I want to respond as well to the comments made, Mr. Fragiskatos' comments. It's likely just a misunderstanding on his part, I hope, because certainly the two provisions he mentioned actually don't cover what we're talking about here. First of all, for the one he referenced about families that are victims of crime, we're talking about two different things here.
In this case, we're talking about a bereavement leave. This is for families that have lost a child. It could be, in many cases, sudden infant death syndrome or those types of things. We're not talking about crime in this instance, and that's very specific, obviously, to that.
The other thing he referenced was sickness benefits that are available to folks. Although there have been instances in which bereaved families, parents, have been able to access sickness benefits for that, we've heard from numerous families through the study that's going on, and I know through the work that I've been doing across the country to speak with these advocates and these families, numerous stories of individuals who aren't able to access those benefits for bereavement.
In fact, I can remember very clearly the heart-wrenching story of one advocate from Nova Scotia, named Paula Harmon, who had to tell her story to a number of officials and ultimately was sent to get a note for sickness leave. When she came back with it, and the reason the doctor had put on it was bereavement of daughter, she was told that she was ineligible as a result. She was kind of “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” told by the Service Canada official that if she could just maybe get the doctor to put some other type of reason, she might qualify.
That's one example of many, so it's very clear that it certainly isn't sufficient and isn't adequate to cover this necessity. The parents have told us, over and over again, about the trauma and the grief put on them by having to tell their story, in some cases up to 10 or 15 times to different officials in order to qualify.
On top of that, obviously it's a lot of extra grief to have to apply this way, even if they are able to get it, and in many cases, they're not. Clearly there's a need for a specific benefit tied very specifically to bereavement. We've heard that very clearly over and over again.
I really hope that maybe those misunderstandings have been cleared up and the government members will choose to support the amendment.