Debates of Sept. 27th, 2012

Helping Families in Need Act

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard very similar stories in my constituency of Scarborough—Rouge River, but I must go one step further. We have extremely high levels of unemployment among adults and youth. My constituency has the highest youth to population ratio in all of the GTA and we know that youth unemployment is skyrocketing. It is the highest in our history and continues to skyrocket.

We know that 4 out of every 10 unemployed workers have not qualified for EI benefits as a result of the continued cuts and clawbacks and changes to the EI legislation from the omnibus Bill C-38, along with other changes that the Conservative government continues to make. These will continue to erode the benefits that employers and employees have paid for.

Finally, we have to remember that the EI benefits fund is one that only employers and employees have paid into, and if the government is not paying into it--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the bill, although I would say it is critical support. I say this because in many respects the bill is inconsistent, as some of my colleagues have already indicated, in terms of what benefits are covered for what people. I will speak to that concern a little bit.

I first want to acknowledge some of the very important aspects of the bill that we should celebrate and thank the government for moving on. Currently it is the case that employment insurance claimants can access sickness benefits and subsequently access parental benefits. However, at the moment, those same claimants cannot access sickness benefits during or right after they claim parental benefits, because of a technical problem with how the law works. Bill C-44 would amend this. It is extremely welcome and I thank the minister for moving on that.

The Canada Labour Code code changes that will protect the jobs of people who have taken time off work because a child has gone missing or, worse, been murdered as a result of a Criminal Code offence, or a suspected Criminal Code offence, are also welcome. We can all understand the deep trauma and debilitating effects on parents when a child is lost in that way. Therefore, making sure that they are not penalized in the workplace is very humane. The fact that it is 2012 and this is coming into effect only now suggests that many elements of good sense do, unfortunately, take a bit too long to make their way into our legal system. Nonetheless, I thank the minister for her earlier speech outlining this change in the law.

I would like to talk a bit about some of the problems. I mentioned inconsistencies in how this is being approached. Some of the inconsistencies stem from a general problem with our employment insurance and federal benefit system of approaching things in far too ad hoc, piecemeal a fashion, not looking at the overall picture and structural dimensions of unemployment and other related or similar causes for people needing assistance. Instead, we are ending up more and more with an employment insurance system that looks a bit like the tax code, which we are all so keen to attack for it being unprincipled and full of all kinds of piecemeal provisions, without any overarching coherence. Our employment insurance system is approaching that point, and although the benefits in Bill C-44 are very welcome, they add to this piecemeal, ad hoc approach.

Let me give a couple of examples of why we are concerned that something is being moved on but in an inconsistent way that speaks to the rather limited ad hoc approach the bill feeds into.

It is great that once the bill is passed, the labour code will protect the jobs of those who are employed. Obviously I am talking about parents who lose their children, where a child goes missing or is killed through a criminal offence. The labour code in these cases will protect the parents' jobs, and that is great. That should be the case. However, there is no good reason to tie the benefit itself, the grant to the parents, to the fact of someone being employed, especially when the funding is coming from general revenue and is not considered an employment insurance benefit. We do have a problem with the fact that not all the funding for the bill will come from general revenue, but at least this benefit, the benefit to parents who have a missing or murdered child, will come from general revenue. Therefore, there is no technical reason not to be consistent in who receives the benefit. Yet it is being treated as if it is somehow an employment insurance benefit, because it is being linked and limited to those who received $6,500 a year of earned income in the previous year before the benefit.

There is no logical reason why parents who lose children in the way this bill is contemplating merit the benefit if they have been employed in the past to a certain threshold level, while parents with lower incomes, who are unemployed or otherwise, would not qualify by this standard if they also lose a child in the exact same way. The trauma is no different. The debilitating effects are no different. The undermining of their responsibilities, even if they are not responsibilities in the workplace, is no different. Others have responsibilities in their lives, whether they are employed or not, that would be undermined, indeed made impossible to fulfill, if a child is abducted or worse, murdered.

Here are two examples that anybody could recognize as valid. There are stay-at-home parents who are not earning a formal income in the workplace. They are working and in this day and age we all recognize the fact that this is work. Many of us would hope that the system would eventually evolve to the point that this work would be recognized as a form of employment but at the moment that is not the case. There are stay-at-home parents who have other children they are taking care of or an elderly parent or they are trying to hold things together in the house, and they lose a child in the same circumstances as somebody who is employed or had been employed to the $6,500 rate.

The second example is of an unemployed parent who, according to our system and our cultural values, has to spend a lot of time looking for work. That is what we expect somebody to be doing. That person would be undermined by the same event in their life as somebody who is employed. Somebody who is employed would be affected by losing a child and the ability to get back into the job market would also be affected. That inconsistency is something I would love to see looked at in committee, especially because this would be funded from general revenue.

I forgot to mention at the beginning that, if possible, I would like to split my time with the member for Pontiac.

Here is another example of this inconsistency. Precisely why is the benefit to parents who lose a child limited to parents whose children are missing or killed only as a result of a suspected breach of the Criminal Code? Is there something quite arbitrary in drawing the line there? We all have no problem understanding the debilitating effects of crime. There is indeed something hard-wired in all human beings to perhaps react a bit worse when a crime has befallen our family; it is not just the loss of the child but how the child has been lost and I accept that distinction. Yet we can have as much trauma and debilitating effect when children go missing or are killed in other ways.

I draw on the very good speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. In her reply speech to the minister's introduction of the bill she put it so well when she said:

If I am understanding this right, if a family were to go wilderness camping, say, and their toddler wandered away from the campsite and ended up missing, the parents would not be eligible for any support during their time of frantically searching for their child. Why is that?

She went on to say:

Did the government's need to feed the rhetoric of its law and order agenda take precedence over good public policy here? I am simply not understanding why the Criminal Code caveat was deemed necessary to add in this bill.

I echo this concern. As the minister said in the House yesterday, it is not adequate to say that it was judged to be a good public policy because of response to consultations with Canadians. Surely Canadians, upon reflection, would not begrudge extending the benefit to analogous circumstances. Are Canadians so fixated on a crime agenda that they would not see the inconsistency? I very much doubt it.

I end here because I want to hear what my colleague from Pontiac has to say after I take a few questions.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP members for their support for this important piece of legislation. However, I do want to point out perhaps some of the falsehoods that I keep hearing in some of their speeches. They keep claiming that only 40% of workers are eligible for EI. This is clearly wrong; 84% of Canadians are eligible for EI and those who are receive EI benefits. I just want to state that for the record.

Could the member opposite comment on how important these benefits are for families who truly need them?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but agree and echo the fact that for the families receiving these benefits, they are absolutely important.

My only point, made with some considerable emphasis in my speech, was that other families in directly analogous circumstances would equally benefit from and welcome the same benefits. That was my only point.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a small step in the right direction. However, the Conservatives have taken giant steps backwards when it comes to Canadians getting benefits and how they qualify. During the time Canadians are getting benefits, if they want to work part-time or earn extra income, the Conservatives are cutting back on the take-home pay people are able to make.

I have watched Conservatives in this House as they constantly play with the numbers. We are seeing that right now. In fact, 40% of unemployed Canadians receive benefits. The other 60% are not receiving any EI benefits at all.

Bill C-38 and the cuts Conservatives brought in to services and benefits are a big issue.

Would my colleague agree that this is a small step in the right direction to help families, yet the Conservatives have taken large steps backwards in providing benefits to the unemployed?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree that that is generally the case.

On behalf of my party, I would ask that, as we continue with question period, we get some straight answers from the minister on what the latest changes in the EI system actually mean. We have heard some backing away from her earlier statements to make it look like the new system is 100% good with respect to receiving income while on employment insurance, only to have some fudging in the last question period.

This is an example of why Canadians are losing trust in our political system. We are getting answers that appear to be inaccurate, and then we are not hearing a straightforward acknowledgement when a mistake has been made. If the minister continues to mislead Canadians, I think we are going to have a problem.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member has to update his information. He alluded to the fact that there was some discrepancy between what he said and what the minister said this morning. I quote, “People on parental leave from their employer are not considered to be available for work, so they do not qualify for sickness benefits.”

That is old information. Under this bill, the government is waiving, and taking out, in other words, this requirement for parents receiving EI parental benefits so that they can qualify for sickness benefits if they fall ill subject to remaining qualification criteria. The new data is here. It is noteworthy and should be on the record.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to correct the record. I was actually complimenting the government for that exact change. What I was speaking about at the beginning of my speech was the current law. Until this bill is passed, it is not the current law. I was saying the current law is as the member described but that the law will change, and I was thanking the minister.

There is no need to correct the record, because I was completely accurate.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to contribute to a very important debate and to express my support at second reading for 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. This bill is important because it can help all parents who are in a very difficult situation through no fault of their own.

Members may know that I am the proud father of two young girls, Sophia and Gabriella, and even though they are in very good health, thank God, as a father, I am very concerned about this issue. It is not always easy to be a parent nowadays, and it must be much harder when one's children are critically ill.

I believe that this bill can alleviate the suffering of parents who are in need because their child is critically ill or has disappeared or, worse still, died as the result of a crime. It is important to implement measures that can alleviate parents' suffering at such times. That is our duty as compassionate human beings. It simply makes no sense for parents and families not to have access to reasonable government support so that they can take care of their children during very difficult times.

More and more, the sad reality is that informal caregivers are being abandoned and yet are becoming the backbone, albeit invisible, of our health care system. They must take on various crucial roles, including the care of children, aging parents or other family members who need support as a result of injuries, chronic illness or serious disability. They are even more important in the current context, since investments in health care are clearly insufficient and are being increasingly challenged by this government.

For instance, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition estimates that over 5 million Canadians are currently providing unpaid care to loved ones, many of whom are children and family members.

As an elected official, I am here to say that we absolutely must do more for these people. They deserve to have an accessible employment insurance system that addresses the various problems I just mentioned.

The facts are astonishing. Serious unintentional injuries are not only a significant cause of death for Canadian children, but also the leading causes of morbidity and disability for children and youth in Canada. Many people do not know this. They account for 15% of the hospitalizations of children under the age of 12.

Furthermore, many of the issues of ill health and disease that children live with, although not fatal, are of serious concern. Some are of concern specifically in the childhood years, while others can have serious repercussions for these children when they reach adulthood. Consider, for instance, asthma, diabetes and cancer, which are all becoming more common among children. Every year, an average of 800 children under 15 are diagnosed with cancer, and 150 of them will die from the disease. Cancer is the second leading cause of death among Canadian children.

Fortunately, however, there is hope. Over the past 30 years, the survival rate for young cancer patients has improved significantly, increasing from 71% in the late 1980s to 82% in the early 2000s. Fortunately, the five-year survival rate has increased for many types of childhood cancers.

However, even if I support this bill at second reading, I do not believe that it goes far enough in addressing all the problems we have with our employment insurance system, which must be reformed no matter what it takes.

For example, women who lose their jobs immediately after their parental leave ends should have the right to obtain employment insurance benefits. This bill does not go far enough in this regard. Why do we not allow women to receive regular employment insurance benefits and why do we not allow the stacking of special and regular benefits? That would make sense.

It seems to me that the government also missed a good opportunity to help hard-working mothers obtain more justice with regard to eligibility for employment insurance.

I am also disappointed that Bill C-44 is limited to special benefits. It seems that the government is avoiding addressing recurrent problems with the employment insurance system.

The sad reality is that, of the 1,370,000 unemployed workers in Canada in July 2012, only 508,000 received regular employment insurance benefits. That means that 870,000 unemployed Canadians did not receive employment insurance benefits. In fact, fewer than four in 10 unemployed workers are receiving employment insurance benefits, a historically low level in this country. That is completely unacceptable. Basically, it means that there is hidden poverty and that this type of poverty is on the rise in our society.

Clearly, we must continue to fight for an employment insurance system that is fairer and more accessible and effective for all unemployed Canadians.

However, this bill does go ahead with significant reforms that I support, for example, the reforms related to families of murdered or missing children. I support this bill so that families do not have to worry about money when confronted with such difficult situations that are almost impossible for us to imagine.

For parents of young children who are not lucky enough to be in good health as mine are, I support the initiative to extend parental leave and provide financial benefits to parents whose children are sick and whose priority must be parenting. They should not have to worry about money at a time like that, but should be able to focus on being a parent.

I also support the measure to combine special employment insurance benefits if a parent becomes ill or is injured while on parental leave. This would mean that parents would not have less time to spend with their children at the very moment when parents and children need to spend more time together.

Although the bill would not do everything that perhaps myself or my party would like, it would do some key things on a fundamental humanitarian basis.

As a father of two young girls, I cannot imagine being in a situation where one of them falls terminally ill or is victimized by a violent crime. I cannot imagine being in that situation but I know a number of my own constituents who are. They expect their elected officials to be compassionate and to make changes in laws and regulations so that they could be supported financially by the state at such a difficult time. That is the fundamental motivator behind the bill and that is the reason I am proud to stand up for my constituents to support it at second reading.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague from Pontiac comment a bit on the structural situation we find ourselves in financially with employment insurance?

We have talked a lot about inconsistencies and about the need to have a broader federal approach that is humane, but it is the case that we lost a huge amount of money from the employment insurance fund under previous governments, Liberal and Conservative. It was only in 2010 that the employment insurance fund went back to a separate operating fund. A surplus of $57 billion was drawn down and not put back in before the Conservative government created a new, slightly better system than the Liberals had left.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on our ability to make employment insurance work in terms of--

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

It was done under the advice of the Auditor General. You should get the facts straight.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I will end my question because I was trying to catch what the peanut gallery behind me was saying.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the principle here is simple: Who pays into employment insurance? Who owns that money? The reality is that the workers of this country own that money. To have governments pull workers' investment in employment insurance is tantamount to theft. The reality is that this began a long time ago with the Liberals. The two traditional parties are not blameless in this situation.

We in the NDP start with the principle that the EI fund is Canadians' money, that it is up to Canadians to draw on it when they need it and that they do draw on it most of the time when they need it, which is absolutely normal.

I would like to answer my colleague's question a bit more. The other change with regard to employment insurance that frustrates me is how it attacks the possibility for seasonal workers to make their living. Seasonal workers in my riding are essential, whether they be in the forestry industry, the food industry or the agricultural industry. Those seasonal workers need to be able to work within their expertise.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at times, the holier-than-thou attitude that the New Democrats have on social programs is, unfortunately, not well grounded. While the member chooses to criticize the Liberal Party, he should also be aware that it was the Liberal Party that created the program. If he wants to talk about criticizing the worker and the average individual, he should take a look at workers' compensation, for which the provinces are responsible, and he will see the abuse that the New Democratic government of Manitoba has inflicted on the workers in Manitoba by cutting them off from those funds.

I would suggest that the member not throw stones in glass houses because he will find that the windows will break and cave in on the New Democratic Party.

This bill deserves the support of all political parties inside this chamber because it expresses compassion to those who need it. The real issue is whether we should be looking at ways to extend that compassion. We in the Liberal Party believe the answer to that is yes.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the assumption by the hon. member in his question is that we in the NDP live in a glass house, but we do not. Our house is solid. We have always supported social programs that are robust and help reduce income inequality in this country. We are not the party that took $57 billion out of the EI fund. The only party that did that is the Liberal Party. That is why we are $9 billion in debt.

The thing about the Liberals is, as the old saying goes, they put signal left but they turn right. There is a complete inconsistency fundamentally in their ideology because they have none. It would be nice for a Liberal on that side of the House to stand up for something for once.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I will begin by stating that I will be supporting Bill C-44. Perhaps some of my colleagues have children, and they know as well as I do that the most difficult thing in the world is to watch their child suffer or to learn that their child has suffered. I do not even want to imagine what a parent goes through when their child disappears or dies as a result of a crime. It is far too painful. A mother or father never recovers from such a blow, and it must take a long time for the pain to subside even a little. I still think of my grandparents, who died 25 or 30 years ago, and that is nothing compared to the loss of a child.

Bill C-44 will allow parents who go through such turmoil and grief to take the time to heal a little before returning to work. It will also prevent them from suffering serious financial difficulties in the meantime. Parents of a seriously ill child will be able to take the time to be with their child during that difficult period. When my children were young, one of them played baseball with a young boy whose younger brother had a serious illness. The little brother was about five years old. He was being treated and often stayed in hospital. You do not leave a five-year-old child alone in the hospital. Both parents had used up their holidays and other leave, but the illness obviously did not go away by the time they had exhausted their leave. They had to ask for unpaid leave. Their finances suffered and they were afraid of losing their jobs. That is exactly the kind of family that could have benefited from leave with benefits.

Helping parents in such a way is an excellent initiative. However, I find it somewhat maddening that the Conservative government is prepared to amend the Canada Labour Code to help one group of parents but not another. When the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie wanted to bring changes to the same code to protect pregnant or nursing women, the Conservatives slammed the door in his face. This really smacks of partisanship and cynicism. The purpose of his bill was to prevent miscarriages and health problems in newborns by ensuring that pregnant and nursing women whose jobs fall under Canada Labour Code jurisdiction were not subject to dangerous situations at work.

Why show kindness and common sense to one group of parents, but not to another, when in both cases, we are talking about the life of a child or unborn child? The trauma is similar. It makes absolutely no sense. The only plausible answer to my question is that Bill C-44, which we are discussing today, was introduced by a Conservative minister, while Bill C-307, which sought to compensate and protect pregnant women and their unborn children, came from an NDP member. Is that what the Conservatives call democracy now that they have a majority? The public will remember that come 2015.

There is another problem. Just a year ago, when the Conservatives promised the public that it would help parents of murdered, missing or seriously ill children, they also promised to do so out of general revenues. That is what Bill C-44 proposes in the first two cases, but not in the third. Benefits for parents of sick children will be taken from the employment insurance fund. Why do I see a problem with that? There are many reasons.

First, the employment insurance fund has a deficit of $9 billion. Second, employment insurance money is supposed to be a safety net for unemployed workers. Third, once again, the Conservatives did not do what they said they would do.

Let us talk about my first point: the employment insurance fund has a deficit of $9 billion. The anthropologist in me would like to give a quick history lesson. In the 1990s, under a Liberal government, the state stopped funding employment insurance. Instead of having three contributors to the fund—the worker, the employer and the state—there were only two contributors, the worker and the employer. So the pot was already shrinking.

In the late 1990s, the Liberals took money that had been set aside for workers and rolled it into the general revenue fund to balance the budget. That money did not belong to the government because, as I just said, it had been contributed to the fund by workers and employers.

When the Conservatives came to power, they continued to chip away at the employment insurance fund. What a surprise it was when recently, there was no more money in the fund to pay claimants. The government had to increase workers' and employers' premiums. That is not fair. People paid for that insurance for years, and then they were told there was no more money and they would have to pay more if they wanted the benefits to which they were entitled.

If a private investor takes off with our savings, we call foul, but is it any different when the government does the same thing?

Second, I mentioned that the employment insurance fund is supposed to be a safety net for workers who lose their jobs. That is why it is called “insurance”. Maybe we should stop calling it “employment insurance” and start calling it “unemployment insurance” like in the old days because it is insurance against unemployment, not for or against employment.

The money in the fund comes from workers and employers and should be used when a person loses his job and has a hard time finding another one, or when the nature of his work does not make it possible for him to work all year long. Everyone knows what I am referring to because we have been talking about seasonal workers a lot lately.

This fund could be used to address a number of other problems directly related to employment. For example, over the years, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who was the NDP employment insurance critic, made dozens of proposals to expand the scope of the program. Less than four out of 10 unemployed people receive employment insurance benefits. This shows that there is a fundamental problem with the system. The money in the fund should be used to address these problems.

Benefits for parents of sick children should come from general revenues—as per the Conservatives' election promise—and not the employment insurance fund.

All the money pillaged from the employment insurance fund—$54 billion—could and should be used today to help workers affected by the latest economic crisis, those workers who recently lost their jobs as a result of all the Conservative government cuts. There are 300,000 more unemployed people today than before the 2008 crash.

To conclude, I support Bill C-44 because it supports parents going through painful times, and who should not have to add financial problems to their stress. However, I would like to ask the minister to keep the promises made by her party to use general revenues and not the employment insurance fund to cover these measures. I would also like to ask her to consult Canadians in order to learn about the real problems faced by thousands of unemployed people, in order to make reforms to the system that will make it fair for everyone. I can assure her that she will have the complete co-operation of the NDP for such a project.

Finally, I would also like to ask the government to show as much compassion for the parents of children who have disappeared in circumstances that are not related to a crime and also to caregivers who find it difficult to survive on the meagre resources currently provided by governments, as requested by the Canadian Palliative Care Association.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually noticed more or less the same thing. Earlier, I spoke about a problem with the bill on missing or deceased children where no crime has been committed. I feel as though there is a vacuum here. The answer that I got earlier from the Conservatives was that the today’s bill focuses on missing or deceased children where a crime has been committed. However, it is just as dramatic for a family when a child commits suicide, for example. No crime has been committed, but a child has died nevertheless. This program would not apply in such a case, because we are only talking about cases involving the Criminal Code, cases where a crime has been committed.

Does the member agree with me that the bill could be more inclusive and provide relief to grieving families?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Yes, I obviously agree with him when he says that there are gaps in the legislation. I support the bill, but I have already indicated that it has problems. In fact, that is precisely why I cannot understand why there are so few Conservatives rising to speak about the bill and support it. Is it because they are in the majority and they think that the bill will be adopted regardless, or is it because they think the bill is so perfect that there is no need to discuss it?

In my opinion, their way of thinking smacks curiously of 16th century colonialism where certain nations believed that their way of thinking was the only right way to think. I feel that history has proven that this was not a particularly enlightened way of thinking. One only need ask the first nations, for example.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very excellent speech, including the experiences of her constituents and her anthropological expertise.

My question to her is about some of the gaps I have identified as well. New Democrats will be supporting this bill because it is a welcome change from the constant cuts we see the government make. It is implementing some changes that some members on this side of the House have been proposing for many years. The specific question I have is about the inability to stack benefits. Even though we see the proposition in this bill of the ability to stack special benefits, such as maternity leave with the new grant or, if a child becomes ill, being able to stack those up to a maximum of 104 weeks, what will happen if somebody who is on regular EI benefits has a child who becomes ill?

The government seems to be very unclear and, in this bill, does not articulate whether a person who is already on regular EI benefits would be able to take time off to support his or her child. Would she like to see that type of broader change brought in to ensure that all families with children are included in this change in legislation?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her excellent question.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill favours certain groups, but unfortunately other groups have been forgotten. There is a distinction made between various groups of people. However, it would be really unfortunate if one particular group of people, a group of parents, for example, were forgotten when it would be so easy to make amendments to this bill.

The NDP is in favour of referring this bill to committee. I hope that the committee will consider all the issues raised by the NDP, including this one, and others raised by the Liberals. The committee will be able to make key amendments to ensure that all parents faced with difficult situations such as these might benefit from this legislation.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in the House representing the people of the region of Timmins—James Bay. This debate is on Bill C-44, which would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Employment Insurance Act, the Income Tax Act and income tax regulations, to allow workers to take leave and draw EI at times of serious illness of their children or of a child who has disappeared or been killed as a result of a horrific crime.

This is the kind of debate that is instructive for Canadians, because they look more and more on this Parliament as an increasingly dysfunctional place, where people are trained like seals to speak through a little message box, to bark when they are told to bark and to stand when they are told to stand. Yet in this debate we see that this is where our expertise as members of Parliament really comes together, because there is not a member in the House who has not dealt with one of these instances or who has not sat down with a family member or a young mother whose child is going to CHEO in Ottawa or SickKids in Toronto, whose need for EI benefits is so obvious. They come to us. All of us across party lines have experienced a situation where we see the system and we see that people are falling through the cracks.

Therefore, I am glad that within this Parliament, which sometimes seems so fractious, we can show Canadians that this is the kind of work that gets done outside of the House within our offices and that we can come together and try to find some good solutions.

I think of the young people whom I have dealt with in my office. As the years go by I seem to have a little shrine for the little ones we have lost along the way, like Sylvain Noël, a wonderful young boy. I have a picture of him with us and the Timmins firefighters as they made him an honorary member just before he passed.

I think of young Trianna Martin, age four, who died in a house fire in Kashechewan when there was not a single firefighting unit in the community to save her. I have her picture.

I keep a picture of Charlie Hunter who died in a residential school and nobody even bothered to tell his parents. For 40 years his family worked to get that little boy's body home. I was so proud to be there when Charlie Hunter did come home.

I think if Courtney Koostachin from Attawapiskat, one of the many young people from the James Bay coast whom we see suffering with cancer. I have her picture.

Of course I have a picture of young Shannen Koostachin, who was the great youth leader from Attawapiskat.

I know each of their families and each of their stories. I think of the other young people who fortunately did get treatment and lived, but I also know the struggles the families went through, so this bill touches all of us.

The bill also speaks to a need to look at how the economy is structured in this country, because I have heard it said by some of my Conservative friends that technically there is no unemployment, rather there is just a gap between the market and services, as though people are just widgets and digits that we can move around: if we have a high level of unemployment in the Maritimes, just ship them to Fort McMurray and everything will be fine. However, we know that this blind belief in the market, to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, is really about being blinded by the horrible mysticism of money, that it is not just widgets and digits, that there are people and communities.

Employment insurance was part of the fundamental driver to build a sustainable economy in Canada. It is not a honey pot to be raided, as it was raided during the Paul Martin years to the tune of $50-something billion to be used elsewhere. It is not something to be seen by some, such as the present Conservative minister, as a disincentive wherein easy access to EI benefits allows people to stay on their couches. That is a misunderstanding of what insurance is. People have a right to free public health insurance. People have house insurance because they need insurance in times of need. Therefore, employment insurance, just like car insurance or house insurance, provides people access to it in time of need

Why is that important for the economy? At the present time, we are suffering through a long-drawn-out economic downturn. We have 1,377,000 Canadians out of work at this time. We must think of the effects of that on those families.

Up until the 1990s, if they paid into EI, or unemployment insurance as it was called then, which most of them would have done, 70% to 80% of those people would have been eligible for benefits. As the crash hit them, their families would have been cushioned until they managed to get a bit of breathing room and they moved, found other employment, or were retrained. However, of the 1.37 million unemployed Canadians right now, there are 870,000 who are not eligible at all.

When these people are not eligible, what happens is their savings are eaten up right away, and if they are still not working, they lose their other assets. That has a long-term impact on the economy because people are going from being contributing members to society to watching whatever security they have being eaten away. That is why EI is so important. It is to get people through that period so they can get back on their feet.

Bill C-44 plays a small but very crucial role for the families who at the time when they are receiving benefits, and again, only 40% of the people who are eligible are getting them right now, their child gets sick. We have seen this, where their benefits suddenly are not able to help.

With this bill we are seeing the recognition by all parties that within the statistics there are times when the role of government is to ensure that we are there for individuals. It is a basic principle of what good government is about. Good government is about setting policy that ensures we see the value of the individual citizens of the country. The government cannot do everything. That is understandable. It cannot serve all needs. In every one of our offices we meet people who would like government to do this, that or the other thing. It is simply not possible. However, we can set the terms to ensure that at specific times of crisis and need, the program will be there.

I cannot think of a situation harder for any family than the death or sickness of a child and the stress that it puts on the larger family. Not just looking at it from a social point of view, or from a moral point of view, but it has an impact as an economic driver. When a family is in crisis like that and more and more relatives are having to be drawn out of the workforce to help a young single mother or the family, it has an impact. The overall effect of the bill would not be large, but for the families affected, it could have a huge impact.

We have a number of questions about taking this bill to committee. We need to do due diligence with the bill. One concern the New Democrats have is the promise that the funding was going to come out of general revenues. Why is that important? The problem is that since the EI fund has been raided over the years and since we are in a major economic downturn, we are seeing a deficit in the employment insurance account. We want to make sure that it is sustainable. It has to be sustainable. Programs need to sustain themselves. We are concerned that if we are adding more draw on EI we are going to find ourselves with a greater deficit, and we are going to see the government turn around, tighten the screws and make eligibility requirements even more difficult. When only 40% of the people right now in a time of great economic distress are receiving EI benefits, we do not want a situation where the government comes back to us and says that the deficit is getting worse and we now have to deal with a new EI problem.

Within the House there should be the goodwill to ask how we ensure that employment insurance remains sustainable, how we keep it from being raided in the future and how we ensure that we have the programs in place to help the parents of sick children, or children who have been victimized, missing or murdered, that allows the family the space to grieve and to deal with that. How do we do that and sustain the program? That is our job as parliamentarians.

I look forward to the bill going to committee, hearing the witnesses and coming back with a final version of the bill that we can all look at.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think members of the House all agree that this is a small step in the right direction to help parents of young children who may be sick or victims of crime.

We are seeing the effects of Bill C-38, the omnibus crime bill, in our communities right now. In my constituency of Surrey North, I have seen people who are struggling to get their cheques on time. People are trying to speak to a live person on the other end of the phone line. People are struggling to qualify for these benefits that they have paid into. I heard from one of my constituents who has paid into the EI program for decades.

Is my colleague hearing that people are having trouble getting someone live on the phone? Is he hearing these sorts of complaints from his constituents?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to hear of that experience in a densely urban riding. My riding is larger than Great Britain. For the folks back home, it is cheaper for someone in Toronto to fly to Paris for the weekend than for a resident in Kashechewan to fly down to see me at my office. That shows the extent we are dealing with in our regions and we have no government services. The Conservatives pulled government services out. The MP's office is often becoming the point of contact in a vast region. We do our outreach clinics and we do what we can, but we are finding it is like one of those carnival huckster games. They say to people that all they need to do is call them, but good luck getting through, or go to the website and good luck getting an answer. We have seen people in desperate situations who actually are losing their houses because they are waiting to hear back and no one is calling them.

That is not part of the social contract that should exist between citizens and their government. If people have a right to a service, they should be able to receive it. Unfortunately, it has become a dead letter office for many people who need to access the services.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have introduced several bills which, in their opinion, will help victims. On this side of the House, we have trouble believing that these bills will help victims, especially Bill C-10. Of course, the bill contained a number of measures, but it did not seem to directly help victims. Finally, we have a bill that is going to do exactly that.

What distinction does my colleague see in the way that the Conservatives have tried to make people believe that they are really helping victims and what is actually going to help victims? Can the member do a better job of explaining this contrast?