Maurice Vellacott

[Canada Labour Code, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-343 introduced by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.

This private member's bill would provide leave and benefits to federally regulated workers whose family members have been victims of crime. It calls upon Parliament to amend both the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act.

All members of this House want to support victims of crime and their families. The question is whether or not this bill provides as comprehensive a solution as our Conservative government believes that it should. As mentioned by the parliamentary secretary previously, our government cannot support this bill as it currently is drafted. To do so would be to support a bill that lacks the scope to address the full nature of this very important issue.

To the families who, as victims of violence, are struggling with the loss of a loved one, to the children who have suffered serious injury as the direct result of a criminal offence, to those who have had to live through the nightmare of a child going missing, and to those who have lost a spouse, a common-law partner or child to suicide, as a father to four children and a grandfather of eight grandchildren, I personally empathize with them and I sincerely recognize their pain and hardship.

Looking after the needs of citizens who fall victim to crime is a priority of this government. It is a pledge we made in the 2007 Speech from the Throne indicating that:

In addition to tougher laws, our Government will provide targeted support to communities and victims.

In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, we gave a fair bit of detail about what we plan to do this spring. We said:

Our Government will also offer tangible support to innocent victims of crime and their families. It will give families of murder victims access to special benefits under Employment Insurance. It will introduce legislation to give employees of federally regulated industries the right to unpaid leave if they or members of their families are victimized by crime. And our Government will introduce legislation to make the victim surcharge mandatory, to better fund victim services.

Through budget 2010, the government proposed facilitating access to EI sickness benefits for eligible workers who have lost a family member as the result of a crime. To further demonstrate our government's commitment to ensure that the men and women who put themselves in harm's way have the programs and services they need, this measure will also be extended to immediate family members of military personnel who died resulting from a service-related injury.

Already our government has taken decisive steps to better support victims of crime. This includes investing $52 million over four years to provide programs and services that deal directly with the needs of these victims. We also created the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, which is promoting the concerns of victims and ensuring that victims can gain access to federal services and programs. It is very clear that supporting victims of crime is consistent with the government's overall strategy to tackle crime and to strengthen the security of all Canadians.

I will take a moment to highlight the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code and the EI Act that provide access to certain types of leave for victims of crime.

For example, under the Canada Labour Code, a federally regulated employee who is a victim of crime or whose family member is a victim of crime may be entitled to unpaid leave under one of the current leave provisions, including sick leave, compassionate care leave and bereavement leave.

Also, certain employees may be eligible to receive EI benefits through the EI Act. Although the EI program does not provide benefits explicitly for those affected by violent crimes, persons affected in this situation are eligible for up to a maximum of 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits if they are unable to work due to health reasons. That includes stress caused by the injury or loss of a loved one.

In addition, EI compassionate care benefits are available to eligible workers who take a temporary absence from work when an individual considered to be a member of that family falls gravely ill and is at significant risk of death.

Unlike what is proposed in Bill C-343, although well-intended, these measures that we just suggested apply to more than just workers in the federal domain. They apply to all workers in insurable employment, and thanks to our government's recently introduced fairness for the self-employed bill, the special EI benefits I have outlined, including sickness and compassionate care benefits, have also been extended to self-employed individuals who opt into the program.

It is also important to point out that the provinces and territories are largely responsible for the administration of justice. All provinces, except Newfoundland and Labrador, have some form of compensation program for victims of crime and their families. While the compensation available under these provincial programs varies from province to province, one type of compensation that is commonly available is for lost earnings. It is also worth noting that several of these compensation programs are more generous than what could be offered through the EI program and provide more broad-based coverage.

I would point to the good example that Quebec has set for the rest of Canada in the comprehensive way it approaches supporting victims of crime.

This legislation sets a strong benchmark to compare to other legislation. I believe the member who introduced this bill was headed in the right direction when she borrowed heavily from that particular text in Quebec.

Our government has sincere sympathy for the family members of victims of violent crime. Our legislative record demonstrates that we are continuing to work in this area to improve services and to improve support.

Although I and our party cannot support Bill C-343 as it is currently drafted, I respect the good intentions of the member opposite. However, as I have indicated in my remarks today, the government believes in a more comprehensive approach and such an approach can only be accomplished through a different piece of legislation and that legislation will be forthcoming from this government.

I can tell members that introducing new leave provisions, including unpaid leave for victims of crime, will be a part of that proposal, as it was promised in the Speech from the Throne.

I would echo the call of the parliamentary secretary for members of this House to be patient for a short while and wait for the proposal of the government to be tabled in this place. Members can then choose which proposal is more comprehensive in its approach on this particular important issue.

We all want to support the victims of crime and I believe all parties will be pleased when they see the measures that the government will be unveiling in the days ahead.

[Children's Day, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker today, April 23, and during the weekend, Canadians of Turkish origin will celebrate Children's Day, together with fellow Canadians.

On April 23, 1920, the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk convened the Turkish Grand National Assembly and dedicated this day to children. By doing so, Atatürk not only entrusted the future of his young nation to her children but also showed the importance he placed on the health and education of young people.

In 1979, UNESCO proclaimed the year as the International Year of the Child. Today, April 23 is celebrated with children from more than 60 countries around the world, including Turkey and Canada. This is now a 30-year tradition in Canada.

Tonight in Ottawa in commemoration of Children's Day, the Turkish community will be hosting a fundraising gala dinner, and the benefits will go to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the SOS Children's Villages.

Let us congratulate the organizers and wish them every success in their activities.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for my hon. colleague. I have appreciated the tenor of the debate so far and particularly the comments he made. This may have been said before, but the Mowat Centre called Canada “one of the worst violators of citizen equality”. We have the NDP and the Bloc wanting to make that worse. They are basically rejecting the concept of representation by population.

Can he explain to us or at least in brief respond in terms of the principled approach our government is taking to strike some balance here? Can he maybe give us a little bit of detail in respect to that?

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were at the helm, the methodology behind the international assistance seemed to be very much a scattergun, or shotgun, approach, throwing money at everything that essentially guaranteed nothing was accomplished.

This government has moved to be much more focused. We have larger amounts in our bilateral assistance, where we can really make a difference. Here again, with respect of the maternal health care initiative, that is the point.

Could the member respond with respect the general focus of our efforts in international assistance, which is different than the scattergun approach of the Liberal Party?

[Persons with Disabilities, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I inform the House today that our Conservative government has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This convention promotes the full inclusion of persons with disabilities around the world.

We know that Canadians with disabilities make significant contributions to our communities and to our economy. That is why our Conservative government has made important investments to create opportunities and support their full inclusion.

For example, the registered disability savings plan is giving Canadian families peace of mind by helping them save for the long-term financial security of a loved one with a disability.

Today all Canadians can truly be proud. The ratification of this historic convention is yet another step to ensuring Canadians with disabilities have opportunities to contribute to our great country.

[Petitions, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from 100 people in Saskatchewan calling on the federal government to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.

The second petition is a bit related with 90 petitioners in total. They want the federal government to amend the animal transport regulations under Canada's Health of Animals Act to reduce transport time for pigs, poultry, horses, calves, lambs, cattle, sheep and goats.

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague and to the previous speeches by other members of his party. It appears that many of them have a great passion for provincial issues and are fairly knowledgeable, I would concede, as well. I know the member has not been long in the House, but he may want to take his speeches and some of the issues he shared to the provincial realm and make that argument before the public there, the good citizens of British Columbia.

The member would also be aware that if it so chooses, the Province of British Columbia will have discussions in terms of exemptions or a zero rate on certain things. He listed a number of things; it is a possibility, within the latitude they have, to actually eliminate or to have an exemption for some of the things the member listed.

Because the member has great concern and knowledge and understanding of provincial issues and of the impact, and because this is primarily a provincial issue, I want to know if he will tender his resignation in this place to go to pursue provincial politics before Christmas, or when the House resumes in February?

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think members around the House are fairly aware of the rich tradition and heritage of this particular party with respect to acknowledging and recognizing provincial jurisdiction. The member, who has been involved in public life for a number of years, is obviously leading the charge with respect to financial issues.

With respect to this matter, he is basically affirming the right of provinces. That is basically what it is. It is not about taking the initiative as much as allowing them that prerogative within their own jurisdiction. I think the member could probably speak to us, having had business interests over the years, about what happens in business when there is uncertainty out there. Certainly, in respect to this, when there is uncertainty about a harmonized value added tax, there is an unfairness to business and provincial governments and their employees that is harmful to jobs and unhelpful to Canada's international competitiveness.

One way or other, this needs to be clarified. That is the nature of the framework. Our government likes to be consistent with respect to equalization and harmonization so there is consistency and not these one-offs with provinces along the way.

If the member could respond to the whole matter of uncertainty in business climates and what that does, that would probably be helpful to our discussion.

[Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation), November 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the good work the member opposite has done over the years. I know he has put a lot of time and effort into this issue. He has hosted various seminars on the Hill, which members who were around in those days definitely benefited from in terms of the specific help, the specific exposé the police gave on those occasions.

The member opposite mentioned the very important need of monitoring, keeping on top of the ever-changing technology. We need to be vigilant so that we can truly protect our children the vulnerable, innocent children of the present and the future, from these heinous crimes against these most innocent vulnerable children.

Having said that, I would be interested to know at this juncture, either in a private member's bill or maybe some very specific amendments for the committee, what might be the major outlines going ahead from here, acknowledging as he did the good benefit of this government bill?

What might be the major outlines of a bill that he would do to even improve upon this bill, or that he might see in the future in terms of things that we could do further to get at and stomp out this very pernicious evil that we have in society today?

[Privilege, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond once again to the matter of the ten percenter that was sent into the riding of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore regarding his position on the long gun registry.

When I responded to the member's complaint on November 3, 2009, I corrected the record with respect to his position on the long gun registry, but I did not explicitly apologize at that time. I would like to sincerely do so today to the hon. member. I do that without reservation.

Furthermore, I have received an undertaking from our Conservative Resource Group that in the future, they will proofread more carefully and nuance more appropriately any ten percenter mail pieces sent out under my name.

With that, I again express my sincere regret to the hon. member opposite and to all of his constituents, and in particular to those constituents who drew this to his attention, who reported to his office the misimpression they had received from that earlier mail piece. In fact, I think we would mutually thank those individuals who brought it to our attention.