# The Harper gov't and it's reluctance to pay benefits



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Here's a story that has come to light...a Calgary mother who fell seriously ill while on maternity leave was denied EI additional sickness benefits.

Harper happened to be her MP, and when she contacted him, he wasn't sympathetic with her situation. 

With her marriage split and debts piling up while taking chemo, she had to eventually declare bankruptcy.

She and 350 other mothers in the same situation launched a 450 million class action suit against the gov't, the judge has approved it,
and so far the gov't has spent over a million dollars (1,335 million) on legal fees fighting it.

The loophole in the law was eventually corrected by the Harper gov't, but it was not made retroactive to those that needed the benefit before. 



> EI officials said none of the mothers who became ill while on maternity and parental leave were eligible because of a “catch-22” clause in the law that required them to be “otherwise available for work.” Technically, mothers on maternity leave are caring for their babies and not available for work, so their sickness claims were denied.





> Liberal Party social development critic Roger Cuzner says the revelation raises serious questions about why the government continues to fight the class action suit.
> “*Instead of paying sick moms, our tax dollars are paying lawyers,*” said Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso).
> 
> “It’s appalling that this government continues to fight parents, to deny them benefits, when they know they’ve had a legitimate right to receive these benefits since 2002,” he said.


www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/08/ottawa_pays_some_sick_moms_but_not_others.html


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

EI is an example of a program that should be a standalone fund like the CPP, out of the reach of politicians.

Workers and companies fund the program, but the government decides the rules and scoops up surpluses.

When faced with higher costs during times of higher unemployment, the government tightens the rules and cuts the benefits.

If people support smaller government..........we could take one step forward there.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> EI is an example of a program that should be a standalone fund like the CPP, out of the reach of politicians.
> 
> Workers and companies fund the program, but the government decides the rules and scoops up surpluses.
> 
> ...


But the gov't collects it, just like CPP, adminsters it and calls the shots. I hope they lose the lawsuit.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

The Harper Government is selective.

They have no trouble paying out for the expenses of Conservative senators.

They only tighten the purse strings on wounded veterans or it would seem certain cancer victims.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

I'm sure I'm missing something, but from my reading maternity benefits are 55% of your avg insurable, and sick benefits are the same.

So I think what this does is extend your maternity by the amount of sick? Max of an additional 15 weeks? Or maybe you can double up?

I can see the logic of not granting sick during maternity since you're already receiving benefits....but I'd have to think it through. Don't think this is just a mean ol' Steve thing. I suspect it existed before his tenure.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Charlie said:


> I'm sure I'm missing something, but from my reading maternity benefits are 55% of your avg insurable, and sick benefits are the same.
> 
> So I think what this does is extend your maternity by the amount of sick? Max of an additional 15 weeks? Or maybe you can double up?
> 
> I can see the logic of not granting sick during maternity since you're already receiving benefits....but I'd have to think it through. Don't think this is just a mean ol' Steve thing. I suspect it existed before his tenure.


Whether it existed before Harper is not the point here. The point is that the Harper gov't changed the law, so that any new cases were compensated according to the new rules, but they did not make it retroactive to those cases before the rules were changed in 2002.
There are over 60,000 EI cases that are included in the class action lawsuit.



> The EI legislation was changed in 2002 to extend the benefit to working women who become ill during pregnancy or while on maternity and parental leave.


----------



## IFITSTOBEITSUP2ME (Mar 6, 2015)

And who's pockets in reality are these lawsuit costs coming out of? Hmmmm, some more smart thinking here it appears - NOT 

Charlie you have a good point, and I'd have to think it through too but if sick benefits and maternity benefits are at the same rate wouldn't one just negate the other as opposed to being entitled to both at the same time? I would assume that after conclusion of maternity entitlement if sick benefit is still required ongoing beyond it switches over to that?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Charlie said:


> I'm sure I'm missing something, but from my reading maternity benefits are 55% of your avg insurable, and sick benefits are the same.
> 
> So I think what this does is extend your maternity by the amount of sick? Max of an additional 15 weeks? Or maybe you can double up?
> 
> I can see the logic of not granting sick during maternity since you're already receiving benefits....but I'd have to think it through. Don't think this is just a mean ol' Steve thing. I suspect it existed before his tenure.


From the article


> The amendment allows parents to stack sickness benefits onto maternity/parental benefits. If a parent (usually a woman) becomes sick while on maternity or parental leave, she can apply for a maximum of 15 weeks of sickness benefits. Once those benefits are paid, the maternity or parental leave resumes.


So, essentially it extends the total leave by 15 weeks. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but will help out the people that are affected.

Basically the government fixed the technicality introduced by the 2002 legislation in 2012, but found it better to continue the fight then make it retroactive. Maybe they felt that since they were already in the class-action lawsuit, why not go all the way? Silly reasoning, but that's the only reason I can think of this course of action.


----------

