Human Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2012

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Yes.

[Yvonne Harvey]

In the case of a missing child, I think that would be important. I haven't had a child go missing, but I think I can say that you always hold out hope that the child will be found alive.

I think two different things go on here. Yes, you're traumatized, but you're holding on to the hope that the child will be found. Then when the child is found, but it's obviously a homicide, there's another whole trauma that you go through.

In terms of stacking of periods of time with a leave of absence, if that can be extended, I think it would certainly be helpful in the case of a missing child.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Monsieur Lapointe. Your time is up.

I think Mr. Surprenant would like to make a comment.

Go ahead.

[Michel Surprenant]

I would simply like to add something to what Ms. Harvey said about disappearances.

In my case, it has been 12 years, and I can tell you that you never get a chance to grieve. We have come to terms with the fact that she is not there, but we are still not grieving. If her body was ever found, the grief process would start. That should be something to consider.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to acknowledge that Senator Boisvenu is in the room here. He was one of the co-founders, with Mr. Surprenant, of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared. He is certainly a strong proponent of the types of benefits that are in the bill.

It's good to have you here, listening in on the testimony that's being provided.

We'll now move to Mr. Butt.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of you for being here today.

I'd like to get a little bit more information about the role of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Some of us and our communities are certainly familiar.... In Mississauga, Ontario, which I represent, I'm quite familiar with Victim Services of Peel, for example, and with the role they play in supporting....

Obviously, the goal of Bill C-44 is to provide financial support in some ways for parents who are going to need to take time off work to deal with the difficult circumstances in their family and to make sure they qualify for employment insurance and are able to get those financial benefits. That's part of it.

The other part, of course, is the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, which would allow an individual to take unpaid leave and still have their job secured—in the federal realm, obviously, because it's the Canada Labour Code. I think Ms. Harvey said it very well: we're hoping the provinces will consider coming on board with this in their jurisdictions.

Here is what I'd like to know. When you have the case of a family in which there has been a murdered child or a missing child, are there any other financial supports for families, either at the federal level through your office or at the provincial or local levels? In some cases, obviously, if a family member is not working to begin with, they wouldn't qualify for EI benefits, but they likely would be going through quite a fair number of expenditures, I would think, for the family, etc. Are there any other financial support mechanisms that you're aware of for families at either the federal or provincial level or at the local level, beyond what we're talking about in this bill today?

[Susan O'Sullivan]

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to tell you a little bit more about what our office can do. As indicated, I am the federal ombudsman, and as everyone on this committee is aware, the majority of direct services to victims of crime are offered at the provincial and territorial levels, so there is a large variability among what services are available to victims of crime, depending on what is offered by the province or territory.

I'd like to build on some of the comments Yvonne made. One example I can use that exists for victims of violent crime is criminal injuries compensation, but that framework is not available in the northern territories or Newfoundland.

What is available to victims of crime does vary among the provinces and territories, and those decisions are made based on their communities, their needs. One of the things that expanding the Canada Labour Code.... In my comments I also offered that perhaps this committee...and I realize it is not part of the actual Bill C-44, but it is in conjunction with it, because what we're trying to do is provide the best benefits possible for victims of crime. So if in fact the provinces and territories came on board with their amendments, this would be an example of bringing some consistency across Canada in what's available to victims of crime—if they came on board with similar changes.

I always like to say, on the subject of what we can provide, that, for example, if there were a category added to EI that was similar, which was expanded—I really echo the comments, and I'm just going to use age as an example, because we really should be eliminating age as a criterion in terms of the financial needs of victims of crime. When we look at whether EI can be amended—and I recognize your comment as well, because, for example, under EI, you're right that the criterion for adherence to that is more stringent than in the federal income support program—we would recommend a category be added to that, which is broader. So if people were ineligible or in fact would receive more—because of their incomes—than the $350, they should then get the option of the federal income support plan. In actual fact, I understand that the top limit on EI is $485 per week, so there would be a potential for increased benefits to victims of crime.

There are different resources available. You're quite right, for example, that in some communities there may be a higher level of victim services at the local level, based on what's available. What we see across the country is variability. We see capacity and needs and gap needs. It's no surprise to anyone on this committee that if you happen to be in a northern community, capacity is an issue. It's not just how you are going to get it.

I want to reflect Mr. Surprenant's comments about the availability of the right support. I realize that counselling is something that's available for funding, but there is, for example, in some provinces—I think Yvonne highlighted it, that to deal with the grieving process you need that counselling support and the availability. Your ability to afford that is different, or there is that variability.

So, yes, there are services available at the provincial and territorial levels. There is a large amount of variability across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Mr. Butt. Your time is up.

We'll now move to Mr. Cuzner.

Do you have a comment? Go ahead.

[Yvonne Harvey]

I would like to just build on what Sue said. One of the things I hear all the time, almost on a weekly basis, is that there is no agreement between the provinces, so there is a lot of disparity in terms of what services are available in the provinces. In my case, my child was murdered in Newfoundland and I'm a resident of Ontario, so there were even no counselling services available, because it happened in a different province. I hear that all the time from parents whose child was murdered in one province and they're residents of another. Even the fundamental support of having some psychological services is not available in some cases.

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

Maybe we could take a federal leadership role on that. Maybe we should take that under advisement.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Go ahead, Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today. Certainly as the representative of the Liberal Party on this committee, I can tell you that we believe in the intent and the essence of this bill. Some of the questions I had with regard to flexibility in the age restrictions, in the extension of benefits to spouses and siblings—those questions have been asked and answered.

The suggestions that you three have put forward I think are very strong, very realistic. I agree with Mr. Butt. There are representatives from five or six different provinces here, and to go back and advocate to have those types of issues addressed at the provincial level I think is very important. We as federal members should go back and do what we can to advocate for those in our own provinces.

The questions have been asked and answered. Your testimony has been succinct, it's been powerful, and it's been compelling, and I have no further questions. I want to thank you not just for being here today, but for the work that you continue to do for the benefit of others.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cuzner.

I think we all agree with the comments Mr. Cuzner has made. Your testimony has certainly been powerful and succinct, and it is very touching and deals with the issues that we're considering.

Thank you very much for appearing before us and taking the time to do that. With that, we'll suspend for the next panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I'd like to bring the meeting back to order.

I would like to indicate that we will adjourn a little earlier this morning because we have some committee business. We want members to be mindful of that.

We welcome the new panel. Thank you very much for attending today as we study Bill C-44.

I know that at least some of you had the opportunity to be here during the first panel. It was very touching and compelling testimony. We can hardly imagine what it must be like to appear before a committee. We certainly commend you for your courage and for the fact that you have taken the time to personally invest in these issues and come before us and answer questions.

I understand we will start with Mr. Serre. Go ahead.

[Bruno Serre, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Bruno Serre. I am the vice-chair of AFPAD and Brigitte's father. Brigitte was murdered in January 2006 at the age of 17 during her shift at a Shell station in Montreal.

When Brigitte died, not only did my life as a father fall apart, but so did my life as a worker. On the morning of January 25, 2006, I was at work. Never would I have thought that my life would be turned upside down and changed forever.

At around 9 a.m. that day, two detectives came to my work and asked to meet with me. I went to see them. After asking me a number of questions about my children, they gave me the bad news about my daughter Brigitte. That is the precise moment when my life as a father changed forever. I could not believe that something like that could happen to my daughter at her workplace.

The days that followed the tragedy will be engraved on my mind forever. I closed myself off in a bubble to protect myself, to escape the tragic events that I had just learned of and to be able to live. I was no longer the strong and solid man that I used to be. I was questioning my role as a father, as the man of the house, because, in my view, a father is supposed to guide and protect his children on their life journey.

But I was not there to protect her that night. That was my state of mind at that time. Have I failed as a father? That is the question I kept asking myself every day. What could I have done? Why her? Those questions were going through my head over and over again.

For a number of weeks, I second-guessed myself, I was angry and I could not understand what had happened. I was no longer living, I was just there. I was no longer listening to my other children. We had three other children with us at home. I was lucky to have an amazing partner. She supported me and comforted me during my moments of anger, rage and great pain.

Five weeks after the tragedy, I decided to go back to work. My partner had already been back to work for a week. In my mind, I told myself that I was also ready to go back. Other factors contributed to my decision to return to work, including financial insecurity, additional debts that were piling up and the fear of losing my job.

So I showed up at work, one morning in March, hoping to resume my work. Needless to say, my return to work was not the way I pictured it. My colleagues at work were avoiding me. When I walked down the hall, they would look somewhere else. When I entered the cafeteria, people would stop talking and would avoid any eye contact with me.

My partner, who worked in the same place as me, became my only friend. She would comfort me by saying that it was normal for people to avoid me because they did not know what to say to me. But I could not understand why they were avoiding me. I told her that I was the father. I could not see how I could go to work every day and live in silence.

During the following weeks, it was no longer the silence that I had to deal with daily, but the questions that people were asking about the tragedy. My colleagues either wanted to know how I was living with this and what had happened exactly or they would tell me that they understood my pain and what I was going through. Those were questions and comments that I did not necessarily want to address.

My biggest concern was how I was going to get through the day. At that point, three months had passed since Brigitte's death. So I asked myself what I had to do. The answer was simple: I had no choice; I had to work, regardless of my questions. There were basic living expenses, the mortgage, the accounts, groceries, the children's school and the big fear of losing my job if I was away for too long. Above all, there was the pride, the pride of the man of the house who wants to bring home the bacon. I also remember evenings, after work, when I was burnt out and no longer had the energy to take care of myself or my family. I wasn't the solid man of the house anymore. This situation lasted for several months.

During the year, I had to be absent from work or leave early a number of times. I was not 100% productive. As a conscientious worker, it was a situation I had difficulty accepting. Poor mental health and exhaustion has a very serious impact on daily life. During that period, I had to see my family doctor for chest pains, frequent stomach pains and headaches, and dizzy spells. After he examined me several times, the doctor simply told me that what I was experiencing was normal. In fact, what I was going through following the tragic death of my daughter was tremendous stress for any parent. Only time and rest could remedy all my physical and mental health problems. At that point, I understood that no parent who loses a child tragically is ready to return to work in the months following the incident.

Bill C-44 is an indispensable measure for any parent who has to regain their health, take time for their family and themselves, to better deal with life that moves on. I would like to thank Minister Diane Finley, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and the Conservative government for keeping a promise that gives renewed confidence to victims like me. I applaud the government's willingness to help us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you, Monsieur Serre.

It is certainly good to hear you share your personal thoughts and feelings and the physical effects you experienced. I think it's good for the committee to hear that and some of the second-guessing that you've gone through, as we deal with this study. The last thing you should be concerned with is losing your job.

Of course, it has some pretty practical realities, and we can understand that for sure.

We'll now go to Ms. Ryan.

[Darlene Ryan, As an Individual]

Thank you.

My name is Darlene Ryan. I'm the wife of Bruno Serre.

Brigitte Serre was brutally murdered in January 2006 while working in Montreal at a Shell gas station. She was 17 years old.

Brigitte was the middle child of our five children, whose ages ranged from 13 to 20 at the time of her death. The death of a child is always a tragedy. It is a path that no parent ever wants to cross. When that death is caused by the criminal act of another, the tragedy and consequences are multiplied beyond measure.

Bruno and I were at work when the police came and announced her death to us. The only way I can describe that day even now, almost seven years later, is an intense feeling that you're having a nightmare and you'll wake up. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

When life hands you something like what we went through, you go through the first days in a strange sort of haze in which you're doing things you never thought you would have to do. You're planning the funeral for one of your children, choosing a casket and urn for a 17-year-old, when you should be planning their 18th birthday party. You're trying to help your other children deal with something you yourself aren't quite sure how to handle. You're trying to understand police procedures and meeting with them to try to find out exactly what did happen to your child. The police were wonderful with us, but were incapable of giving us the answers we so desperately needed to hear.

In our case, as is the case for many other families in our situation, trying to deal with all the media attention and continuously seeing your nightmare displayed on the news only intensifies the suffering. I think we managed through those first days by simply doing what needed to be done. As in most deaths, the aftermath of the funeral is when reality takes shape. It did in our case as well, but not as a usual death would have. We were not only trying to deal with the sudden death of a child; we were dealing with the fact that some stranger had decided to hurt her and take her away.

We were among the lucky ones, in the sense that the criminals had been arrested quickly, freeing us from the countless crowd scanning of passing faces, wondering if they were the one or not, like so many other families have to go through.

The second part of the nightmare was yet to come. We still had to face all the judicial procedures in the upcoming months. I decided to go back to work after only about three or four weeks following Brigitte's death. The fear of losing long-term job security and not being able to make ends meet and take care of my family quickly invaded my subconscious. I also knew that I would need additional time off eventually when the court hearings would come around. This worried me in case I took too much time off in the beginning and I would lose the possibility of being present for the court procedures. Although the decision was formed rationally, I was far from ready to return to work emotionally.

From day one, it was tremendously difficult. On my first day back at work, people were actually lined up at my office wanting to ask me all sorts of questions. The majority were truly out of concern for me and my family, while others were out of morbid curiosity formed from viewing bits and pieces on news broadcasts. Either way, it was an effort to deal with. As I was at work, I tried to answer in a professional manner, but would often have to escape somewhere else and simply weep in order to let off some of the steam and some of the emotions to get through my day.

I would then come home, and try as I might, I just couldn't be there as much as I wanted to for the rest of my family. As a mother and wife, you want to help everyone in your family, but when you hardly have enough strength for yourself, it's difficult to give strength to others. I often felt that my family was falling apart and was helpless to do anything about it. My husband had also returned to work, and I could see the toll it was taking on him. I lived with the guilt that he returned to work too early. As he had seen me return, I think in some way he felt obligated to do the same.

By the time I'd figured out that I myself had returned to work too soon, it was too late for either of us to take time off, so we simply struggled on. Due to all the stress he was going through, my husband started to have numerous health problems, serious enough that the children and I were seriously wondering if he was going to make it through the year.

Whenever a drama such as ours occurs, it's often suggested that one family member be the contact person between the authorities and the family. I was that person for our family. I would receive calls at work regarding the case, which in turn required that I ask for additional time off work, enabling me to go to court. Although my employer never refused my request, it was obvious that all my absences were causing problems, as my dependability was inferior compared with before.

One of my superiors finally suggested that I take a few days off in the aim of settling all of my family matters. There was no ill intention on his part. He meant well. He simply didn't realize that ours was not something that could be settled in a few days.

I was starting to feel a burden and worthless as a worker, as well as lost as a parent.

Ours being such a large family, we also had to take care of our other children, most of whom were teenagers at the time. They dealt with everything in their own individual way, but all went through academic setbacks. One of our children was affected more intensely, which required additional attention. This also caused an increase in time off from work, as I would receive emergency calls from school requiring my immediate presence.

Whether it was time off work in the first few weeks following Brigitte's death or appearing in court to help my family, or simply when I couldn't make it through another day at work, I was absent more often in 2006 than in all of my previous 14 years combined with that employer. I was never a person who shunned my professional responsibilities. I had always taken pride in my career. But the reality of the situation was just too hard to handle. It was an impossible and unfair situation for both me and my employer.

It's unfathomable to think that a parent of a murdered child can return to work after only a few weeks, to return to a normal routine, when they are trying to cope with all of these harsh realities. It takes months, not weeks, to get a minimum amount of strength back.

If the measures that are being discussed today would have been in effect in 2006, I could have helped my husband, children, and myself more efficiently. It was a very long road back for all of my family, which could have been easier and quicker if we'd had the necessary time off to heal.

I'd like to take a moment to thank Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister Diane Finley, the respective teams, as well as all of you today and the Conservative government for listening to our plea and for finally finding for families the help that they truly need.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you very much for sharing with us.

We can certainly understand that it is a nightmare, but one that doesn't easily go away. Just the multitude of things you have to cope with and deal with separate and apart from work is cause enough for concern. You shouldn't have to be thinking about whether you'd go back to work so soon after an event like that. Again, we appreciate your sharing with us.

We'll now move on to Madame Sirois, please.

[Christiane Sirois, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Christiane Sirois and this is my story.

My son, Sébastien Métivier, was kidnapped on November 1st, 1984, when he was eight years old, close to 28 years ago. Today, I am supporting the assistance that Bill C-44 will give to parents of missing children. This morning, I would like to give you a few examples from my personal experience in order to stress the urgency of adopting this bill as a whole as soon as possible.

As a single mother, I was the only financial support for my family at the time. I had two children: Sébastien, who was eight years old, and Mélanie, who was seven years old. I worked as an administrative secretary at the time. The tragedy that occurred in our life was so emotionally intense that it took all my energy.

After the disappearance, I was unable to work and live in a balanced way, given the events that I just described. So I had to hand in my resignation to my employer and stay home. Since this was a disappearance because of a kidnapping, I kept waiting for my child to return home, which unfortunately did not happen. I used various services, those of psychologists and other people. At the time, this type of event was not familiar to them.

No one has the right to live in this kind of disarray without resources. I had to face these events without financial or psychological resources. My daughter, Mélanie, and I were in an endless corridor. We were directed toward last-resort services meant to help people. We submitted a financial aid request for compensation to victims of crime in Quebec.

Despite the financial assistance we were given, we had to use last-resort services. I worked very hard to make up for what we were lacking. I returned to work and, as a result, had to abandon the large file of research on the disappearance of my son for a few years.

This is why the assistance proposed in Bill C-44 would have improved my life at the time. Even if modest financial assistance had been available at that time, it is clear that our suffering could have been lessened.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Madame Hotte.

[Céline Hotte, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Céline Hotte, and I am pleased to be here today to support Bill C-44.

At the time of the crime, I had two daughters, and I was living with my spouse, who is a paramedic in the Buckingham area of Gatineau. Annick, the eldest, was 15 years old at the time. She had decided to go live with her father. Everything was going well until, one day, our lives were turned upside down. A gratuitous murder was committed. I had four weeks left of a contract, but I was unable to return to work because time had stopped for me.

The bills continued to come in regularly. It was very difficult with only one income. Let me give you some examples. My spouse made the minimum payments to all the creditors, often less. The telephone got cut off. Hydro called us nonstop. We lived with another stress: money. This added to all the sorrow the murder had caused. It was very painful for us. I was also worried about my daughter, Pascale, and concerned that she continue going to school and being involved in her sports activities, but especially that she eat properly, which was not always possible.

We also had to pay for half the funeral costs and all the other expenses incurred by the situation. We really needed specialized psychological assistance. This is why Bill C-44 is indispensable for the relatives of victims. The $350 weekly payments over 35 weeks are very important to lighten the financial burden on victims and to help them continue to live with a little less worry because, I should mention, it is very difficult to carry on with the realities of life after such a tragedy has happened.

Following this trauma, I was diagnosed in 1999 with fibromyalgia, and this was a result of the murder. I was experiencing too much stress at that time. This is an incurable disease. There was also the stress related to parole, which plunged us back into it after 10 years, 12 years; he is trying for parole each year. After 17 years, he was reincarcerated because he did the same thing to another girl. We are witnessing that. We are being thrown back into it. We are in it almost all the time.

I would like to thank you for listening to me. It is important because other families will unfortunately experience similar situations. But, they will have the opportunity to get money to meet their needs.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you very much for sharing a very painful time in your life. I can understand how things like telephone bills, hydro bills, and other money issues would add to the burden and the stress; there's no doubt about that. Anything that could help lighten the burden would certainly be appreciated, I'm sure.

We're going to move now to Mr. Cleary for a round of questioning.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to split my time with Mike, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. Your testimony is very important for the families of future victims. Unfortunately, there will most definitely be future victims.

I was a daily newspaper reporter for 12 years in my previous life as a journalist. My career as a day-to-day newspaper reporter came to an end soon after I covered the murder of a 15-year-old girl in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Her name was Samantha Walsh. Walking home from her grandmother's house one Sunday evening after dinner, she disappeared. They found her a few weeks later under a snow bank. She had been murdered by a young man who lived just down the lane. For the two weeks she had been missing, her parents were out of their minds with worry and fear, and then at the end came the worst possible result.

Covering that story, I felt as a newspaper reporter that the way to best relate it to the readers was to try to get as close to the story as I could. But I got too close. I couldn't do my job anymore after that.

I do feel for what you went through, for what you're going through.

I heard, Darlene, what you had to say, and Bruno, what you had to say, and what everybody had to say about how you returned to work in a matter of weeks, in your cases. This bill would give you a grant for 35 weeks.

I have two questions. Are 35 weeks enough? What other supports can you see being put in place to help families in circumstances such as yours?

[Bruno Serre]

Thank you for your comments.

A period of 35 weeks is a good start. It depends on the person and the situation, but 35 weeks is still a good amount of time.

But if these 35 weeks must be consecutive, that isn't enough. People will have to attend trials a year and a half or two years later. When the trial or the preliminary hearing starts, people must have more time. During the trial, people can't go to court and then go to work. I know this because last year, during the preliminary inquiry, we attended hearings and had to go to work two days later. It is very difficult and it takes time.

So a period of 35 weeks would be good. There should perhaps be an additional period. If the case is postponed to a later date, there should be a supplement of a few weeks. When there is a trial or a preliminary inquiry, time is absolutely needed.