Human Resources Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, folks. We're continuing our study on Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations.

We're very happy to have with us today Fred Phelps, from the Canadian Association of Social Workers; Tyler Hnatuk, from the Canadian Association for Community Living; and, of course, Cathy Loblaw, from Ronald McDonald House Charities.

We'll start with your comments of five to 10 minutes and then we'll open the floor for questions. We very much appreciate your coming here today to help us with this study.

Ms. Loblaw, we'll start with you.

[Cathy Loblaw, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ronald McDonald House Charities Canada]

Good morning. Thank you very for the opportunity to be here today and to participate in this important discussion. We are passionate advocates of families with sick children, and so appreciate the commitment and the quality of the work and discussion that's happening on behalf of families.

What we want to share with you today is really twofold. We want to take a few minutes to talk with you a little bit about Ronald McDonald Houses and the role they play in supporting families of sick children, and from there share with you some of the highlights of a Canadian literature research study we did this past year to help us understand the needs of families and what was driving the growth we were experiencing at the houses. I think it will provide some important insights into the very real needs and difficulties of families when they're dealing with a sick child, in particular a sick child who has to be treated at a hospital away from their home or local community.

Let me begin with Ronald McDonald Houses. Our first house opened in Canada, in Toronto, in 1981. Today, we have 14 Ronald McDonald Houses right across the country. Every children's hospital has a Ronald McDonald House within either easy walking distance, a few steps, or right on hospital property. We have experienced tremendous growth in our program and in the service we provide to Canadian families who have to travel to enable their sick child to be treated for a life-threatening illness or injury.

In many ways our houses really began from the intuition that it was simply the right thing to do. We understood that what a sick child needs, whether it's a banged knee or something far more serious, is their family and their parents nearby. Our houses started out as very warm bed and breakfasts, anywhere from 10 to 12 bedrooms. The extraordinary growth that's gone on is that our new Toronto house, which is our third house in Toronto, now has 96 bedrooms. It is the largest Ronald McDonald House in the world.

The 14 houses in Canada are part of a network of 318 Ronald McDonald Houses worldwide. All of our houses across the country have really gone through extraordinary growth in the last five to ten years. We have 476 bedrooms for families across the country. Some of our houses have turn-away rates as high as 70%. Today, we're serving just under 10,000 families a year who stay with us, which represents one-third of the families of Canada's most seriously sick and injured children.

By 2014 we'll have more than doubled that number, to close to 20,000 families a year, so it's really quite remarkable what a Ronald McDonald House provides. They are truly healing oases. They're spaces where a family can step inside. They can sleep. They can eat. They can connect with other families who are going through similar difficult life circumstances. They can do their laundry. They can be with the other siblings. They can really continue to be a family and have maybe a little bit of normal at a time when everything in their lives is anything but normal.

When we talk about what a house is, I always feel that nothing says it more powerfully than the families themselves. What we hear repeatedly is how one minute you're running around to school, carpools, jobs, and living the fullness of all of our lives, and in a nanosecond your life changes. You're fighting for the life of your child. You have to leave your community. You may have to quit your job. You have siblings and other children to care for. You're now on a healing journey that can take months, sometimes years, and ultimately create a new normal for your family. It is an extraordinarily devastating and difficult time for families.

What a Ronald McDonald House does is provide that moment of pause and support and allow the families to focus on the only thing that matters, which is healing their sick child and being a family themselves.

If I may, I'd like to read to you a letter we received from a family. I think it is particularly powerful in expressing not only the kind of support a family needs when they're dealing with a sick child, but also the role that a Ronald McDonald House provides in helping support that.

This letter came from Drew Graham. He is the father of Oliver and Jax, husband of Kaitlin, and this came from our Halifax house:

On June 5, 11:18 p.m., my youngest son, Oliver, beat his cancer. Unfortunately, his cancer was so aggressive that he had to sacrifice his life to do it. He was the bravest person I will ever know. Oliver's two-year fight taught me I had my priorities wrong. Even before the cancer, I was missing my youngest son's life. Ronald McDonald House would later teach me I was also missing my oldest. When your child is going through aggressive chemo, you treat them like a porcelain doll, terrified of every cough or cold, always waiting for them to vomit or bleed. You are literally waiting for the worst to happen. My oldest, Jax, only 15 months older than Oliver, would spend each day at the hospital playing what Oliver wanted to play, and playing how we told him he was allowed to play. Jax was not allowed to play something his brother could not, and Oliver, most of the time, could not play much. For Jax, that all changed as soon as we left for Ronald McDonald House. Around 6:30, Ollie's bedtime, Jax and I would walk from the IWK hospital to Ronald McDonald House. As soon as we exited the hospital, it would be about Jax. We would race from fire hydrant to fire hydrant, finally sprinting to the big red door. Once we were inside, Jax would take off to the playroom, where kids and volunteers would play with him. Here he wasn't running too fast or playing too rough; he was just a kid being a kid. If he got hungry, there was always a treat or food to be found in the kitchen. After playtime, it was off to the tub and bed. In bed we'd watch Scooby-Doo, Spiderman, or Ben 10. Jax would tell me about the characters in the show and what new toys he thought were cool. Lying together, lying on separate single beds or together on a double, I bonded with my son, I mean really bonded with my son. Some nights when Jax was asleep, I would sneak out to the common room to watch hockey or the news, anything to take my mind off cancer. I'd meet other parents and inevitably talk about why we were there. In these conversations, I learned life is not fair and cancer wasn't the only thing kids were fighting. I would also learn that while I thought we were broke and had it tough, every family at the house had it tough. Some had other kids who had to stay home, eight- to 10-hour drives, jobs that only allowed unpaid leave or forcing them to stay at work or quit. I hope you are never faced with the choice of leaving your dying child or losing the ability to support your family. If not for Ronald McDonald House, these families, my family, would not have been together when they most needed to be. Ronald McDonald House became for me and Jax an oasis, a place to play where Jax didn't have to curb his enthusiasm and I was just a regular parent. The house allowed both of us to let off steam and make the most of what days we still had as a whole family. To all the staff and volunteers who make a habit of going above and beyond, thank you for turning Ronald McDonald House into a home. Thank you for spoiling Jax, for being an ear when I needed to speak, a shrink when I needed advice, a shoulder when I needed to cry, and a friend when I needed a hug. You are family. On behalf of all my family, in the words of Oliver, “My love you, all my heart.”

I share that story because I think it very powerfully and honestly reflects just the enormity of the life challenges that families face when they are healing a sick child, and how the practicalities of life can be so hard to deal with when the only thing that matters is that child who's in front of you.

As we've looked at Ronald McDonald Houses and really grown into recognizing the role we've come to play in supporting the families of sick children, we have been faced with, and are continually faced with, extraordinary growth. We never anticipated that we'd be in a space where we'd be serving 10,000 families a year, growing to 20,000, and have 14 houses, and the growth isn't ending.

One of the processes we went through last year was a Canadian literature review, through a social research agency called Impakt, to help us understand the context of families.

There were seven key findings that were brought forward to us. I'd like to share them with this committee, because I think they really speak so powerfully to the core issue that families face when they have a sick child, both on the catastrophic financial side and the emotional burdens.

Very quickly, the key findings were these.

First, today more families than ever have to travel significant distances to obtain care for their seriously ill child. As everyone here knows, there's been an increasing shift towards specialty centres and hospitals of excellence in particular fields. It's no longer the case that families are just being treated at their local hospitals. Getting the treatment that your child requires most often requires travel to the hospital that can provide that level of expertise. As well, 76% of Canadians live outside of a community with a children's hospital, so travel is now not a nice-to-do to get better care, but a must-do to get the core care that families need. However, when you have to travel and when you are displaced, it has a significant impact on your life and that of your entire family.

The second key point of what's driving our growth is that it's a good-news story. The healing and recovery rates of children have increased significantly. Over the last 30 years, if you look at cancer, for example, you see that children have gone from a 30% recovery rate to an 80% recovery rate today, which is amazing. Children are getting better.

The reality is, though, thanks to medical advances and thanks to children healing, more treatments are required over longer periods of time, so the average stay at our houses, which used to be four to five days, is now 55-plus days. More than 50% of our families are there for extended or multiple stays. When you combine the financial burdens with the emotional burdens and the necessity of travel, you recognize that anything we can put in place that will support families—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

Ms. Loblaw, we do have to get to the other witnesses as well. I think all members of the committee, all Canadians, understand and appreciate the great work that Ronald McDonald House does. Your framing it as a personal, first-hand account was very powerful, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. We really appreciate it. Maybe you'll be able to elaborate on those seven points through some answers. We can do that.

Thanks.

Mr. Hnatuk is next.

[Cathy Loblaw]

Sure.

[Tyler Hnatuk, Policy and Programs Officer, Canadian Association for Community Living]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

On behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living, I want to thank you for the invitation to participate in the committee's study of Bill C-44.

My name is Tyler Hnatuk, and I am a policy and programs officer with the Canadian Association for Community Living.

The Canadian Association for Community Living, or CACL, is a family-based association that assists people with intellectual disabilities and their families to lead the way in advancing inclusion in their communities. Our association was founded in 1958 by parents of children with disabilities who wanted supports and services in their home communities rather than institutions. Since that time, our association has grown into a federation of 13 provincial and territorial associations, made up of over 300 local associations and more than 40,000 members.

Our association has in the past called for changes to the Canada Labour Code, Employment Insurance Act, Canada Pension Plan, and Income Tax Act in order to recognize the support and care that family members provide to a child with a disability. Over the past decade we have participated in community consultations, coalitions, and policy reform processes aimed at recognizing the challenges and disproportionate financial impacts faced by families of children with disabilities.

I'd like to say from the outset that we are encouraged by the direction of Bill C-44 and its proposal to recognize the challenges faced by families in these extraordinary circumstances. By recognizing the situations of parents of a child who has been a victim of a crime, is missing, or is critically ill or injured, this proposed bill recognizes the extraordinary caregiving responsibilities that some families face and the impact on their labour force attachment. As such, we wholeheartedly support the direction of the bill and the window of support and flexibility that it provides to parents in terribly difficult circumstances.

When compassionate care provisions were first introduced to employment insurance, we joined others in calling for enhancement of these measures to recognize the extraordinary caregiving situations that parents of children with severe disabilities face. We continue to be of the view that recognition is needed for families of children with severe disabilities, and we have developed detailed proposals with respect to an overall strategy for addressing the disproportionate caregiving situation that these families are in, of which these changes are one modest but important piece.

In my brief submission, I would like to provide a bit of a profile of parents of children with disabilities through our analyses of national data sets and other Canadian research, look to the current Canadian policy context in Canada for support for caregivers of children with disabilities, and look to the lived experience of families who are a part of our movement in order to outline the challenges that they face today.

To begin, just by sketching some of the profiles of families of children with disabilities, we know that children with disabilities and their families endure greater and disproportionate rates of low income than others in Canada. Data from the participation and activity limitation survey, or PALS, as people call it, from 2006 indicate that children with disabilities are more likely to live in households that fall below the low-income cut-off than children who do not have a disability.

It should be pointed out that this measure doesn't take into account non-reimbursed costs related to disability, and therefore the low-income situation is likely understated. When we consider employment, we know that parents' ability to maintain a career is significantly affected by having a child with a disability. Again, PALS 2006 found that parents of children with disabilities report that as a result of their child's condition, 38% worked fewer hours, 37% changed their work hours, 26% did not take a job, 22% quit work, and a further 20% did not take a promotion. We know also that most often it is the employment situation of mothers that is most affected, with 64% of mothers being the most affected, while 8% of fathers are the most affected.

One of the major disability-related supports that people require throughout their lives is help with everyday activities. Of children with disabilities whose parents require help, nearly 26% have parents who received help but needed more, and about 40% have parents who received no help but needed some.

Of these parents needing additional help, nearly three-quarters cite cost as the main reason they can't get it, and more than a third say out-of-pocket expenses.

The bulk of disability-related support for everyday activities in Canada is provided by family members. This includes help with personal care, health care, housework, and transportation, and includes matters such as personal advocacy, planning, coordination and brokering of needed services, emotional support, communication assistance, and so on.

I would like to illustrate these facts and figures with just a few of the stories that we hear from thousands of parents throughout the country who have children with intellectual disabilities. We hear regularly from families who are struggling to make ends meet as the sole result of their decision to push for what they believe is best for their child. Driven by a vision of inclusion and a good life, families are increasingly being pushed into hardship and desperation, in many cases to the brink.

Consider a plea received this month from a Saskatchewan mother of a young son with a disability. They are a single-income family on what would otherwise be a modest income, but they are below the poverty line and have filed for bankruptcy. This mother was recently advised that she should put her child in care, a course of action that she has no intention of following.

Consider the numerous stories that have appeared in print and television media over the past months of parents who have dropped off their adult children with community support agencies because they can no longer fulfill the duties of caregiving.

Consider the plea of an Ontario mother who recently spoke at a provincial hearing on government services and whose voice resonated with families across the country as she detailed the 15 years her family has spent on waiting lists for support and the two hours per week of support that allow her adult son to have a shower once in a while.

These families and thousands of others across the country have spent their lifetimes providing billions of dollars worth of what would otherwise be paid care for their children with significant needs.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recently reviewed Canada's third and fourth reports to the committee and concluded with observations that Canada must ensure that children with disabilities and their families be provided with all necessary support and services to ensure that financial constraints are not an obstacle in accessing services and that household incomes and parental employment are not negatively affected.

We believe it is quite clear that for families of children with severe disabilities, the activities of caregiving reach far beyond the typical duties of parenthood. As I mentioned earlier, CACL has developed detailed and more comprehensive proposals that could provide recognition for these extraordinary circumstances. In the context of a broader strategy, extension of employment insurance benefits would form one small but critical contribution toward mitigating the current financial impacts related to raising a child with significant needs.

As we know well from research, early intervention can be critical in shaping outcomes later in life. These interventions might be related to medical procedures, intensive therapies, educational activities, and so on, or the interventions may be the less formal added demands of parenting that relate to doing the inclusion work in the context of communities and systems where parents of children with disabilities still encounter so many doors slammed shut in generic services, programs, and supports. If parenting is a full-time job, then the inclusion work of parents of children with disabilities is far above and beyond what can be expected to be regular caregiving responsibilities.

The work undertaken by parents of children with disabilities to better their communities and build better lives for their sons and daughters needs to be recognized as the extraordinary task that it is. An extension of employment insurance benefits to parents of children with severe disabilities may seem a small window in the context of the overwhelming need for support, but these forms of recognition are critical. The consequences of missing these small windows of opportunity can be significant, as we see with the finding that 40% of kids in child welfare systems have disabilities, and as we see with the media stories of parents dropping off their children with community agencies.

While we recognize that something like employment insurance benefits may seem like a small window in the context of such great need, it's with these modest amounts of support that parents of children with disabilities can do and have done so much. It would further mark a tremendous step forward towards recognizing the contributions of family caregivers of children with disabilities.

We urge the committee to recognize that some families face extraordinary caregiving responsibilities that have a direct impact on labour force attachment, career development, and family well-being. We believe that this should be the focus for the purposes of the employment insurance system. It's not so much the source or cause of extraordinary responsibilities and challenges that is the policy issue but the fact that some families in this country, through no fault of their own, face extraordinary challenges, which have a direct impact on parents' labour force participation. It's the labour force impact of those challenges that could be a focus.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear, and would be pleased to address any questions or comments that you may have later.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

The committee would like to thank you for your presentation here today.

I've been a bit more liberal with the time. I know that comes as a surprise to government members, but nonetheless, there are some very important points. We appreciate it. We can make up for it on the other end.

Go ahead, Mr. Phelps, please.

[Fred Phelps, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Social Workers]

Good morning.

On behalf of social workers across Canada, I would like to thank the committee for your consideration in bringing the voice of our profession to the discussion and debate on Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act.

As background for committee members, the Canadian Association of Social Workers exists to promote the profession of social work in Canada and advance issues of social justice. As the executive director, it is my distinct honour and privilege to bring the voices of front-line social workers to this committee.

The comments I'll be making today come directly from front-line social workers, who bear witness to the emotional and financial impact of serious illness on families and individuals as well as the overwhelming experience of grief and loss when a child dies or disappears as the probable result of a crime.

I apologize in advance if some of the questions and concerns raised by social workers have already been addressed by other witnesses or members of this committee. In addition, some of my comments do not directly address Bill C-44. Nonetheless, the issues addressed are pertinent to the overall objectives of providing front-line social service providers with the economic tools to adequately support children and families in crisis.

To begin, the membership of the CSW health and children's interest groups was unanimous in its support of Bill C-44, calling it a step in the right direction in providing relief to parents in the form of limited financial help and ensuring that they do not lose their jobs because of tragic circumstances beyond their control.

As CSW understands Bill C-44, the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code will apply only to workers in federally regulated sectors. It is apparently expected that provincial governments will make similar changes to their labour codes, as was the case when compassionate care benefits were introduced. CSW has to ask if there have been discussions with provincial jurisdictions to ensure that there will be compliance.

The matter of compassionate care benefits was also raised by a number of social workers and their provincial organizations in consultations on Bill C-44. The changes in this act do not address the challenges faced by caregivers of adult family members or by individuals who require a period beyond the 15 weeks of medical EI coverage. Consequently, I would be remiss if I did not convey that social workers request the Government of Canada to consider expanding the compassionate care benefits program to include caregivers caring for adult family members and to consider extending sick leave benefits beyond 15 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks for those who require it.

Specific to Bill C-44, the Canadian Association of Social Workers also supports any and all improvements to programs that provide relief to families when tragic events occur, such as the disappearance or death of a child following a crime. However, it is not always easy to determine at the outset whether a disappearance is the result of a crime. Consequently, social workers had a number of questions meant to clarify the meaning and intention of this act.

First, will consideration be given to providing benefits to parents who are looking for their runaway or lost child? Who will determine if foul play is suspected and when benefits can be provided?

The Canadian Association of Social Workers applauds the initiative of this legislation to provide help and support to family caregivers looking after critically ill children. However, questions remain. What about the children who are injured as a result of an accident or the children who are seriously ill? Who decides whether and for how long parents need to be at their side and away from work? When or why can an employer refuse leave? Will there be an onus on parents and employees to prove they deserve or require this leave? What kind of documentation could the employer request? Is a medical note not enough?

Why is the definition of a child limited to those under 18, and should adult dependants not be considered for extension of coverage under this act?

It is our understanding that benefits end the week of the death of a child; would compassion not dictate that families require time after death to mourn and bury their child?

Finally, is there any requirement for parents or employees to seek counselling and other supports to help them recover so that they can return to work healed to some degree, or is the leave only to allow them time and benefits to care for their child?

Social workers ask these questions for clarification, as social workers will be involved in the interpretation of the act and in helping people learn how to access benefits. They will be advocating for people who seem unable to qualify because of unfortunate glitches or issues not readily understandable within the act.

Any application process, social workers note, that is onerous may cause a family to turn away, given that they don't need any more stress at this point in their lives.

It is the front-line experience of social workers that people often do not access services that would have eased some of their distress because the process at the front end was more than the family could manage at the time. Consequently, social workers encourage the Government of Canada and this committee to seriously consider that ineffectively delivering this type of benefit can add to, rather than, as it is intended to, subtract from, the immense stress families are already experiencing with their deep personal loss in tragic circumstances.

The CASW will be actively monitoring this act and its implementation, primarily to advocate for clarification and to lobby for changes where needed, and perhaps will be be involving advocacy for provincial legislation where people can now qualify and more assistance is needed.

Again, on behalf of social workers across Canada, I thank the committee for your consideration in hearing the views of our profession on Bill C-44.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

Thank you very much, Mr. Phelps. You've echoed some questions that have been presented by other witnesses and brought forward new ones. The committee very much appreciates your presentation on that.

We'll get right into the questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Cleary, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I have a question, first, for Mr. Hnatuk, although you touched on this, Mr. Phelps.

Bill C-44 defines a child as someone under the age of 18. You represent, as you outlined, people with intellectual disabilities, so you could have a person who is in their twenties, thirties, forties who actually has a mind of a much younger person. To get right to the point, is 18 as a cut-off too restrictive?

[Tyler Hnatuk]

Again, in the context of Bill C-44 we know that the forms of intervention that can occur early in life will have tremendous outcomes later in life. Certainly caregiving responsibilities for parents of children with disabilities often continue much longer in life than for other families, and so certainly I want to recognize the need and the duties that carry on throughout a lifetime.

The parenting of a child with a severe disability is a lifetime commitment. That said, interventions can occur when a child is young. We know from the research and from our experiences that those first stages are critical towards shaping outcomes towards inclusion later in life. Driving kids to—

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

Excuse me; I'm sorry to interrupt. To get to the point, is 18 too restrictive as a cut-off?

[Tyler Hnatuk]

We believe it would mark a positive first step towards recognizing caregiving duties throughout the lifespan.

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

What would you eventually like to see?

[Tyler Hnatuk]

As I mentioned, we have more detailed proposals to recognize caregiving throughout the lifespan, of which an extension of compassionate care benefits would be one modest but important piece.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Phelps, I have a question for you.

You mentioned you'd like to see Bill C-44 extended to cover adult family members who have to look after their parents, for example, if they become critically ill.

I asked this question of the minister last week when she appeared before the committee. She mentioned there are programs in place right now for people who need to look after critically ill parents. I think that kind of help only lasts a handful of weeks. You also outlined how you'd like to see these types of benefits extended to, say, parents of runaways.

Can you elaborate on that? You'd like to see the benefits extended to people with adult family members who are critically ill and runaways. Who else would you like to see covered?

[Fred Phelps]

When social workers were solicited for a response on Bill C-44, it was brought up in the sense that this was a good first step in covering, recognizing that as this bill becomes implemented there would be opportunities to have feedback to it and to recognize that different segments of society may very much benefit from an extension of these benefits to their families as well.

I think social workers wondered who would define a missing child. It's an extension to benefits of runaway children. I think this bill is trying to recognize that families are in stress, families need time to understand what's going on, families need time away from work to be able to deal with the circumstances.

I think being open to extending these benefits to other populations would be very much welcomed by social workers who deal with the front lines of this and by their families and children.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

You have 30 seconds.

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

In terms of other supports for families that are going through tragedy, for families dealing with a critically ill child, what other supports can be there? More specifically, in terms of the agents with Service Canada who deal with families on a front-end basis, can they receive more training to be more sensitive to the needs of a family in trouble?

[Fred Phelps]

I think you bring up a very good point. The the one thing I've definitely heard from social workers, not necessarily from Service Canada but from social workers who deal with individuals on the front line, usually in hospitals, or are the front-line defence or the first call in what's going on, is having clarity and understanding of who it applies to, being very clear on the roll-out of this, and being very clear on making it as accessible as possible to families. These are families in distress, undergoing parts of their lives as described by Ms. Loblaw, very much in the most critical parts of their lives, and any barriers to accessing services will mean the uptake will not happen for them.

As well, on the social work side, whether it's front-line service workers with Service Canada or social workers through their provincial government, there is need for a very strong clarification too, a need to be very clear on who can access this and being very open and responsive when the roll-out happens if changes and clarifications need to be added to the act or additional benefits to different populations need to be added to the act.

I think there is some confusion out there in the social work world on the front line about the difference between compassionate care and how “critically ill” would be defined under this act, where the two lines happen, and how that will affect people while they're in those situations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

Thank you very much, Mr. Phelps. That's great.

We'll go to the government side now, and I believe Ms. Leitch is going to take the first round.

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

Thank you very much. I'll be relatively quick, mainly because I want to answer some of your questions for clarification.

I'm a pediatric orthopedic surgeon by training. I'm Royal College trained. I actually deal with critically ill children, and that's where some of this definition comes from.

To go through your questions in pretty rapid succession, because it was not my intent to answer your questions here--that's not how we usually do things--I encourage you to read the act, because these questions are answered there.

First, the labour minister, as she mentioned in committee last week, has spoken with other jurisdictions.

Second, with respect to foul play, it's very clearly outlined in the legislation that law enforcement officers will make a determination of whether they think the child is a runaway or an individual who is murdered or missing, and therefore the decision will be made on the side of murdered or missing.

With respect to critically ill children, that will be determined by a physician, a sub-specialized physician within the hospital setting.

With respect to the age of 18, it's based on a standard that children's hospitals have set across the country, in fact across North America. In addition to that, it's based on our other benefits that we provide to children. Whether that be the national child benefit or otherwise, we have a standard and that's what we're setting. It also matches those of children's hospitals across the country.

With respect to counselling parents, for murdered and missing there's an additional two weeks after your child is found in order for the parents to reunite with their families, and they would be eligible for the benefit. With respect to the issue of compassionate care associated with this benefit, they can be stacked. You can receive compassionate care plus the critically ill benefit, so that you can use them in combination.

In respect of your issue with respect to communication, you're here because we need you to talk to families. We don't sit in the hospital setting. We don't see families every day. You do exactly that, and we need your help to make sure you tell every family you communicate with, every family you touch, about this benefit so they can benefit from it.

I'll let Mr. Shory continue with the questions.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Wow.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here this morning.

My question will be to Ms. Loblaw.

First, I want to thank your organization for doing all the good work that you do in helping families and communities in Canada.

As you know, Bill C-44 has been introduced by the government to help families to balance their work and family responsibilities. As far as your organization is concerned, it will introduce new benefits for the parents of critically ill children.

In your experience you must have faced some challenges and be in a position to be aware of the challenges parents have been facing during a difficult period. It's emotionally very hard to start with, and when you add the work risk and other stresses, it is really hard.

Do you think the government is going in the right direction or that this is a positive step forward? If you agree with my comment that it is positive, then I'd like you to elaborate on why you think it is positive.

[Cathy Loblaw]

Thank you.

Absolutely we see this as positive. For the families of sick children, as I spoke to earlier, their world turns upside down in a nanosecond. It goes from normal to a new normal overnight. Having to worry about the financial realities that come rushing in to them, which are not planned, not anticipated, not seen coming, is quite devastating to the family.

Having this kind of support and this kind of family-first approach that helps families when it's unexpected can give them another level of resource and support to depend on when they're in a place where their jobs are all of a sudden a secondary concern, or are maybe not even a concern.

Then they're moving into a space where healing their child is taking so much longer. They can be in a healing process away from home, at the hospital, for months and months. That has a devastating impact on the financial side of their life.

As their child heals, thanks to the amazing medical advances that are happening, and they go back home, they need to know that they have a home to go back to, that they have a life to go back to, so that they can continue to heal and live into the blessing that they've been given with their child getting better, so this direction—this family-first approach, this family support—is fundamental to the needs our families have.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you.

Another—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Rodger Cuzner]

That's five minutes for the side, Mr. Shory. I apologize.

Mr. Sullivan is next.