Evidence of meeting #126 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bank.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
There are no amendments to clauses 200 to 205.
(Clauses 200 to 205 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 206)
We have amendment NDP-4. We might get through this amendment before we have to leave.
Mr. Dusseault.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll try to do this quickly, despite the rather broad scope of this amendment to the Canada Labour Code. The first point pertains to the part entitled “Family Responsibility Leave”, the second point concerns the part entitled “Leave for Victims of Family Violence”, and the third point relates to the part entitled “Leave for Traditional Aboriginal Practices”.
In the case of the family responsibility leave, the bill sets out three unpaid days. The first point of my amendment would change the leave to five paid days. With respect to the leave for victims of family violence, the bill provides for 10 unpaid days, but the second point of my amendment would change that to 10 paid days. That is entirely consistent with the recommendations of numerous witnesses. In fact, most of the witnesses we heard from on the matter told us that 10 unpaid days of leave was inadequate for victims of family violence.
There is no way that a man or woman experiencing family violence will be able to afford to leave their home and flee the domestic violence, possibly going to a shelter, if those 10 days of leave are not paid. The witnesses were pretty clear about that. Victims would be more likely to stay and put up with the violence than to use this unpaid leave of absence. They will not leave the place they call home if it means not being paid for 10 days. We are talking about people who are often in financial hardship, so it is absolutely outlandish to think that they would be willing to flee their violent situations on the premise that everything will be fine all because they have 10 days of unpaid leave. The witnesses made no bones about the fact that the measure was inadequate. My amendment, therefore, would ensure that those 10 days of leave were paid.
Multiple witnesses raised another issue I'm sure everyone at the table recalls. I'm referring to the exception set out in subclause 206.7(3) of the bill. I completely understand the intent behind the provision—to prevent the perpetrators of violence in the family from having access to the leave. We heard, however, that, in a number of provinces, police often apply the double-charge principle. That means that an officer responding to a domestic violence situation can charge both parties, since the officer does not necessarily know all the facts when arriving on the scene and, so, takes both individuals to the police station. Once they have been questioned and the investigation has been completed, one individual clearly emerges as the source of the problem and the person who has violated the Criminal Code. Only that individual, therefore, will be charged with the facts uncovered by the investigator.
In cases where both parties are charged, victims would not be able to access the leave for victims of family violence. As I see it, the exception is too broad in scope. While I understand its purpose, it could cause collateral damage, which would prevent some individuals from using the leave. It goes without saying, then, that the exception should be removed so as not to achieve the exact opposite of what is intended. Witnesses who work in the area are the ones who flagged the problem of double charging in Canada; it was not me. They are aware of the problem and are very concerned that the exception would prevent some people from accessing the leave.
As for the leave for traditional aboriginal practices, my amendment would ensure the leave was paid, the idea being the same as with the other types of leave.
The last point in amendment NDP-4 would give the Governor in Council regulatory authority to consult with aboriginal governments and organizations before adding traditional aboriginal practices to the list of activities set out in subclause 206.8(1), in other words, hunting, fishing, harvesting, and any practice prescribed by regulation. The purpose of the amendment is to explicitly state that the addition of any traditional aboriginal practices by regulation to the list requires the consultation of aboriginal governments and organizations. With all due respect, a department official should not be the one deciding whether an activity constitutes a traditional aboriginal practice and whether it should be added to the list by regulation. Aboriginal stakeholders would have to be consulted to ensure the proper recognition and respect of the rights of aboriginal people.
Those are the amendments I am proposing. I hope they will spark a fruitful debate in which all members are able to have their say and that the majority of members will support the amendments.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
First of all, I'd like to thank the member for raising the issue with the committee, which heard from department officials on the subject. It's an issue I thought a lot about, and I looked for further information. Second of all, unfortunately, I don't think Mr. Dusseault's amendments would completely fix the problem, which we all recognize exists. In some provinces, charges are laid against both parties in situations involving domestic violence. Initially, the members of the couple point the finger at one another. Later, the preponderance of evidence allows the court to determine which party is the true victim of violence and to dismiss the charges against that individual. I tried to find more information on that.
Mr. Chair, can the witnesses answer some questions on the matter?
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll have to go to the questions for the witnesses when we return.
We have to suspend this meeting and go to vote, but I would mention to members that when we do come back we will have the Iraqi delegation here and we will meet with them first. The meeting will be suspended and we will have separate interpretive devices. The staff will set it up so that we can have a quick meeting with them and then we'll get back to business.
The meeting is suspended until after the vote.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If everybody's here, we shall reconvene.
Again, thank you. It was a pleasure to meet with the Iraqi finance committee. We wish you well on your deliberations over the remainder of your time in Canada.
When we suspended, we were dealing with amendment NDP-4 to clause 206.
Mr. Fergus, you had the floor.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My question is for both witnesses. I want to be sure of something. The purpose of the measure is to ensure that victims of family violence are entitled to take a leave of absence in order to deal with the awful situation they are in.
When witnesses appeared before the committee—
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Senior Director, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
We're not getting anything.
November 21st, 2017 / 11:40 a.m.
Senior Director, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
My question is for Ms. Hill and Mr. Gagnon.
I would just like to be sure that the measure will serve its purpose. Even though, in some provinces, both parties to family violence are charged, the employer still has the flexibility to grant the victim a leave of absence.
Is that right? Do I understand the measure correctly?
11:40 a.m.
Senior Director, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
That is absolutely the case. It's very important to remember that the Canada Labour Code establishes minimum standards and is always aimed at balancing employee and employer needs and interests. The employer is always able and has the discretion to provide more than the minimum standards provided in the code. There is nothing in the code that prevents them from doing that.
In the case of domestic violence leave, an employer can always provide leave for someone who they think would benefit from it as a result of their being a victim of family violence. They could always pay the leave, should they wish, and they can always provide more leave, if the employer wishes.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I want to make sure. Again, the idea is that we certainly don't want the perpetrator of the violence to have access to this, but in the case where there are double charges, or a mutual charge, in cases of violence in those jurisdictions, there is not an unintended consequence that the person who is the victim, or the preponderant victim, of the violence, is going to be penalized by these measures, as the clause is currently written. Am I correct?
11:40 a.m.
Senior Director, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
You are absolutely correct.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Can you talk a bit about it? Can you reassure the committee? I want to make sure we have this right. This is not a partisan issue at all. This is an issue that I think is very important, that we ensure that those who.... As you know, not all charges are the same. We want to make sure that the real perpetrator of the violence is the one who will not be eligible for this leave.
I'd also like to make sure that the victim will have access to this leave.
11:40 a.m.
Senior Director, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I can assure you emphatically that the intent of this leave is to provide an employee who is a victim of family violence with leave in order for them to deal with the situation in their life or the life of a minor child. The Canada Labour Code provides minimum standards. An employer always has the right to be more generous, and we know that many employers do this—they are more generous.
I would also say, reflecting the fact that the new leave is intended to provide people who are in horrific circumstances with leave, that it only provides one specific circumstance when someone would not have that right, and that is if through the justice system they are identified as the perpetrator. I would say also that the exception reinforces that the employer can provide leave in the case where it is probable—not possible, but probable—in the circumstances that the individual is the victim of domestic violence—
11:40 a.m.
A voice
The perpetrator.
11:40 a.m.
Senior Director, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Sorry. The perpetrator.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Some witnesses brought up that there are some jurisdictions that, as a matter of course, will charge in a domestic dispute too...anyone that's involved.
What effects would that dual charging...? First of all, does that occur? Second, how would that impact without this amendment?
11:45 a.m.
Réal Gagnon Senior Policy Analyst, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Is that without the amendment or with the amendment?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Well, actually, we'll start with the amendment, please.
11:45 a.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Okay, so without the amendment, as it is written now, what proposed subsection 206.7(3) does is actually remove the entitlement you have in subsection 2. There is the leave to which an employee is entitled, and then there's the exception, when it is not entitled. There's nothing in there that says the employer is banned from, or the employer is not allowed to.... Of course, the employer here cannot substitute himself for the judicial system—who says who and all that stuff.
For example, the person has experienced violence in his or her life and the person is not at work that day and is calling. Whether the person is at a shelter or a police station, and says, “I cannot go in. I'll let you know later on, but there's violence in my life”, that's all the person needs to say.
Eventually the employer, as you know, may request a kind of explanation or documentation. However, then the question is, can the employer say, “That's okay, I understand. I'll give you the leave.” I'm maybe implying here, can the employer take reprisal because the person was not entitled, but that doesn't mean the employer cannot give it. There's a section in the act that prevents reprisals for applying for a leave.
The employee eventually is recognized.... Well, here we don't need to be guilty; we need to be accused. If the person is accused but eventually it's, no, he shouldn't have been accused, then it's an issue between the employer and the employee. It's an unpaid leave. The person was already absent, but the employer cannot make reprisals against the employee.
Does that answer your question?