Bill C-44 (Historical)

Helping Families in Need Act

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

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to provide an employee with the right to take leave when a child of the employee is critically ill or dies or disappears as the probable result of a crime. It also makes technical amendments to that Act.
Furthermore, the enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to provide benefits to claimants who are providing care or support to their critically ill child and to facilitate access to sickness benefits for claimants who are in receipt of parental benefits.
Lastly, the enactment makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

All right, I've got your amendments. I think it's fair to deal with both NDP-7 and NDP-8, as they essentially have the same premise and the same basis.

The ruling is as follows. Clause 18 of Bill C-44 states that the benefits under this section end the last day of the week the child dies. Amendments NDP-7 and NDP-8 propose that the benefits end two weeks after the day on which the child dies, or probably the last day the child dies.

House of Commons Practice and Procedure, second edition, states on pages 767 to 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, NDP-7 and NDP-8 represent an extension of the period during which the benefits can be claimed by an employee, which seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendments are inadmissible.

This ruling also applies to LIB-6 and LIB-7, which seek to amend the same lines and achieve the same results.

(Clause 18 agreed to)

(Clauses 19 to 22 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 23)

We will now go to clause 23, which has amendment LIB-8. Can you identify that in the bill for me?

Mr. Cuzner, it seems to be similar. Do you wish to make any comments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

So moved. All right.

Well, it's an interesting way of getting there, but I have to rule on whether the amendment is admissible or not, given the preamble and the clarification.

Clause 18 of Bill C-44 states that benefits can be paid to a major attachment claimant who is a parent of a critically ill child. Amendment LIB-5 proposes to extend these benefits to a minor attachment claimant who has 420 hours or more of insurable employment.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 to 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, LIB-5 represents an extension of the categories of claimants to whom benefits would be available and would seek to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendment LIB-5 is inadmissible.

We have NDP-7. Perhaps you can identify it for me in the bill.

If you wish to move that amendment, Mr. Sullivan, you can read it or just simply move it as we have it.

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

The amendment is as follows :

That Bill C-44, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 16 on page 9 with the following: "(d) defining "child", enlarging the meaning of "critically ill".

That is the amendment.

The point would be to define the word "child" for the same reasons as before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Okay.

All right, so then we will go to amendment NDP-5. Can you identify that for me? NDP-5 relates to page 6.

Move NDP-5, and I'll indicate what it says. It asks:

That Bill C-44, in clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 6 with the following:

“(2), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 104 weeks to which he or she is entitled, or

(ii) in the case of leave under subsection (3), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 52 weeks to which he or she is entitled.”

This amendment would relate to the flexibility of being able to take those leaves, and I'm advised again that this particular amendment is out of order. Clause 6 of Bill C-44 states that leave of absence ends 104 weeks after the day of the death of a child occurs or 52 weeks after the day on which the disappearance occurs. Amendment NDP-5 proposes that these periods be 104 weeks or 52 weeks, notwithstanding these restrictions in the bill.

Again, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 766: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, amendment NDP-5 represents an extension of the period during which the leave of absence may be taken, which is beyond the scope of the bill and therefore inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

It's out of order. I'll indicate why, and then I suppose you can appeal a decision of the chair, if you wish.

Clause 6 of Bill C-44 defines a child as a person who is under 18 years of age. Amendment NDP-4 proposes to extend this definition of child to persons over 18 years of age. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment NDP-4, which enlarges the definition of “child” to persons over the age of 18, is beyond the scope of Bill C-44 and is therefore inadmissible. At this point you can, if you wish, appeal the chair's decision or challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

It's out of order, and I'll tell you why again. Clause 5 of Bill C-44 states that leave related to this part of the clause ends on the last day of the week when the last of the children dies. Amendment NDP-3 proposes that this leave would expire two weeks after the day on which the last of the children dies. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading...is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of NDP-3 represents an extension of leave included in clause 5 of the bill, which is beyond the scope of the bill and is therefore inadmissible. This ruling also applies to LIB-3, which seeks to amend the same line and to achieve the same result. Essentially this deals with much the same idea as the former amendment, as it relates to the one child.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I have a ruling with respect to that amendment. Clause 5 of Bill C-44 states that leave related to this part is of a maximum of 37 weeks. The amendment proposes that this leave be extended to 52 weeks. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading...is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, and pursuant to advice, the introduction of the LIB-1 amendment represents an extension of leave included in clause 5 of the bill, which is beyond the scope of the bill and is therefore inadmissible. I might mention also that LIB-3 is correlated to LIB-1, and this ruling will apply to the LIB-3 amendment as well.

Now we'll go to NDP-2. It relates to page 4 of the bill, clause 5. Amendment NDP-2 essentially talks about the end dates. I'll let the NDP move that motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Lapointe.

[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.

[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.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

Absolutely, and as a matter of fact, I may just even refer to my testimony last week on Bill C-44. I think we heard very powerfully from families who had lost loved ones to homicide. They talked about the impact on the other siblings in the family in terms of the supports they need.

We heard, again, about the definition of “victim”. For example, in the U.K. they use the words “victim witness”. There are many people who are touched by a crime. In families, particularly in a homicide, people often will say that the siblings are the silent ones who we don't hear from but who are obviously tremendously impacted.

We know from research and studies that many families—I'll just use homicide as an example—will go through not just loss of income, but also the need for supports and other concurrent issues that may recur as a result of their victimization. We need to have those supports in place to ensure that families and victims are able to cope with the aftermath of a crime, through the criminal justice system and beyond.

[Stephen Moreau]

—I do support Bill C-44 because it's clarifying the existence of this sickness benefit during a parental leave. If you want the absolute, frank, honest truth—as in, what does the law provide for today, with or without Bill C-44?—since March 3, 2002, by removing the anti-stacking or by removing what we call the caps, it has already provided for the provision of a sickness benefit during parental leave.

On the example you mentioned about a case...Ms. Rougas was my client. She was given a sickness benefit even though she got cancer in the middle of her parental leave. She was given that because of the Liberal amendments in 2002 to Bill C-49.

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

By the way, I also wanted to say that I share your opinion. This money should not come from employment insurance, as there is not much money in that account as it is.

My next question is for Mr. Moreau.

In the document you sent us, it says that Bill C-44 will not allow a parent to go on sickness leave shortly after taking a maternity leave. In other words, if a maternity leave ends and, a week later, the person finds out they are sick, they will have to work 600 hours to be eligible for sickness leave. Did I understand that correctly?

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

Thank you, Sir, Madam.

Ms. MacEwen, you talked about employment insurance. To be eligible, parents of murdered or missing children have to have earned $6,500 over the course of the year, and not to have worked a certain number of hours. You mentioned that some people had a lower income. So those people will be at a disadvantage, even though their needs are that much greater because of their lower income.

For instance, a person who earns $10 an hour must put in 150 hours, while people who earn $20 an hour must put in half that number of hours.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Can you tell us what kind of amendments could be made to Bill C-44?

[Stephen Moreau, Lawyer, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP]

Thank you, and good morning, members of the committee. Greetings from Toronto, and for Ms. Leitch, greetings from Wasaga Beach, where I visited a cottage a few weeks ago.

I will be brief. I'm speaking very specifically about clauses 15 and 21, which are the clauses that deal with enhancing or clarifying the ability to provide a sickness benefit during a parental leave period. I'm only speaking to that smaller set of amendments in Bill C-44.

I should open by saying that although I'm going to speak a little more narrowly about those particular provisions, the fact that I don't touch on some of the points Ms. MacEwen makes shouldn't be taken to mean I don't agree with her. I think everything Ms. MacEwen said about the employment insurance system and some of its problematic aspects are entirely true.

In fact, the Federal Court of Appeal, in a case called Lazure, essentially echoed some of these comments that the witness made without necessarily finding a violation of what we call section 15 equality rights in the charter, but it did find that the act does disproportionately affect women in the workforce. Insofar as the committee is looking at that, what Witness MacEwen has to say is entirely accurate and should be paid special attention to.

As I said, I'm focusing specifically on clauses 15 and 21, the addition of the sickness benefit. In my view, this is a provision that on its face does call for the committee's support. I believe it is helpful to clarify in the Employment Insurance Act that an individual, and it's predominantly a woman, who falls ill during their parental leave should be entitled to claim a sickness leave benefit.

I approach this from a different perspective from most, if not all, of the witnesses who have presented to the committee. I am a lawyer, and more specifically I'm a lawyer to a number of individuals who have successfully made EI sickness leave claims during or toward the end of their parental leave. My specialty is employment insurance, and I have litigated quite a number of employment insurance cases. From my perspective, the main reason to support this bill is that through my work I've come to believe that the special benefits are of great assistance to working Canadians.

Once you start paying additional benefits to people for socially good reasons, such as caring for children, caring for relatives, taking maternity leave, or because of illness...paying people during temporary periods of unemployment does help with their return to the marketplace. It does serve the main purpose of employment insurance, which is to provide for a gradual return to the market. So I support any additional provisions that provide for additional benefits.

I want to stress, though, and you may have seen this in my brief, that while I support Bill C-44, and particularly again clauses 15 and 21 and those amendments as clarificatory provisions, the reality is that these provisions are not specifically necessary. Bill C-49 in 2002 already provided for those benefits, for the ability of individuals who fall sick during their parental leave to make a sickness claim during their parental leave. Those provisions and that interpretation of those provisions were upheld in the umpire award under the EI Act, which I provided as appendix A to my brief.

To some extent, while I support the bill as a means of clarification, I do not necessarily stand with the idea that the bill is, strictly speaking, necessary. That being said, the fact that historically the House and this committee have supported these kinds of provisions in the past is another reason why we should consider supporting Bill C-44 and in particular clauses 15 and 21.

I don't want to say anything more at this point, as I do want to leave plenty of time for questions, which I always think are helpful.

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to present, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I ask the chair, since we are focused on Bill C-44 and are talking about critically ill children and murdered and missing children, that you request of our presenters that they stay within the scope of what we're discussing today. I'd appreciate her opinion with respect to this bill.