Statement made on 15 December 2009 by Senator Sharon Carstairs (retired)
Hon. Sharon Carstairs:
Honourable senators, let me begin by saying that I am in favour of this bill and do not intend to vote against it. However, I need to take the opportunity this evening, very briefly, to explain that there are some problems with the compassionate leave program of the Employment Insurance Act. That problem, which exists in the EI Act, has been transferred over to Bill C-56.
The compassionate care benefit was introduced by legislation in 2003 and it took effect in January 2004. Its purpose — and a valid and good purpose it was since we all supported it — was that it provide some time for people to take leave to look after a family member who was dying. The purpose of the benefit was to allow the use EI benefits to do that. The benefit is an eight-week benefit, with a two-week waiting period. In essence, one gets six weeks of EI benefit in order to care for a loved one.
Unfortunately this provision is not working as it was originally envisaged. First, there is very poor knowledge of these provisions. Many families do not know about it. Many hospitals and social workers do not know about it. Many people, therefore, have not taken advantage of this particular provision. That is clear because every successive year there has been less in the way of money needed to be put aside to pay for this particular benefit.
The second issue, honourable senators, that is difficult for many families is the shortness of the benefit. We know, for example, among dying Canadians that there are impossible definitions for someone to be able to say when death will occur. Indeed, evidence now shows that doctors are misjudging the length of time that a person may have left by a considerable amount.
Families, thinking they have six months and wanting to use the benefit towards the very end of that person's life, do not opt to accept those benefits because they think they have more time. The reality is that the death occurs very quickly. That, too, has been a factor in why people have not taken it up.
It is also a factor that the six-week period is simply not enough.
When the average Canadian is ill and could take advantage of EI benefit — we cannot as senators — they can use 20 weeks of sickness benefits. When we originally envisaged this legislation, and I certainly was a champion of this legislation, we had hoped it would be longer than the six-week benefit. However, we knew in the first instance that we needed to get our foot in the door, and so we accepted the limitation of the six weeks plus the two-week waiting period.
Honourable senators, we know that six weeks is not adequate to care for someone who is gravely ill.
The third difficulty with the bill — and one that I think was never, ever anticipated — was the problem with the definition. The definition in Bill C-56 — which is the same as in the EI Act — says there must be a significant risk of death within the next 26 weeks. It is the "significant risk of death" which causes so many problems. It is not a problem with older people; however, it is a problem with children.
Parents of children are the very ones who need this compassionate benefit the most. Quite frankly, however, they will not admit that there is a significant risk of death within the next 26 weeks. They will not admit that there is a significant risk of death of their child at all. I think we would all do the same if it was one of our children. We would not want to admit that a child was dying.
Interestingly enough, even the pediatricians and the pediatric oncologists, will not discuss that possibility with their patients' families.
Therefore, honourable senators, at some point in time we will have to amend the EI legislation so that it uses such words as "life-threatening illness" or a "critical illness" or a "gravely ill" person, or something of that nature, which would make this legislation more acceptable for people to take it up.
Honourable senators, this bill will now go to committee. As I indicated, I have no intention of moving an amendment, but I wanted to alert all honourable senators to the difficulties that presently exist with the compassionate care benefit, through no fault of anyone. We thought we were doing the right thing. We thought the definitions were the right thing. In fact, it was a panel of doctors, including a pediatrician, that came up with the definition of "significant risk of death within 26 weeks."
The reality, however, is it is not working.
I hope we can all work together to ensure that, as time passes, we enrich this benefit, we change the definition and make it possible for people to be with members of their family who are facing death.