Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 28 - Evidence - December 5, 2012
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred 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, met this day at 4:14 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We have quorum, and I am calling the meeting to order.
[Translation]
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
My name is Kelvin Ogilvie. I am a senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee. I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee. Welcome, minister.
Senator Merchant: Pana Merchant from Saskatchewan.
Senator Dyck: Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan; welcome.
Senator Munson: Jim Munson, who lives in Ontario.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia and, like the minister, a graduate of Holy Angels High School.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner, from the province of Quebec.
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, from the province of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin from British Columbia. Hello, minister.
Senator Seth: Asha Seth from Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, minister, I want to extend our appreciation for your being here.
I would like to inform the committee that Minister Finley will be here but will be approximately 15 minutes late. With your agreement, we will get under way. When the minister arrives, any question being answered will have the answer end, and I will then welcome the minister and give her a chance to speak. We will then move on.
We have two sessions today, colleagues. Is it agreed that the second session will begin no later than 5:15?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That is agreed.
Minister Raitt, would you please begin?
Hon. Lisa Raitt, P.C., M.P., Minister of Labour: Thank you very much, senator; I appreciate the opportunity.
I have to say, senators, that it is so nice not to be appearing in Committee of the Whole. That is the only time you see me, namely on those kinds of legislation that we do not anticipate. This is a nice change for me, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk about this bill, which is extremely important.
Few things matter more in our lives than making sure that government supports and services are there for Canadians when they really need them.
There is no question that Bill C-44 fulfills a need. Few people are in greater need of assistance than families whose children are facing catastrophic illness or parents whose daughter or son has disappeared or been murdered.
I want to quote for you from someone has lived through this experience. His name is Bruno Serre, and he is the father of Brigitte, who was murdered in 2006 when she was 17 years old. This is what he said in September, at the press conference when we talked about the tabling of this bill. This is translated; it is not in his words at the time. He said:
When Brigitte died, it was not just my life as a father that fell apart, but also my life as a worker. After Brigitte's death, I took five weeks of rest. When you lose a child to murder, no one, and I mean no one, is ready to return to work after five weeks of rest, if you can call it "rest". . . .
Nevertheless, the financial insecurity I faced, and the debts that were piling up made it necessary to return to work.
The state of my mental health and my exhaustion had serious consequences. To that was added my fear of losing my job and finding myself on the street.
Those are very difficult words to hear and a very honest and truthful statement from Mr. Serre. He then went on to say that if he had been eligible for the help that we are offering through Bill C-44, his whole family would have benefited at the end of the day. He said:
I could have taken more time to recover my health, and better cope with life — because life goes on — and be more present for my spouse and my other children.
Mr. Chair and senators, our government is determined to help Canadian families who have had this misfortune of finding themselves in these daunting circumstances. As a mom of two, I cannot imagine what pain and what difficulties that would bring to your family.
Our commitment to strengthening Canada's economy and creating jobs also means that we have to support Canadians in difficult times because we want them to come back to work in better health.
Families coping with stress and grief over the loss of a child do not need to add worrying about work to their list of woes. That is why supporting families, a priority for our government, is one of the many progressive measures that we are introducing in Bill C-44.
In addition to the latest improvements to the Employment Insurance program and the new income support grant, which will be outlined by Minister Finley when she makes her representations, we are making significant changes to the Canada Labour Code to further assist families in crisis.
To give you an example, the proposed Helping Families In Need Act amends Part III of the Canada Labour Code. That gives federally-regulated workers the right to take an unpaid leave if they find themselves in one of these tragic situations.
The jobs of parents of a critically ill child will be protected for up to 37 weeks. The parents of a missing child can count on 52 weeks of job protection. For parents of murdered children, the amendments will provide job protection for up to 104 weeks — two full years. Employees are not required or even expected to take the maximum time allowed, but they can rest assured that it will be there for them if they need it.
There are other employees not covered by our legislation because Labour Code protection varies from one jurisdiction to another. Some, such as the Province of Quebec, already provide generous support, and that allows parents to be absent from work in the event that a child is murdered or missing.
Last week, the Government of Manitoba introduced legislative amendments that would allow Manitoba employees to take advantage of these benefits. It is very nice to see other orders of government in the country take notice of what we are trying to do here. Bill 3 proposes to amend Manitoba's Employment Standards Code, which would complement our Helping Families in Need Act. As I said, I hope that other provincial and territorial governments will follow our lead and amend their respective labour laws so that the jobs of parents of murdered or missing children and of parents of critically ill children are protected. In that way, the parents will also be able to benefit from the new Government of Canada income support measures while they know that their jobs are being protected by their specific jurisdiction.
The reality is, though, enlightened employers know that their employees may need to take time off work to cope with the psychological pressure and the relentless demands associated with a gravely ill child, a missing child or a murdered child. They know that workers who are simply exhausted or under extreme stress will be less attentive and less productive. We know that compassion is never a bad investment because it works to the employer's benefit as well.
Workers who can get the time they need to recover from a crisis are more likely to eventually return to work, and, when they return, they come back in a better state of mind.
I am really proud to say that the Government of Canada and the federal industries it regulates can be counted in this group of enlightened employers. As we promised during the election in 2011, we will be there to help Canadian parents through some of the most difficult days they are ever likely to encounter. They look to us for leadership, and this is what it is all about.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would be happy to answer any Labour Code questions that you may have, anticipating that Minister Finley will handle the income support side.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister.
At this time, I want to welcome two officials from HRSDC who have joined us here at the table: Mireille Laroche, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy; and Anthony Giles, Director General, Strategic Policy Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate. Thank you both for being here to help us with this.
I will now open it up to my colleagues and remind you that when Minister Finley arrives, the question and answer will be completed, and then I will invite Minister Finley to present to us.
Senator Eggleton: Minister, I think that we would all agree with the remarks that you have made. This is a good move. I want to ask you about some of the numbers and why they are different. For example, the code provides for a leave of absence, as I understand it, of 37 weeks to care for a critically ill child. However, it is 104 weeks and 52 weeks respectively for a child who has died or disappeared as the probable result of a crime. Why are these different numbers? They are both very challenging, difficult things for parents, but why the different numbers?
Ms. Raitt: Talking about the leave for murdered and missing children, which is different from the leave for the critically ill children, the way we designed it was to have the duration of the leave no less generous than the best provincial leave that we currently have in Canada, which is in Quebec, the only jurisdiction that has this type of leave. In the case of murdered children, 104 weeks was determined to be the appropriate time frame because it allows employees to take the time off work not only to grieve and cope with the psychological impact but also because there would potentially be judicial proceedings that could extend over a considerable amount of time and that would be part of the traumatic impact for parents. That is why 104 weeks was chosen for murdered children.
The 52 weeks of unpaid leave would be for parents whose child has gone missing because it would be the amount of time for the parent to help search and deal with the psychological shock as well.
In terms of the leave for critically ill children, we established 37 weeks, within a 52-week period, to coordinate with the EI provision of 35 weeks plus a two-week waiting period. That is consistent with our long-standing policy to ensure that employees can access federal benefits without fearing job loss at the same time. We made the leave to match up with the EI support available for the 35 weeks.
In terms of murdered or missing children, those were ones that we developed taking a look at other provinces, as well as understanding what income support would be available. They are two separate issues and sets of circumstances.
Senator Eggleton: I see.
The definition of a critically ill child is not covered in the bill. What definition would be used here?
Ms. Raitt: Minister Finley can speak to that better. As Mr. Giles looks for the definition, I know that Minister Finley received advice from various groups and stakeholders as to how to determine the appropriate type of definition. I leave it for her to speak to more because she probably has more information on her process in coming to the definition of a critically ill child.
Senator Eggleton: The definition that she will tell us about would apply to both the Labour Code and Employment Insurance? Okay, that is fine.
Ms. Raitt: Absolutely. It is prescribed and defined under the regulations of the EI Act and may apply to a child under 18 who has a life threatening illness or injury for which continued parental care or support is required. That is the definition that we will be working to. The Canada Labour Code will take the definition as defined in the EI Act.
Senator Eggleton: As for the disappearance or death of a child as a probable result of a crime, apparently an exemption to that would be if the employee — the family member — is charged with the crime.
Ms. Raitt: Right.
Senator Eggleton: Or if the child was a party to the crime. I suppose the older kids could always be involved in that. How do you determine that? When do you determine that? If you are paying out this money and somewhere down the line it is proven that the child was part of it, what do you do? Do you claw back the money?
Ms. Raitt: I do not quite know how it would work in reality.
Senator Eggleton: That is Employment Insurance, but in terms of the code part.
Ms. Raitt: In terms of the code, the policy underpinning that is to ensure that criminal behaviour is not rewarded. I think that is the important policy thrust to put in there to ensure that people will not benefit from something as tragic as murdering or kidnapping a child. That is why we wanted to make it clear that you were not entitled to a leave of absence if you were charged with a crime that led to the death. The key is that you have to be charged at the time. I cannot speak to how things would work into the future, but I would look to the Minister of Justice on the implementation of that.
Senator Eggleton: Presumably, they would be convicted before you would —
Ms. Raitt: Or where it is probable that the child is party to the crime. Again, because the funding for that programming is coming from that part, it would be for them to determine the applicability going forward. I certainly hope that we do not have to invoke that part of the code or act.
The Chair: Minister Finley has arrived. As agreed, the answer to the on-the-table question has been completed. I wish to welcome her on behalf of the committee and invite her to make a presentation, following which we will again proceed to questions.
[Translation]
The Honourable Diane Finley, P.C., M.P., Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting me to discuss Bill C-44, our government's latest initiative to help Canadian workers and their families.
[English]
I have been very proud to champion this particular bill. I was extremely pleased to see it pass unanimously on November 20 in the other place.
Our government listens to Canadian families. We know that raising a child is one of the most important responsibilities that anyone will ever have. That is partly why we have been so committed to the bringing forward the proposed Helping Families in Need Act. It delivers on our 2011 election promise to provide income support for families when they need it most.
The first component of this bill, as you will be aware, provides support to families during terrible circumstances that, quite frankly, I wish no parent would ever have to face — that is, one in which a child becomes critically ill or injured.
For many Canadian families, this is an unfortunate reality, but our government is taking action to make life just a little bit easier for these families during some very challenging times.
We are proposing to introduce a new Employment Insurance or EI benefit that will be available for up to 35 weeks and it can be shared between parents. This is in addition to six weeks of compassionate care benefits for which parents may also be eligible should their child face a significant risk of death within 26 weeks.
[Translation]
Children with life-threatening conditions need more than just round-the-clock medical care to get better. They need the comfort of their parents.
This new benefit will help reduce some of the financial pressure parents experience, as they take time away from work to focus on their family.
[English]
The second component of this legislation involves providing support to parents of missing or murdered children. Indeed, this is one of the most terrifying experiences that a parent could ever possibly endure.
[Translation]
As announced by the Prime Minister in April of this year, we will provide financial support to parents who are coping with the disappearance — or death — of a child, as a result of a Criminal Code offence. This measure will come into effect in January 2013.
I would now like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of Senator Boisvenu in championing this particular change. Thank you, Senator.
[English]
For these parents, and for parents of critically ill or injured children, we are also introducing, as my colleague has explained, amendments to the Canada Labour Code in order to provide job protection for those employed under federal jurisdiction. The importance of this initiative becomes much more poignant in the words of others.
[Translation]
Bruno Serre is the Vice-President of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared and also the father of Brigitte, who was murdered in January 2006, at age 17, when she was working her shift at a Shell station in Montreal.
He said the following, and I quote:
I want to thank [. . .] the Conservative government for delivering on this promise, a promise that restores confidence in families like mine that our government wants to help us.
[English]
The third component of this proposed legislation will amend the Employment Insurance Act to facilitate access to sickness benefits for parents should they fall ill while receiving Employment Insurance parental benefits. Right now, in order to receive EI sickness benefits, an individual has to be available for work, if not for his or her illness or injury. As a result, a claimant would not be able to receive sickness benefits during a claim for parental benefits as he or she is technically not available for work under the act. With Bill C-44, our government is proposing to waive this requirement for claimants receiving parental benefits.
This new measure, which would come into effect in early 2013, would benefit approximately 6,000 Canadians a year and would be available to insured workers and self-employed workers who opt into the EI program.
Mr. Chair, all of these measures will be providing assistance during some of the most trying or tragic times that any family could ever endure, but they also represent our government's steadfast commitment to fulfilling our promises, listening to Canadians, and making life better for hard-working Canadians and their families.
With that, Mr. Chair, I would be happy to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Eggleton: Welcome, minister. I think we would all agree that you give very compelling reasons for this legislation. My questions will be similar to what I asked Minister Raitt in terms of the Labour Code, and I will ask you about the Employment Insurance Act.
Why are there differences in some of the numbers? For example, if a child dies, the unpaid leave and Employment Insurance benefits cease at the end of the week when the child dies. However, for a child who disappears, if that child is found alive, the unpaid leave and benefits go 14 days after the child is found. Why is there a difference? A child dying is a very difficult challenge. Why would there be a difference?
Ms. Finley: There are other alternatives to parents who have lost a child, but with the child who is found alive and returned, time is needed for the bonding with the child based on the child's need. There are other supports, particularly for those who are employed — compassionate leave, bereavement leave — and most employers have some form of support for that.
Senator Eggleton: They do not in the other case. Do you feel that is required?
Ms. Finley: No, they do not.
Senator Eggleton: You require a minimum of annual income of $6,500. The amount that you are looking to pay out is $350 a week for up to 35 weeks, as I understand it. In some cases, for low income that could actually be 100 per cent or close to 100 per cent of what they would normally get in a week, but the Canadian average weekly wage of about $912 would mean that a person in that category would only be getting 38 per cent of their earnings, which is difficult to live on through this troublesome time. Why is the benefit not tied to earnings?
Ms. Finley: There are two different cases. With the critically ill, it is tied to earnings because it is run through the Employment Insurance program, which provides 55 per cent of the maximum insurable earnings. However, the murdered and missing portion is not tied to EI and it is a fixed amount, whereas the maximum insurable earnings has an inflation factor built in; there is an indexing to it.
The first one approximated the average claim. They are roughly equal if you start looking at the averages on claims for EI. In fact, the murdered and missing is slightly higher in recognition of the fact that it is not indexed.
Senator Eggleton: Thirty-eight per cent is awfully hard to live on.
Ms. Finley: As you point out, it is a considerable portion for someone on a lower income. Unfortunately, we sometimes have to work with the law of averages.
Senator Eggleton: Let me ask you a question I asked Minister Raitt. She thought you could answer it. What definition of "critically ill child" are you using for purposes of this legislation? I do not see a definition.
Ms. Finley: That is an excellent question. It is one of the things that took a lot of investment in time and energy, to do consultations. The French phrase is gravement malade. We do not use "gravely ill" in English because there is a very different interpretation within the medical community. My parliamentary secretary, who is a medical doctor herself, an orthopaedic pediatrician, led consultations with a wide cross-section of the medical community to come up with an appropriate term. We did not want to have the connotation that the child was facing imminent death. That goes with the compassionate care. Many times children going through cancer treatments with an optimistic outcome are nonetheless potentially very ill. We wanted to ensure that the doctors would understand that this is critical. The child could quite possibly have taken a turn for the worse but it is not "Okay, they have the flu." It is not that sort of thing.
In fact, by definition and within the regulations, it will be required that a general practitioner cannot sign the medical certificate that this is a critically ill child; rather, a specialist will have to sign it. I am advised that specialists are much harder to get to sign a form than perhaps some GPs. We wanted to crank it up a notch to ensure that it is a serious disease or serious affliction — so serious that the needs of a specialist are required.
Senator Eggleton: How will people know the requirements? Will this be done in a regulation, subsequently?
Mireille Laroche, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Yes. The definition for "critically ill children" will be in the regulations.
Just to add a little more information on consultation, there were actually six round tables held across the country to talk to close to 60 stakeholders: specialists — doctors working in ICUs, doctors working with kids on a daily basis — as well as national organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Paediatric Association. This was done to ensure that the definition met the policy intent and was also understandable and could be applied readily by doctors.
Senator Munson: I only have one question. I am concerned that claimants who become ill during parental leave and change to sick benefits may encounter long delays. Some of the facts in front of us are rather depressing, in a way. They talk about the number of people waiting for over a month to get their claim processed being at a record high now. The figure is about three quarters of a million people — up 50 per cent since 2006. People hung up on by the EI call centres was at a record last year; the numbers we have are 14 million times in comparison to 2006, which was 3.5 million times. The EI call service level is at the worst performance in the last six years. The other figure is that about 250,000 people were waiting for over 28 days last year to have their claims processed. How can people have confidence in the bureaucrats and your departments to deliver on this bill?
Ms. Finley: We want to ensure that Canadians promptly get the services to which they are entitled. We are working to improve the standards of service delivery and the delivery against the standards. At the worst of the recession, we were hitting our targets — in fact, we were exceeding them.
However, during that time, we also faced a significant increase in the number of claims that were filed. That is why we have begun some pretty substantial modifications to the program. We are trying to encourage employees and employers to file their records of employment and all documents online. That speeds things up pretty dramatically because when you file online you must complete the form; we avoid the cases where an application is sent in with only partial information. That always delays the processing time. Then you have to go back and forth in person with people, which takes even more time. We are automating that to a greater degree.
We are also working with employers, including the Government of Canada, to have them file online, so we can speed up the process. We are also upgrading our computer systems because, quite frankly, we are working with some very old systems that have not been kept up to the standard they should have been over the last 20 years.
We are taking these steps because we want Canadians to get their processing done much more quickly.
I am very pleased to point out that since that report was released our processing times have improved and continue to improve. I track these every week, and we are seeing significant improvements. I intend for those to continue.
Senator Munson: Significant improvements or not, are you satisfied? In other words, are the public servants overwhelmed? Do you need others to work on these modifications you have talked about?
Ms. Finley: Last spring when we had a particular seasonal surge in the number of EI applications, we did bring in additional resources. We brought in people from other parts of the operation, reassigned them on a temporary basis, and even engaged some people on a temporary or part-time temporary basis to help us deal with the peaks so that we could tackle it. That is why now we are starting to get caught up on things and eating away at the backlog of unresolved cases, so that Canadians can get better service.
It is a very seasonal operation, and it is very difficult. We cannot staff to the maximum or we would be wasting taxpayers' money and employees' time, nor can we staff to the minimum. We try to be as flexible as possible and bring in extra resources when they are needed.
Senator Munson: I have one more brief question: Are the people hired last year still employed?
Ms. Finley: Are you speaking of some of the people we brought in during the spring? No, they were brought in on a temporary basis. That was known at the time. In some cases, we reassign them from other parts of the operation. For example, they might be working on the integrity function, and then we move them over to processing and then move them back to their regular jobs once the peak has passed.
Senator Merchant: I have a clarification. What is the age definition of a critically ill child?
Ms. Finley: The definition is children 18 and under. Although the medical profession usually refers to a child as 16, we looked at it from the point of view that in most of the provinces, after 18, you become an adult. We had to draw a line somewhere. Many 18-year-olds are still at home, in high school, and so the dependence factor is still there.
That is what this is really all about: Children have a dependence upon their parents that adults like you and I do not have. We wanted to ensure that they were encompassed in this benefit.
Senator Merchant: When a critically ill child is treated and they go into remission and later have a relapse, how will this work then? Can you maybe clarify that?
Ms. Finley: Part of that would depend on the timing. EI has certain eligibility requirements, such as having to demonstrate that you have been in the workforce and that you have the required number of hours or dollar earnings to be eligible. The parent does not have to take all the benefits at once; they can spread it out over time. Alternatively, if the remission goes away two or three years later and the parent is still in the workplace, they would re-qualify. Also, remember that it is shareable; the parents can share it.
Senator Dyck: This really does sound like a very compassionate piece of work.
My question is with regard to missing children, and I wonder if it is the same sort of thing as the critically ill. How does a parent go about proving that a child is missing? Who verifies that there is a missing child; does that come through the police headquarters or the RCMP? Is there a form that needs to be filled out? What is the process?
Ms. Finley: Again, we did consultation on this. There would have to be a suspicion that the child is missing due to a criminal act as opposed to a runaway. When a child goes missing, the police are notified. If they believe that there is cause to suspect a criminal act has occurred, then they provide documentation to that effect.
Senator Dyck: What sort of time frame do you consider to be necessary? You were talking about runaways. Would the child need to be missing for two weeks, three weeks, a month, or longer?
Ms. Finley: It would vary from one circumstance to another. Once the police are called in, they would make the determination as to whether they believed there was cause to suspect a criminal act. It could be within 24 hours. It could be after a period of time, depending on the individual situation.
Senator Dyck: It is interesting that you brought up the situation of runaways because I know within the Aboriginal communities that one of the major dilemmas is oftentimes they take missing children as unimportant and they are considered to be runaways as opposed to being truly missing. Too often action is not taken. Was that type of consideration factored into the discussions?
Ms. Finley: That is a very unfortunate circumstance, but we do have to rely on the discretion of the local policing authorities. We have to assume that they are capable and competent and compassionate.
Senator Dyck: Thank you.
In one of the documents you use the phrase "missing and murdered children." I know that within Aboriginal community oftentimes missing and murdered children are adult children and probably at a much greater representation than within the mainstream community. Did you consider including in this bill the category of adult children to address that specific problem of missing and murdered adult Aboriginal women?
Ms. Finley: We looked at it. We did not look specifically at any part of the country or communities within the country. We were trying to provide a benefit that would address a very serious concern, and we looked at a number of things. As Ms. Laroche has explained, we did extensive consultations, and the conclusion was that we needed to limit this to children by the legal definition of it.
Senator Cordy: I would like to go back to the discussion about the age of 18. Why do we not use the dependant child age as is done for income tax purposes? If you have a dependant child at university who is missing, then you would be eligible to receive the grant or the EI. Where did 18 come from? It would be traumatic even if it was an adult child, but why not a dependant child as you would use when you fill out your income taxes?
Ms. Finley: There are a couple of reasons for that. Society has changed a lot over the last several years. A growing number of adults 26 and 27 years old have moved home with their parents. They have not been able to find income, perhaps because there is a skills mismatch. Despite their education, they do not have the skills employers are looking for, so they can be classed as dependants, and yet they are adults without the same emotional needs when they become critically ill as, say, a 12-year-old or 6-year-old.
In our consultations, we originally started out going with the medical definition of "child," which is 16, and that is right across the country. They limit their definition to 16 years of age and under. We wanted to go a little bit beyond that because so many children are still at home at 18, not having left yet. However, for those who have left and returned, we said, no, there has to be a point where we are looking at not financial dependence but at emotional dependence, the need that the child has for the comfort that only a parent can provide. That is why we took the 16-year-old definition that was offered by the medical community and then expanded it to what is traditionally considered the legal age across the country.
Senator Cordy: If it was total emotional need, it would be everybody, I think.
Ms. Finley: Exactly. However, the purpose of this was to recognize the emotional needs of children, which is quite different from the emotional needs of an adult, and again the difference between them.
Senator Cordy: Right, but I think a dependant child for income tax purposes is up to the age of 25, although I am not positive.
Ms. Finley: I said 27 just off the top of my head. Let us say that a 24-year-old who is financially dependant does not have the same emotional dependency.
Senator Cordy: They are still at university or in a post-secondary education, I think was my point.
In 2002, Bill C-49 was brought in by the Chrétien government. It was intended to ensure that a person who falls ill during parental leave would in fact be eligible to extend their leave and be eligible for sickness benefits, but the department did not interpret the bill this way, and so some people did not have their benefits extended. However, an umpire ruled in 2011 that indeed this was the case. In the case of the umpire ruling, it was a mother, so I will say "she" was entitled to have her sickness benefits in the middle. Is Bill C-44 just to clarify what was already in the law?
Ms. Finley: In fact we did include that piece, the third portion of this bill, in response to that court decision, to make sure that it was codified and clarified.
Senator Cordy: To be eligible for benefits, claimants need 600 hours in the six-month period of work attachment. One in seven Canadians is a part-time worker. If we reduce the number of hours to 420 in a six-month period, it would widen the net and include a lot of part-time workers. If we are talking about families in need, indeed I would think these part-time workers would be at the top of the list in terms of families in need. Did you consider part-time workers when you were drafting the legislation?
Ms. Finley: We did. Both of the financial supports were intended as measures to some degree replace income lost as a result of taking care of family needs. For that, we needed an indication of attachment to the workforce, and so we took a look at sort of the standard.
As you may be aware, accessibility to Employment Insurance varies depending on the employment rate within the region in which the parent works. We went to the low end of that and said, all right, there has to be a significant attachment to the workforce where there will be earnings lost. If there are no earnings lost, then this does not kick in. If, for example, someone is on social assistance, they would not suffer a loss of income and so would not be eligible for this because it is intended as income support for those lost wages.
Senator Cordy: I understand that, but workforce attachment for a part-time worker could be for many years. Someone may choose to work part-time while their children are preschoolers or while their children are in school, so they certainly have the workforce attachment; they just would not have 600 hours for a six-month period.
Ms. Finley: They would not be eligible for any other EI benefits either.
Senator Cordy: I understand that, and I think that we have far too many people who are not eligible for the benefits.
Senator Eggleton raised the point that if you are caring for a sick child, your benefits would stop if, unfortunately, the child dies. You would stop receiving benefits at the end of the week in which the child dies, whereas in the case of a murdered child it would be two weeks or ten days. I am not sure which it is. I do not quite understand the difference. In both cases the parents would be totally traumatized.
You said bereavement leave benefits. Would that be people who would be fortunate enough to have a bereavement plan in their workplace?
Ms. Finley: Most employers are very compassionate in recognizing those kinds of circumstances, at least in my experience. There is also what is known as EI sickness benefits, and in the case of the surviving parents, they could apply for those benefits afterward if they were emotionally distraught enough not to be able to work. Many have qualified for that, so that is up to 15 weeks of benefits.
Senator Cordy: I am surprised that there would be a difference in the time period.
Ms. Finley: No, they would be complementary and sequential benefits.
Senator Cordy: One is the end of the week where the sick child had died.
Ms. Finley: In either case they could apply for the sickness benefits because of mental strain.
Senator Cordy: I know, but I just think it would be necessary to have it continued for a little while.
Ms. Finley: If I might just clarify, Mr. Chair — and I thank Senator Eaton — I believe Senator Cordy said the part- time worker need 600 hours in six months. No, they have twelve months in which to have worked 600 hours.
Senator Cordy: Okay.
Ms. Finley: There is a considerable difference there. They are working roughly a quarter of the time to be eligible, but that is the low end of the threshold of entry. Let's face it: We have to try to keep people's attachment to the workplace right now because every day I have employers screaming at me to get them more workers. We are trying to do everything we can to help people get back to work, whether it is nurturing them emotionally or helping them with their job search.
Senator Eaton: I will address my questions to Minister Raitt for a couple of clarifications.
How does your protection for parental leave, compassionate leave and sick leave for critically ill children, murdered or missing children compare with most provincial and territorial leaves? Is it to the best quality, the medium? How have you done this?
Ms. Raitt: We are leading the way.
Senator Eaton: You are leading the way.
Ms. Raitt: The federal jurisdiction is absolutely leading the way.
This bill is very special because not only are we matching up with leave provisions found in Quebec, but we have taken it a step further and we have the income support, which they currently do not have in Quebec. All they have is the leave provision that your job is protected. Now, with Minister Finley's portion and the Department of Justice portion, income support will be in place for all these leave provisions as well. It is a real benefit and a real boon.
I hope, like Manitoba and other jurisdictions, particularly in Ontario, where I live, they will amend their labour legislation in order to allow protection of the job to the worker so they can take advantage of these supports when they are in a terrible time.
Senator Eaton: In the event that both parents of a child wish to take leave and would like to share that leave between them, do they just go back and forth? Do they both have to take the two weeks deductibility beforehand? How does that work?
Ms. Raitt: They can work it as best they can. There is a lot of flexibility. They can take it concurrently or consecutively, but they need to stay within the limit of the number of weeks available. That is assuming, of course, they are both in the federal jurisdiction.
Senator Eaton: Do they both have to take the two weeks deductibility before they can take their leave?
Ms. Raitt: That would be an EI question.
Ms. Finley: Just one.
Senator Eaton: Minister Finley, in respect to the 35 weeks for critically ill children, your round table must have done a fair amount of work to determine how many hours people should have. Did you find parents were taking the whole 35 weeks? Were they taking less than the 35 weeks? How did it work?
Ms. Finley: Generally it works around 32 to 33 weeks, in that range, which is the norm.
Senator Eaton: You did not just pick the number out of a hat.
Ms. Finley: No. Obviously there are situations where the time will be shorter and others where it will be longer, but the norm was in the 32- to 33-week range.
Senator Eaton: If I take my 35 weeks for critically ill children, and the child is going to die now, can I stack the compassionate leave onto that?
Ms. Finley: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: Minister Finley, you mentioned sick benefits a few moments ago in responding to a question from Senator Cordy. A worker can tap into EI sick leave benefits as well, which I think the maximum is 15 weeks; is that correct?
Ms. Finley: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: I believe that has been in effect for decades. In this day and age, with people getting chronic diseases that keep them out longer, is it not time to update that?
Ms. Finley: That has been discussed. The counter-argument that many have put forward is that today's medical breakthroughs have shortened the duration of many illnesses. Fifteen weeks is what we are going with, but recognize too that there are other support levels. This is really intended as a complement to other programs. Employers may have short-term disability or long-term disability programs. Also, the individual may also have private coverage for those kinds of eventualities and it is intended to be a complement. The average use of the 15 weeks that is available is less than 10 weeks. It is about 9.4.
Senator Eggleton: Do you have studies to that effect?
Ms. Finley: Yes, we do that analysis. We do track that to see if the benefits we are offering are relevant.
Senator Eggleton: You are talking about it being complementary with other kinds of provisions, like long-term disability. We also have in this day and age more and more people who are self-employed or employed part-time and do not have all these benefits that they can complement it with. What do we do about them?
Ms. Finley: We actually took action on that. I was pleased to table legislation a while ago that passed. It passed through this chamber as well. That bill granted access to the self-employed to EI special benefits on an opt-in basis. If the self-employed choose to, they can make contributions to EI when they do their regular payroll deductions and, after an eligibility period, they can access EI sickness benefits, compassionate care, and maternity and parental leave. These were not available to the self-employed before, but it is based on their choice. They do have access to those benefits now for the first time ever.
Senator Cordy: What percentage of workers actually have benefits? When you consider that we have part-time workers without benefits and self-employed workers without benefits, do we have a percentage of workers who have benefits and who do not have benefits? I am talking about benefits from their workplace. The minister referred to bereavement benefits from a workplace.
Ms. Raitt: It is actually law in the Canada Labour Code that an employer must pay for bereavement leave of three days post death of a member of your immediate family. That is not an unpaid. That is an actual leave that is paid by the employer, in terms of clarification.
We are talking about the federal jurisdiction, so I think it is appropriate to mention that that is indeed the law. That bereavement leave is mandatory and must be paid by the employer.
Senator Cordy: Would that be for part-time or full-time employment?
Ms. Raitt: It does not matter at all. In the case of drawing a line between the income support side and the leave side, you just need to have six months of continuous employment in order to qualify for the leave. It does not matter if it is part time or full time; you will be qualified to make the application to your employer providing the appropriate information and the leave will be there. It is unpaid, and then you move to the other side.
Ms. Finley: I wish to add to my response to Senator Eggleton. Just to clarify, these new benefits for the parents of the critically ill would be part of that special benefits package available to those self-employed who do opt into the program.
The Chair: Ministers, from my perspective as chair you have answered and clarified all of the questions that have been asked, so I do not have to follow up for further clarification.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you and your officials for joining us here today. It has been extremely helpful to us.
I would also like to thank Senator Eaton, who is the government sponsor of the bill in the Senate, for helping clarify the issues here further, and to my colleagues who have raised questions.
Finally, on behalf of my colleagues, thank you again.
Senators, I am now pleased to welcome Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman from the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; and Michel Surprenant, Chair, Board of Directors, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared.
Welcome to you both. Perhaps, Ms. O'Sullivan, I could ask you to go first.
[Translation]
Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
[English]
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would provide for unpaid leave for parents of murdered or missing children.
As you may know, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this through our mandate by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims; promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime by providing information and referrals; and by promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime; by raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims; and by identifying systemic and emerging issues that may negatively impact on victims of crime.
The office helps victims in two mains ways: individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions and addressing their complaints.
We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies or programs to better support victims of crime.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today to speak to you about the amendment to the Canada Labour Code providing for unpaid leave. I will also raise some points for consideration related to the federal income support for parents of murdered or missing children.
I would like to begin by stating that our office was pleased to hear about the introduction of Bill C-44, which includes an amendment to the Canada Labour Code to provide unpaid leave for parents coping with the death or disappearance of a child. We were also encouraged by the announcement of a new federal income support program to help ease the financial hardship of parents of missing or murdered children.
While we support both of these measures, it is apparent that the new provisions for unpaid leave and the income support program do not address the circumstances of many victims of crime and could be more inclusive of their visibility and reach. Therefore, our office will be asking the committee to consider amending and broadening the reach of unpaid leave and income support in order to be more inclusive of the needs of victims of crime.
To provide some context, the trauma associated with victimization can have devastating psychological and socio- economic impacts on the family. A recent study by the Department of Justice estimates that almost 83 per cent of the costs associated with crime are borne by victims. These costs include lost productivity and wages, costs of medical and psychological care, and time away from work to attend criminal proceedings.
A study of families bereaved by homicide conducted by the United Kingdom in 2011 confirmed that "the physical health, the ability to work, to maintain relationships, care for children, and manage new financial burdens were all significant problems for families who had experienced the homicide of a loved one." That same study revealed that "70 per cent of respondents stopped working for a period of time as a result of their bereavement. The amount of time taken off varied from under a month to over a year. Several respondents in the study noted that they had lost their jobs as a result of the impact of the loss of their loved one." This speaks to the need for unpaid leave and accompanying income support. However, it should be noted that respondents in this study were not all parents of children. The study also highlighted the impacts on spouses, siblings and co-residing extended family.
If one considers losing a spouse to homicide, the financial impact may be similarly devastating. For this reason, I would like to highlight that the proposed amendments to the Labour Code need to be more inclusive and recognize the impacts of crime on other family members, for example, spouses and siblings. They should also recognize the impact of victimization when someone is older than the age of 18. Moreover, the amendments should also address other circumstances outside of homicide and/or disappearance. In this way the unpaid leave provisions would address the impact of victimization within the family unit and recognize the tremendous impacts of other types of crime, such as serious physical or sexual assault.
Taking this into account I would respectfully request that the committee consider the following recommendations: Widening the reach of the Canada Labour Code amendments to be more inclusive of victims of crime to include, for instance, leave for spouses and siblings, and removing the age limit of 18 years of age; and creating a separate Employment Insurance category for victims of crime to ensure that Canadians who are impacted by crime are able to access the existing EI structure.
Furthermore, in such instances where family members may not meet the Employment Insurance eligibility requirements or if the benefit would be less than $350 a week, they would be eligible for a program similar to the federal income support based on the same inclusive eligibility. This program could ensure that the income support needs of more victims of crime are addressed.
We would also like to recommend building in flexibility to the proposed unpaid leave provisions so that parents of missing or murdered children can access leave at different times instead of all at once. This flexibility would allow for parents to access leave to attend a trial and other criminal justice proceedings that often occur more than 52 to 104 weeks from the date of the crime.
Our office strongly supports the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code and income supports for parents of murdered or missing children. However, we recommend that the unpaid leave provisions be available to a broader range of victims and their family members as they, too, carry a heavy burden in the aftermath of crime.
My office hears from victims on a daily basis that there is a lack of tangible supports across the country available to them. We hear from victims about going into immense debt, suffering ill health and relationships, and their difficulty getting the help that they need. Often they tell us about their struggle to access the supports they need to deal with the practical realities of life following a crime.
While the proposed changes to the Labour Code included in Bill C-44 are indeed a step forward, creating more inclusive leave provisions of victims of crime with an accompanying Employment Insurance benefit would not only serve as a recognition of the long-lasting impact of victimization but would significantly strength then the supports available to victims of crime in Canada.
Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Mr. Surprenant, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Michel Surprenant, Chair, Board of Directors, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Michel Surprenant, and I am appearing today on behalf of AFPAD, as Chair of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared.
My daughter Julie was kidnapped in 1999 in Terrebonne. Her disappearance turned my life and my family's life upside down. As you can imagine, upon returning to work following such a tragedy, it is very difficult to focus on your job when you think that you have to look for her and that she may need help.
All parents with a murdered or disappeared child have the same concerns. As its name indicates, our association, the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared, brings together over 500 families of persons disappeared or assassinated in Quebec.
Every year, hundreds of parents across Canada go through terrible financial hardships related to the murder or disappearance of a family member. That is why AFPAD fully supports Bill C-44 put forward by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Diane Finley, and the Minister of Labour, Lisa Raitt.
Financial assistance for parents of assassinated or disappeared children — a measure that will go into effect in January 2013 — will help the lives of 1,000 families annually. This is a major victory for the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared, as we have been calling for this measure for a number of years.
Allow me to give you an example to illustrate the experience of the many families I have met that have gone through terrible tragedies, of parents who are forced to return to work shortly after the death or disappearance of their child because they need to survive, hold on to their home and meet the needs of the rest of the family.
Our Vice-President, Bruno Serre, lost his daughter Brigitte, who was murdered in January 2006, at the age of 17, while working her shift at a Shell station in Montreal. He returned to work five weeks after the death of his daughter. He had bills to pay, children to feed. He had no choice. Had he not returned to work, he could have jeopardized the financial security of his family and his children. Homelessness is a reality the members of our association have unfortunately experienced.
The new income support benefit at $350 per week for 35 weeks is something the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared has been asking for for a number of years. That request is based on our members' life experiences.
The Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared congratulates the Minister of Labour for including in the Canada Labour Code 104 weeks of leave for workers governed by that legislation. As a result, parents will be able to receive assistance during the process. The Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared is asking Canada's provincial governments to follow the federal government's example and improve their labour legislation by adding similar measures. Some of our members have lost their job because they lacked the strength to return to work after the murder or disappearance. Some families ended up on welfare or, as I mentioned, homeless. By allowing parents to take a few weeks of leave, we will enable workers to get back on track and return to the labour market better equipped.
I encourage all senators to vote for this bill and send a clear message to victims. Victims need help getting through the very difficult months that follow the death or disappearance of their child. That period is crucial for a father or a mother. They need to pay for crime scene cleanup and the funeral. They also have to meet with investigators to answer their questions.
I want to congratulate ministers Finley and Raitt, as well as Senator Boisvenu, who helped turn this historic request into a reality. If you put yourselves in the shoes of the parents of disappeared or murdered children, you will understand that this bill is fair and that it is high time to pass it. Thank you for voting for this important bill for Canadian victims.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you to both witnesses. I will open up the floor to questions from committee members, beginning with Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: Refresh my memory, Ms. O'Sullivan, on the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Do you report directly to Parliament or do you report through a minister?
Ms. O'Sullivan: Through Minister Nicholson.
Senator Eggleton: How long has the operation existed now?
Ms. O'Sullivan: Since 2007.
Senator Eggleton: You have outlined some of the things that you do here. Has there been any legislation previously that you have been involved with or is this the first?
Ms. O'Sullivan: We have testified on quite a few pieces of legislation before committees.
Senator Eggleton: Let me ask you about the thrust of your presentation today. You have provided some very interesting statistics. You point out that it is more than just the parents; it could be the spouses and siblings. You note that there are other family members, and you also suggest that the impact of victimization can be just as great if it is someone older than 18.
Minister Finley said you have to draw the line somewhere. She drew it at 18 in terms of this legislation. Where would you draw the line on age? Also, on the issue of spouses, siblings and other members of the family, where would you draw the line?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I would not draw a line.
Senator Eggleton: How would you work them into both the Labour Code and the EI provisions?
Ms. O'Sullivan: To take a step back, as part of the recommendations that we make, my understanding of this is it is an amendment to the Canada Labour Code. There are two pieces: the Canada Labour Code and the Federal Income Support plan. Our recommendation was that a person should be able to have this defined in EI, they should have access. Most Canadians pay into EI, and they anticipate that if, for whatever reason, they cannot work, this is available to them. I would present to you that if you were the victim of crime and you cannot work, that you should have access to EI.
I think this was discussed with the earlier witnesses, that the maximum under EI that can be achieved is actually $485, depending on your income. What we are saying is you should have EI. The EI should be represented for the category of victims of crime. There are different eligibility criteria for income support, so if you do not meet the more rigid criteria of EI, you would have access to income support. You would provide the broadest base of support for victims of crime.
To answer your question, in this country we need to look at ways to support victims of crime in accessing the EI program. As we said, we are in support of this bill. This is certainly opening some doors, but we are saying it needs to be more inclusive.
Senator Eggleton: You are saying that the current provisions of EI should be brought into play here to broaden out to the people who are impacted by the crime. However, the special provisions that are in Bill C-44 are very limited as to who they would apply to and in the age. You are not suggesting amending those, or are you?
Ms. O'Sullivan: We are saying that we should broaden and look at it, when you talk about victims of crime and the psychological and socio-economic impacts, certainly for parents of missing and murdered children, absolutely. However, when you look at that for victims of crime across this country, I deal with victims of crime every day from different serious types of crime who are suffering economic consequences, who require psychological support and who perhaps cannot go to work as a direct result of them being victims of crime.
Senator Eggleton: With regard to this special provision of the $350 for up to 35 weeks, as I pointed out when talking to the minister, if a person has a low income, then that can be a very substantial part of their income, which I think is a good thing. However, if you get up to the Canadian average of weekly earnings, it would only represent about 38 per cent. That does not seem to recognize the economic situation. You point out in your submission that there is a substantial financial burden: 38 per cent of the income they have had does not seem to be very much to cope with this situation. Do you agree?
Ms. O'Sullivan: We would all like to see all victims of crime having the financial support they require to get them through. In relation to EI, and there are people with more expertise in this than me, my understanding is the maximum you can receive, including based on your income, is $485. Under income support it would be $350, recognizing the eligibility criteria is also different under the two.
Senator Eggleton: Mr. Surprenant, do you have any recommendations that you would like to make as amendments, or if not amendments then things that should be considered when reviewing this legislation further down the road? In other words, are there things that are not here that you think should be?
[Translation]
Mr. Surprenant: I think that this bill has been very well explained and that it could be passed as introduced.
[English]
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentations. They were very clear.
Mr. Surprenant, is the fact that you have an association helpful in bringing this issue forward to develop the bill? Second, are there other similar associations in other provinces? For example, would there be a similar group in Saskatchewan, which is where I am from?
[Translation]
Mr. Surprenant: The association was created in 2004 following certain tragic events. Senator Boisvenu created this association with me. We were pretty much the first people to get involved in these matters. I know that, in other provinces, other associations do very similar work.
[English]
Senator Dyck: My next questions are for Ms. O'Sullivan. Are the services and the kinds of programs that your office offers widely known across Canada? Is there a website where people can go and look to see what your office does?
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes, there is. Our website is www.victimsfirst.gc.ca.
Senator Dyck: Would it differ substantially from the provincial equivalent?
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes. Here is the delineation. As the federal ombudsman, my mandate is specific to the federal responsibilities in terms of information. As you probably are well aware, the provinces and territories have direct responsibility when people think of services for victims of crime, particularly at the time of crime. Those would be the responsibility of the provinces and territories. However, a victim does not see the delineation between levels of government. For them, they have needs and they want them addressed.
Senator Dyck: I was very intrigued by your presentation in that you were saying that you thought it would be a good idea to extend the benefits to other victims, to spouses and siblings and so on. In Saskatchewan, one of the groups that I work with is very concerned about the issue of missing and murdered Aboriginal women. Does your office interact with any groups that might represent the interests of missing and murdered Aboriginal women? Do you interact with any national or provincial Aboriginal organizations?
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes, we do.
Senator Dyck: Would you see that they would fit if you were able to amend this bill so that it would include that group? Would that be a good group to include?
Ms. O'Sullivan: When we look at victims of crime across the country in terms of the needs and supports, the services that they require, we are saying that we support this bill. We are saying that it could be more inclusive, and that is in recognition of including murdered and missing Aboriginal women, but beyond that as well. In our role as the federal ombudsman, we liaise with victims-serving agencies and victims' advocates and victims and other stakeholders from across the country and consult with them on getting their input in terms of what they see as the priorities and issues facing victims of crime.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much for your great commitment to advancing the rights of victims in Canada and improving the quality of services provided to them. I would like to say to Senator Dyck that there are about a dozen regional or provincial organizations in Canada similar to the one Mr. Surprenant chairs. However, no organizations are operating on a national level.
Ms. O'Sullivan, in your brief, you recommend that the government expand the application of this bill to all victims. You know, when the federal government gets involved in the area of crime victims, it does so very carefully because that constitutional responsibility — direct service to victims — comes under provincial jurisdiction. We could be told to mind our own business.
Does your organization —which is national in scope — speak to the provinces responsible for providing direct services to victims? Do you speak to them about improving victim support services?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: Obviously I cannot make recommendations. My mandate is very specific to the provinces, but I have had the opportunity to meet with and present with the federal-provincial-territorial heads of victim services. I take every opportunity when I am in different locations in the country to meet with provincial and direct service providers, and I share with them some of the feedback that we hear from victims of crime across this country.
We try and look strategically — I say three levels of government because I consider the local — yet respect the mandates of each level of government and bring them together to do some of that strategic thinking because, again, every level of government has its own direct mandate. I am in the same place in terms of being very respectful of their mandates, but it is about bringing the groups together to think strategically, to discuss issues facing victims of crime and to work together as seamlessly as possible.
I find there is such common ground, but we do see variability across this country in terms of services that are available to victims of crime, and there are realities that go with that in terms of challenges. I use the North as an example with fly-in communities.
You have often heard me say let the patient tell you what the problem is. It is about listening, and it is about understanding and seeing what the needs are. I always say I do not tell a victim's story; I amplify their voice at different venues that are available to our office, and that committee enables me to bring some of the things forward.
I had the privilege of listening to Mr. Serre at the other committee on Bill C-44, and one of the recommendations that we have out here is for that flexibility, because the reality is you will need time at the time of crime, and that will vary amongst victims and what those needs are. If there is a court case and it is two years or longer in some cases, or less in some, you will need time then as well. You will need to be able to take time off work, have your job guaranteed and have those financial supports available to you.
We talk about flexibility. Mr. Serre also has family, and one of his family members was working at the time. She was going to need support as well, so when we talk about broadening and becoming more inclusive, it is recognizing that the impacts, particularly for missing and murdered, are real.
Mr. Surprenant's has come and told you about the impact that it had on his family, and these needs are so apparent.
Our recommendations are very much about acknowledging that this is a good step forward, but if we truly want to meet the needs of victims of crimes in this country, we must start looking at avenues available to us to support victims of crime in a more inclusive way. If you talk to any parent, will you say to the parent of a 19-year-old that they did not meet the age requirement to get the supports they need?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: It is obvious that victims need even more support. For each dollar spent on a victim, $50 is spent on a criminal. That is a ratio of 1 to 50.
At the last meeting of justice ministers, provincial counterparts were asked to have a basket of services that would be balanced among the provinces. For instance, the surcharge will ensure that provinces have more revenue to provide services to crime victims. This is the first national measure with a goal to treat victims in the same way from one province to another. Do you not think that this is a step in the right direction to improve the service provided to victims of crime?
[English]
Ms. O'Sullivan: I think it is a good thing any time people talk about getting together to try to bring about some consistency. By putting this in place, you have a national Labour Code, and I heard the previous witnesses, the ministers, talk about the fact of identifying at least one more province. This is where the Department of Justice can have those conversations with the provinces and territories to try and bring about more consistency, of course, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Surprenant, we have been working on this issue for seven years. I remember the first request submitted to the association in 2005. We have had to work hard to make progress. I think that January 1, 2013 will be a memorable date for the association — in addition to Quebec families receiving financial support.
That will extend across Canada and will also extend to other families, including those with gravely ill children. Regarding your opinion of our bill and the steps you have taken over the past four or five years, does this bill fully meet the expectations of the association in Quebec?
Mr. Surprenant: It should be understood that, when a tragedy occurs, you are immersed in it over the first few weeks and months. You have to participate in all kinds of procedures — be it when it comes to dealing with the police or anything similar. This measure will help many people at least have some peace of mind, as it will provide them with a minimum of security in terms of earnings. So this is a great outcome for victims of crime when it comes to that.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for appearing as witnesses. Sharing your story and expanding on the stories has certainly been very helpful for us.
Thank you, Senator Boisvenu, for the work that you have done on this file. I did not know that for every $1 spent on a victim, $5 is spent on a criminal. We have to be very generous when we are looking at what happens to victims of crime.
Ms. O'Sullivan, I am really interested in the inclusiveness that you have talked about in eligibility and reach. I addressed a question to the minister earlier: Why were we not using the definition of "dependent child" rather than 18? However, I really like what you are saying, because a whole family is affected. It does not matter whether it is an adult child or whether they are 17 or 19. It is the same thing with a spouse or a sibling. The trauma that a family would go through is the same. I know this bill opens the door and puts the wedge in, but I think that is an excellent suggestion. In our report back to the Senate, perhaps we can mention that we should be looking at that type of thing.
I am also really interested in the flexibility to take the leave. It will not cost the government any more if there is flexibility, because there are a maximum number of weeks. How would we deal with that? Would we just put the flexibility into the bill, or would we add an observation about the flexibility? You have made an excellent point.
Ms. O'Sullivan: I have the privilege of listening to victims from across the country, and there are realities with the criminal justice system. In many cases, a person is apprehended and charged. By the time you proceed to trial . . . We heard this at the previous committee as well.
I would say if the leave is there, I would leave it to people with more expertise on how to make that suggestion. It is really just acknowledging that there will be different times and that victims are different and will come from and have different needs. Every victim is unique. Some people will be able to go back to work in a shorter period of time and others may never be able to go back to work. I realize that EI is "go back to work," but the reality is that it will be different.
Allowing and putting wording in — and there are people in a much better place than me to put that verbiage in — recognizes that we should build in that flexibility. I use the phrase "for the criminal justice process," or it could be another phrase. There is the time that you have and that you be allowed to have, a lengthier period of time, and you would be able to take that based on your needs.
In many cases, pretrial might be 18 months down the road and you might not even get the trial. They may need time. Every victim is unique, so you might be fine for a period of time and then all of a sudden . . .
Again, if you listen to victims, sometimes they are doing okay and then due to factors impacting them, they will need some time and support.
Senator Cordy: You get back to the post-traumatic stress disorder that we could have. They start to put their life back on track, and then you have the trial. It sort of brings it all back again, I would think.
Ms. O'Sullivan: Absolutely.
Senator Cordy: Does your office have any statistics on how many people are missing or murdered each year? Do you have it by age, such as under 18?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I do have a few statistics available.
With child victims of homicide aged 0 to 17 years, in 2008, the number was 59; in 2009, it was 76; and in 2010, it was 61. My source is Statistics Canada, the summary tables of Victims and Victimization data.
Missing children, 0 to 17 years, in 2009, the number was 50,492; runaway, 35,768; parental abduction, 237; stranger abduction, 50; unknown, 11,757; accident, 25; wandered off, 432; other, 2,223. My source is the RCMP, Our Missing Children division reports and publication, and Annual Report 2008-09.
Senator Cordy: Do you have anything for over 18?
Ms. O'Sullivan: I do not have it with me. I would be able to get some.
Senator Cordy: Would you send that? It would be interesting to see whether those numbers would be comparable.
Ms. O'Sullivan: Are you talking about missing adults?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Ms. O'Sullivan: To go from memory, a huge amount of adults go missing. It comes into how you define a missing adult. My understanding is there has been a lot of dialogue over the years about it. There are some challenges with that. I do not think it will be a simple answer for you because I know many people have been working to define what that is and how that is reported.
I know missing and murdered women have been looking at Sisters In Spirit and they have been looking at a lot of that. Those would be available from Statistics Canada in terms of missing adult reports.
Senator Cordy: I am interested in those dealing with criminal activity because that is the intent of this bill.
Ms. O'Sullivan: The same dilemma will be there. Is the adult missing as a result of a criminal act, or are there other things at play? That is part of the challenge.
I listened to the previous questions that you posed to the minister that the police apparently will be making that determination and working with police departments to do that. I think those same challenges would be there for adults as well. There are cases where some adults may choose to go missing and for different reasons. There is domestic violence, too. There are many instances where it will be hard to define that.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: I just want to clarify those numbers. They sound awfully big. I heard 50,000 children 0 to 17 missing, and then 35,000 runaways. Are the 35,000 part of the 50,000?
Ms. O'Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: That makes more sense.
Ms. O'Sullivan: I should have articulated that a little better. The total would be 50,000. The breakdown is under that. I apologize.
Senator Eggleton: They are still big numbers, but not as dramatic.
Ms. O'Sullivan: With children, they will run away but usually within a short period of time they will come back.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, tomorrow we have anticipated that we will get to clause by clause. I want to remind everyone that the standing policy on this committee is that any amendments to a bill are required to be brought forward in both official languages. Discussions with regard to a report to the Senate or whatever are done in real-time in whichever language the speaker is putting forward.
I want to thank my colleagues for asking very perceptive questions and for their interventions, and thank the witnesses for having helped us understand the dimension of the issue we are dealing with here.
Senator Eggleton: I have one thing to clarify. We do have the option of going to clause by clause on Monday.
The Chair: If the committee were to so vote.
Senator Eggleton: Have you reserved that time?
The Chair: I did, yes, and I was challenged by your colleagues as to whether you supported that or not.
Senator Eggleton: We will find out tomorrow.
The Chair: No, I meant the request for the —
Senator Eggleton: The request. Okay. Good.
Senator Cordy: Can observations be in one language?
The Chair: Yes, because that arises out of the discussion during the debate, senator.
Senator Cordy: The timeline is pretty short. I have a meeting in the morning.
The Chair: In terms of the discussion with regard to amending and/or attaching a report, that would be done in real- time based on the preferred language of the senator speaking to the issue. You do not have to come with a written proposal.
Senator Cordy: So we could discuss proposals.
The Chair: We could discuss them, absolutely.
Senator Eggleton: A written proposal is needed only if it is an amendment; correct?
The Chair: Only if it is an amendment does it need to come forward in that form.
Senator Eggleton: That is fine.
(The committee adjourned.)