Evidence of meeting #50 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parents.
A video is available from Parliament.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
The new benefit covers up to 35 weeks. If those 35 weeks are up and the parents are able to requalify for EI, they will be eligible to make a new claim one year after their first claim began.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
But there will be a gap of a few weeks.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Correct.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
How do you explain the duality....
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
May I add something?
The benefit lasts 35 weeks, but the parents can split that period up. In other words, one parent can work during the year and will need only 600 hours that year in order to requalify the following year for the 35 weeks of benefits.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Let's use an actual example. Say a father is entitled to 35 weeks of benefits, but the child continues to suffer in week 36. Mom worked during the first 35 weeks. Could mom, at that point, go on leave and receive another 35 weeks' worth of benefits, or would there be a 20-week gap?
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
If it involves a child, up to 35 weeks will be granted in a year. As the minister mentioned, if the couple is able to accumulate the necessary number of hours once those benefits end, they can once again access benefits.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
If the child had just another three or four weeks left, which would unfortunately be among the toughest to deal with because death was imminent, the parents could not receive benefits. Is that correct?
October 18th, 2012 / 9:55 a.m.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
It is also important to understand that if, after the 35 weeks, the child died, the parents could qualify for compassionate care benefits, covering another 6 weeks. So they can be stacked.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Those benefits are automatically granted as soon as the person stops working, are they not?
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
I don't know what you mean.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I was under the impression that if I had to stop working because my child was seriously ill, I would apply first for the six weeks of benefits and then for my 35 weeks of EI benefits.
Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
The six weeks of benefits are for the end of a life. The doctor must certify that the child will very likely die within 26 weeks. In that case, the parents would be eligible for the 35 weeks, if the child were critically ill. Then, if the child's condition were to deteriorate during those 35 weeks, the parents could possibly qualify for another 6 weeks of benefits in order to continue caring for the child.
NDP
Conservative
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
What is stacking, Madam Minister?
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
It occurs when a claimant receives benefits, and right after that, receives another type of benefit.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
That's what you are referring to when you talk about stacking. It's those two types.
Conservative
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
The same applies to the changes in sickness benefits included in this bill. It is for parents whose child has been diagnosed with cancer, for example, while they are receiving parental benefits. Before, someone could not receive sickness benefits if they had not accumulated enough hours after their parental benefits stopped. Now, they will be able to access one right after the other. That is what we mean by stacking.
NDP
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
That is what you call stacking.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much, Ministers, for attending today, as well the officials. We really appreciate your time.
My first question will be for Minister Raitt, just so there are no surprises.
This piece of legislation, Bill C-44, is obviously something quite important to my other health care professional colleagues. One thing we would continually hear is the challenges that parents would have trying to balance what things they needed to prioritize. So not only was it a responsibility of myself or my colleagues as trauma physicians, but also our social workers, to see how we could create that right balance.
To the point you made before, Minister, as a parent as well as someone looking at this legislation, the focus absolutely becomes the child. No parent wants to be placed in a circumstance where they're having to choose, and the intent behind this legislation is that a parent does not have to make that choice. The choice is very clear and very easy for them: they can spend the time with their child. They can not just balance work and responsibilities for family, but family comes first.
My question stems from one from a parent who came into my office, very similar to Mr. Butt, right at the beginning when I was elected last year. Their child had an osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. We're in a rural riding. They actually had to travel a long way to get to Sick Kids to get their care. The travel back and forth was challenging enough for the parent, let alone wanting to be with their child.
One of the items that has been raised in this legislation is obviously the Canada Labour Code and the protection of jobs and taking leaves of absence. I wanted to ask you: what consultations were done in your constituency with respect to the recommended changes that have been put forward for this legislation? Also, your thoughts with respect to the legislation: what items would you like to see emphasized going forward with respect to this piece of legislation?
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Halton, ON
Thank you very much.
You would know more than anyone else exactly what happens when you have a critically ill child and what happens with respect to parents trying to balance out the needs, and the importance of the parent in the ongoing care for the child. Even being an advocate for the child in the hospital is so very important. That's part of the policy rationale for making sure we are focused on the child. That's why the leave matches with the child and the leave matches with the benefits.
In terms of talking to stakeholders, the officials talked to the stakeholders in 2009, around the spring and the summer. We always do public consultations when we're thinking about modernization of part III of the code, which is what we're seeking to amend today.
I'll be very frank. You always receive the same response from employers, which is, well, we can take care of that without it being regulated, we'll provide the leave, and we'll make sure people are fine. On the other side, labour unions consistently express support for the introduction of these kinds of measures to ensure that the worker is protected, that they have that leave, and that they don't have to worry about whether or not their company has that kind of policy in place.
Having said all that, the reality of the situation is that when a similar type of leave for murdered or missing children was introduced to Quebec in 2007, there was absolutely no opposition whatsoever to it. It just falls back to the general notion that the private sector does not want to be regulated by government, but we made the choice in this case that you have to protect the family and you need to support the family. That's why we're seeking leave to amend.
The other aspect too, though, is that in the federal jurisdiction the numbers are higher when Minister Finley talks about the EI program because it's across the country, presuming that the other jurisdictions will allow for the leave. In the federal jurisdiction, we're only looking at numbers of approximately 75 for murdered or missing children—75 employers across the country—and that's it. In terms of critically ill children, it's only 425.
It's not a great hit on the federal-private jurisdiction in terms of extra costs to companies, so they have, I would submit, no ability to criticize this kind of proper support to families that we're providing today. I'm very comfortable with the response of the stakeholders.
