Evidence of meeting #125 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was changes.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ian Lee  Associate Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Hassan Yussuff  President, Canadian Labour Congress
Chandra Pasma  Senior Research Officer, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Elizabeth Dandy  Director of Equality, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Benjamin Davis  National Vice-President, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
Katie Walmsley  President, Portfolio Management Association of Canada
Eric Adelson  Head of Legal - Canada, Invesco, and Representative, Portfolio Management Association of Canada
Vicky Smallman  National Director, Women's and Human Rights, Canadian Labour Congress
Michael McDonald  Executive Director, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations
Kate McInturff  Senior Researcher, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Corinne Pohlmann  Senior Vice-President, National Affairs and Partnerships, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Cory Mulvihill  Lead Executive, Policy and Public Affairs, MaRS Discovery District
Theresa Agnew  Chief Executive Officer, Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you both.

When did you ask finance for clarity on this issue? Do you remember?

5:40 p.m.

Senior Vice-President, National Affairs and Partnerships, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Corinne Pohlmann

We sent a letter to the finance minister's office back in February. I can send a copy of that letter to you.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

If you could send us a copy, we'll give notice to finance right now. They will be here on Tuesday, and we'll ask them then.

Go ahead, Mr. Dusseault.

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to ask Ms. McInturff about the changes to the Canada Labour Code involving family violence.

I feel that you have made a very good argument for having paid leave of this kind. I hope that everyone around the table will agree that, when people are trying to escape from a violent family situation, they must not be penalized financially. Getting out of a violent family situation is even more difficult when you have no income.

As for the definition of victim, are you aware of the criteria that determine who can get leave because of family violence? We want to make sure that the aggressors will not be getting this kind of leave. We all agree on that.

So it comes back to what I was asking other witnesses earlier. Do other jurisdictions with the same kind of leave have the same problem? If so, what solutions have been found to ensure that all victims have the right to that leave?

5:45 p.m.

Senior Researcher, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Dr. Kate McInturff

I'm not aware of other jurisdictions where the leave is paid. My understanding is that leave has been introduced in a couple of jurisdictions in Canada, but it's been unpaid leave.

I understand that deciding who is eligible is a difficult situation. I understand the distaste in the thought that someone who was an abuser could access this and benefit from it, but the well-intentioned practice of dual charging means that victims can end up being charged. I think it's a question of balancing the benefit to those victims who may otherwise be excluded with the distasteful aspect of providing paid leave to people who are abusers. That's the difficult decision you'll have to make, but I would tend to err on the side of making the leave available even in cases where people have been charged. I think it will capture women who really need that time off and who need that money.

The example from the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario is compelling on that front. We see women return to abusive situations because they financially can't leave or they're concerned, as I said, that their children might be apprehended because they're not providing sufficiently for their basic necessities. The consequences can in fact be fatal. I would weigh that against the unpleasantness of the thought that some of the beneficiaries of this paid leave would actually be abusers.

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

We are going to try to fix that situation, and to make sure that it is done properly.

My next question goes to the nurse practitioners.

Are you aware of this mess involving the disability tax credit, specifically for those with diabetes? Are you aware of the situation?

5:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario

Theresa Agnew

No, we are not aware of that.

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Okay. I had a question about it.

Let me turn to the representative of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. In recent meetings, we have talked a lot about different ways of accounting. One of them was bill-based accounting.

Bill C-63 talks about the possibility of eliminating bill-based accounting for designated professionals, such as lawyers, accountants and other kinds of professionals.

Have any of your members talked to you about that part of the bill? Are they concerned about the new way of accounting?

5:45 p.m.

Senior Vice-President, National Affairs and Partnerships, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Corinne Pohlmann

Actually, no. No one has come to us. We do have some professionals as members, but it's certainly not a large part of our membership. I suspect they'd be working with their professional associations if they had concerns, and then they would raise them.

I personally cannot speak to that. Sorry.

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

No problem.

So—

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Poilievre

Unfortunately, your time is up.

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Pierre Poilievre

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Thank you all for coming today.

It's sometimes rare at finance committee to hear things that surprise us. One thing did surprise me. Ms. McInturff, once again that was very powerful testimony. We just heard from you a couple of months ago.

Again today you brought up one of the unintended consequences of this, one thing I hadn't considered, with regard to the notion of dual charging. Can you help us? What type of wording would you suggest we could use in this regard, understanding what the intention is? What would allow us to avoid that unfortunate situation in that particular jurisdiction?

5:50 p.m.

Senior Researcher, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Dr. Kate McInturff

Given that the consequences of not providing adequate financial support to allow women or men to leave a violent setting can be fatal, I think it is worth extending leave, and frankly paid leave, even to people who are experiencing domestic violence and may have been charged as a result of dual charging.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

You understand the problem we're trying to avoid.

5:50 p.m.

Senior Researcher, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Dr. Kate McInturff

Yes. As it is presented in the current bill, it would exclude that class of people. I would not exclude them, even though I understand that on the face of it, it sounds as if you're supporting abusers, which obviously you don't want to do. However, to leave out the people who would potentially need that support and who would be excluded unintentionally could cause dire consequences for them.

To follow up a little, I understand there's a cost involved for employers, but I want to reiterate that not addressing this issue and not empowering people who are being abused to leave the setting and have the time off and the finances to do it means that the abuse goes on. This comes at a huge cost for employers. Again, the cost to employers as a result of spousal violence is $68.5 million in lost productivity.

Although there is a cost there, we can also see that allowing women the means to leave the situation sooner is better for them and better for their families, and it will save on lost productivity for employers in the long run.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Forgive me for going back to this question, if you'll indulge me, Mr. Chair, but I just want to get back to the point. I have to admit I'm a little uncomfortable with leaving the door wide open.

I'm hoping you can help me here. I know this is an unfair question to ask, but I'm just trying to figure out some way or some wording we could use that would exclude those being charged except for those in the....

5:50 p.m.

Senior Researcher, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Dr. Kate McInturff

This might be a case in which it would be useful to go to the provinces where they have dual charging, as they do in Ontario, and talk to them about how they're dealing with this problem. It may be that you have a charge and then it's dropped, because it's recognized as it proceeds through the judicial system that the person being charged was the victim, not the aggressor. There are ways for the police to note that in their initial charging.

In some cases when the police are on those calls, I think they feel their hands are tied and they have to.... You're there and you have two people who are very angry and upset, and both are making accusations about each other. It is possible, over time, to figure out that one person was clearly the aggressor and the other one was defending himself or herself. In the initial case, the police feel they have to charge both.

In talking to the jurisdictions where they practise this, there may be a way to figure out a way of wording the exclusion such that it doesn't unintentionally capture the victims of violence. That's beyond my expertise. You need to talk to the police forces about how they handle those cases and if there's some way to create a definition that would capture those people who are victims but who are still charged initially.

It's a sticky problem, and I don't have a perfect solution for it.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I see Theresa nodding her head. If you want in, Theresa, just raise your hand and we'll let you in.

5:50 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario

Theresa Agnew

My thought with the wording is for it to remain “victim of family violence” because that doesn't identify the perpetrator versus.... Initially, that seems to me to be broad enough.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Fergus.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Thank you.

Mr. Mulvihill, I recognize the great work that MaRS does and the opportunity it has. Thank you very much for your testimony regarding the measures in Bill C-63.

You also said there are some aspects that could still go a little further. If you can, please give me a quick summary, because I think I have a short period of time.

5:50 p.m.

Lead Executive, Policy and Public Affairs, MaRS Discovery District

Dr. Cory Mulvihill

I guess you're referring to some of the gaps that we see in the capital ecosystem. The Canadian venture capital ecosystem has been growing, but so has our grouping of strong, growing, innovative companies. If there are one or two particular areas where there is a gap, those would be in the ventures in the health sector and the clean-tech sector. We've had good growth in the ICT space, but health and clean tech are areas in which we still need to develop more management expertise, and also build the pool of capital for ventures.

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, both.

Mr. Albas.