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.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much.

I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is the national voice of 3.3 million workers across Canada. They bring together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour—130 district labour councils whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canada economy, in all occupations and in all parts of Canada. I'll be focusing my comments on the EI portion of the bill.

EI is a critically important program for Canadian workers, especially in tough times like we face today. Introducing 35 weeks of benefits for parents of critically ill children is a welcome addition to employment insurance. This change recognizes that the current six weeks of compassionate care is insufficient in many cases. Critically ill family members often require substantial care, even if they are not terminally ill.

While it's not paid from EI funds, the grants of $350 per week for up to 35 weeks for the parents of murdered or missing children is also good news. However, we feel this grant shares some of the weaknesses of benefits administered through the EI system because it requires applicants to have earned a minimum level of income and to have taken time away from paid work. It should be recognized that parents of sick, missing, or murdered children face costs that go far beyond lost wages, so predicating a grant on labour market income in this situation, we believe, is problematic.

As for enhancements to employment insurance put forward in Bill C-44, we would like to note that our EI program already leaves too many Canadian workers, especially women and low-wage insecure workers, out in the cold. For most of the past 12 months, only four in ten or fewer than four in ten unemployed workers have been able to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. When adjusted for inflation, the maximum weekly benefit of $485 a week is much less than it was in 1996—about 20% less—and the average benefit now is only $371 per week.

This program is worse when we look at how it works for women workers. Cuts in the mid-1990s affecting who is eligible and the amount of benefits paid sharply reduced the supporting role of EI, especially for women. This matters because it is often women who take up the special caretaking benefits.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

I'm going to call the meeting back to order.

I want to welcome Mr. Stephen Moreau and Ms. MacEwen. Thank you so much for being here to give us expert testimony on Bill C-44.

Ms. MacEwen, if you would like to go first, then, Mr. Moreau, I'll ask you to make your presentation, and then we'll do a round of questioning on both presentations at the same time.

Ms. MacEwen, you have the floor.

[Marie Adèle Davis, Executive Director, Canadian Paediatric Society]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Paediatric Society to present to you today.

I'm Marie Adèle Davis, the executive director. I'm pleased to address you on behalf of more than 3,000 pediatric specialists and subspecialists who are our members from across Canada.

CPS members represent the physicians who are caring for the children, youth, and their families who will benefit from the changes proposed in Bill C-44. We applaud the Canadian government for understanding the particular challenges faced by parents of gravely ill children, the need for them to be at the child's bedside in the hospital, their ability to stay home and care for their recently discharged child, and the necessity for parents to be available to make health care decisions on behalf of their child throughout the illness. Further, the proposed legislation recognizes the emotional stress of having a child afflicted by cancer, severely injured in a life-threatening situation, or at the end stage of an incurable genetic disorder.

Like the Canadian Cancer Society, CPS also supports that flexibility be built into the legislation, that it recognize that the parents of a gravely ill child may not be taking all the leave at any one time in a given 52-week period. Given the resilience of kids, even those facing a life-threatening illness, they may be able to return to normal life for periods of time, attending school and other activities. The fact that Bill C-44 would allow parents to re-apply for the benefit, should the child have a serious relapse, is also practical. We also fully support that the benefit can be shared between parents, ensuring that both can be fully involved in the care of their gravely ill child.

The Canadian Pediatric Society can work with the Canadian government to ensure the smooth implementation of Bill C-44.

Since our members make up the majority of physicians who will fill out forms for families, we would like to help design the forms, to ensure their ease of use. The forms must be created by taking child and youth health into consideration, and not just by modifying forms designed for adults' health care needs. We think that, if a family-oriented form is designed, the benefit application process will be much smoother and red tape will be reduced.

It's important to remember that physicians caring for gravely ill children are extremely busy. We want to make sure that they devote their time to families rather than to paperwork and the appeal process.

CPS would also welcome the opportunity to refine the definition of gravely ill, to make it as workable as possible for family pediatricians and the federal employees managing the program. Under the compassionate care benefit, the definition criterion was that death was expected within six months. This is very hard for pediatric specialists to predict. Children are amazingly resilient and can beat seemingly insurmountable odds at various times during a critical illness. So it is very difficult to predict death with any certainty.

Further, the whole practice of pediatrics is based on hope for the future. Pediatricians work hand in hand with the family to ensure that kids have the best possible chance at life. To deliver a diagnosis of certain death within six months is just not something a pediatric specialist can do or will do, as it takes away from the hope that is critical to working towards a positive outcome.

In closing, the Canadian Paediatric Society is very supportive of the changes proposed in Bill C-44. We do encourage the government to work closely with us to ensure the smooth implementation of the bill and to realize all its potential to support the parents of gravely ill children and youth.

Thank you.

[Jane Kittmer, As an Individual]

Good morning.

I am pleased to be here today to tell you my story. I hope it encourages you to pass Bill C-44 and make some much needed changes to the EI Act.

I gave birth to my second son, Nolan, on March 9, 2010. I had a very uncomfortable pregnancy, as I felt very ill and tired, but doctors assured me this was normal for a second pregnancy. In my 36th week of pregnancy it was determined that the baby's growth had slowed or stopped and they decided to induce me early.

Within an hour of giving birth to my healthy baby, the doctors detected a mass in my abdomen. After an MRI it was determined that I had a large tumour that was suspected, and later confirmed, to be from my adrenal gland. I had surgery seven weeks later and the tumour was successfully removed, along with my right kidney and gall bladder. It appeared the tumour hadn't spread. It was confirmed that this tumour was adrenal cortical carcinoma, that is, cancer of the cortex of the adrenal gland. That is a very rare and very aggressive form of cancer.

Although it was hoped that all the cancer had been removed, it was suggested that I take daily chemotherapy, ideally for five years. I started taking daily chemotherapy—it was a drug called mitotane—on July 1, 2010, and I took it until July 26, 2011, when I stopped because the side effects of the drug were greatly affecting and greatly reducing my quality of life. This chemotherapy drug builds up and stores in the fatty tissue of the body, so the side effects have remained, but they're thankfully wearing off as time passes.

During the 16 months when I gave birth, had surgery, and took chemotherapy, I wasn't able to look after myself, my children, and my home without a great deal of help from my husband, my family, and hired help. Two and a half years have passed since this all began and I have still not returned to work because of the lingering side effects of the chemotherapy.

I don't usually tell this story to this many people.

I started dealing with Service Canada before my surgery in 2010 and I am still dealing with them. I assumed it would be an easy conversion from maternity benefits to sick benefits, but I was shocked when I was told from the beginning that I wouldn't get sick benefits. I have spent many hours talking to people about this. I appealed the denial of the sick benefits to the board of referees—and I have done this all while I was sick.

In my case, I did not fall ill after the start of my maternity leave. I was very ill prior to giving birth and prior to the start of my maternity leave. My condition was finally diagnosed immediately after giving birth and after the start of my maternity leave.

My fight for additional benefits was more about the time I lost with my sons than the financial penalty of not getting sick benefits.

An additional 15 weeks of benefits would have been a welcome improvement; however, it wouldn't have seen me through the chemotherapy. To say this was a difficult, stressful, and devastating period is a gross understatement. I don't think that anyone should have to fight for sick benefits when they need it the most.

Changing the legislation to allow stacking EI benefits would be extremely beneficial for those who are sick when on special benefits. It would give a person additional time to hopefully improve, health-wise, so they don't have to return to work sick, or give them more time to make major life decisions.

l'm sure there are more mothers who are facing the same situation, and many of those need the financial benefit and recovery time of sick benefits. I am very happy to see there are proposed changes to the existing system.

Thank you.

[Denise Page]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning. I am Denise Page, Senior Health Policy Analyst for the Canadian Cancer Society.

On behalf of cancer patients and their families, we thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to speak about problems in access to special benefits and to highlight the improvements Bill C-44 will bring.

The Canadian Cancer Society is a national, community-based organization of volunteers whose mission is to eradicate cancer and enhance the quality of life of people with cancer. For a few years, the society has been calling for special benefits for parents of children with cancer. We want those benefits to reflect the reality the parents face. Currently, the only benefits parents have the right to are six weeks of compassionate care benefits, if a physician certifies the death of their child in the next six months.

I want to begin by talking to you briefly about childhood cancer. It is estimated that, in 2012, 1,400 children will be diagnosed with cancer and 160 will die from the disease. Although the five-year survival rate, for several types of childhood cancer, is 82%, cancer remains the second leading cause of death in children over one month of age, after accidents.

We are recommending that the committee ensure the flexibility of the new benefit program for parents, and here is why. The progression and the treatment of the disease vary depending on the cancer type and the child. Although each patient is different, chemotherapy treatment, for a child, takes about six months, but it can range from three to twelve months.

When radiation therapy is used as the main cancer treatment, it is usually administered once a day, five days a week, over three to eight weeks. Treatment may also be longer, and hospitalization periods may be more frequent or longer—or both—and not always ongoing. In addition, specialized pediatric oncology treatment is available only in certain Canadian cities, so many parents have to travel more than 100 km to have access to the required medical care for their child.

Taking care of one's child after a cancer diagnosis is not optional. It is critical for parents to participate 24/7 in the care of their child.

Cancer in children and youth creates a disproportionate impact on health and social services systems, as well as on the economy. Having a child with cancer is a difficult experience whose significant repercussions go beyond treatment. An estimated two-thirds of childhood cancer survivors have at least one chronic or late-occurring effect from their cancer therapy, and up to one-third of these late effects are considered major, serious or life-threatening.

One of the important things for this committee to keep in mind is that, in the case of cancer, more children are treated over a longer period of time, but not always on an ongoing basis. Cancer treatment is episodic. Pediatricians strongly encourage that children resume a normal life as soon as they feel better.

For that reason, we recommend the committee ensure that the program is flexible, so that parents can take time off from work when necessary, and resume a normal life when their child does. The idea is to recognize the non-continuity of treatments and the flexibility regarding benefit renewal in the event of a relapse or late side effects.

I will now briefly talk to you about combined benefits. Ms. Kittmer will be able to explain that better by sharing her personal story.

The combining of benefits is an important improvement that will stem from Bill C-44. It will allow an individual receiving parental benefits to claim sickness benefits in case of illness. Cancer cases during or following a pregnancy are not very common. The type of cancer most often related to pregnancy is breast cancer. We don't know exactly how many women in Canada are affected, as that data is not collected. However, in the United States, 227,000 breast cancer cases are diagnosed annually, 7,000 of which are supposedly related to pregnancy.

Like Ms. Kittmer, many women told us about how difficult it was for them to access sickness benefits. They were going through the best time of their life and their worst nightmare at the same time. They are very happy about this improvement.

Unfortunately, given the surgery, chemotherapy treatments and radiation treatments involved, the 15 weeks of sickness benefits expire before the end of treatment. We are recommending that the committee ensure the program's flexibility when it comes to combined benefits, so that it will be easier for parents to go from sickness benefits to parental leave during the treatment, or vice versa, and so have the time to recover without losing any quality time with their child.

The job protection component of this legislation will help many Canadian families. As a number of people have mentioned, this will unfortunately not apply to many jobs that come under provincial and territorial legislation. That is why the Canadian Cancer Society is urging the committee to ask the federal government—at the next meeting of the relevant federal, provincial and territorial ministers—for a clear commitment to discussing the need to amend provincial and territorial legislation in order to provide the same job protection to all Canadians.

Last February, the Minister of Finance said that the new family caregivers tax credit is a first step. We see this bill as another important step. We will work with the members of this committee and all the governments on moving this issue forward. The Canadian Cancer Society feels that the next key step is to enhance sickness benefits.

Thank you.

Ms. Kittmer will now share her story.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu]

As I was saying earlier, most criminals in Canada are defended through legal aid. That costs each province about $50,000, as all those criminals go before the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the jury's verdict. That was my case. Those proceedings take from five to seven years. Of course, if each province gave to families the amounts given to those criminals, the situation would be ideal. However, as I am a realist, I think this bill is the first step. Time will tell whether those compensations actually meet families' needs.

It should also be understood that victim assistance programs in Canada are improving. In 2002, Quebec gave $600 to families whose loved ones were murdered. That's what I received. Today, they receive $5,000. In Quebec, compensation is not provided to murdered victims, but it is provided to surviving victims. We will continue working with the provinces to help them improve their own programs. The provinces are responsible for assisting victims, and the federal government is responsible for assisting criminals. So we will continue to put pressure on the provinces to provide better compensation to the victims.

All that aside, what the federal government is trying to do with Bill C-44 is very significant. This will mark the first time in Canadian history that a federal government will give victims the same compensation, from coast to coast to coast.

[Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Senator, CPC, Senate]

Thank you very much.

I would like to apologize because I didn't have enough time to translate my presentation into English, so I will go in French.

I can stay as long as members have questions; don't worry about that. I have another committee after this one, but I'll stay for your questions.

I want to thank the committee members for inviting me to speak about Bill C-44.

I would like to begin by commending the commitment shown by the Conservative government and by our Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. After taking office in 2006, he made victims rights a priority, bringing them to the forefront of Canada's justice system. I also wish to highlight the fantastic job that the Minister of Human Resources, the Honourable Diane Finley, has done in putting together this bill, an effort that I contributed to as best I could given my commitment to helping victims of crime.

The impetus for this bill—which I urge all members to support—comes from both my personal experience and that of the victims who belong to the organization I founded in 2004. I and three other fathers whose daughters had been murdered established the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared. Allow me to begin with an overview of my personal history, which is at the heart of my ardent support for this bill.

In 2002, the course of my life changed after my eldest daughter, Julie, was murdered by a repeat offender. That event spawned my political commitment as an advocate for the rights of families of victims of crime. When my daughter was killed, the Government of Quebec was offering a meagre $600 to families whose loved ones had been murdered. No psychological support, no legal support, absolutely nothing. Conversely, the government was spending an average of $50,000 on legal aid to ensure that criminals could exercise their right to fair representation in our justice system.

That reality was unacceptable, underscoring the severe and unfair imbalance between criminals' rights and victims' rights. In creating the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared, I decided to bring together families who had experienced a similar tragedy. The organization helps families, supporting them through the legal process and providing them with psychotherapy resources.

Since its creation, the association has begun administering the Isabelle Boisvenu Fund, named after my second daughter, who died in a car accident. The fund provides two yearly scholarships to students in the field of victimology. This research will help us better understand the full impact a crime has on families. Clearly, it's devastating.

As the association's chair, I personally met hundreds of families. In many cases, either the father or the mother had to stop working in order to take care of their families in the wake of the crime. And in some cases, both parents had to stop working.

Last week, the committee heard from the parents of Brigitte Serre. They gave you a poignant account of their experience following their daughter's murder. You can be sure that hundreds of families in Quebec and across the country go through the same thing every year. I could tell you dozens of stories equally as heart-rending as the Serre family's.

It is a fact that many Canadian parents have a private benefit plan that allows them to stop working in order to look after their families. But since its creation, the association has worked to help those fathers and mothers who don't have any income support, either because they are struggling to make ends meet or they are self-employed. That is the case for about 50% of families.

The choices these families face are painful. Either the parents are forced to go back to work too soon, resulting in serious psychological problems, or they choose to stay home with their families and risk losing their jobs. As long as there is no assistance or support for them, no matter what they decide, these mothers and fathers will have to live through another traumatic event.

Let me give you an idea of what reality is like for these families, the collateral damage, so to speak. The statistics speak for themselves: 80% of couples separate within a year of their child's murder or disappearance; 50% more brothers and sisters quit school following the tragedy; and 50% more fathers take their own lives after their child has been murdered.

I could go on about people losing their jobs, suffering from emotional stress, developing chronic illnesses, going bankrupt and so on.

These families need support and recognition. That is why the passage of Bill C-44 would represent a tremendous victory for these fathers and mothers. The bill before you delivers everything my association has been calling for.

Parents whose children have been murdered or have disappeared as a result of a crime will receive adequate support during the most critical months because of the benefits provided. On top of the 35 weeks of benefits, parents could qualify for an additional period of EI benefits. What's more, the Canada Labour Code is being amended to provide employees working in areas of federal jurisdiction with job protection for two years, similar to Quebec's Labour Code.

Ladies and gentlemen, to its credit, this measure will give victims guarantees that will be applied, regardless of where they live or where the crime took place. As I see it, this bill paves the way for the fundamental protection of victims across the country, from coast to coast. In 2012, we, as a nation, must not allow victims of crime or their loved ones to be treated differently depending on the province they live in.

I urge every member on this House of Commons committee to make this important measure a reality, one that will give more than a thousand families the ability to rebuild their lives so they can better support their loved ones in the wake of the devastating loss of a son or daughter.

Thank you.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it might not be fair, but I am going to ask my colleague from the NDP to try to figure out the government's thinking in this particular case.

The bill that has come forward in fact changes a number of different aspects of the EI system. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently looking at Bill C-44. We have allocated five days for the study of that. It should maybe impact 6,000 people in Canada each year. However, the changes made in the bill will impact 750,000 to 900,000 people, and yet there is no study of it. It is being rammed through in this particular piece of legislation.

What would my colleague see as the government's rationale for doing something like this in making these changes to the EI system?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies, thank you very much for being here.

As you're probably aware, Bill C-44 proposes to change two different systems. The first is the Canada Labour Code, which governs federally regulated industries. Obviously, federal government employees would be covered under that. They're only about 10% of all the workers in the country, so we're going to need some help in lobbying our friends in the provinces—and I hope you will help us do that—to encourage them and to make sure that each province adopts companion legislation to make sure that the other 90% of the people who work in this country can avail themselves of the same benefits.

Of course, the second part of the bill makes changes to the employment insurance system to allow for these compassionate benefits to be claimed in a number of different areas. That is obviously exclusively within the federal realm of jurisdiction.

I think it is important to make that clarification, because I'm not quite sure that all of the witnesses have completely understood what the bill does—that we're dealing with those two different areas, and that certainly on the labour code side, we can only do what we can do within the federal jurisdiction.

I'm sure you would agree that both of these changes are a positive step forward. We can certainly get into the discussion about what number of weeks should be allowed to be claimed for EI benefits, and I'm sure the committee will continue to have some discussions around that. I very much appreciate the advice you've provided, and that of the CEO of Ronald McDonald House, which gave us an idea of the average window of stay within their facilities. I think that may give the committee something to give some consideration to.

Beyond what has been proposed in those two areas, and based on your individual experiences and the other programs that are available out there to support medical costs and to support compassionate leave for families and caregivers, as well as some of the tax credits, etc., that we've actually brought in as a government, are there other areas?

Are there any other areas of advice that you would have for us as we look at these changes and what we can do to make sure we're getting it as right as possible the first time in making this a new benefit? Do you have any specific advice beyond what we're doing in this bill that might be good food for thought for us as committee members?

[Nathalie Roy, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Nathalie Roy. My 16-year-old daughter, Sabrina, has Hodgkin's disease. She has stage 4B cancer, the last stage. She was diagnosed in May of this year, so not that long ago. She has a younger sister who is 14. This is a trying time for our family. As a teenager, Sabrina has dealt with all kinds of stress and self-esteem issues.

She really needs her parents now, and we are always there. I have been on leave from my nursing job since May, so I can be home with Sabrina. I go with her to her chemotherapy treatments, as a result of which, she has been repeatedly hospitalized. She finished chemotherapy in August but is now undergoing daily radiation treatments, which will last eight weeks. She also has oncology appointments.

The passage of Bill C-44 is essential from a support and care perspective. Sabrina is outraged, fed up. She's a teenager. This week, she just wanted to throw in the towel. We are close. It is vital that parents be near their child. In our case, we were able to spot Sabrina's distress quickly, and then give her encouragement and explain how important it was that she not give up on treatment.

Forgive me, but this is very difficult. I had prepared a statement, but now I'm just speaking from the heart.

Sabrina often says to me, “Thank goodness you're here, mom. Otherwise, what would I do?” In the oncology ward, you see children who are by themselves all the time. All of you are probably mothers or fathers. All of you have obligations, a house, a car, a family to feed and so on. So you have to work. It pains me to see kids there by themselves because their parents have obligations. If this bill is passed, it will likely mean that kids no longer have to go through the experience alone. It's not fair for a child to have to do this on their own. Even an adult has a tough time coping; just imagine what it's like for a child. As we face this ordeal with Sabrina, we feel a lot of sadness, guilt and anxiety, but I have the satisfaction of being there with my daughter. We go with her to all of her appointments. She isn't alone.

The passage of this bill would be a boon for children. I am speaking for the children, but also for their mothers and fathers. I lost a little girl, so I know what it is to grieve, and I know how impossible it is to go back to work under those circumstances. Everyone must go through the grieving process. If they go back to work too soon, they will most certainly fall into a depression. We are human beings. We need to face adversity with family around us; we need to take a step back to mourn and say goodbye. People who don't have that option suffer untold anguish. They become depressed, and sometimes they even try to commit suicide. In some cases, there is no telling how far it will go.

I had a lot I wanted to say today, but there is one thing I want to say above all else: Please pass this bill. You must do so for the sake of our children, your children and your grandchildren. We never know what life will throw at us. I would never have thought that cancer would befall my daughter.

Thank you very much.

[Tyler Hnatuk]

As I mentioned, our perspective on Bill C-44 is that extension of compassionate care benefits would provide that small window in the context of such great need, but with respect to those modest amounts of support, parents of children with disabilities can do so much with that. As you spoke to in your experience with an 80-year-old parent of a child with a developmental disability, it's a lifetime commitment.

There is certainly a blend of supports that are needed. The scope of this current bill is not going to address all of the needs, nor would extension of the compassionate care benefits. Really, a blend of supports and a strategy are needed for caregiving.

The situation is really similar to those of the parents who began our movement more than 50 years ago. Out of the decision to pursue a good life for their sons and daughters, they decided to keep them at home rather than send them away to an institution. They did so without any support whatsoever. It still remains the case that parents who decide to provide so much care to their child have not been recognized sufficiently by our policy and financial incentives for our caregivers.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Wow.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning.

My question will be to Ms. Loblaw.

First, I want to thank your organization for doing all the good work that you do in helping families and communities in Canada.

As you know, Bill C-44 has been introduced by the government to help families to balance their work and family responsibilities. As far as your organization is concerned, it will introduce new benefits for the parents of critically ill children.

In your experience you must have faced some challenges and be in a position to be aware of the challenges parents have been facing during a difficult period. It's emotionally very hard to start with, and when you add the work risk and other stresses, it is really hard.

Do you think the government is going in the right direction or that this is a positive step forward? If you agree with my comment that it is positive, then I'd like you to elaborate on why you think it is positive.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Phelps, I have a question for you.

You mentioned you'd like to see Bill C-44 extended to cover adult family members who have to look after their parents, for example, if they become critically ill.

I asked this question of the minister last week when she appeared before the committee. She mentioned there are programs in place right now for people who need to look after critically ill parents. I think that kind of help only lasts a handful of weeks. You also outlined how you'd like to see these types of benefits extended to, say, parents of runaways.

Can you elaborate on that? You'd like to see the benefits extended to people with adult family members who are critically ill and runaways. Who else would you like to see covered?

[Fred Phelps, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Social Workers]

Good morning.

On behalf of social workers across Canada, I would like to thank the committee for your consideration in bringing the voice of our profession to the discussion and debate on Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act.

As background for committee members, the Canadian Association of Social Workers exists to promote the profession of social work in Canada and advance issues of social justice. As the executive director, it is my distinct honour and privilege to bring the voices of front-line social workers to this committee.

The comments I'll be making today come directly from front-line social workers, who bear witness to the emotional and financial impact of serious illness on families and individuals as well as the overwhelming experience of grief and loss when a child dies or disappears as the probable result of a crime.

I apologize in advance if some of the questions and concerns raised by social workers have already been addressed by other witnesses or members of this committee. In addition, some of my comments do not directly address Bill C-44. Nonetheless, the issues addressed are pertinent to the overall objectives of providing front-line social service providers with the economic tools to adequately support children and families in crisis.

To begin, the membership of the CSW health and children's interest groups was unanimous in its support of Bill C-44, calling it a step in the right direction in providing relief to parents in the form of limited financial help and ensuring that they do not lose their jobs because of tragic circumstances beyond their control.

As CSW understands Bill C-44, the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code will apply only to workers in federally regulated sectors. It is apparently expected that provincial governments will make similar changes to their labour codes, as was the case when compassionate care benefits were introduced. CSW has to ask if there have been discussions with provincial jurisdictions to ensure that there will be compliance.

The matter of compassionate care benefits was also raised by a number of social workers and their provincial organizations in consultations on Bill C-44. The changes in this act do not address the challenges faced by caregivers of adult family members or by individuals who require a period beyond the 15 weeks of medical EI coverage. Consequently, I would be remiss if I did not convey that social workers request the Government of Canada to consider expanding the compassionate care benefits program to include caregivers caring for adult family members and to consider extending sick leave benefits beyond 15 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks for those who require it.

Specific to Bill C-44, the Canadian Association of Social Workers also supports any and all improvements to programs that provide relief to families when tragic events occur, such as the disappearance or death of a child following a crime. However, it is not always easy to determine at the outset whether a disappearance is the result of a crime. Consequently, social workers had a number of questions meant to clarify the meaning and intention of this act.

First, will consideration be given to providing benefits to parents who are looking for their runaway or lost child? Who will determine if foul play is suspected and when benefits can be provided?

The Canadian Association of Social Workers applauds the initiative of this legislation to provide help and support to family caregivers looking after critically ill children. However, questions remain. What about the children who are injured as a result of an accident or the children who are seriously ill? Who decides whether and for how long parents need to be at their side and away from work? When or why can an employer refuse leave? Will there be an onus on parents and employees to prove they deserve or require this leave? What kind of documentation could the employer request? Is a medical note not enough?

Why is the definition of a child limited to those under 18, and should adult dependants not be considered for extension of coverage under this act?

It is our understanding that benefits end the week of the death of a child; would compassion not dictate that families require time after death to mourn and bury their child?

Finally, is there any requirement for parents or employees to seek counselling and other supports to help them recover so that they can return to work healed to some degree, or is the leave only to allow them time and benefits to care for their child?

Social workers ask these questions for clarification, as social workers will be involved in the interpretation of the act and in helping people learn how to access benefits. They will be advocating for people who seem unable to qualify because of unfortunate glitches or issues not readily understandable within the act.

Any application process, social workers note, that is onerous may cause a family to turn away, given that they don't need any more stress at this point in their lives.

It is the front-line experience of social workers that people often do not access services that would have eased some of their distress because the process at the front end was more than the family could manage at the time. Consequently, social workers encourage the Government of Canada and this committee to seriously consider that ineffectively delivering this type of benefit can add to, rather than, as it is intended to, subtract from, the immense stress families are already experiencing with their deep personal loss in tragic circumstances.

The CASW will be actively monitoring this act and its implementation, primarily to advocate for clarification and to lobby for changes where needed, and perhaps will be be involving advocacy for provincial legislation where people can now qualify and more assistance is needed.

Again, on behalf of social workers across Canada, I thank the committee for your consideration in hearing the views of our profession on Bill C-44.

Thank you.

[Tyler Hnatuk, Policy and Programs Officer, Canadian Association for Community Living]

Thank you.

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

On behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living, I want to thank you for the invitation to participate in the committee's study of Bill C-44.

My name is Tyler Hnatuk, and I am a policy and programs officer with the Canadian Association for Community Living.

The Canadian Association for Community Living, or CACL, is a family-based association that assists people with intellectual disabilities and their families to lead the way in advancing inclusion in their communities. Our association was founded in 1958 by parents of children with disabilities who wanted supports and services in their home communities rather than institutions. Since that time, our association has grown into a federation of 13 provincial and territorial associations, made up of over 300 local associations and more than 40,000 members.

Our association has in the past called for changes to the Canada Labour Code, Employment Insurance Act, Canada Pension Plan, and Income Tax Act in order to recognize the support and care that family members provide to a child with a disability. Over the past decade we have participated in community consultations, coalitions, and policy reform processes aimed at recognizing the challenges and disproportionate financial impacts faced by families of children with disabilities.

I'd like to say from the outset that we are encouraged by the direction of Bill C-44 and its proposal to recognize the challenges faced by families in these extraordinary circumstances. By recognizing the situations of parents of a child who has been a victim of a crime, is missing, or is critically ill or injured, this proposed bill recognizes the extraordinary caregiving responsibilities that some families face and the impact on their labour force attachment. As such, we wholeheartedly support the direction of the bill and the window of support and flexibility that it provides to parents in terribly difficult circumstances.

When compassionate care provisions were first introduced to employment insurance, we joined others in calling for enhancement of these measures to recognize the extraordinary caregiving situations that parents of children with severe disabilities face. We continue to be of the view that recognition is needed for families of children with severe disabilities, and we have developed detailed proposals with respect to an overall strategy for addressing the disproportionate caregiving situation that these families are in, of which these changes are one modest but important piece.

In my brief submission, I would like to provide a bit of a profile of parents of children with disabilities through our analyses of national data sets and other Canadian research, look to the current Canadian policy context in Canada for support for caregivers of children with disabilities, and look to the lived experience of families who are a part of our movement in order to outline the challenges that they face today.

To begin, just by sketching some of the profiles of families of children with disabilities, we know that children with disabilities and their families endure greater and disproportionate rates of low income than others in Canada. Data from the participation and activity limitation survey, or PALS, as people call it, from 2006 indicate that children with disabilities are more likely to live in households that fall below the low-income cut-off than children who do not have a disability.

It should be pointed out that this measure doesn't take into account non-reimbursed costs related to disability, and therefore the low-income situation is likely understated. When we consider employment, we know that parents' ability to maintain a career is significantly affected by having a child with a disability. Again, PALS 2006 found that parents of children with disabilities report that as a result of their child's condition, 38% worked fewer hours, 37% changed their work hours, 26% did not take a job, 22% quit work, and a further 20% did not take a promotion. We know also that most often it is the employment situation of mothers that is most affected, with 64% of mothers being the most affected, while 8% of fathers are the most affected.

One of the major disability-related supports that people require throughout their lives is help with everyday activities. Of children with disabilities whose parents require help, nearly 26% have parents who received help but needed more, and about 40% have parents who received no help but needed some.

Of these parents needing additional help, nearly three-quarters cite cost as the main reason they can't get it, and more than a third say out-of-pocket expenses.

The bulk of disability-related support for everyday activities in Canada is provided by family members. This includes help with personal care, health care, housework, and transportation, and includes matters such as personal advocacy, planning, coordination and brokering of needed services, emotional support, communication assistance, and so on.

I would like to illustrate these facts and figures with just a few of the stories that we hear from thousands of parents throughout the country who have children with intellectual disabilities. We hear regularly from families who are struggling to make ends meet as the sole result of their decision to push for what they believe is best for their child. Driven by a vision of inclusion and a good life, families are increasingly being pushed into hardship and desperation, in many cases to the brink.

Consider a plea received this month from a Saskatchewan mother of a young son with a disability. They are a single-income family on what would otherwise be a modest income, but they are below the poverty line and have filed for bankruptcy. This mother was recently advised that she should put her child in care, a course of action that she has no intention of following.

Consider the numerous stories that have appeared in print and television media over the past months of parents who have dropped off their adult children with community support agencies because they can no longer fulfill the duties of caregiving.

Consider the plea of an Ontario mother who recently spoke at a provincial hearing on government services and whose voice resonated with families across the country as she detailed the 15 years her family has spent on waiting lists for support and the two hours per week of support that allow her adult son to have a shower once in a while.

These families and thousands of others across the country have spent their lifetimes providing billions of dollars worth of what would otherwise be paid care for their children with significant needs.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recently reviewed Canada's third and fourth reports to the committee and concluded with observations that Canada must ensure that children with disabilities and their families be provided with all necessary support and services to ensure that financial constraints are not an obstacle in accessing services and that household incomes and parental employment are not negatively affected.

We believe it is quite clear that for families of children with severe disabilities, the activities of caregiving reach far beyond the typical duties of parenthood. As I mentioned earlier, CACL has developed detailed and more comprehensive proposals that could provide recognition for these extraordinary circumstances. In the context of a broader strategy, extension of employment insurance benefits would form one small but critical contribution toward mitigating the current financial impacts related to raising a child with significant needs.

As we know well from research, early intervention can be critical in shaping outcomes later in life. These interventions might be related to medical procedures, intensive therapies, educational activities, and so on, or the interventions may be the less formal added demands of parenting that relate to doing the inclusion work in the context of communities and systems where parents of children with disabilities still encounter so many doors slammed shut in generic services, programs, and supports. If parenting is a full-time job, then the inclusion work of parents of children with disabilities is far above and beyond what can be expected to be regular caregiving responsibilities.

The work undertaken by parents of children with disabilities to better their communities and build better lives for their sons and daughters needs to be recognized as the extraordinary task that it is. An extension of employment insurance benefits to parents of children with severe disabilities may seem a small window in the context of the overwhelming need for support, but these forms of recognition are critical. The consequences of missing these small windows of opportunity can be significant, as we see with the finding that 40% of kids in child welfare systems have disabilities, and as we see with the media stories of parents dropping off their children with community agencies.

While we recognize that something like employment insurance benefits may seem like a small window in the context of such great need, it's with these modest amounts of support that parents of children with disabilities can do and have done so much. It would further mark a tremendous step forward towards recognizing the contributions of family caregivers of children with disabilities.

We urge the committee to recognize that some families face extraordinary caregiving responsibilities that have a direct impact on labour force attachment, career development, and family well-being. We believe that this should be the focus for the purposes of the employment insurance system. It's not so much the source or cause of extraordinary responsibilities and challenges that is the policy issue but the fact that some families in this country, through no fault of their own, face extraordinary challenges, which have a direct impact on parents' labour force participation. It's the labour force impact of those challenges that could be a focus.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear, and would be pleased to address any questions or comments that you may have later.

Thank you.