Human Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2012

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

Why do you think the 35 weeks is important, from the perspective of someone's ability, perhaps, to return to the workplace as a productive person? I know as a parent—and many of us around this table are parents—when something is wrong with your kids, you immediately become wrapped up in what's happening and everything else becomes secondary. But at the end of the day, bills still have to be paid, and in the future returning to work is important.

How do you think this will all fit together, when the goal is to have a productive workforce and to have people able to contribute to society, but when these situations arise, they are able to rise to the occasion and take care of their children?

[Angella MacEwen]

Absolutely. With the example of parental leave, that is 35 weeks long, and that has been shown to be very effective in maintaining labour force attachment, for mothers particularly. Families can take the time to focus on their family, what's important there and what needs to be done, and have some support in doing that. It reduces the stress on the family as well, particularly if you're talking about a sick child. That's a very stressful situation, and anything that can reduce the stress and better help the families cope with that situation is going to improve their whole lives, including their return to work. Returning to work is then less stressful because they've been able to take the time to properly deal with the situation.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

On the changes with regard to accessing sick benefits of an additional 15 weeks when someone is already on leave, whether it be parental leave or maternal leave—I don't know if you were here for the previous witness's testimony. We heard a real-life scenario where someone could benefit from those additional weeks. Do you think that's going to be an important measure for your membership? Do you think that's something that's going to be accessed? Just looking at the number of people you're talking about, the 3.3 million, there are going to be people in that situation. How do you think that's going to be an improvement?

[Angella MacEwen]

Again, I think that will reduce stress for people, because that's a stressful situation: to be sick when you have a small child.

What would be a further improvement is allowing regular benefits to be stackable with parental leave. When they return to work or if they lose their job, they no longer qualify if they haven't had the time. It might take up to six months to a year to requalify for EI, especially if they go back part time. Let's say they're working 20 hours a week after having a child; that could take up to 35 weeks before they requalify for EI again. So if they were to get sick or lose their job after they'd gone back to work, it would be great if we could extend the benefits the way Mr. Moreau was explaining.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lapointe.

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

Thank you, Madame Chair.

Mr. Moreau, you talked about how important the time off is for someone going through that kind of a tragedy. My understanding is that it is important because it ultimately helps people return to work and reintegrate into society. According to what you said, consequences would be even worse without that time off.

With that in mind, I would like to clarify something with you. As things currently stand, 30 weeks or 35 weeks after the death of a very ill child, their parents must in theory return to work the following week. We understand that the time frame is even shorter when the child dies on a Thursday. However, if a child goes missing or dies as a result of a crime, people have 52 weeks or 104 weeks to recover. It seems to me that something is wrong with this system.

A month ago, a young boy died quickly from a sudden bout of cancer. Everything played out in a few days. In such a case, people would not receive any assistance. How do you view this aspect of the law?

[Stephen Moreau]

I don't have much to say about that, as I have not had a good look at the clauses of the bill that apply to assistance in case of serious illness. Consequently, I am not entirely sure I can answer the question, other than to say that I think it is unfair to ask a parent to return to work so soon after the death of their child.

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

That assistance will not be provided because the death has not been caused by a serious crime. Nevertheless, losing a child is losing a child.

What do you think, Ms. MacEwen?

[Angella MacEwen]

I would agree. I noticed this as well, that after a missing child is found, the parents have 14 days; after a critically ill child dies, the parents have until the end of the week.

I think the labour standard in Canada for leave to grieve is only three days, so that would mean they would have an additional three days after that end of the week, which wouldn't even get them to the funeral, quite honestly.

I think that is almost cruel.

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

So you think that there is a problem here. Thank you.

I would like to come back to a specific aspect of the legislation with Mr. Moreau.

Since you are a lawyer, I would like to know whether we should expect any problems when it comes to the probable commission of a crime. What will be done if a child is reported missing, but it is suspected that the child ran away and no crime or kidnapping is involved? The parents' distress is not any lesser if the crime is not 100% proven. How will that grey area be handled?

[Stephen Moreau]

It is very difficult to answer that, as I have not spent much time considering those provisions. I must say that, at the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, people are well-trained when it comes to determining whether or not something is consistent with a legislative provision. There is a sound system through which individuals can access benefits. If they don't agree with a decision, they can appeal it before a board of referees. Soon, that process will go through another tribunal. That is all I can say on the topic.

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

Okay. I understand your position.

Ms. MacEwen, I don't know if I am exaggerating by describing the situation as follows, but I think that, even today, more women than men accept part-time positions to be able to take care of children. Given that social reality, which is still very relevant, it is more likely that women will fall into the category of people who have not earned $6,500 or more.

When a child becomes ill, logically, the important parent is the one who has spent a lot of time at home and worked little. However, that parent is more likely to be denied access to the benefits. What should be done in those situations? Should the parent who earns $60,000 a year stop working to take care of children, although they have taken care of them little over the previous year, so that the other parent can return to the labour market? Do you see what type of situation this may lead to? I am thinking about my wife and me trying to deal with that kind of a situation.

[Angella MacEwen]

Right, and that is part of the weakness in the employment insurance system as it stands right now.

If you're making more money, like $60,000 a year, a replacement rate of $485 a week might be a severe cut to your standard of living and you may not be able to take employment insurance. If you're making that kind of money, it may be unaffordable as well, because that replacement rate is so low.

If you are already working part time—let's say you're taking care of kids at home, you're a mom, and you're working 20 hours a week—you may not have had sufficient hours to qualify. Your benefits may be quite low, because if you're only working 20 hours a week, your level of benefits will be lower.

That's why I did focus my testimony on the weaknesses in the EI system, because it's going to affect the people who are taking these special benefits.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Ms. MacEwen.

Ms. Leitch.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you both for your presentations today. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to come and present to us.

I'm particularly pleased to hear that you might be a constituent in the future, Mr. Moreau, if you spend time in Wasaga Beach.

[Stephen Moreau]

If I retire to Wasaga Beach, yes.

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

Everyone should retire to Wasaga Beach. It's the loveliest place in the world, as Mr. Moreau will attest.

I'm a pediatric surgeon, and I guess the one thing that I think this piece of legislation is doing is trying to make sure that both moms and dads have an opportunity to spend time with their families.

One of the individuals who presented earlier made the comment that you need to be able to make decisions quickly when your children are in these circumstances. Part of making those decisions quickly is both parents standing in the room being able to make them together. I think it's important to recognize that dads are just as important as moms in all of these scenarios. This is about families, and families being together, and making sure we can facilitate that. Moms and dads make these decisions together every day, and these are tough decisions to make. As I said, the intent behind this legislation is to make sure that families are together.

We also had a number of witnesses comment last week about how there is an opportunity in small businesses. These small businesses really try to take care of their employees as family.

I guess I have two questions to begin with. The first is, in your organizations, what are the things that you do to support families, over and above these types of things that we hear about happening in communities and that small businesses are doing for their employees?

Also, what are some examples of families that you know of in your organization, or that you've been in touch with, that will benefit from these changes...whether it be the stacking components or whether it be the critically ill, murdered, or missing children benefits? Do you have some specific examples?

What have you seen being done out there? We want to make sure that we're highlighting what great Canadians are doing.

[Angella MacEwen]

I think that's a great question.

We represent such a diverse group of people that I don't think I could speak for what any of them are doing. My role is as an economist, so I'm actually not often in touch with what's going on at the ground level. I do know that union locals very often consider themselves family, and I've heard examples of people having weekly raffles, and if they know a family is hungry, they keep telling that member that they've won the raffle for food cards to the grocery store for that week. I know that very often people will donate clothes, will share what they have.

Yes, I agree, small businesses and small communities—I grew up on a farm—very often take care of each other, and union locals are very often like that. They're like a community; they take care of each other, and they look out for one another, from babysitting to what have you.

That's fantastic, but I'm not sure it's really related to the bill.

On the murdered and missing children...fortunately, it is rare enough that I actually don't know of any examples in our membership where that has happened.

I think this will absolutely be a benefit in terms of sick children. Quite regularly, young families have cases like this. My own daughter, when she was born, was in a NICU for two weeks. I saw lots of grandmothers in the NICU because the parents had to work, and the babies were in there for months at a time.

I think something like this will definitely benefit, and where fathers are able to take the leave, that's fantastic. Very often, though, if the father is the higher earner, the family simply can't afford to lose that income, even with EI, because as I said, the weekly replacement benefit of $485 per week is so low that they can't afford to do it, or if they can, they can only afford to do it for a certain period of time.

Absolutely, I am focusing when I talk about women; I'm talking about families and I'm talking about dads. Make no mistake.

[Stephen Moreau]

Do you wish an answer from me as well about some of my clients?

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

Yes, that would be great. Please go ahead.

[Stephen Moreau]

I can speak, again, about some of my clients who have fallen ill during parental leave. One client, Ms. Rougas, was diagnosed with breast cancer in about week 32 of her parental leave. What that means, when you're diagnosed with breast cancer, like her, like another one of my clients, Ms. McCrea out of Calgary, is that sometimes you undergo treatments that make you basically incapable of caring for yourself and your children. There's a kind of false situation when they can't take sickness leave and they have to stay on parental leave. We're paying these individuals to care for children when they're barely able to care for themselves.

Ms. McCrea in Calgary, for instance, was diagnosed with breast cancer in about week 20 of her parental leave. She was in the hospital for a week or two, and she couldn't lift anything after. She was not permitted to lift her own children. From her perspective, it just seemed kind of false when the commission decided last year that she could only take parental leave, that she could not take sickness leave in addition. The sickness leave, in her situation, would have enabled her to rest easy if she had known that there was an expanded period of time during which she could say, “Okay, you know what? I'm here to care for myself. I'm going to care for my children when I'm better.” That would have given her that kind of peace of mind.

Those are the kinds of people I'm encountering who benefit from a sickness benefit, whether it comes just at the start of a parental leave, the middle of a parental leave, or at the end of a parental leave, absolutely. I do want to stress again that these are individuals who should already be receiving that benefit, notwithstanding Bill C-44.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moreau.

Mr. Cuzner.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. You're doing an outstanding job today.

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

You're better than last week's chair.