Human Resources Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

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

When we looked at the statistics, we considered those people who would want to return to work immediately. Some people simply are not capable of staying home alone. So they go back to work. We considered people's arguments.

The Government of Quebec provides no financial compensation, because EI is a federally-administered program. The only thing the provincial government provides is a two-year period--

[Eric Couture]

The job attachment.

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

Yes, job attachment. Forgive me, but this is an emotional issue for me. Everyone knows someone who has been killed or died.

So, the two-year work attachment is maintained, but there is no compensation during that period. The statistics we looked at, and direct testimony from the people we talked to, show that some people want to return to work, that some are not ensured, and that others aged 65 and over are not entitled to Employment Insurance. That is what we took into consideration. We looked at the current proportion of people eligible for Employment Insurance, which is 45%. That is how we arrived at a specific costing.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

So it might be fair to say that the number is actually high. If we look at offsets across the entire country outside of Quebec, potentially the cost to the federal treasury actually could be reduced, depending on the plan.

I'll use my own example of my previous employer, who has a short-term disability plan that runs for a year, which then leads to a long-term disability plan, which could indeed offset all of the cost.

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

Yes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

It would be applied to me, necessarily, if—heaven forbid—something like that were to happen to my family.

I'm assuming the numbers are predicated on the entire workforce across the country, when you looked at deaths and suicides, especially criminal deaths, rather than just the effect on federal employees, because basically that's what the legislation looks at. You don't want to have jurisdiction beyond that, other than moral suasion that others would continue to do what you've suggested, which is to have a leave process that's either 52 or 104 weeks.

I don't know if you've thought through this process, and I appreciate if you haven't.

My other question is if indeed you have a short-term disability plan that takes you to a year, and you're entitled under your bill to 104 weeks, how do you see the paid portion from EI being affected by the fact that the first 52 weeks actually removes you from the workforce? Then how do you reapply for unemployment benefits, based on the fact that you're now detached from the workforce for 52 weeks?

[Eric Couture]

That's an excellent question.

You are raising the fact that there is actually a gap in the bill, in that the reference period for calculating income would have to start when the employee stops working and goes on leave.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

That's 104 weeks.

[Eric Couture]

Yes, exactly.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Perfect; thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You have 30 seconds.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I'll allow Madam Bonsant the last 30 seconds.

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

You know, this is the first time we have discussed this bill here in committee. I am very open to your ideas. There are people who have experienced things that I have not experienced. That is why I brought witnesses with me today.

With respect to the bill, if anyone at this table has great ideas on how to improve the program and help these families, I want you to know that I have an open mind and an open heart.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Vellacott.

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

Thank you very much.

Our Conservative government is really quite empathetic and supportive of victims of crime, but there is something concerning in the bill here, my colleague, and it's the part where the bill states that a parent can take time off and receive EI benefits if their presence:

is required by the employee’s child under 18 years of age who has suffered a serious physical injury during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence that renders the child unable to carry on regular activities;

As we review this here, the question is, is it correct that if the minor, the child under 18, is injured during the commission of a criminal offence that they themselves committed, this bill would then provide that child's parent the ability to take time off work and collect EI to take care of that child? I'll give you a little example. If a 16-year-old falls down the stairs in the process of robbing someone's house and becomes temporarily disabled, it appears that this bill allows the parent of the child to stay at home and get paid through EI to care for them.

If that's the case, I don't think that's fair. Yet I'm not sure what you mean, and the legal words seem to suggest that. You need to deal with that because there is a very wrong impression given by the wording in that bill.

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

Mr. Vellacott, you have children, and I have daughters. Do you know exactly what your children are doing 24 hours a day? No, of course you don't.

A lot of parents face issues connected to the fact their children do things to be part of a group and so on. If a child makes a mistake, should the parents be the ones to pay? I don't think so; I believe the parents' job is to be there 24 hours a day to support their children. If someone makes a mistake and charges down the stairs in an attempt to rob someone… I don't think a parent is going to tell his child to go and rob someone because he'll be entitled to 52 weeks of EI benefits if the child is injured. I don't think we should be penalizing parents for things that occur only very rarely.

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

Well, in fairness, you posture this bill as being in support of victims. That is hardly in support of victims at the point where a child commits a criminal act and in falling down the stairs or in some other way gets hurt and injured, and then you provide, in effect, a benefit to them or their family. It's not a benefit to the “victim”. So I would not be supportive of this bill on that basis.

I'm a parent, certainly. I have children and grandchildren. I understand what you're saying; kids make mistakes. But I think you have a major flaw in your bill if, as you say, that's what your intent is here.

That's my question. We'll be asking that of the officials as well. I have a problem with that.

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

This bill is intended to help parents, families and spouses. There are already a number of programs in place for victims. If you read my bill carefully, you will see that it is intended to help parents care for these children—the spouse. I don't think people should overreact because of one or two exceptions. If my daughter had made a mistake at the age of 14, I would not have thrown her out of the house for that reason. I would have been there to support her and tried to put her back on the straight and narrow. However, if I don't have the financial means to help her and I have to go back to work, that child will be left on her own. Parents must have the choice of continuing to support their children. This supports families and their children.

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

I think you'll have a hard sell of that to the public.

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

I doubt that.

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

Frankly, I'm being direct to you and transparent and meaning to be helpful, but that is a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You have one minute.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

One minute?

Thank you very much, Mr. Vellacott and Madam Chair.

I have a number of questions; obviously a minute won't do much.

Part of it is to do with the issue of proof of an event. Your bill talks about if it can be inferred from the circumstances that the death is probably the result of a suicide. And you have others, but you use the word “probably”. Of course, in most cases you either try to prove the fact by proving it beyond a reasonable doubt or in the balance of probabilities, or if it's based on circumstantial evidence, there must not be any other rational conclusion. But to say “probably” leaves it pretty wide open. The question is, who decides what “probably” means? Is it the police, the employees, the employer? And given that it's so wide in its definition, what happens if you're wrong? They've paid out a claim and later it turns out that “probably” was too wide a definition.

I know you don't have much time to answer it, but it's a very grave concern that I have—amongst others, I might say, that we won't have a chance to ask in this short time.

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

We know our own children, because we are the ones that raised them. If we see that a child's attitude is changing, our job as parents is to realize what is going on. But how can you possibly determine things like that? They are minors. It is our responsibility to take care of our young people. And that is the way to do it.

Furthermore, benefits are already available to victims of crime. It's important for you to understand that this is aimed at families and at the parents who live with these children. That's why there must be a clear separation between the two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I understand, Madame Bonsant, you will be staying here at the table with us for the remainder of the meeting.