Debates of April 13th, 2021

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the short time I have to speak on Bill C-14. I do want to address a couple of things.

First, Parliament still reigns supreme in the approval of spending powers. It has been that way since Parliament existed, and it is still that way today, for now. What is important about that, and the reason I bring it up is that we have seen over the course of this pandemic, and it has been a heck of a year, certain plays made by the government to try to seize control and seize power.

We saw it at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020, when the Liberals introduced a piece of legislation that would have given them unfettered control over the Treasury, and the ability to tax and spend up until 2022. If it were not for that push-back from the opposition, all opposition parties, and particularly Canadians, I would hate to see what type of position we would have been in today.

The other thing we saw, and it really speaks to the cynicism we have in some cases dealing with the government and what it is trying to push forward in legislation, particularly spending legislation, is that last fall we effectively had four hours to approve a $54-billion spending bill after the government put a time allocation on it.

I know the previous speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, spoke about this, but we have all played our part in ensuring that Canadians get the benefits as a result of this pandemic. We have all been there, Conservatives, NDP, Greens and Liberals, as well as the Bloc, to make sure that Canadians have the supports they need.

When it became clear that this was an increasing public health crisis and that public health advice needed to be followed, it meant that many businesses had to be shut down, and this affected not just businesses but also the people they employed. All of those things had to happen. Those supports were needed.

In many cases, as members will recall, those supports fell way short of what was needed. It should be no surprise to anybody in this House, and no surprise to anybody who is watching, that there are a lot of regional differences that exist in this country. There is a differing of opinions. It is still okay to have that.

Much of what I was bringing to this House and what I was bringing to ministers at the time was precisely what I was hearing from my constituents, whether it was from the business community or individuals, of just how short some of these programs were. There is the case of Tony and Anne Gillespie, for example, who own a tae kwon do studio in my riding. They just started their business last year. Even up to this point, they have not been able to access some of those benefits.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy is an example. When the government introduced that as legislation, it came in at 10%. It was the opposition parties, and I emphasize the plural because it was not just the Conservatives, and individual MPs who were telling the government that that 10% was woefully inadequate. We saw that subsequently bumped up to 75% as a result.

What I am speaking to more broadly is that many of these programs were either too restrictive or too prescriptive at the time. It was important for us to make sure that the government was aware of that. In many cases it moved, and in some cases, as is the case with Tony and Anne Gillespie, the government has not moved far enough.

Bill C-15—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I want to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

The hammer drops once again, Madam Speaker.

In the time that I have left, and there is not much of it, I want to talk about what the bill proposes. We can support many aspects of it. In fact, we did support it through committee and several suggestions were made at committee. However, it is disturbing that the debt ceiling is going to be raised over $600 billion. When we think of where we were a year and a half ago, the overall debt in the country was $600 billion. We are now looking at $1.83 trillion in debt, and that is concerning.

I know it is awfully difficult for people to understand the magnitude of what we are going to be facing with respect to deficits. We know right now that we are at $343 billion roughly. Hopefully, we will find out on Monday with the budget exactly where we are. That combined with the actual debt, which today stands at $1.2 trillion, is quite concerning.

Again, I am not discounting the fact that Canadians have needed the help, but we have been focused a lot over the last year on the expense side of the ledger. Many of the measures that have been implemented have been there to support Canadians, but there is a reason we continue to be in what is seemingly a never-ending pandemic scenario, and that is because of the failure of the government to procure vaccines and to ensure there is enough vaccine distribution for Canadians.

This amount of deficit, the increased spending, is going to continue, but at some point we really have to start turning our minds to the revenue side of the ledger and how we are going to pay for this. Make no mistake that, yes, government has supported Canadians and has taken on a hefty burden of that debt, but at some point it will have to be paid back.

Two things happen: Taxes go up and services go down. That is just a fact of life, and I think most Canadians would understand that, but we have to focus on what an economic recovery looks like.

Economic recovery has to include every part, every sector, every region and every individual of the country. It is not some reimagined or imaginary economy. Canada will have to rely on the power of our businesses. We will have to rely on the people who are employed in those businesses, the products they produce and ensure we are competitive both domestically and internationally. We need to create an air of investor confidence both here, domestically, and for foreign investment as well. When I talk about every sector of our economy having to fire on all cylinders to pay for the debt and deficit situation we are in, that includes ever sector of our economy, including our natural resource sector. These are the important things we are going to have to eventually turn our minds to.

When I talk to people, I ask them how much is too much when it comes to that. I think of my former life as a firefighter and the salary that a firefighter, a nurse and all those occupations make. If they pay 40% income tax right now, how much is too much to pay for this unless we get our economy going again? Is 50%, 60% or so on too much? Is raising the GST 5%, 6% or so on too much? What about home equity taxes? Is taking the capital gains and paying the equity that people have built into their home going to be too much at that point? We know that the government has looked at it. We know that CMHC has proposed a study on this through the University of British Columbia.

A former finance minister stood up in the House and guaranteed Canadians something. I asked him many times whether he would implement a home equity tax. He said no. He is no longer here. Maybe the Prime Minister has found the path of least resistance, because we know that is a low-hanging fruit opportunity for them as well.

These are the types of things that should be on the minds of Canadians when it comes to the government proposal, through legislation, to raise debt ceilings, incurring more and more debt and deficits. Eventually, somebody will have to pay for this. Canadians are not naive. They know that money does not grow with fairy dust or grow on trees. They know that eventually somebody will have to pay for this.

Of course, to create this booming economy coming out of this recession where nobody is left behind, it is in terms of those sectors and regions around the country to create the tax revenue, both from a corporate tax standpoint where the businesses are making money to pay those taxes, and from the individuals who are gainfully employed paying those taxes, which is going to become critical to the success of our economic recovery.

I Just wanted to make those points, and that Parliament reigns supreme still. We have the oversight of government spending, and that has to be maintained. Fortunately, for all Canadians, we have been in a minority situation where we have been able to highlight some of the inefficiencies of this government in the past. I fear that if a majority situation were to happen, Canadians would be worse off. So, we are going to provide an alternative to Canadians. We are going to talk about the economy. We are going to secure our future. We are going to make sure that every Canadian succeeds coming out of this pandemic.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canada Labour Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Members will know that if members of a recognized party present in the House wish to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

I see the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook on his feet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all parties, and I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to pass Bill C-220 at report stage and move immediately to third reading.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I therefore declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, we made it. We are finally at third reading. I have to say this has been quite a remarkable journey.

I want to start with a huge thanks to so many people who have helped along the way. These include my friend and consistent champion of this legislation, the hon. member for Mount Royal, who has worked extremely hard to make this a reality, and the Minister of Labour, who has been incredibly accessible throughout this fight and really is personally committed to seeing better bereavement supports in this country.

I also want to thank the member for Beaches—East York for agreeing to a trade with a member from across the aisle so that we could continue to move this legislation at lightning speed through the House of Commons, and the entire HUMA committee, chaired by the member for Charlottetown, at which I testified. Together we made a better bill.

I also want to thank my seconder on this, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon; my friend who spoke so passionately on this at second reading, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry; my friend from the New Democrat caucus, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who let me bend his ear on these amendments; the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for her support from the very beginning; and of course the House leaders from all parties, especially the government House leader, who has consistently helped to support this bill moving forward.

Our stakeholder community has also been amazing through this process and is always quick to drop everything to meet on short notice. Specifically I give huge thanks to the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Grief Alliance, both of which testified at committee with me; the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, the MS Society of Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Alberta Hospice Palliative Care Association, and particularly Kristi Puchbauer, who first came to me with the idea that we needed to do better.

I am going to keep the rest of my comments brief, as Canadians have unfortunately had to face much hardship and loss in the past year, and this bill has given so many a chance at hope.

Amendments to this bill would allow Canadians whose workplace falls under the Canada Labour Code 10 days off work following the death of a family member. This amendment allows more workers time to grieve before returning to work, including those who have used the compassionate care leave program. I also believe this extra time off would be especially helpful for workers after a sudden death in the family.

Ultimately, this amended bill would help more Canadians. Again, I thank the Minister of Labour for her collaborative approach to making this change happen. The pandemic has made clear that we need to do some things differently, and bereavement support is one area where we can do better for Canadians.

We just saw New Zealand extend its bereavement laws to parents who have suffered a miscarriage. Imagine that. These are important steps, and I hope passing our bill means we will see further policy changes on bereavement supports in the future.

I truly hope that we can continue in what I think has been inspiring to so many Canadians: Parliament can work. I hear regularly that the non-partisanship we have all collectively shown is inspiring more young people to consider politics and to consider getting involved in the policy process.

I thank my colleagues from all parties again for their continued fight, their support and feedback on this bill. It has truly been an amazing honour to see our bill get to this stage: one step closer to helping millions of grieving Canadian families.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be honest, I have not quite given this legislation the attention that it perhaps deserves.

Countries such as New Zealand are taking huge steps forward in making sure that when people are going through times of bereavement, they are particularly covered. I appreciate the member's candid approach when talking about how he was able to get bipartisan support from all sides of the House.

I am wondering if the member could highlight, for people who are watching, what his bill seeks to address, in terms of timelines and improving upon the circumstances for those who are going through the process.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the scope of the bill originated as compassionate care leave, something that was near and dear to many members in the House of Commons.

That is where we were in second reading, after going through the committee stage, and, honestly, with support from the member for Mount Royal and the Minister of Labour, we were able to amend this bill to allow for 10 days of bereavement after the death of a loved one.

Initially we were looking at three weeks after the death of a loved one, which would only apply to a caregiver. What we decided to do, again with support from the Minister of Labour and the member for Mount Royal, was to expand that to 10 days past the death of a loved one, so essentially the agreement is for two weeks.

It is not just for people who have taken compassionate care leave. It is for any individual who has suffered the death of a family member or a loved one.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the second reading, I wanted to acknowledge just how critically important the care and compassion are that this legislation could provide for grieving families.

I do not want to open up the debate in any way beyond directly asking the question. Would this also include families that would be grieving miscarriages?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a key question that came up throughout the conversation of the debate. According to the department, there is already, within the policy declaration, opportunity to expand this legislation within the department. It is not specifically written in our legislation, and that is perhaps an opportunity for either an improvement to our legislation, or maybe the member would like to bring forward another private member's bill specifically on that. In seeing what New Zealand did, that is the right direction. It certainly has a lot of support from a lot of the stakeholder community, and if we are serious about bereavement supports, that would be a logical next step.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the member comment on the amendments that were brought forward? In response to a previous question I asked, he said the length of time was changed, but I am curious if he can speak to the amendments and how they were brought forward to committee, because I noticed that it does change the Canada Labour Code. Is there any implication to the federal government or to the public purse in this legislation?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to sitting down with the member for Kingston and the Islands and having a further chat about some of these amendments. He is absolutely right. What we cannot do as private members, and I know he knows this as well, is impact the public purse whatsoever. We cannot impact EI benefits. We cannot push for the government to spend more money. As private members, all we can do is move forward policy legislation.

The conversations the minister is engaged in with her cabinet in terms of what the opportunities are to expand EI are, again, what the future of this could go to. Unfortunately, we cannot do that as private members.

Speaking to how the amendments came forward, that is actually a fascinating backstory to the bill. This is the first time, from my understanding, that at a committee there was a joint Liberal and Conservative amendment put forward. It was brought forward by me and the member for Mount Royal, and it passed unanimously at committee. Again, that commitment to non-partisanship on this issue has really been the tremendous backstory that we have seen throughout the debate on the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I neglected to see that there was a member with his hand raised on the board, so I probably should have done it differently with that last question. There was enough time remaining, so I am going to give time to the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona to pose a question.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member touched on the question of the EI compassionate care leave. I am wondering whether, in his negotiations with the government, he has any kind of update for the House in terms of what they may be planning to do to complement these changes to the Canada Labour Code, if they pass, to ensure that people can take this time and be able to access their employment insurance benefits at the same time so that it is not only people who already have the resources to afford that time away from work who can benefit from this expanded bereavement leave.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that really has been the key question all along, about getting that next step, the EI benefits, to follow the bereavement leave. The member for Elmwood—Transcona has been supportive throughout this process and has also asked those key questions throughout in trying to get this to the next stage. I have no updates on my end, unfortunately. I hope we will see something soon, if not in the budget, but I hope we will be able to move that more quickly. The member is right that it is a logical next step that needs to happen, EI supports to follow along the bereavement supports.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Edmonton Riverbend has been absolutely exemplary in terms of this private member's bill. When people watch question period, they often get a very false sense of what politicians do, who we are and the way law-making works. This bill is a tremendous example of how people can cross party lines, work together and create a good piece of legislation. It is an important testament to how committees of the House work. It is an important testament to how the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour can work with a member who sponsored a private bill, and how people from all parties can combine to improve that bill.

I want to thank the member for Edmonton Riverbend because he never made this a bill about himself. He never made this a Conservative bill. He made this a Canadian bill.

I want to thank the Minister of Labour who worked so closely with us, in terms of understanding that when a private member's bill comes to Parliament, members should not reject it because it comes from somebody from a different party, but rather should work with that member to see how we can create better legislation.

I also want to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who has been a constant champion of this issue and who is always a pleasure to work with.

I would also like to thank the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, a colleague with whom we can always work to improve legislation.

Today, we are studying a good bill, one that will meet the needs of Canadians across the country.

The member's original bill talked about caregivers. Especially during this pandemic, we have all seen the heroic role of caregivers who, after seeing family members become sick with COVID, have taken care of them in a way that puts themselves at risk. We have seen people take caregiving leave for years to help family members with cancer, heart conditions or other illnesses that are profoundly difficult to deal with. These people are heroes. The idea that our current law would send them right back to work, in the week when the person who they were caring for died, seems heartless. The member listened to groups across the country who said people need more time when a loved on we are taking care of dies. People not only need to plan a funeral or, if one is Jewish, to perhaps have a shiva, but to take care of the will and consoling other loved ones like children who, maybe for the first time, have experienced death. People need more time psychologically to deal with this before going back to work.

After speaking to the Minister of Labour, she and I agreed that this was an incredible idea, but it should apply to more Canadians. People who have been on bereavement leave up until now have five days, three of which are paid and two of which are unpaid, to deal with a death of an immediate family member. That is not enough. When somebody who is so close to a person passes away, that person needs more than five days to deal with all of the things surrounding death.

My dad passed away last year after having COVID and then having a stroke. For the first time in my life, I had to deal with things like going with my mom to purchase a burial plot, to arrange a funeral, to make sure that my brother who is in Toronto could get back to Montreal for the funeral, to make sure that the will was notarized and in a place that we could access, and to deal with bank accounts and all kinds of things. While I am not really in a job where I can take time off, it would always be nice to know that I could. I sympathize so much with those incredible groups that the member for Edmonton Riverbend brought to the committee to talk about this issue.

When someone has a sudden death in the family or while taking care of a loved one, they need more time. The end result was that we talked to the member for Edmonton Riverbend and we talked to our colleagues in the other parties. What we decided is that everyone should get 10 days, whether for loss of an immediate family member under bereavement leave or whether someone was on compassionate care leave or leave related to critical illness in terms of taking care of someone. Everybody should get those 10 days.

The HUMA did excellent work. Everyone talked to one another and everyone collaborated. Our chairman, the member for Charlottetown, did a fantastic job chairing the meeting and we were able to bring a bill to Parliament that deserves unanimous support. It is a bill that should get to the Senate as quickly as possible and it is one that should be adopted by this Parliament before it finishes, whenever that happens.

I am in strong support of getting the bill to the Senate as soon as possible. Again, I want to thank all the members who restored my faith in the way Parliament can work.

Once again, I would like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, the member for Charlottetown and especially the member for Edmonton Riverbend, who did an extraordinary job with this bill.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reiterate that my party, the Bloc Québécois, will support Bill C-220.

I was not able to listen to the colleagues who spoke before me, but I think the bill's sponsor had two goals in mind. First of all, the bill is meant to recognize workers who take compassionate care leave to care for a loved one, under either employment insurance or the Canada Labour Code. Second, and most importantly, the bill makes it possible for workers to keep their jobs when they have to miss work to take care of someone.

Pursuant to the Canada Labour Code, workers have access to 28 weeks of compassionate care leave. Through the EI program, eligible workers can take 26 weeks of compassionate care leave. In both cases, workers can access these leaves only if the person they are caring for is expected to die in the near future.

In these situations, people often provide care for weeks at a time and sometimes provide end-of-life care. In some cases, the person receiving care may die long before the end of the leave. The rules of the Canada Labour Code are clear and require the individual to return to work after the death of the person receiving care.

Imagine someone who has had to support a sick family member and even drained all their savings doing it. This often happens to family caregivers, if I can use that as a general term. They give their time to support a loved one, which is very demanding, but as soon as the loved one dies, they are forced to go back to work. We do not think anyone should be forced into that situation. The change proposed in the bill is intended to ensure that each of those caregivers is granted additional leave to give them time to grieve without losing their jobs.

The member who introduced the bill had an opportunity to appear before the committee, and I think he also raised this issue in his own province. With the amendment we proposed, we set a new bar by increasing bereavement leave to 10 days, while of course setting out a time frame to bring the agreements in line with the Canada Labour Code. This proves that we value workers who go back to work and ensures that there is no arbitrary treatment and no layoffs or dismissals when the worker has to go back to work following the death of the sick person they were caring for. We changed the number of weeks and days that will be allowed.

We also had a chance to hear from another witness whose name I cannot remember. We spoke about bereavement. It is true that this is something we do not talk about a lot in our society, but the grieving period is very important. It is a period we must go through, so it should happen under the best possible conditions.

It is important that we make sure caregivers have this 10-day leave in the event of a death. It will give them time to make all the funeral arrangements, but it will also give them time for themselves, time to process what happened. That will be allowed, and no one will have to wonder whether they need to return to work early. Caregivers will be able to decide how much time they need before going back to work, depending on their situation.

That was the objective of this bill, which did not require major legislative amendments to the Canada Labour Code. However, deciding to change the rules is an important change for all those concerned, so I invite all parliamentarians to support it.

I believe that we, the committee members, dealt with this bill very efficiently after it passed at second reading. We studied it quickly and came back with a recommendation that is entirely favourable.

I also want to talk about what is going on with caregivers. Even though we raise awareness about this during national caregiver week, we tend to forget that, in Canada alone, 30% of the workforce are caregivers, which is quite a lot. The majority of these caregivers—54% in Canada and even more, 58%, in Quebec—are women.

These people are family members and friends. They decide to give their time to support someone and, as I said earlier, that takes a lot of energy.

We could take a more comprehensive look at the rules around compassionate care leave and how those rules are written, but I think the main purpose of the member's bill was not to change the number of weeks of leave, but to improve conditions for grieving caregivers. We needed to fix things so that people were not forced to return to work as soon as the loved one died, and that is what we have done. This bill will improve the situation by amending the Canada Labour Code.

The important thing to remember is that the caregiver will keep their job if the sick person dies, and they may need a few extra weeks, even if they have not used up all the weeks they were given. There is no way of knowing if or when the sick person will die. We hope it will not happen, but often it does.

The pandemic has highlighted this reality and given us an opportunity to debate the issue of caregivers. We have been able to look at how these people who are being asked to do so much, who generously give their time and want to help others, might need to be supported through various other programs. During the pandemic, we saw how difficult it was for them to manage.

Even though this is a modest contribution that we as parliamentarians can make to improve the Canada Labour Code, I should note that for the person who came to testify at committee, it was one more step in the right direction, a way of recognizing that caregivers also need time to care for themselves and to properly mourn their loss with dignity, just as they cared for people with dignity.

I may not have used all of my speaking time, but I just wanted to make it clear that it is important to unanimously support this bill to amend the Canada Labour Code.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, work is what makes the world go around. Work produces buildings, buses, tools, a great meal at a restaurant or a concert. These are all ways that people improve the world around them. It is work that clothes and feeds children and takes care of our elders, whether it is in the home or in personal care homes. However, there can be a tendency to value work, particularly paid work, to the point where we forget about other important things in life, like the relationships we have or the effect of the loss of a loved one in the case of Bill C-220.

It is a lesson that the pandemic has very much taught us when we consider some of the culture around going to work when sick, for instance, in the pandemic. We have a tendency to put paid work up on such a high pedestal that other important things like not spreading a virus to members of our communities suddenly do not get the priority they should. As a society, we sometimes have a tendency to put paid work on such a high pedestal that we neglect the other important things in life, whether it is the health of our friends and colleagues in the workplace or ensuring that our colleagues, friends and ourselves take the time we need to grieve in the event of losing somebody really important.

The great virtue of this bill is that it creates a little more space for that kind of humanity to enter into the Canadian economy, to recognize that work is very important and paid work is also very important, but there are other important things in a human life that need to be given their proper due with the time it takes to give them that due. We heard some examples earlier in the debate of the kinds of tasks that have to be accomplished, the kind of work that needs to be done when we lose loved ones as well as the importance of taking the time to grieve and appreciate both the loss of loved ones and the gift they gave in their time with us.

That is why New Democrats are quite pleased and proud to support this initiative. We look forward to follow-up from the government to ensure that the employment insurance compassionate care leave is modified appropriately to ensure that this gift of time for those who have suffered loss is not just a gift for the wealthy, those who can afford it and those who already have the resources to take the extra time without worrying about their rent or putting meals on the table. That is why following up on those employment insurance reforms is going to be very important.

I hope that some of the non-partisanship around this issue, which recognizes the need to take a step back from a sometimes frantic work culture to recognize important things about the human experience, might equally be applied to an effort to get 10 legislated days of paid sick leave for Canadian workers in the same spirit of recognizing that sometimes paid work is not the most important thing. Even though it continues to be important, it is not always the most important thing, and our economic structure has to allow for people to take that time out.

I look forward to this kind of non-partisan co-operation and collaboration and some leadership from government when it comes to the EI sickness benefit, which currently is only 15 weeks. The House of Commons has stated its intention very clearly on a number of occasions, including once by unanimous consent, that the period ought to be expanded to 50 weeks. It was a campaign commitment of the government to expand it to 26 weeks. We need to move forward with that.

What we have seen in the context of this bill is what it can look like when parties come to the table in good faith, recognize some of these things and try to move the ball forward. We wish to see that same spirit of collaboration and swift passage when it comes to other important reforms that may not be particularly about bereavement, but are part and parcel of what I take to be the most important insight behind this, which is that, yes, paid work is important, but it is not the only thing that is important.

We need an economy that recognizes those other things that are important, and we need to give some space and room to those things so people can live a life that recognizes the importance of all those other things and the kinds of work that happen in our society that are not paid but are nevertheless very important to people's lives and to the communities we all live in.

It is in that spirit that New Democrats have collaborated in order to have this bill go as far as it can under the existing rules of Parliament and to try to get it through as quickly as we can so this change might take effect before this Parliament expires.