Finance Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I was asking about the cases where we heard from witnesses that there could be potential impacts in regard to dual charges being laid. I was asking specifically if that had anything to do with this conversation, if there are any jurisdictions that do that.

Again, I just remember one witness raising the concern that it could happen.

[Margaret Hill]

To clarify, when you say dual charges, do you mean there were two individuals involved in one incident?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

My understanding is that one witness had said that there are some jurisdictions which will, as a matter of fact, just charge any participants in a domestic assault, not knowing the particulars. I hadn't heard of that before, so I'm asking if that is done in some provinces or territories. If so, how would that factor in with this amendment or with the bill in general?

[Margaret Hill]

We are not aware of that situation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay, that's helpful to me.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm shocked that you aren't aware of the possibility. The bill is clear in this regard. It does not, in fact, refer to prosecution, which is the later stage in the process initiated by the director of public prosecutions, but, rather, to the laying of charges, the first step in the process once a crime has been committed. To my mind, that is too broad, so I am proposing that the entire paragraph be removed to prevent this type of situation from happening.

Would it be possible to indicate that the leave is available only to victims? I realize we don't want to put the employer in a situation where they would have to judge a domestic dispute and state that such and such a person was the victim. That is not necessarily the role of the employer.

Is there a way to fix the problem? Do you at least acknowledge that there is a problem in cases where both parties are charged, in other words, when a victim's employer might refuse to grant the leave because the victim had also been charged?

[Margaret Hill]

I'll begin by clarifying something. We are not aware of provincial police practices with respect to charging people involved in incidents of domestic violence. That's what I interpreted the question to be.

The purpose of this exception provision and why it's important to keep it is to set a high and fair threshold for denying people who are experiencing violence in their life the right to take the proposed leave. The exception provision allows the leave to be denied in only two circumstances—the ones I mentioned earlier. If the provision were removed, an employee who's charged with an offence, as you noted, related to the act of family violence for which they're requesting leave.... Being charged with an offence is a formal process that involves the judicial system. That individual could benefit from the leave if the exception is removed. In addition, an employee who probably, considering the circumstances, committed the act—which means that it's very likely, and not just possible, that the employee is the perpetrator of the violence—would also benefit from the leave.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Is there a solution that would not refer to charges given the practice of double charging? Is there a way to find the right balance?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Gagnon.

[Réal Gagnon]

The problem is that it can take time before a determination is made as to who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. The leave will be pointless if it takes a year or two for the justice system to finally work out who the victim is and who the guilty party is. It takes way too long to identify who the victim in the situation is in order for real victims to access the leave.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Are you not concerned that, as a result of the provision, real victims who had been charged could be denied the leave? Witnesses told us that was a possibility. Are you not concerned that that could happen?

[Margaret Hill]

To reiterate, the objective is to set a high and fair threshold to make sure that people who are in situations of family violence are not denied the leave. We think this is a good balance.

I would also draw the committee's attention to the fact that this exception mirrors exactly the one in the Canada Labour Code that relates to leave related to the death or disappearance of a child as the result of a crime. It's exactly the same provision.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Very well, but it doesn't make it any better simply because the exception exists elsewhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll go to the question on NDP-4.

Do you want a recorded vote?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll turn now to amendment NDP-5.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next amendment has to do with the same part of the bill and would make changes to pages 260 and 261.

In both places, the bill states that the period of leave can be no less than one day. The first occurrence appears in lines 28 and 29 on page 260. The provision reads as follows: “The leave of absence may be taken in one or more periods. The employer may require that each period of leave be of not less than one day's duration.” Witnesses told the committee that that made no sense. The first occurrence pertains to family responsibility leave, and the second concerns leave for victims of family violence.

When an employee has a family obligation, they will be required to take a full day of leave. If a situation arises and the person has to take time off for a family responsibility, they will have to take a full day of leave. What's more, since my amendment was defeated, the person will not be paid for that day of leave. They will not be able to take three hours or the afternoon off, for instance. They will absolutely have to take a full day. That makes no sense given the actual day-to-day lives of Canadians. They should instead be entitled to the equivalent of three days of leave. Unfortunately, my amendment to provide for five days of family responsibility leave was defeated, so employees will have access to just three days a year, which they will have to take at least a day at a time. They won't have the option of taking a total number of hours per year equivalent to three days times 7.5 hours.

All my amendment does is remove the sentence after the period in both cases: in subclause 206.6(2) for family responsibility leave, and in subclause 206.7(4) for leave for victims of family violence. Consequently, the subclauses would simply read “The leave of absence may be taken in one or more periods.”

It is not necessary to specify that the leave of absence has to be taken in minimum increments of one day. I think my amendment would address the comments we heard from witnesses. Practically speaking, employees may need to take only one, two, three, or five hours of family responsibility leave at a time, not necessarily an entire day. That makes perfect sense, and the amendment is more than reasonable. It would not change the spirit of the bill. It would simply give employees the option of spreading the leave out over the year by taking it in increments of hours, not full days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'd like to ask Ms. Hill or Mr. Gagnon a question.

It seems to me that the following sentence after this amendment, the part that would be removed, says that “the employer may require that each”. I'm sorry. Let me start again.

I'll read the entire definition of “Division of Leave”. Proposed subsection 206.7(4) says:

The leave of absence may be taken in one or more periods. The employer may require that each period of leave be of not less than one day's duration.

I note the word “may”.

Ms. Hill, can you explain why the legislation is written that way, please?

[Margaret Hill]

I think you've zeroed in on exactly the correct word, and that's “may”. The purpose of this provision is to recognize the intent of the new leave for employees, but to also recognize that there's always a need to balance this against the needs of employers. There's nothing in the legislation as it is now that prohibits an employer from providing the leave in any amount of time that they wish.

It's very important to recognize that in many industrial sectors and types of businesses in the federally regulated private sector it may be very difficult, for operational or administrative reasons, for some employers to let their employees take time off for a few hours and return to work afterwards in the same day. In the consultations that were held prior to this legislation being developed, that was something that came across very strongly from employers, and from large employers as well as small ones. The legislation as it is now provides employers with the flexibility to require that the leave be taken in periods of at least one full working day, but it will not prohibit them from offering it in other periods.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Just to reiterate, then, employers asked for that flexibility. The bill allows employers to divide a day of leave into a number of periods or to grant the leave in one-day increments, depending on their operational requirements.

[Margaret Hill]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That is correct. That's what you said.

Is there any further discussion?

Then we'll vote on amendment NDP-5 to clause 202.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We turn to amendment PV-3.

Ms. May, the floor is yours.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Returning to the same basket of amendments to the concerns about ensuring that these welcome provisions to provide leave for people who are victims of violence are meaningful, I refer specifically to the testimony in drawing up this amendment from the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, that financial security is essential for people who are victims of violence. In the interests of time, I'll only refer to one bit of testimony from Elizabeth Dandy, who referred to the fact that survivors of family violence “require stable, ongoing paid employment to enable them to leave violent relationships and seek safety...Many survivors won't be able to afford to take the leave if it is unpaid.”

My amendment at this point, as you can see, would change line 10 on page 261 to include “is entitled to and shall be granted a leave of absence with pay”. That's my amendment, and I hope that members of the government, of the Liberal Party, on this committee will consider and vote for this. It will strengthen Bill C-63 in a way that you'll all be very proud of for a very long time.

Thank you.