Human Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Good morning, everyone. I welcome you to our committee hearings. We're here, of course, studying Bill C-44. This morning we are looking at provisions relating to a new federal income support benefit for parents of murdered or missing children, amending the Canada Labour Code to protect the jobs of parents who take a leave of absence relative to the critically ill or injured child, and of course parents of children who are missing or murdered as a result of a suspected Criminal Code of Canada offence.

It is certainly a topic that will be difficult for some, but we appreciate having with us today Susan O'Sullivan, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, who will begin sharing with us. We also have Michel Surprenant, the chair of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared. We also have Yvonne Harvey, the chair and founder of Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc.

Generally, what we do is have each party present. Then we have questions from each of the party representatives, alternating party to party. With that, I invite Ms. O'Sullivan to go ahead with her presentation.

[Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would provide for unpaid leave for parents of murdered and missing children.

As you may know, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this through our mandate by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims; promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime; providing information and referrals; promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime; raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims; and identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact on victims of crime.

The office helps victims in two main ways: individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today to speak about the amendment to the Canada Labour Code providing for unpaid leave. I will also raise some points for consideration related to the federal income support for parents of murdered and missing children.

I would like to begin by stating that our office was pleased to hear about the introduction of Bill C-44, which includes an amendment to the Canada Labour Code to provide for unpaid leave for parents coping with the death or disappearance of a child. We are also encouraged by the announcement of a new federal income support program to help ease the financial hardship of parents of missing or murdered children.

While we support both of these measures, it is apparent that the new provisions for unpaid leave and the income support program do not address the circumstances of many victims of crime, and could be more inclusive in their eligibility and reach. Therefore, our office will be asking the committee to consider amending and broadening the reach of unpaid leave and income support in order to be more inclusive of the needs of victims of crime.

To provide some context, the trauma associated with victimization can have devastating psychological and socio-economic impacts on the family. A recent study from the Department of Justice estimates that almost 83% of the costs associated with crime are borne by victims. These costs include lost productivity and wages, costs of medical and psychological care, and time away from work to attend criminal proceedings.

A study of families bereaved by homicide, conducted in the United Kingdom in 2011, confirmed that physical health and the ability to work, maintain relationships, care for children, and manage new financial burdens were all significant problems for families who had experienced the homicide of a loved one.

The same study revealed that 70% of respondents stopped working for a period of time as a result of the bereavement. The amount of time taken off varied from under a month to over a year. Several respondents in the study noted that they had lost their jobs as a result of the impact of the loss of their loved one. This speaks directly to the need for unpaid leave and accompanying income support.

It should also be noted, however, that respondents in this study were not all parents of children. The study also highlighted the impacts on spouses, siblings, and co-residing extended family. If one considers losing a spouse to homicide, the financial impact may be similarly devastating.

For this reason, I would like to highlight that the proposed amendments to the labour code need to be more inclusive and to recognize the impacts of crime on other family members—for example, spouses and siblings. They should also recognize the impact of victimization when someone is older than the age of 18. Moreover, the amendments should also address other circumstances outside of homicide or disappearance. In this way, the unpaid leave provisions would address the impact of victimization within the family unit and recognize the tremendous impacts of other types of crime—for example, serious physical or sexual assault.

Taking this into account, I would respectfully request that the committee consider the following recommendations. Widen the reach of the Canada Labour Code amendments to be more inclusive to victims of crime, to include, for instance, leave for spouses and siblings, and remove the age limit of 18 years of age. Create a separate employment insurance category for victims of crime to ensure that Canadians who are impacted by crime are able to access the existing EI structure. In such instances where family members may not meet the employment insurance eligibility requirements, or if the benefit would be less than $350 a week, we recommend that they be eligible for a program similar to the federal income support, based on the same inclusive eligibility. This program could ensure that the income support needs of more victims of crime are addressed.

In conclusion, our office strongly supports the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code and income support for parents of murdered and missing children. However, we recommend that the unpaid leave provisions be available to a broader range of victims and their family members, as they too carry a heavy burden in the aftermath of a crime.

My office hears from victims across the country on a daily basis that there is a lack of tangible support available to them. We hear from victims about going into immense debt, suffering ill health and relationship issues, and their difficulty in getting the help they need. They often tell us about their struggle to access the supports they need to deal with the practical realities of life following a crime.

While the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code included in Bill C-44 are indeed a positive step forward, creating more inclusive leave provisions for victims of crime, with an accompanying employment insurance benefit, would not only serve as a recognition of the long-lasting impact of victimization, but would significantly strengthen the supports available to victims of crime in Canada.

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you very much for that, Ms. O'Sullivan. It was very informative. I certainly hear what you have to say on the impact this has on those who are associated through relationships and otherwise.

Our next presenter is Michel Surprenant.

Go ahead, Michel.

[Michel Surprenant, Chair, Board of Directors, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

Good morning. My name is Michel Surprenant. I am here today as the chair of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared (AFPAD).

As its name suggests, our association brings together 500 families of murdered or missing persons in Quebec. My daughter was abducted in 1999 on Castille Street in Terrebonne. She was 16. Her disappearance has turned my life and that of my family upside down.

As you can imagine, going back to work after such a tragedy and focusing on work when all you think about is that you have to look for her and that perhaps she needs help is very difficult. When Julie disappeared, a great many things were going through our heads. We were looking for her, we were wondering what happened.

In addition, Julie had a sister. They were 13 months apart. They were almost like twins. I had to be there for my other daughter, because a lot of things were going through her head. She was at risk of getting into drugs, committing suicide, and so on. For parents, when you are at work, thinking of all those things, and when you sometimes have to leave work all of a sudden, an initiative like this is important.

AFPAD is in full support of Bill C-44 that was introduced by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Ms. Finley. The financial assistance initiative for parents of murdered or missing children will come into effect in 2013 and it will support 1,000 families a year. AFPAD made the request for the new income support benefit a number of years ago. The compensation is $350 a week and it will be provided for 35 weeks.

Some of our members lost their jobs because they did not have the strength to go back to work after a murder or disappearance. By helping parents take a few weeks of respite, we enable workers to get their strength back and to be better equipped to return to the workforce one day.

I urge all members of Parliament to vote in favour of this bill, thereby sending a clear message to victims. We have to help victims get through the very difficult months that follow the death or disappearance of their child. This period is crucial for a father and a mother.

On behalf of AFPAD, I would like to thank the minister and Senator Boisvenu, who have made it possible to turn this historic request from AFPAD into a reality. Put yourselves in the shoes of parents whose children have disappeared or have been murdered. You will understand that this bill is fair and that it is high time that it was passed.

Thank you all, and thank you for voting in favour of this important bill for victims of crime in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. Surprenant, for being prepared to share with this committee, notwithstanding that you've gone through your own personal loss and anguish.

I know you invite us to imagine what it may be like, but it's difficult for us to even imagine the anguish and how difficult the moment must be for parents, and the time after. Certainly we need to keep in mind those who have to go through the situation. Anything we can do to help is certainly something we should do.

We'll move now to Ms. Harvey for her presentation.

Please go ahead.

[Yvonne Harvey, Chair and Co-founder, Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc.]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to address the committee on Bill C-44. My presentation will focus primarily on the benefits that the bill will provide to those individuals whose employment is regulated by the Canada Labour Code.

My name is Yvonne Harvey, and I am the chair and co-founder of Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims, which is a national charitable organization, first formed in 2009, to provide ongoing emotional support, education, and assistance to parents and to all survivors of homicide victims, while promoting awareness and education for all Canadians.

When a wife loses a husband, she's called a widow. When a husband loses a wife, he's called a widower. When a child loses his or her parents, the child is called an orphan. But there's no word for a parent who loses a child, because that's how awful the loss is.

I'm here today in support of Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act. As the mother of a murdered child, I can attest to the unexpected burdens that parents, through no fault of their own, are challenged with in the aftermath of murder. In the next five minutes, it would be impossible to explain in any depth the emotional, psychological, physical, and financial impact that a parent experiences when a child has been murdered.

Few people can appreciate the true impact of murder on a family, yet any one of us could find ourselves in this position. One day we are leading a normal life, and the next day we are thrust into a foreign world, through no choice of our own, having to deal with police, lawyers, courts, and intrusive media at the very same time that we are dealing with having just lost our child to murder.

The day that changes one's life rarely comes with a warning, yet in an instant, in the time it takes to pick up a telephone, life as we once knew it disappears. The future becomes a struggle between moving on and hanging on.

We are left with a hole in our soul. We are now challenged with reconstructing our lives. There is no guidebook to tell us how to do this, because everyone's journey is as unique as one's fingerprint. Living in the aftermath of murder is a constant emotional and spiritual struggle.

Unpredictable and complex challenges flood into our lives. These are challenges that threaten to, and often do, destabilize the family unit. We may be facing an unexpected financial burden as a result of a child loss, because in the initial months following the murder, we may be incapable of performing our jobs in a productive and competent manner. There are unforeseen health issues that are brought on by ongoing stressors, very often from re-victimization as a result of dealing with the criminal justice system and the intrusive media.

In my case, I had to return to work just five weeks after my daughter was murdered due to financial and work obligations. I did not have the benefit of having the critical time necessary to seek support and focus on addressing my own trauma. It is now five years, nine months, and two days since my daughter, Chrissy, was murdered. I don't believe that progress through this life-changing event is attainable without the time to address the trauma and the complicated grief that accompanies murder. We can go on for years emotionally paralyzed.

Bill C-44 will amend the Canada Labour Code by providing an unpaid leave of absence for up to 52 weeks for parents who have a child missing as a result of a suspected criminal act, and for up to 104 weeks for parents whose child has been murdered, while ensuring job protection.

This is a very progressive, necessary step forward. Every parent of a murdered child can benefit from a leave of absence. It will provide the much-needed time for parents to help themselves and their families through this difficult ordeal.

In conclusion, I want to address the addition of the financial subsidy under the recently announced federal income support program. This subsidy will be critical in alleviating some of the additional financial hardships that parents of murdered children encounter, by providing $350 per week for up to 35 weeks to those parents whose employment does not fall under the Canada Labour Code. These initiatives are unprecedented. CPOMC applauds the Conservative government for these common-sense changes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Ms. Harvey.

Certainly as a parent of a child, I can't think of a more awful circumstance, as you say. Life certainly does change in an instant. It's certainly understandable that there would be a hole left in your soul, as you say. You need time to address the trauma, and the grieving process, for sure, is complicated. The five-week period that was afforded you was certainly not a reasonable period of time. We can certainly sympathize with you. I'm sure the hearts of everyone here on the committee go out to you.

I invite Madame Boutin-Sweet to start the first round of questions.

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

Thank you.

This is tough. I would first like to tell you that everyone here is in favour of the bill. It is essential.

I have two grown sons and I can't even imagine what it would be like to lose them. However, I have a vague idea, because, in 1995, my cousin was tortured and then beaten to death. The fact that he was an adult did not make it less difficult for his family. He was 44, and his sister hopes that no one ever has to experience what she had to go through at that time. What you have experienced is even more difficult, because it was your own child.

Rest assured that everyone on this side of the table—and I am sure it applies to both sides—is in favour of this bill. That is why we voted for it to be studied in committee. We also wanted to make sure that it is fair for everyone.

You mentioned a few features that could be changed. We also feel that amendments should be made, and that is why we have brought it before the committee. Let me assure you that the questions that we are going to ask you today will go in that direction. No one should be left behind. But families that might need support would not necessarily be included in the bill as it currently stands.

My first question is for Mr. Surprenant, Ms. Harvey or Ms. O'Sullivan.

We are talking about an unpaid leave of 52 weeks for parents of missing children. The bill provides for up to 104 weeks for parents of murdered children and a benefit of $350 for 35 weeks. You mentioned that there were significant and unexpected expenses in those cases.

In your view, is that amount enough? Could you also tell us what type of expenses you incurred so that we can have a better idea of the real needs?

[Yvonne Harvey]

Well, will there ever be enough? I don't think there will ever be enough, but if we're talking about tangible costs, everyone is different. Everyone's situation and circumstances are different, including the circumstances around the crime, whether or not there's a conviction, and whether children are involved.

I can only speak for myself. In my situation, I incurred expenses. My child was over the age of 18, and the initial expense was $3,000 to take possession of her body because she was still not legally divorced. I was not really considered the next of kin; her husband was, who was charged with her murder.

So the first expense was $3,000, and then we had expenses in excess of about $8,000 that had to cover bringing my daughter home and two funerals: one in the province in which she was murdered and one in Ontario. We had other travel expenses in having to go back and forth to Newfoundland, where the murder happened, to take care of various things. We had a little 15-month-old baby, and we had to go to court to protect that baby. That bill, as far as I can tell you right now, is in excess of $60,000.

In addition to that, I contribute about $600 a month to my brother and my sister-in-law, who have custody of my little granddaughter in that province. That is to contribute to her expenses and her extracurricular activities, which they want her involved in.

Then, in addition to that, there are all the other expenses that I've incurred in terms of helping myself, because there is no reciprocating agreement between provinces when it comes to victim services, which is a whole other issue. After almost six years, I'm now getting trauma help. That costs me $175 an hour, twice a month.

When you talk about expenses, everyone is different. I don't know if any amount would really be enough, but certainly $350 would contribute to some of those expenses, the day-to-day expenses we have, regardless of the additional expenses we incur.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Madame Boutin-Sweet. Your time is up.

Does anyone else wish to comment?

Go ahead, Ms. O'Sullivan.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I would just add that with the Canada Labour Code, one of the things we heard from victims on this is that they definitely see it as a positive step forward, but they would offer that the category should be broadened to include—and I think it reflects your comments—first of all, eliminating the age requirement.

We've just heard from Yvonne about the age of her daughter when she was murdered. There's this huge issue of whether your child is 18 or your child is 19, so eliminate the age requirement. Also, speaking directly to your comments, broaden that category to include spouses and siblings in terms of who would have access. Some of the feedback obviously is to broaden that category for crimes and include victims and their families, so that if the victim suffers serious physical or psychological harm and is required to be off work, they also would be able to have access.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you.

Monsieur Surprenant.

[Michel Surprenant]

I would like to add that, in a situation like ours, a disappearance where the body was never found, we have no answers. I am not exactly sure how to word this, but let us just say that, for adults, it is easier to accept the situation, whereas, for children, the trauma is much more severe. It is their brother or sister, after all.

First, they are not prepared to go through something like that. Second, you have to find specialists who have the experience and ability to treat those types of cases. And money is often wasted until you find someone with enough experience. The fact remains that you spend days trying to keep your own family together because it is falling apart as a result of the tragedy.

That is the point that I wanted to clarify. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you very much for those additional comments.

We'll now proceed to Mr. Daniel.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. It's obviously a very trying and difficult time for you to talk about these issues, but I certainly can relate a little to some of this, and certainly we're trying to make this legislation a little more helpful to families of some of the victims.

I was really looking to see what comments you can provide us on the new benefits in this legislation and on the challenges faced when provincial and federal workplaces are compared.

[Yvonne Harvey]

I will address that first. Certainly the benefit of having the job protection and having that opportunity to have that leave of absence would provide for someone like myself to be able to take the time off to get the help I need.

I guess the best way to explain it is that when there is a murder, it's not just a grief process you go through. When your child has been murdered, there's an element of trauma that's attached to that. If you don't deal with trauma, you will never go through the grief process, and that's why after almost six years I have decided that I need to have a specialist who is trained in trauma to help me deal with the trauma. I don't believe, personally, that I've gone through the grief process yet. I've been six years sitting on the fence waiting for justice. We still don't have justice; it's still in the courts. Every time I get a telephone call, it reactivates that trauma.

Having that period of time where I could just focus on myself and help myself to get into a place where I could help existing children or existing family members—although in this case it was my only child who was murdered—is an important thing.

With regard to the challenges faced with the provincial and the federal workplace, 90% of the employees in Canada fall under the provincial or territorial labour code, so only 10% fall under the Canada Labour Code. It would be my hope that the provinces see this as an example and be proactive and make amendments in their labour codes to ensure equality right across the country. That is my hope, but unfortunately we have seen examples with victim services and the inequality there because of provincial and territorial boundaries.

I'm just hoping this might be seen differently and that they take that initiative, because we all deserve to have that. As I said, every parent deserves to have that, and we should not be limited by territorial or provincial boundaries if we do not fall under the Canada Labour Code.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Could I add one point to that?

I would certainly echo the comments about the amount of variability among the services for victims. Also some of the feedback I have had is that everyone is aware that the administration of justice and the court process are at the provincial and territorial levels, so if you wanted to improve this, one thought might be to allow for some flexibility as to when a parent may take this.

We know that if there is a murder, the court case may be several years down the road, so to provide an option and some flexibility—for example, a parent may choose to take a certain amount of time at the time of the crime, and then, if the criminal court process is two years down the road, they may need to have time then as well. That could be one way you could improve, by allowing some flexibility.

Also, in some cases the person responsible may not be apprehended for a while. I'm just saying adding that flexibility would provide parents of murdered and missing children an opportunity to take the time when it's appropriate for them, when they need that time.

Thank you.

[Michel Surprenant]

Along the lines of what Ms. O'Sullivan mentioned, it must be said that many things go on in the first stages after a disappearance or murder. That takes up a lot of time, but things start to change gradually. There are some peak periods, and then there are slower periods. So, as Ms. O'Sullivan said, I think the possibility of having more flexibility should be considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. Daniel. Your time is up.

I appreciate your sharing your personal circumstances. In fact, six years have gone by and the grieving process is not yet complete. We understand that, and it is more reason for that opportunity, the time that's provided for some of the benefits here. Certainly the process takes much longer and is far deeper than many would appreciate.

We'll now go to Monsieur Lapointe.

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

Ms. Harvey and Mr. Surprenant, first and foremost, I would like to tell you how much I admire you. You have gone through the most painful experience in life and you have managed to find the courage to transform it into public action to help people who, like you, have gone or will go through what is surely the most painful thing in life.

So I would first and foremost like to tell you that you have all our admiration. Let me assure you that everyone on this committee is dedicated to having this bill passed in Parliament.

[Michel Surprenant]

As I listen to your remarks, I think of families who do not have the opportunity to vent like us, by presenting, explaining and discussing the problem, which allows us some catharsis. I think of families who do not have this possibility and who, since they do not have any other means, have to consult specialists who are not always competent. That is where this initiative becomes important.

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

Thank you.

Frankly, regardless of what shape or form this bill will take, our party is going to support it. However, in the NDP's view, the only reason for the committee to meet and study the bill should be to see if we cannot make some improvements. It is important to be very clear.

For example, the minister has already met with us on this topic and she was very open to the concept of stacking. Let’s take the example of a person who received benefits for 50 weeks after their child disappeared. If after those 50 weeks, the child is discovered dead, I think it is essential for the person to be entitled to their benefits and to their leave of absence after the death of a child. It should be possible to accumulate all that, which the minister calls stacking. Those are the types of elements that we are going to examine together to see how far we can go to ensure that there is a minimum degree of consistency between what is on paper and the extreme pain those people have experienced. By the way, I have three children, so I can understand the pain that one may feel.

So could you comment on the possibility of accumulating benefits when, unfortunately, a tragedy leads to another tragedy?

Mr. Surprenant, there is another question that I really don’t want to ask you, but that I need an answer to in order to be able to conduct this study. If what had happened to your daughter, which is unbearable and unacceptable, would have happened after she had just turned 19, would your experience have been less painful? Would you have had the same needs? I believe I know the answer, but the committee has to make this aspect as clear as possible. Our opinion is that the age limit cannot be set at 18 years.

Your opinion on this is important to us.

[Michel Surprenant]

There is absolutely no way we can set an age limit. Whether your child is 16 or 24, the trauma is the same.

Actually, it is important for the legislation that will come into force to leave the door open to improvements based on what is going to happen. We can try to foresee everything, but there will always be exceptions that we did not anticipate. So my hope is that you will leave the legislation open so that it can be improved according to situations that will occur.

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

What do you think, Ms. Harvey?

[Yvonne Harvey]

I would go back to what you initially described as “stacking”.

You're asking, if I understand you correctly, that if there was a missing child and someone took 35 weeks, 45 weeks, and then at some point down the road the child's body was found and it was obviously a homicide, that would start again. You're asking if they would be able to apply once again, correct?