Human Resources Committee on Oct. 18th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Go ahead.

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

Minister Finley, are you aware of a notice of motion that I introduced before this committee last week for the striking of a subcommittee to study the changes to employment insurance that have been introduced?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I'd like to raise a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I will deal with the point of order.

I'll take some time to deal with the point of order, and then I would expect, as we go forward, to respect that.

When we deal with things like estimates and so on, of course the questions can be wide-ranging, and the comments as well, because there are a lot of issues there. But when we're dealing with this particular act—and I have set it out initially, and I'll maybe just go over parts of it as to what it deals with—I don't want this to go into areas that are extraneous to that.

[An hon. member]

Can I elaborate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Well, no, I'll finish my reasoning. I'll give you a bit of time, because we won't debate the point of order, but I just want to give you my thoughts on it.

The questions, and I suppose the comments to some extent that lead into the questions, have a little more leeway, but the questions directed to the minister should deal with the particular subject matter that we have before us, and that's—

[An hon. member]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I am the chair, so I'll finish my reasoning. I'll rule on the point of order, so you'll have an opportunity to comment on that.

We're talking about amendments to the EI Act specifically to give parents who receive parental benefits access to sickness benefits and to implement the new EI benefits for parents of critically ill children. There are also new federal support benefits for parents of murdered or missing children, and of course amendments to the Canada Labour Code to protect the jobs of parents who take a leave of absence to care for the critically ill or injured child and of parents of children who are missing or murdered as a result of a suspected criminal offence. Of course, these are obviously tragic kinds of events and people are quite emotional. That's the area we're dealing with.

Your motion talks about an entirely different area and is the subject of debate in another realm. I won't allow you to get into your motion or other areas. This is the area we're dealing with. Your questions and comments have to be related to that or they will be out of order.

With that in mind, continue.

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

What I was going to say was that the changes that have been introduced to employment insurance are far-reaching, are going to impact every nook and cranny of this country. All I was wondering was whether or not the changes that have been introduced will impact the people who are going to be affected by Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act.

Will any of these changes that have been announced to EI affect any of these people who would be eligible for benefits under Bill C-44?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

The eligibility requirements for these conditions described under Bill C-44 are very clear: they are not tied to other EI programs, except insofar as they are stackable in many cases. That's a good thing. That's something that has been fought for, for a long time. In designing these programs, we included stackability because that would be for the benefit of all Canadians.

But in terms of other changes to other parts of the EI system, there's no direct connection with these eligibility requirements. For each of these programs it is very clear and independent of the rest of the EI system.

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

Do you think a study of the EI changes is warranted, Minister? Can you answer that question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

That question is out of order. You understand what I've said. Tie that together, deal with this area or your questions will be ruled out of order. That question is out of order.

Carry on, if you wish.

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

I'm done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We'll move to Mr. Butt.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning ministers, deputy ministers, directors general. Thank you all for being here today.

I'm delighted with this legislation, and I want to tell you why.

One of the first meetings I had in my constituency office as a newly elected MP in Streetsville was with the father of a young child who had been diagnosed with a critical illness. He knew about the election campaign commitment we had made and was delighted that we had obviously formed a government that could implement those changes. I'm just thrilled. He's contacted me and he's delighted. His daughter is well now, but they had a very difficult time in their life, and the ability for his wife to have taken EI benefits to be able to be with the child would have made a huge difference to their family. So I'm just thrilled that we are dealing with this piece of legislation today.

I'll start with Minister Raitt.

Minister, I've noticed the legislation does outline different maximum durations for each of the three different unpaid leaves: in the case of murdered children, 104 weeks; missing children, 52 weeks; and critically ill children, 37 weeks.

Can you elaborate, Minister, for the committee why these different durations were established and what the methodology was behind those three different qualification periods?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you very much.

The first kind of leave you mentioned, for murdered children and for missing children—104 weeks and 52 weeks—is modelled after the Quebec legislation. Simply put, we wanted to make sure we had as generous a program as was there. We wanted to make sure that we weren't any less generous than the province that offered the best provincial leave in Canada.

The policy rationale for 104 weeks is based upon the notion that it will take 104 weeks for a parent to grieve, for a parent to go through the process if there is a criminal case, if they have to go to trial, if they have to go to court. Senator Boisvenu has spoken very eloquently about the struggles he had during the time when he went through something like this. Parents also, as I indicated, may need time to attend judicial proceedings, and those can take a considerable period of time. So that's for the murdered children.

In the case of the 52 weeks' unpaid leave for missing children, that gives people time to search for their child and to deal with the psychological shock as well, which I would imagine is quite devastating.

Leave for parents of critically ill children is 37 weeks, to match up with the benefit of 35 weeks available in the program.

[A voice]

That's plus a two-week leave.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Yes.

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

Obviously within our realm at the federal level we have jurisdiction only over federally regulated sectors of the economy, and obviously many workers in this country will be regulated by various provincial pieces of legislation. I guess in the case of the province of Ontario, where I'm from, there would be the Employment Standards Act.

Have you had conversations with your provincial counterparts? I think you mentioned in your opening comments that Quebec, for example, is one province that perhaps has companion legislation or is willing to adopt or has already adopted a similar provision for employees who would be covered under the provincial jurisdiction. Have you had conversations with your provincial counterparts? Is it likely we're going to see provinces get on board with this measure to ensure that their companion provincial pieces of labour legislation mirror the changes to the Canada Labour Code that you're proposing?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I would hope so, because the program is available through income support and employment insurance benefits.

At the latest federal-provincial-territorial meeting I spoke with my colleagues just very casually about the concept, and it's really up to their own legislatures to put in place what they can in the timeframes that are there.

I will tell you that in Saskatchewan right now they provide 12 weeks of leave per year for employees in case of a serious family illness or injury. That can be extended to 16 weeks in certain circumstances.

We already talked about Quebec. In fact all provinces except Alberta provide some kind of short-term family responsibility leave, ranging from about three to 10 days.

This one is a significant leave. This one is our commitment to Canadian families, and we've illustrated that through the legislation we've introduced. I would hope that Canadian families who are not federally regulated will be able to take advantage of it as well when provinces put in place the leave provision so they may be able to collect and not worry about whether or not they have a job.

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

Can you—either minister or both—briefly explain how parents who would wish to could share the benefits? Maybe the mother wants to take a few weeks to be with the child initially and then the father would like to take time. Is there some way they can share those benefits in whole or in part, obviously up to the maximum qualification period? Is that part of what families will be eligible to do under these changes?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Absolutely. It would be set up similar to parental leave so that the parents can share the benefits, but there's only one waiting period attached. If they decide to share, there aren't two separate waiting periods. There's just one application and then both parents can take advantage of it as meets their needs. They may have career commitments or limitations that they need to address, so this allows for one parent at a time, at the convenience of the family.

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

Thank you.

Am I done, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Your time has expired, but if—

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

No, that's good. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.