Human Resources Committee on Oct. 18th, 2012

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

No, Mr. Chair. You've said it all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

All right. We'll move to Mr. Daniel.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ministers and staff, for attending.

Again, I think it is great that our government is delivering on our commitment to support Canadian families and helping them to balance their work and family responsibilities. I've had that feedback from a number of people in my riding as well.

Our government has taken several measures to support Canadian families. We've expanded access to foster parents for the adoption of foster children so they can have earlier access to parental benefits.

For the first time ever, we have allowed self-employed persons to opt into EI programs and receive maternity, parental, sickness, and compassionate care benefits.

Our military families can now have greater access to EI parental benefits so they can bond with their new children after they return from duty that has kept them away from their families.

We've increased the eligibility for compassionate care benefits to include additional family members, and others considered as family by the person who is gravely ill.

We've provided choice in child care for parents through the Canada child tax benefit and the universal child care benefit.

This bill was introduced and expands the access to sickness benefits for parents on parental leave, but it has received little notice. Could you expand on how this measure could help new parents face very difficult times?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

You've exhausted me going through that list. It's amazing how much we've been able to get done in the last several years, and it's all in support of Canadian families. That makes me feel really good. Canadian families are in a much better position now than they were seven years ago, and that's quite gratifying.

The really gratifying thing is when we hear from parents like Sharon Ruth, like another mother with whom I spoke, whose daughter was suffering from extreme anorexia. The woman had to leave her job on many occasions to look after her child. She's a single mother, and she was telling me that she really could have used this kind of support over the last few years. It would have made a huge difference for her. Because of her inability to focus solely on her work or solely on her child, her work performance was affected and she felt bad about that.

This is the sort of situation we're dealing with: parents who have had to go through some pretty trying things, trying to balance their number one priority, which is of course looking after their sick child, with the requirement to earn money to pay the mortgage, to pay the bills, and feed the rest of the family.

These are trade-offs that we don't think Canadian families should have to be confronting to the same degree that they have had to in the past. That's why we're offering this program, as we promised, to support Canadian families, recognizing that while work is important, family is the most important institution in our country. That's why we have to provide every form of support to families that we possibly can.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

This question is for the Minister of Labour. In the event that both parents of a child wish to take leave and would like to share the leave between the two of them, can the Minister of Labour explain whether leave can be shared between the parents?

Further to that question, in the case of critically ill children, are parents able to divide the leave into smaller periods, depending on the child's health circumstances, or do they have to take all the leave in one consecutive period?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

If we have two parents in the federal jurisdiction, they can both share the leave, just as Minister Finley pointed out, in terms of the benefit as well, but they can't go beyond the total amount of leave that's available under the Canada Labour Code. Now, they can take the leave at the same time, or they can do it consecutively—one takes leave first and one takes leave second.

In terms of the second question, with respect to.... I guess I've answered both questions. Can you take them together? Yes, you can, and you can split them up if you'd like to.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay. That's very good.

Are there any penalties should the critically ill child actually survive and become healthy?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

That would be the best outcome of all, absolutely the best outcome, and the family remains intact.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

So there's no penalty or clawback of any of the benefits they received during that period?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

No, not at all. We're not going to punish somebody for surviving.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

That's a good question, because the policy rationale for why we want to provide this is that studies have shown that where parents are involved in the hospital program the child is going through—if the child is going through a hospital program—it aids in the child's development and their ability to grow and prosper. It's really important for the parents to be there. Indeed, hospitals encourage 24-hour access; they want the parents in the hospital with the child while the child is going through treatment. That's exactly why we're providing that kind of leave: so they can do it.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much.

Do I have much time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

You have a couple of minutes, but if you're done, we'll move on.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Does anyone else want to take it?

Go ahead, Colin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Something that interests me—and it's a tragedy of society today—is suicide. A lot of the suicides are actually of younger people. Will this bill also cover parents who have lost a child because of suicide?

There's a second question I have. This is a very compassionate bill that I think our government has shown towards parents, in supporting parents. What were the complications with this type of initiative such that other governments didn't move this forward previously? It just seems logical to me.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Well, in fact, we've been trying to bring various components of this bill forward for about five or six years now. Many times it was brought forward—maybe as a private member's bill or we were drafting it ourselves—and it fell off the order paper because we kept going into elections. This bill is one of the benefits of having a stable majority government. We're finally able to put it through.

In fact, I've worked on this with people in other parties over the years and certainly with some of my own caucus colleagues. I'm really pleased that we're finally able to bring this forward and get it through. In particular, my colleague Gord Brown tabled a private member's bill a few years ago. I was working with him on it then. Senator Boisvenu has been promoting the portion on the murdered or missing for quite some time. I want to thank them for their contributions.

In terms of suicide, no, that is not covered. While it is a terrible tragedy, there are other benefits available to parents who have to go through that terrible ordeal—for example, EI sickness benefits of up to 15 weeks. That can be not just for physical sickness, but also for mental and emotional illness. That leave is there to support them, to give them the time to grieve, and to deal with the situation. It's quite different from the judicial requirements of the murdered or missing children and quite different from the ongoing critical care of a child who's critically ill, but there are 15 weeks of sickness benefits there to help the parents get through that difficult time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. Mayes.

We'll now move to Monsieur Lapointe.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both of you, Ministers, for being with us this morning.

Ms. Finley, you express yourself well in French, and I appreciate the effort.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Your ability to express yourself in French this morning has been more than adequate.

Few of your government's reforms are in line with the NDP's thinking or, in many cases, that of Quebeckers. This measure, however, is the exception. Despite the fact that it is less than comprehensive or perfect, we see it as a step in the right direction. I want to stress how happy that makes me, as it has seldom been the case over the past year. That said, I want to take some time to consider certain aspects that seem a bit fuzzy or not quite as rounded out.

Let me begin by making one thing clear. In no way does my asking questions about the reform mean that I don't support parents with children who are ill or those with children who have died or disappeared. That point doesn't always seem to register with your government. Calling a reform into question does not mean you don't support those it is meant to help. As far as this measure is concerned, it is imperative that we do things right. I have three children of my own under the age of 14.

As I see it, the 35-week allowance for parents should their child “face a significant risk of death within 26 weeks” is a good thing. What I would like to know, however, is how did you arrive at 26 weeks.

How will Service Canada employees go about trying to determine whether the sick child is really facing a significant risk of death within 26 weeks? Even some oncologists can't answer that question. I would like to hear how that step will work to ensure a consistent approach is taken.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

That is precisely the reason we introduced this bill. The current compassionate care benefits are inadequate: they do not meet the needs of parents whose child is critically ill and, thankfully, is not expected to die in the next 26 weeks. There was a major flaw in the legislation, and we included the measure to correct that flaw.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Everyone supports this feature. We like what it is trying to do. But I would like to know what procedure Service Canada employees will use to determine whether parents qualify for the benefit because their child has 26 weeks or less to live. How will Service Canada employees address this aspect? How will they proceed?

[Mireille Laroche]

As with sickness or compassionate care benefits, claimants will have to provide a medical certificate to receive the new benefit. The medical specialist will indicate whether the child is critically ill and needs ongoing parental support, as well as how long that support is necessary.

Public servants will not be the ones deciding whether parents qualify or not. The decision will be based on a medical assessment conducted by a specialist and provided to Service Canada.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

What happens in a case where the oncologist cannot confirm whether the suffering child has 20 or 45 weeks to live? If the child does not die and continues to suffer into the 27th, 28th or 29th week, the parents will not receive benefits. Is that right? The period is set at 26 weeks.