Evidence of meeting #54 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:50 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
At the finance committee yesterday, apparently there were instructions to several committees, including ours, to study parts of Bill C-45, so I'm seeking unanimous consent for the presentation today of the following motion: that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities immediately commence a study, as has been requested by the Standing Committee on Finance in their motion adopted on October 31, 2012—
8:50 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
—into the subject matter of clauses 219 to 222 in Bill C-45—
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Excuse me. Hold on for a minute.
I'm told that you can't move a motion on a point of order. That's a fact, so we won't entertain that. We'll deal with the clause-by-clause consideration, but I can assure you that we have a provision in the agenda to deal with committee business after we do clause by clause. You can certainly move your motion at that point. I so rule.
Okay. Now, we're here to do clause-by-clause study with respect to Bill C-44, as stated pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 2, 2012, for Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations.
In going through the clause-by-clause consideration, we are fortunate to have here with us, from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, Jean-François Roussy, director, self-employed and other initiatives, employment insurance policy, and Lenore Duff, senior director, strategic policy and legislative reform labour program. Of course, we're dealing with amendments that affect both areas, and they're here to answer any technical questions you may have as we go forward.
I might say, just to give you some idea of how we might plan to proceed, that we won't deal with the title initially. We'll wait until the end to do that. We will go through the clauses one by one. I do know that there have been a series of amendments by both the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.
When we get to that point, I would then invite you to move your motion. We will deal with it in terms of whether it's in order or out of order and then proceed accordingly from there.
8:50 a.m.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
I just want to be clear on this. You said that when we get to that motion, you will call on us, or we have to...?
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
I'll just say that we're at the point where we have an amendment from the New Democratic Party and I'll ask if you would wish to speak to it or move it. Then we can have the discussion around it.
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
That's just so we know that we'll go through all the amendments one by one.
We'll start with the fact that the short title will be postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).
We'll then commence with clause 2. I might mention that the first amendment we have deals with clause 5, so if there are no amendments, I would propose that clauses 2, 3, and 4 be severally carried. Unless I see any objections to that, I'll assume that we have unanimous consent.
(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 5)
That will bring us, then, to clause 5, and there is an NDP amendment, NDP-1. You should have had circulated to you those various amendments.
There are two amendments to clause 5, one Liberal and one NDP. The NDP one came in first, so we'll deal with NDP-1 and page 3 of the bill.
Go ahead.
8:50 a.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To simplify, what we propose with this amendment is to define “child” separately from a definition of “critically ill”, because the definition of “child” right now under Bill C-44 is a cut-off at 18. We want the definition of “child” pulled out separately from “critically ill”, because, for example, in the case of a parent of a mentally challenged person in their twenties, thirties, or forties, say, who has the mental capacity of a child, we would like to have that separate from “critically ill”. That's the rationale for this amendment.
8:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
I am told that would be in order, not necessarily for the reason you specified but because the definition of “child” wouldn't be known until the regulations were passed. If the regulations were to say that the child was 18 years or less, it would be in order, and if they didn't, it wouldn't be. We don't know that except by what you're saying.
I'll go along with your advice to say that's in order as an amendment. We'll allow that amendment to go forward.
You've moved NDP-1 and explained it. We'll then have a vote on that.
8:55 a.m.
NDP
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
8:55 a.m.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
I spoke, for example,
my cousin who was murdered at 44 years of age and of the way this has affected his family.
With this amendment, we would give the government the chance to change the definition. I feel there is an opening here. Some families in need may have children who are 22 or 23 years old and are unable to function alone. With this amendment, we would be able to help as many families as possible.
8:55 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I have essentially the same point. This amendment is admissible because it leaves it to regulations and doesn't actually change the intent of the act. The EI regulations themselves will in fact be capable of being altered by the government in order to incorporate persons over the age of 18 who are physically and emotionally dependent upon their parents, thereby solving the problem we heard from many witnesses that the age of 18 seemed to be an arbitrary and not reasonable cut-off point in some circumstances.
This amendment would allow the government itself, without actually changing the terms of the act, to redefine the term “child” to incorporate more than a limit at the age of 18.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Just so you know, the mike is being controlled by the person behind us. We don't need to control it along with him, but it's up to you, of course.
Mr. Lapointe, you have the floor.
8:55 a.m.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to state that everything that has been moved by my colleagues is absolutely fair and justified and, even more importantly, has been systematically confirmed by various witnesses. When they were asked if they would have been affected differently if their child had been 19 or 20 years old, I do not remember any one of them saying anything but no. Even if their child had been 19, 20 or 21 years old, they would have been shattered and broken in the same manner.
Even more, for people older than that, the reasons may not be the same. Let us consider a 40-year-old who becomes critically ill. Obviously, that person will have a support network and will not be in the same situation as an 18- or a 19-year-old, but that does not mean that the family would be any less affected. Take my own case. Were I to become critically ill, I would certainly be better organized than when I was 18, because I have insurance policies and things of that nature. However, I have children, and my mother would be absolutely shattered to see her grandchildren having to face such a tragedy.
So, for all these reasons, I think it we should not set the limit at 18 years of age. I want to reiterate that all the witnesses we have heard on this matter have said that the limit should not be set at 18 years of age. Their family tragedy would have been just as terrible if their child had been 19, 20 or 21 years of age.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
We do have a speaking list. We have Ms. Leitch and then we'll go to Mr. McColeman.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you very much.
With respect to a couple of items that have been raised, the intent behind this is to deal with critically ill individuals, particularly children. The difference between “critically ill” versus “disabled” is very clearly defined for those of us in the health care profession. I deal with many critically ill children as a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. They come through the emergency department having been in car accidents and such.
We heard of the critically ill child who has cancer. It's very different from the patient population with cerebral palsy or muscular dystrophy. I think we have to be very clear with respect to the definition of “critically ill” versus “disabled”.
The second component with respect to age is that age is clearly outlined. In the United Nations charter, a “child” is age 18 and under. In this country, children are clearly outlined at children's' hospitals. We have those clear definitions, mainly because children are different. For example, in my subspecialty, children's bones are very different from adult bones. The last thing you want is to be brought to me at the hospital as an adult, because I'm actually not the best person to take care of you. Adults and children have very different physiology, and adults and children are treated in a very different manner. We want to make sure that we're clear about that for health care professionals who will be making these assessments, and also for individuals who require critical care. The age definition has been clearly outlined by the United Nations as well as pediatricians across this country.
Thank you.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I'll speak from a different point of view, being in the exact situation that the opposition is describing with my 26-year-old intellectually disabled son.
When a child becomes an adult in this category, he qualifies for a whole series of different benefits, typically administered by the province. In Ontario, it's called ODSP. They start to be cared for with different supplements as adults, and they're treated as adults. In fact, parents have to go through the process of becoming their official guardian. You lose the status.
This bill is intended to help those in need before that happens, before those extra supports are put in place. I don't want a portrait painted to suggest that all of a sudden they fall off the map; they don't. They're picked up by social supports in other programs.