Human Resources Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[Michel Laroche]

Yes. You asked me whether I had any idea of how many people want to return to work. Because I am both CEO and spokesperson for my association, I do not have access to a sophisticated statistical system. However, I do know that some people return to work soon afterward. I talked to you earlier about one of these individuals. It's absolutely appalling. She went back to work as an emergency physician. She saw my note and told me she is not as strong as she may seem. She told me that she seems to be courageous and determined, but because I don't live with her every day, I could not possibly know what was really happening in her life. I wondered whether I should simply not discuss her case in making my presentation, but I decided I would. I simply changed what I was going to say. In some cases, people seem to be very strong, but they actually are not.

As you can see, there are other examples. It is wrong to say that everyone puts their entire life on hold, goes into a depression and ends up not working for a year. That is not so. Many people do return to work. There are also cases of people who try to go back to work, but then have to stop.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to let someone else comment because our time is very short.

[Arlène Gaudreault]

We would certainly save on social costs if we allowed people to really get their lives back on track. When they return to work too quickly and get sick, they make use of psychological or other health services. It is difficult to calculate what that represents.

You asked me whether a similar program is in place in other countries. I know there is one in Sweden as well as in certain U.S. states. In that respect, California is known to have a good family leave regime. I asked some French colleagues whether the same applies to France, and they said no. So, we would have a head start on France in that area.

With respect to your question about the number of people, I think that's important. I hope this bill will pass. One suggestion might be that the Government of Canada do some follow-up and document these issues, which are really being ignored. At the Department of Justice, the Policy Centre for Victim Issues does research in this area. The whole question of the right to redress, restoration and return to work would be an excellent research topic for Justice Canada. This bill may pass. That is certainly our hope.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Provencher, if the provisions proposed in this bill had been in place when you went through your ordeal, would you have taken advantage of them?

[Martin Provencher]

Yes, had I not had any insurance, I certainly would have taken advantage of them. I might not have made use of them immediately, because as I was explaining earlier, when a tragedy like this occurs, nothing else really seems to matter. You don't even have the time to do what is needed to access support, despite your resilience. Basically, we are all human beings and we all have our own wounds. Just because you seem strong doesn't mean you are, as Mr. Laroche was saying.

When I'm alone, it's a different matter, and the times when you're confronted with this… So, we definitely would have taken advantage of these measures.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I suppose you are also receiving support now from Mr. Laroche's association and other organizations in Quebec as well.

[Martin Provencher]

Yes, we are receiving support, but I didn't really ask for that support as much as others might, possibly because of my personality. There are things I didn't have to do because they came to me despite of all that. Compared to other families, there are things that I did not have to deal with. The fact that our case received a lot of media coverage may have meant a lot, because I received a tremendous amount of support from people that I wasn't expecting to receive. In spite of that, we are overwhelmed with debt. When you stop working because you decide to fight, to keep on looking and put your career on hold, and you don't know what you're going to do, you obviously end up being overwhelmed by debt.

So, what Ms. Bonsant is proposing in her bill is the kind of thing that helped me to heal, as I said earlier. I got that support indirectly, because I had an employer who appreciated my work and recognized my value. So I didn't have any problem of that nature, and I went back to work when I decided I was ready, at my own pace, and resumed the job I had held earlier. That is important—very important.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much.

[Martin Provencher]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

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

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to everyone who's here.

Let me take the liberty of just quoting from a couple of the submissions you brought with you. The one I'm referencing first is from Ms. Lachance, who writes in the third paragraph:

Going back to work after 15 weeks is utterly unthinkable, unrealistic, but since the bills continue to pile up, you need an income in order to pay them.

In the other story, Ghislaine Fréchette says:

Did I go back to work? I tried. I would have liked things to be as they had been, but I didn't have the energy to complete a seven-hour day. I couldn’t go to work every day. The few days provided for this incident under my conditions of employment had long since been used up.

I hate to reference this in one sense because it feels almost crass, from my perspective. But it brings me to a sense of looking at the employer's productivity level, in the sense of having an employee come back so soon—in one case after 15 weeks of what ostensibly becomes a sick leave benefit from EI, and in the other case where an employee returns, knowing she's not able to complete 7.5-hour days or full work weeks. In my estimation and I think if we asked the employers, they would say their productivity level would diminish. So it doesn't seem appropriate to force an employee back who actually isn't really going to be a productive employee. And Mr. Provencher articulated, I thought, very clearly to us earlier that his employer recognized that, but he had a favourable employer. That's not to cast them all in a bad light; they simply run the rules of the system, whatever it happens to be. That's why I think this is important that we recognize the system. I'd like folks to think about that.

I have another sense of it, when it comes to costing. Again, I hate to put things in a dollar-and-cents fashion, but for me sometimes it's a way of saying why it's necessary to do things in a certain way. I have this sense, and I've always believed in what I call “a total cost”. What I mean by that is the total cost to society and indeed to the public purse. So when we look at the public purse, when we look at things like someone going off on an extended leave, as we were suggesting and as Madam Bonsant's bill suggests, with some form of remuneration that helps get them past this financial hurdle, do we then reduce the cost? Do we reduce the cost of folks ending up on social assistance or welfare, as we call it here in Ontario, or becoming a burden to the health care system because of addiction and homelessness issues, because they haven't had money to keep their home and they actually lose it, and the whole sense of lost productivity?

I recognize, Madame Gaudreault, that perhaps, as you said, this is a study that needs to be done. I would love for you to be able to point things out to me that show what those costs are. I think that's a great ask, to be honest, from me to suggest that you actually have that at your fingertips at the moment. But I think that's a study that needs to be completed, and I'd like you to comment on some of that. I'm quite happy to allow whoever wants to make a comment on that piece.

I have one last comment. I really appreciate, from a personal perspective, your raising the mental health issue. It's very close to me and my family, so I commend you and I thank you from our family for raising that as another piece of this, which I believe needs to be added too. It's immensely important for those of us who have family with mental health issues, that they be recognized for the illness it truly is and the impact it has on not only our immediate family but our extended family as well. So I congratulate you and I thank you for doing that.

I would allow those folks who want to make a comment to those bits and pieces I've kind of laid out there, if you would....

[Arlène Gaudreault]

I hope that everyone understood my comments with respect to cost. It is difficult to assess the costs at this time. We don't have all the data—for example, with respect to missing children. We feel that the costing for missing children is very high. What I mean is that, when the legislation is in effect, it would be a good idea to follow up with people who have actually taken advantage of its provisions, to see how long they are on leave and develop a profile of these individuals, so that we have appropriate data. In terms of the current state of our knowledge in victimology, we don't have all the data, nor do the United States and the rest of Canada.

One other thing that is important is equity among victims. All victims in Canada, whether they live in Quebec, the Yukon or somewhere else, should be treated fairly. The question of eligibility for this type of leave should be discussed. I realize that the federal and provincial governments have their own areas of jurisdiction. But here we are talking about employees that fall within federal jurisdiction.

As regards victims' rights and the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, I think that, as Canadians, we should be trying to ensure that all victims in Canada are treated equitably. These provisions should be enforced across Canada and discussed in such forums as the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Victims of Crime, and they should be submitted to the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, which obviously has a role to play with respect to systemic issues—and it's important to remember that. There is also an advisory committee within the Department of Justice. Changes are needed in terms of the treatment of victims and there must be concern for equitable treatment for all people, and for those who are particularly vulnerable.

I would like to make one comment regarding what was said earlier about the meaning of the term “probable”. This type of legislation does not fall under the criminal law, but rather labour law and the law associated with the Compensation for Victims of Crime Program. In all these areas of law, the standard to be applied is always the balance of evidence, and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would also like to point out that when a person has been negligent or was involved in negligent behaviour, or what is known in Quebec as “gross fault”, that person is not able to take advantage of the provisions of such legislation. That being the case, I see no reason why Canadians or members of your party—the Conservative Party—would be opposed to this legislation based on that argument. At the same time—and this is also a discussion we have often had within our association—there is a level of discomfort with respect to the issue of gross fault.

A distinction is often made between innocent victims and those that are not. This is a distinction that results in a lack of compassion for parents who have nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal offence committed by their children. A girl or a boy may join a street gang and do terrible things without the parents encouraging that kind of behaviour. That does not mean we should not show compassion for them if their child is injured as a result of these kinds of events.

At the same time, this is not a simple matter. In making these comments, I am not asking that the legislation be amended along those lines; I am simply saying that, as Canadians, we should give this some thought. We need to reflect on this, perhaps at a later date, and avoid targeting or making a distinction between innocent victims and those who are not. Sometimes the victims who are not innocent are people we have not tried to help or people we weren't there for when the needed help. We have to pay attention to that.

Those are the two comments I wanted to make in response to the questions raised earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

[Arlène Gaudreault]

I would also like to say that the Government of Canada withdrew from compensation programs in 1992.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Vellacott, please.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My heart is touched--and I believe that to be true of most of us around the table here--when I hear the stories that Martin, Arlène, and Michel relate. I hear you, and I can probably speak for my Conservative colleagues. We have a lot of empathy for what you have to say.

As I mentioned before--I think Michel alluded to this as well--the Conservative government is obviously committed to supporting victims of crime to ensure that they have a greater voice in our system and more access to the available services. I could list, but for the shortness of time, probably half a dozen or more practical, actual initiatives that the government has undertaken and put into place to aid victims, and there's more that can be done.

I want to draw attention to something here, because it's mixing me up a little. I look at the Bloc Québécois voting record on these types of things—victims issues, criminal issues, particularly support for victims. It's kind of discombobulating to me—and I don't know how the French translators will handle that word—

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

If the member is intent on discussing past votes, we can also debate the nature of those bills all over again. This is the first time we have debated a bill that focuses on the victims, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Lessard--

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

Madam Chair, I do not accept the idea that he should continue to make these kinds of comments. We are not here to engage in petty politics on such an important subject.

[An hon. member]

That's not a point of order

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Lessard, you will have an opportunity to disagree with him and make your point when you have a chance to ask a question.

There's another point of order?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

May I speak to that for just 30 seconds, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I really don't want to start a debate.

Mr. Vellacott has a chance to ask a question--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

It's about the nature of points of order as opposed to the content of the point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Well, we won't deal with that right now. Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.