Human Resources Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Good morning, everyone. I would like to call this meeting to order. This is meeting 31 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Just prior to beginning our orders of the day, I would like to ask the committee if we could just very quickly approve a motion, which would enable us to bring our budget for this bill forward and to complete it. So could I have someone move the motion that's before you?

Madam Folco.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much.

Then pursuant to orders of reference of Wednesday, April 28, we are looking at Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave).

We will begin the first half hour with the sponsor of the bill, Madame Bonsant.

Welcome. We'd like to ask you to introduce your bill, and then we'll just have one short round of questions and answers. Then we'll continue and introduce the rest of the witnesses who are here.

If you want to begin, Madame Bonsant, with a 10-minute introduction, then we'll ask you some questions. Thank you.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Bill C-343, which I have been working on now for almost four years.

The bill, entitled An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), has two parts to it. First of all, it proposes amending the Canada Labour Code to provide unpaid leave to employees who are required to be away from work following a suicide, the disappearance of their child or the commission of a criminal offence against a member of their immediate family.

The leave of absence proposed in the bill would work as follows. For the parents of minors, a leave of absence of up to 104 weeks would be available in cases of death resulting from a criminal offence or serious bodily harm requiring the employee to stay with the child. The same would apply to a missing child: the parents could retain their work attachment and take a leave of absence of up to 52 weeks. For the spouse, common-law partner or parent, the bill provides for a leave of absence of up to 52 weeks for death by suicide, and 104 weeks if death is the direct result of a criminal offence.

This bill also amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow these individuals to receive a new type of special benefits for family leave. Having said that, for parents whose minor children are missing or suffered serious physical injury as the direct result of a criminal offence, for parents whose children committed suicide, for an employee whose spouse committed suicide, for the parents of a minor child who died as the result of a criminal offence and for an employee whose spouse died the result of a criminal offence, eligibility for the new benefit would be based on the current rules for special benefits. A beneficiary would have to have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable earnings in order to be eligible for up to 52 weeks of benefits.

In December of 2007, the Quebec National Assembly led the way in this area when it passed Bill 58. Under that legislation, employees and their families who are victims of crime are entitled to take unpaid leave and still keep their jobs for a period of up to 104 weeks. The families of Quebec workers who are mourning a suicide or have a missing child are entitled to 52 weeks of benefits.

Unfortunately, current federal legislation discriminates against the 275,000 Quebeckers whose work falls under the Canada Labour Code. These workers do not benefit from their job attachment and are simply entitled to 15 weeks of sick leave. Up until now, the inaction of lawmakers in this area has resulted in two tiers of workers being created: those who are able to get through difficult times with their jobs intact, and those who are forced to chose between losing their jobs and returning quickly to work. Furthermore, it is one thing to allow people to take leave, but if they have no income to live on in the meantime, the results will be the same. They will have no choice but to return to work quickly. It is that much more difficult for them, under the circumstances, to rebuild their life.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, which has always shown concern for victims and their families, the federal government should immediately follow Quebec's lead. It is a well-known fact that suicide, violent crimes and disappearances cause great psychological distress for many parents and spouses. The waiting and worrying, mourning and often feelings of depression are part of the everyday lives of victims' families, often for extended periods. Indeed, in case of murders and disappearances in particular, more than two years can sometimes pass between the criminal act and the completion of the investigation. Throughout that period, family members are deeply affected by the events and cannot resume their normal activities. They have access to support and help, but they have no financial support. Additional financial worries are the last thing they need.

It is terrible to think that these people are simply being left to fend for themselves and have to keep working throughout that period as if nothing had happened, because they have to provide for their family, as we all do.

These people need time to come through such an ordeal and gradually rejoin the workforce at their own pace. It is in order to help these families that I am fighting today, and calling for the cooperation of all the parties. After all, given their pain and suffering and the other effects of violent acts, are the victims' families not victims themselves?

The mourning process following a disappearance, murder or suicide is longer and more complex than in other instances, particularly when rape or violence has taken place. People are more likely to experience feelings of frustration, rage and powerlessness. This is especially true when a crime or suicide is involved.

Those who oppose my bill claim that these new measures will be too costly. I have heard some members of Parliament say that this bill will cost $400 million, which is incorrect. Fortunately, this kind of tragic event giving rise to the payment of 52 weeks of benefits is rare. For the same reason, there are few people who will be eligible for these new employment insurance benefits if the bill passes.

Every person has his or her own way of mourning the loss of a loved one, but for some eligible people, the loss of income associated with EI benefits is not an option. It is also clear that, for some people, remaining at work is a way to return to a normal life after a certain period of time. There are also people who do not work or who cannot find work that is insured under the Employment Insurance program, or who do not work enough hours to be eligible for benefits.

Therefore, self-employed workers are automatically excluded. Individuals who have not worked a minimum of 26 weeks in the year preceding the criminal act or the disappearance would not be eligible. They represent approximately 18% of the labour force. Acts of suicide by a single person or individuals without close family members would also be excluded.

For all these reasons, we are nowhere near the $400 million projected by this government. Although it is difficult to determine exactly how many people would receive the benefits created through this legislation, a Bloc Québécois study has established that approximately 8,000 people would be affected by this bill's provisions.

With the benefits set at $340 and the eligibility threshold at 65%—which is one of the goals of the Bloc Québécois' overall agenda—the cost would be approximately $50 million a year. However, based on the current eligibility threshold of 45%, it is realistic to assume that an investment of $30 million would be needed were Bill C-343 to pass. Thirty million dollars a year to encourage victims' families is a very small amount of money.

The Employment Insurance program is adequately funded by workers and employers to allow families afflicted by such a traumatic event to receive benefits. The government is not actually investing anything in employment insurance.

Since I have been working on this project, I have received messages of support from ordinary people and from civil society. It is clear that this initiative touches people and means something to them. A number of citizen efforts have emerged from the solidarity observed among these families. For example, in 2004, Quebec families affected by these tragedies came together to create the Association des Familles de Personnes Assassinées ou Disparues, a Quebec organization that helps the families of victims.

Right from the start, the AFPAD has supported our bill enthusiastically, because it includes most of their demands. In fact, I would like to express my thanks to its president, Mr. Michel Laroche, for his cooperation on this issue. Their unrelenting efforts to support families have allowed members of the Association to realize that families must be able to come through their ordeal without financial worries.

AFPAD members actually met with the Conservative caucus in 2007. They expressed their total support for the bill. I hope that they intend to keep their promise three years later.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, of which Ms. Arlène Gaudreault is President, is another example of aid groups that were set up out of solidarity for victims and their families. I want to thank her for her devotion and hard work.

In closing, I sincerely believe that these measures will provide indispensable support for victims' families who are currently going through a very difficult period without any financial support. I got involved in politics to bring about change, and I hope that my colleagues will be as touched as I am by what the families of these victims are going through now.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We will begin. We have time for only one round of questions with Madame Bonsant.

We'll do five-minute rounds, and we'll begin with Madame Folco, please.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Ms. Bonsant. I am delighted to be able to hear your plea today, one made with heartfelt emotion. I do have some questions, however.

I think it's important that your bill move in the same direction as the one we passed for compassionate leave. I remember that, as I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister at the time. We wanted the Employment Insurance system to recognize that family members sometimes need to stay home in order to help a father, mother or other family member under dramatic and tragic circumstances. I think your bill is in keeping with that goal.

First of all, I have a question of clarification. Your bill applies to someone who dies as a result of a criminal act, but I don't fully understand how this would work for the family of a person who committed suicide—in other words, who committed this act himself. I would like clarification on that.

Since I only have five minutes and I have another question—you are familiar with the system—I would ask that you be fairly brief.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you.

When we drafted the bill, we reached the conclusion that the mourning process for the loved ones of people who have committed suicide is not the same. Suicide is not an act of violence; it is a personal choice. We believe that the mourning process is less difficult and quicker because it is in fact a personal choice. That is why we set a limit of 52 weeks, but I am open to the idea of amending the bill if you feel that is insufficient.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I am surprised to hear you say that. I would have thought it would have been the opposite for the spouse of someone who committed suicide. Since there are a lot of young people who commit suicide, the father or mother wonder what they did that prompted their child to do such a thing.

My other question has to do with self-employed workers. As you know, there are more and more of them. Many self-employed workers are women with children. If I'm not mistaken, you want to exclude them, as you mentioned in your verbal presentation. Because of the way you presented this, I have the feeling that, when you were told that this would cost between $340 million and $410 million, you felt that it was a lot of money and that you would have to cut down on the cost. And you did that by excluding self-employed workers. I hope that's not the real reason, but that was my impression as I listened to you earlier.

Another category is single people. In urban areas at least—but also in rural areas—people are increasingly living alone, particularly seniors. I know that families spring up to look after these people. They may not be families with a blood relationship, but they certainly are families in terms of the relationship that binds them together. Why are you excluding them from your bill?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

This bill does not affect self-employed workers because another bill, Bill C-56, was tabled last year to deal with special benefit for them.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Bill C-56.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, that's correct. My bill, Bill C-343, is intended to amend legislation to include the concept of “family leave”. You can't go from one bill to the next and keep on repeating the same things. Bill C-56 was aimed at self-employed workers and people who have their own business, while my bill applies to a different category of people—those affected by violence.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Bill C-56 is a government bill, though.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, that's correct.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Do I have any time left? No? Well then, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Mr. Lessard, please.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Bonsant for being here this morning to present your bill, which I would describe as highly humanitarian.

I would like to continue along the same lines as Ms. Folco and try to clarify a couple of points. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe your bill was tabled at a time when self-employed workers were not entitled to employment insurance.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

That's correct.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Which means that Bill C-56 was tabled after yours. I take from that that this bill can be improved—and that is where Ms. Folco's question seems particularly appropriate. This is probably something that will have to be considered when the time comes to pass amendments that will reflect the new legislative reality.

You have referred to crimes and acts of violence. I think suicide is also an act of violence sometimes. It isn't necessarily a crime, however, for the reasons you cited earlier.

I would like to come back to the costs you referred to earlier. Since I have been in the House of Commons, I have learned that, in keeping with the saying “give a dog a bad name and hang him”, all you have to do is exaggerate the cost of a bill to be sure that it won't pass. Can someone—you perhaps—explain to me how you arrived at the figures you presented earlier?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

I would like to turn it over to Mr. Couture, my Research Assistant. He will explain all the numbers, because they can be somewhat complex.

[Eric Couture, Researcher, Bloc Quebecois Research Bureau, As an Individual]

Good morning and thank you.

With respect to the cost of the bill, we based ourselves on Juristat statistics. They allowed us to arrive at an approximate number of suicide victims. It's important to realize that the parents and spouses of suicide victims represent the group most affected by the bill. According to Statistics Canada, there are approximately 3,500 suicides every year.

After that, there are the cases involving children who have gone missing or who suffered serious physical injury. According to National Missing Children Services, in 2009, there were 86 cases of children reported missing for long periods of time—in other words, cases that would be covered by the bill. All in all, the numbers are fairly low. However, the Library of Parliament--

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

What period are you referring to, Mr. Couture?

[Eric Couture]

These figures are for 2009.

However, the Library of Parliament also did a costing of our bill. Based on certain assumptions, the Library of Parliament analysis suggested a total cost of between $14.6 million and $72.8 million. The Bloc Québécois had initially assessed the cost to be $50 million based on available statistics, but we have no trouble accepting the scenario put forward by the Library of Parliament.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I have time for one more question. I tried to find the answer to this question, but perhaps you could help me with that.

With respect to the actual benefit period, my understanding is that it would begin from the moment the person went missing and end 11 days after the child was found or information about the case became available. What was your rationale for ending the benefits 11 days afterwards?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

According to the statistics, many children are found within two weeks. That's the reason why we chose 11 days, which is what is currently reflected in the legislation that Quebec was the first to introduce. So, the short answer is that, according to statistics, a child who has gone missing or has run away is generally found within a ten-day period.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

So, within 10 days.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We'll now go to Mr. Allen, please.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Bonsant, for bringing this forward.

On the costing period, as I read through it, it talked about an offset, if you will. In a sense, if you're covered by some other—I believe the example was the case of Quebec, where there is some compensation to offset for the leave, if you will, that would reduce the unemployment. When Mr. Couture actually gave us the stats, were we looking at that offset as well, or was this simply a pure number of x number of folks times x number of benefits becomes this? Or was the offset actually looked at in that comparator?

I say that based on, for instance, the fact that there are many private insurance plans through employers that would cover extended periods of sick time.