Evidence of meeting #54 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
November 1st, 2012 / 9:50 a.m.
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Sure. As it is right now, if you're on parental benefits, you cannot go from parental to sickness, because the way it is right now, to go to sickness, you have to be otherwise available for work.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Well, this witness is not going to comment on that, and he's indicated why, Mr. Cuzner, so we're not going to pursue that line of questioning. All right?
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
It's on being otherwise available to work, so someone can go from parental and then directly to sickness.
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
As far as I know, no.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
We will go through clauses 16 and 17 severally.
Shall clauses 16 and 17 carry?
(Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to)
Then we will get to clause number—do you have a question?
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Chair, would it be of benefit to the committee if we tabled the court ruling on it?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
You're certainly welcome to. It may make for interesting reading. Some may wish to read it and come to their own conclusions. If you wish to file it with the committee, you're entitled to.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
I've read court rulings, and it's a matter of some interpretation. You've got to go through the facts and the reasoning, and not everybody may agree with your conclusion on what the judge said or what he ruled or how he got there. People are entitled to form their own opinions on that, and it's not relevant to this particular discussion of this case, but if you want to enlighten us by filing the case, you're certainly welcome to do that.
(On clause 18)
All right, we're on clause number 18 and we're dealing with amendment LIB-5.
You can certainly read it in if you wish, Mr. Cuzner, or we'll take it as having been read.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Before I read the motion, at the risk of seeing that it's ruled out of order and you ruin my whole morning, Mr. Chair, I'll seek clarification from the officials on how they arrived at the number of 600 hours. What was the rationale for arriving at 600 hours?
I still want to get to the essence of the stacking provisions as well. The Labour Code amendments require six months of continuous employment, and the parents of an abducted child have a special fund they can qualify through. With a sick child, parents have to qualify for EI benefits, and there's a 600-hour minimum to receive those benefits.
Now, we know that a lot of households depend on seasonal industries or have one main wage earner or include people working part time, and in 2011, 25% of parents with children under the age of 18 who worked part time worked fewer than 30 hours a week. Parents of children who were employed part-time worked an average of 16.5 hours a week.
Had they worked continuously for six months as it pertains to the Labour Code amendment, that would only give them 430 hours. If you apply that kind of rationale, then 80% of fathers and 75% of part-time working mothers would not qualify for benefits.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Mr. Cuzner, are you wanting clarification on what that section means or are you intending to—
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
No, I want to know how you would arrive at the 600 hours. I'm wondering what the rationale was for arriving at 600 hours. The amendment suggests 420.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
You'll have to move your amendment. We're not there yet.
Do you wish to answer that question?
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Yes. The new benefit for parents of critically ill children will be a special benefit under employment insurance. As with other special benefits, 600 hours is necessary to qualify. Whether it's for maternity, for parental leave, for CCB, or for sickness, you need 600 hours to qualify.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
It's just an across-the-board 600 hours. There's no rationale put on that, or....
Director, Self Employed and Other Initiatives, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Exactly. It's a special benefit, and as with the other special benefits, 600 hours was the number.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Yes.
Mr. Chair, that understanding of the preamble to the question motivated the amendment that we have put forward, so—