crime. More specifically, Bill C-44 amends the Canada Labour Code to establish new types of leave that parents can take. For instance, it authorizes the extension of parents' maternity leave and parental leave by the number of weeks during which their child is hospitalized.

Parents who take sick leave during their parental leave or who take part in the operations of Canada's reserve force will have their parental leave extended by the number of weeks of their sick leave or their absence.

It grants unpaid leave of a maximum of 37 weeks to the parents of critically ill children. It grants unpaid leave of no more than 104 weeks to the parents of a child who was murdered, and leave of up to 52 weeks to the parents of a child who has disappeared as a result of a crime. Finally, it extends by up to 17 weeks the unpaid leave that an employee may take because of illness or an injury without the risk of losing his or her job.

These amendments apply solely to employees working in federally regulated sectors, but it is expected that the provinces will make similar changes to their labour code, as they did when compassionate care benefits were introduced. I am optimistic that the provinces will act quickly, because it is absolutely necessary and possible to apply these measures to all Canadians.

Let me be clear, the bill is not a question of ideology or partisan politics; it is about assisting families in their time of need. That is why I can state that the New Democrats support the legislation, as Canadians from all walks of life deserve economic certainty in situations where they are forced to take time away from work due to the serious illness, disappearance or unfortunate death of a child.

Many of the issues of ill health and disease that children live with, although not fatal, are serious concerns. Some are of concern specifically in the childhood years, while others can have serious repercussions for children upon reaching adulthood. Some of these are, for example, diabetes and cancer.

Each year on average, 880 children under the age of 15 are diagnosed with cancer and 150 die from the disease. Although this makes cancer the second leading cause of death by disease among Canadian children, cancer is still relatively rare in this age group. Over the last 30 years childhood cancer survival rates have improved substantially, from 71% in the late 1980s to 82% in the early 2000s; five-year survival rates have increased for several types of childhood cancers. That is something we can all applaud.

As for missing children, in 2011 the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC, reported 25 stranger abductions and 145 parental abductions.

It goes without saying that we support these changes. We believe they would ease the suffering of parents who need help, especially in those times when their children are going through those crises.

In their 2011 platform, the Conservatives promised that funding for this measure would come from general revenue, not from EI premiums. The grant for parents of murdered and missing children would be paid from general revenue and not through EI. However it appears the Conservatives have ignored this promise that benefits for parents of critically ill children would be paid through general revenues. This legislation would be by far a more costly measure and comes at a time when the EI account has a cumulative deficit of about $9 billion.

If we are looking at some facts and figures about EI, the minister has estimated that the bill would benefit approximately 6,000 Canadians per year. While this is a good measure, and I do not want to slam that at all, there are still approximately 870,000 unemployed Canadians who are not able to access regular EI benefits. The bill fails to address some of those bigger issues facing EI. In July of this year, 508,000 Canadians received EI regular benefits, but there were still 1,377,00 unemployed Canadians that month. That means there are 870,000 unemployed Canadians without EI. Fewer than four in ten are receiving EI, a historic low.

We are not the only ones who are talking in favour of this. Looking at some of the other validators out there, the Canadian Cancer Society welcomes this change. It sees it as a way to provide more support for parents of critically ill children through a new employment insurance benefit. The benefit would help alleviate some of the financial burden associated with caring for a sick child.

Prior to this announcement, the only benefit available to family caregivers looking after their sick child was about up to eight weeks of leave under the federal employment insurance program, six of which were paid at 55%. If a child is sick and the parents are worried about medicine or any type of care they need to provide, if their income is at only 55% it truly would be another layer of worry for families and parents, which they do not need.

The Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association is in support of the changes we are seeing. It is the same thing with the Canadian Caregiver Coalition.

In closing, I would like to say that, even though I support the purpose of the bill, I would point out that the government is not dealing with the main concerns raised by the employment insurance system. It is true that less than half of Canadians who are unemployed receive employment insurance benefits. The New Democrats support the bill, but we will nevertheless continue to fight for an employment insurance system that is fair and just.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as other members have said, it is clear that all members of the House are unanimous in thinking that this bill is a good idea. This is a good bill, but it is flawed. No government member has risen to express agreement or disagreement about the flaws that could be corrected. I would like to hear the government's opinion on this. Perhaps the committee can propose some amendments. Unfortunately, NDP members are the only ones who are standing up to talk about this, along with the occasional member of another party.

What does my colleague think of that attitude?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill right now relating to children, and we are hearing some children speaking in the gallery, which is always great within the chamber walls because it really reminds us of the importance of what we are doing here for our country and what we try to do in the House.

Sometimes we disagree; well, maybe a little more than sometimes. We probably disagree a lot, and right now we are talking about a bill that we can agree upon.

My hon. colleague is right. Is the bill perfect? Of course not. Do we want to see some changes? Of course we do. The process we have in place here in our parliamentary system allows us to present amendments once we get the bill to committee.

Right now we truly have an opportunity to do what is right for Canadian people. We need to make sure our EI system is functioning and is working well for all. This is a small step in the right direction.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we support the bill. However, it is flawed. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on those flaws.

As written, the bill does not allow women returning from parental leave to collect regular benefits immediately after collecting special benefits if, upon returning to work, they discover that they have lost their job or their job has been cut. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

When the committee studies this bill, I hope it will amend the bill accordingly because women need those benefits. They cannot live without money.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. It is a very easy answer for me to stand up and say I agree wholeheartedly, and most of us on this side of the House agree with that. I am very pleased to hear that this will be brought forward to committee, to make sure it is implemented and recommended.

We are in an age when we should be able to have children and go back to our job and not worry about whether the job is going to be there. That should be put into law. I completely agree. I have no questions relating to that, and I hope it gets recommended when it goes to committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to be very precise, when a child goes missing and is missing for more than a week or 10 days, employment insurance could and should be provided in a limited way for a parent in that situation. This is something most Canadians would want to see us do. Is this the type of amendment the member would be in favour of?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree. That would be an amendment I would like to see, as the father of two young daughters, as would so many parents out there in the world. Right now we rely on the good nature and support of our neighbours to bring food or to help out when such things happen. The last thing on parents' minds is worrying about going to work. They want to find their child.

If we can put that amendment in place, I do not see any reason why anyone would not want to support that.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the official opposition. Our role as we see it is to criticize and critique the government side. This is one of those instances in which it is important to give reasonable credit to the government for this initiative. I was surprised that the government members are not taking advantage of the opportunity to explain to Canadians the significance of what they are doing.

Today there is controversy around EI changes. There are a number of areas where we would disagree quite heatedly with the government, but this is not one of those. One of the things I prided myself on when I came to this place was bringing my own life experience here to put a face to some of these issues. I am going to tell three stories. I told one in the House once before.

In 1949, my sister was murdered and at that time society was greatly different than it is today. One of the members of my family was arrested for a period of time and then subsequently proved he was not associated with the crime. Later there was an inquest and the ultimate outcome was that a 10-year-old girl had died at the hands of person or persons unknown, when in fact we did have a family member who we later learned had a severe mental illness and we could satisfy ourselves that in all likelihood that person was the perpetrator of the crime.

The impact of that situation was on the family and my father in particular because of where he worked at the time and the amount of time he needed to be off the job. For a time he was questioned and detained. Fortunately, he worked for the Canadian National Railway, which was relatively understanding of this, but there are other employers who would not be. There is no doubt he lost wages, but at least he retained his job and his position, even when at one point in time he was under suspicion for the crime.

The second story happened to me. In 2001, my 30-something-year-old son disappeared for 28 days and we had no idea where he went. He was living with my former wife at the time. He had a little apartment there, and he was a musician. When I went to check the apartment, his drum kit was gone, his guitar was gone, his computers were gone. Everything had been sold.

For 28 days we were on edge. In my case I had an employer at the time who was very understanding of the circumstances and I had the latitude to come and go as I wished. In the case of our son it turned out that he had developed stomach cancer and had headed to the United States to see if he could find treatment. That was a long time ago now and fortunately we reconnected with him.

He was a man who simply felt he did not want to burden his family. Getting back to what we're seeing in this legislation, he was worried that he was going to cost us money. Ultimately when people go to the United States for health care it does cost money, but we worked our way through that. The good news is that he survived with a treatment there that worked. However, had I not had an employer who was sympathetic to the situation, I would have had to rely on some recourse such as this. Again, I give direct credit to the government for doing this.

I have been involved with the third story since being elected. In Hamilton there was a young man named Billy Mason who went missing. The word was that someone escorted him out of an apartment with a shotgun. Donna Dixon, Billy's mother, came to me for help. Billy was in his early 20s and the police were quite sure that he had been murdered. Over the course of time she and three other families in Hamilton who had missing young people kept pursuing this.

I have talked in this place about the need for a DNA databank for missing persons.

Coming back to Donna, the mother of this young man, and the cost to her, she is off her job. I talked to her recently and she was getting some victim's help. It was ultimately found out through the confession of one guy that another person had indeed murdered her son and disposed of his body. She had to go to the court case, day in and day out, and listen to that. By the way, that individual was convicted, went to prison and he killed another man in prison.

Aside from that, there was the turmoil and anguish this mother was living through when her son was missing. There was the terror of his never coming home. We had annual gatherings, candlelight vigils, where we hoped that Billy would return home.

People are living with that on one side and then on the other side they are living with the fact of their financial burden. Then the police finally come and say, “By the way, Mrs. Dixon, we have some answers for you. We have the perpetrator. There is going to be a trial.”

I believe she works in a daycare centre, but she is going to have spend all of that time going to the trial. As a mother she wants to see the evidence and the trial, to have closure. However, there is again the financial cost.

Oftentimes we hear great stories about all the legal bills someone has to pay when they get into a situation, but we forget about the level lower aspects of these things where a person is facing a loss of income. If they have other children, there are expenses around daycare and so many other things to be considered.

When it comes to employment insurance in this country, the government should reach across the aisle to us because, right now, major mistakes have been made with employment insurance. The government should reach across the aisle and we should come together and discuss what we can do to make employment insurance work for Canadians and protect them in times like these, or in times of catastrophic illness, like we had with my son. We could find a better way to do this.

I say this because it is not all about money; it is about dignity. I went on a little tour this summer to the south shore of Nova Scotia. I went to Cape Sable Island, Port Mouton Bay, and Bridgewater. I also went to Charlottetown, and then to Fredericton and Saint John, New Brunswick. I listened to the people there who had many concerns about the changes that are taking place with EI.

These people are hard-working Canadians, who were saying that they did not have anything else to go to when the fishery closes down. Then there are people on the other side of it, those who have small businesses. They were saying that the changes to EI were liable to force a lot of people out of the communities, so that when next season came around they would not have people for the job. They want to know what they are going to do.

There is a certain expertise that comes even from collecting crops or working in the fishery, or whatever someone is doing. The expertise that is developed over time will be lost. In that area, the government has made critical mistakes that will have an impact.

The government is saying that after a certain period of time, people will have to accept a job for 80% of their salary. Well, they accept that job and then they are out of work the next year. The next time comes around and they again accept a job at 80%, and then again. Is that not going to encourage some employers to say, “If I keep hiring different people, I can pay them less and less”? Will that not depress wages?

That is just an example of a conversation we could have had across this aisle before the government legislated and made changes. There is a feeling in this place that we are segmented, that we do not come together at those times when we should.

Some of the committees of the House work reasonably well at times. However, the purpose of our committees in this place is to take a piece of legislation and make it better, not to take a piece of legislation and destroy it. Both sides have to have confidence in one another to make that work.

The last time the government was planning significant changes to EI was back in the 1990s when the Liberals destroyed unemployment insurance and made it into employment insurance and started segmenting our country in an unbelievable way. Workers could not quality. My friend from Nickel Belt is acknowledging that.

We can and should do better in this place. We should be working together.

I have been pleased to talk a little bit about our views on employment insurance. It would have been nice to hear more from the government side on it.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague from Hamilton make some very good points about temporary workers.

I had a case in Nickel Belt this spring where a tourist operator could not find part-time seasonal workers and had to bring in foreign workers from, I believe, Mexico.

I would like the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek to tell me what effect these EI changes will have on temporary workers, and will we have to bring in more foreign workers to fill in the gaps?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not have any problems with foreign workers being brought in when their expertise is required.

However, there was recently a year when we had about 300,000 people immigrate to Canada and about 240,000 temporary workers. Something is wrong with that equation.

The people I talked to in Nova Scotia were talking about the fact that their people were going west, being chased out of the province by these changes, and that they had little alternative but to turn to foreign workers.

Foreign workers in many instances are taken advantage of by some unscrupulous employers. They are paid less money. They do not feel they have the protections of the Government of Canada, although they are entitled to them when they are guests in our country.

However, we have workers who are willing to support those industries if they are allowed to stay in their communities and to hold them together.

In Nova Scotia they are scared to death of the aging of the population, because all of the young people have left. They believe the result will be endless retirement homes and seniors homes, with no young people generating and stimulating that economy to keep it working.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for that, at times, touching speech. He referenced the fact that he had a personal experience where his son disappeared, and luckily was found again.

My understanding of what has been proposed in Bill C-44 is support for parents of children who have disappeared as a result of suspected criminal activity. In my own riding there is a family where the young person has disappeared. Unfortunately, the suspicion is that she committed suicide. In this case the family does deserve support, even though there is no suspected criminal activity.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that perhaps it might be useful to entertain an amendment to the bill when it gets to committee to broaden the scope for parents whose children have disappeared.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right on the importance of protecting the family as a family unit. We think in terms of the mother or the father, but we have to broaden it out to make sure that the supports are there over the time they are needed.

In the case of my son, we did know about it for 28 days, but it was actually a year and a half before we saw him return home. That is different. The other case I spoke about was one where the young man was murdered. The family was in turmoil for three and a half years.

I do not know where the beginning or the end is, but as I spoke about working in committee, making an appropriate amendment might well be in order for something like this, and for the critic to sit down with the government side and say, “We have a progressive amendment here. Let us see what we can do together”.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that all of my colleagues have come to hear my speech today.

The NDP supports this bill. It is not a question of ideology or partisan politics, but rather a question of helping families in need. Bill C-44 amends the Canada Labour Code, the Employment Insurance Act, the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations. These new measures will allow workers to take leave and receive employment insurance benefits if their child becomes critically ill or dies, or disappears as the probable result of a crime.

It goes without saying that we on this side of the House support these measures. We believe that they will help ease the suffering of parents in need. It is our duty to do so. Furthermore, in their 2011 election platform, the Conservatives promised that this measure would be paid for out of general revenues, and not out of the employment insurance fund.

The money provided to the parents of missing or murdered children was supposed to come from general revenues and not from EI, but it appears that the Conservatives ignored the promise they made whereby benefits paid to parents of seriously ill children would come from general revenues. This is by far the most expensive measure and comes at a time when the EI fund has an accumulated deficit of $9 billion.

It is important to underline the fact that over the years, successive governments have taken money out of the unemployment, or employment, insurance fund that all Canadians have paid into and put this into a general revenue so that we arrive today at a time when there is a deficit. There is not enough money taken from workers to finance important programs.

The government is not addressing the most pressing problems related to employment insurance. Less than half of all unemployed Canadians are receiving EI benefits. It is shameful. It is unthinkable: less than half of those who need it are receiving EI benefits. Under this government, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get benefits. The NDP will continue to fight for a fair, accessible and efficient EI system for all unemployed Canadians, because it is our duty to do so. In fact, it is the duty of every party in the House of Commons.

While we are addressing the economic crisis and trying to create jobs, we absolutely must protect those who are in need. It is our duty, as members of the House of Commons. For the past few years, there has been less and less money for those in need. Bill C-44 makes a number of amendments to the Canada Labour Code to increase leave for parents. As I said, we agree and see this as a good thing. No bill is perfect, but we support this bill nonetheless.

This bill will extend maternity and parental leave by the number of weeks the child is hospitalized during the leave. It extends parental leave by the number of weeks of sick leave taken during the parental leave, and by the number of weeks spent in the Canadian Forces reserve. It also provides for an unpaid leave of absence of up to 37 weeks for parents of critically ill children.

Moreover, it provides for an unpaid leave of absence of 104 weeks for parents of a child who dies as a result of a crime, and leave of 52 weeks for parents of a child who has disappeared as a result of a crime.

This bill also extends to 17 weeks the period of unpaid leave that may be taken due to illness or injury without fear of a job loss.

These changes apply only to workers in federally regulated sectors. However, it is expected that provincial governments will make similar changes to their own labour codes, as was the case when compassionate care benefits were introduced.

Bill C-44 also makes changes to the Employment Insurance Act in order to allow the stacking of special benefits only. Maternity, parental and sickness benefits fall into the category of special benefits, which is a good thing. Benefits provided as a result of a job loss are considered regular benefits. Thus, special and regular benefits could be combined.

In closing, the NDP will support this bill, not for ideological or partisan reasons, but to help families in need. We want the employment insurance program to be accessible and effective for all Canadians.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is another thing that worries me, because it is perfectly clear that two categories of parents have been established.

First of all, there are parents whose child disappeared or was killed, which is horrible. These parents will receive their benefits from general revenues and not from the employment insurance account. Parents who are self-employed are therefore protected.

Now let us take the case of parents whose child is ill, and an example comes to mind. This is the case of a lovely young girl I knew, who was my son’s classmate and who died of cancer when she was 13. I learned the sad news last year, on the day that I was elected as a member of Parliament, and it was a shock. Her parents had some financial problems and had to sell their house. That is why I said that there are two categories of parents, and I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks about this.

Parents who are self-employed are not eligible for employment insurance. Why limit access to those who are eligible for employment insurance? There should not be different categories of parents. My view is that parents are entitled to receive help. They should be paid benefits out of general revenues from the government’s budget.

What does my esteemed colleague think?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

She explained clearly what should be done. Access to employment insurance must be fair for those who need it. That is all that is required.

I hope that these issues will be discussed as the bill makes its way through the legislative process.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a number of broken promises, some old and some even older.

The first was that these funds would not be taken from the employment insurance account, but rather from general revenues. At the moment, these funds come from the employment insurance account. That is therefore a broken promise.

Furthermore, I would like to remind you that a few years ago, parliamentarians in this House decided to protect the employment insurance account so that funds could not be removed directly from it to cover other shortfalls.

Have the Conservatives found a roundabout way of taking funds out of the account for other projects?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I tried to point out in my comments, some time ago, there was $50 billion in the account for those who needed funds. This money disappeared into the general fund, as my colleague mentioned. That is shameful. As a result there are people across Canada who need money, particularly during the difficult times we are currently experiencing. There is not enough money because this money, our money, money belonging to all Canadian workers, was put into a fund in an attempt to balance the budget.

I am going to underscore this yet again: it is shameful and it is something that has been done by the two or three previous governments, including this one.