Evidence of meeting #184 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was proposed.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Manuel Dussault  Senior Director, Framework Policy, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Justin Brown  Director, Financial Stability, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Yuki Bourdeau  Senior Advisor, Capital Markets Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Eleanor Ryan  Director General, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Jean-François Girard  Director, Consumer Affairs, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Brigitte Goulard  Deputy Commissionner, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
Kim Rudd  Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Mark Schaan  Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Ian Wright  Director, Financial Crimes Governance and Operations, Department of Finance
Darryl C. Patterson  Director, Corporate, Insolvency and Competition Policy Directorate, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Martin Simard  Director, Copyright and Trademark Policy, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Andrea Flewelling  Senior Policy Advisor, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Patrick Blanar  Senior Policy Analyst, Patent Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Dale MacMillan  Vice-President, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, National Research Council of Canada
Christopher Johnstone  Director General, National Programs and Business Services, National Research Council of Canada
Eric Grant  Director, Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Leane Walsh  Director, Fiscal Policy and Investment Readiness, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Susan Waters  Director General, Lands and Environmental Management Branch, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Michèle Govier  Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Katharine Funtek  Executive Director, Trade Controls Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Bev Shipley  Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC
Nicole Giles  Director, International Trade and Finance, Assistant Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Finance
Deirdre Kent  Director General, International Assistance Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Mark Lusignan  Director General, Grants and contributions Management, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (International Trade)
Michelle Kaminski  Director, Office of Innovative Finance, Grants and Contributions Management, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Chantal Larocque  Deputy Director, Development Finance, Grants and Contributions Financial Policy, Foreign Affairs Canada
Danielle Bélanger  Director, Gender-Based Analysis Plus and Strategic Policy, Policy and External Relations Directorate, Status of Women Canada
Alison McDermott  General Director, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Derek Armstrong  Executive Director, Results Division, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Lori Straznicky  Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Don Graham  Senior Advisor to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Bruce Kennedy  Manager, Pay Equity Task Team, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Richard Stuart  Executive Director, Expenditure Analysis and Compensation Planning, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Colin Spencer James  Senior Director, Social Development Policy, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Andrew Brown  Director General, Employment Insurance Policy Directorate, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Barbara Moran  Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Rutha Astravas  Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Special Benefits Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Charles Philippe Rochon  Senior Policy Analyst, Labour Standards and Wage Earner Protection Program, Workplace Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development

8:35 p.m.

Barbara Moran Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Thank you.

I'm going to briefly discuss the proposed amendments, clauses 310 to 313, which are amendments to part III of the Canada Labour Code.

Part III of the code establishes minimum working conditions in the federally regulated private sector, such as hours of work, annual vacations and various types of unpaid leave. The federally regulated private sector includes about 6% of all Canadian employees, employed in industries like banking, telecommunications, interprovincial and international transportation, federal Crown corporations, and certain activities on first nation reserves. Part III does not apply to the federal public service.

In general, when amendments are made to the employment insurance special benefits, corresponding amendments are made to the unpaid leaves under the code. This ensures that the federally regulated employees have the right to take unpaid job-protected leaves while receiving the employment insurance special benefits, without fear of losing their jobs. Amendments are, therefore, being proposed to part III to increase the amount of parental leave that may be taken when shared between employees.

More specifically, the amendments will increase the maximum aggregate amount of parental leave that may be taken by more than one employee for the same birth or adoption from the current 63 weeks to 71 weeks, while the maximum amount of leave taken by one employee will remain at 63 weeks, and it will increase the maximum aggregate amount of maternity and parental leave taken by more than one employee from the current 78 weeks to 86 weeks, while one employee cannot take more than the current 78 weeks of maternity and parental leave. These amendments align the code with the extended EI parental benefits that Andrew just described.

We're happy to answer any questions.

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Do I see any takers?

Mr. Massé.

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

I have a brief comment, not a question.

I am very pleased that the Quebec model has inspired the amendments to the Employment Insurance Act. I am a father of four young boys and I took advantage of those measures to spend time with my children who are growing so quickly, and also to help out my spouse. I simply wanted to say that I am very happy to see these measures in the budget, which will be take effect in the coming weeks.

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Kmiec.

8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

How do these provisions apply to adoptive parents? Do they apply equally just as they do for—I don't know what word to use to describe it—natural birth parents?

8:35 p.m.

Rutha Astravas Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Special Benefits Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development

Thank you for the question.

Parental benefits are for the care of a child. Biological or birth parents, as well as adoptive parents, are eligible for those benefits. The maternity benefit is uniquely available to birth mothers to recover from pregnancy and childbirth. Maternity benefits are not available to adoptive parents.

8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Can I just do a follow-up? I tabled a petition in the House on this, which was signed by a few thousand people. I have a constituent who adopted a baby, and she didn't qualify for the maternity benefits, but I can tell you she was just as sleep deprived as anybody else. I have three living kids, and I know I've gone through this with my spouse as well. There's really no difference. It's more like a broader kind of policy issue, not specific to this, but I feel as if we're not doing enough for adoptive parents.

In that 15 weeks when you're adopting a baby, you're just as exhausted as a birth parent. I know that my wife supports the idea of broadening it and just having one leave for all parents, whether taking leave because of giving birth.... Those 15 weeks would really make a difference. It's a broader policy issue.

Lindsey Salloway, in my riding, is the one who would ask me why I didn't bring it up, so I'm making sure I do right by Lindsey by bringing it up.

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Do you have a response or statement? Go ahead.

8:35 p.m.

Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Special Benefits Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development

Rutha Astravas

As I said earlier, the parental component is for the care of the child, but the purpose of maternity, under EI as well as the labour code, as well as other sorts of protections for pregnant workers, is distinct. It's for the mother. That's why we separate the two.

However, recent changes that we did bring about through budget 2017, which came into force last December, included offering parents a choice of the standard benefit of 35 weeks versus the extended benefit of 61 weeks, which offers more time to care for their children.

8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

For the same money...?

8:40 p.m.

Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Special Benefits Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development

Rutha Astravas

It's prorated. The total amount available is roughly the same.

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay.

Ms. Rudd.

8:40 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

I just want to follow up on what Tom was saying. Sometimes I think we have to look at where we've come from to realize how far we've come. In 1979, we had 48 hours' notice when we had a baby. I had to make a decision about whether to quit work and stay home or go back to work on Monday. There was no benefit to us at all. In 1979, for adoptive parents, if you didn't physically have a baby, why would you need time off? That was the logic.

My daughter will be 40 next year. It's not that long ago that we had none, so I'm really thrilled to see that we don't just have the benefits, but we have the option of extending those benefits, and having both parents eligible to take those benefits.

I'm thrilled. We're here, yes. We could be further, but considering where we were, I think we've come a long way. Thank you very much.

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

With that, we thank you, all, for appearing and answering our questions and going through the explanations.

We'll now call up part 4, division 15, subdivision A. Maybe you're all coming up together. I'm not sure.

Barbara, I believe you're staying. You're hanging in here.

8:40 p.m.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Welcome.

With ESDC, on the Canada Labour Code, subdivision A, division 15, we have Ms. Moran. We have also Mr. St-Arnaud and Mr. Rochon. Ms. Baxter is here for the next round.

Okay, go ahead.

8:40 p.m.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Barbara Moran

Thank you.

I was going to briefly outline clauses 441 to 534, modernizing labour standards. Just briefly, federal labour standards were established in the 1960s when most jobs provided decent wages and benefits. They were full-time, generally permanent. Those labour standards have really remained relatively unchanged until recently.

In recent years, significant economic and technological changes have affected the world of work and altered the way Canadians work. We look at gig work, on-demand work, and so on. While many of these changes are positive, they also present challenges for Canadians. They struggle to support their families in part-time, temporary and low-wage jobs, and they may work several jobs to make ends meet, face unpredictable hours, and lack benefits and access to certain labour standards.

To ensure that labour standards are robust and modern in the new world of work, and that they both protect employees and support productive workplaces, amendments are being proposed to update federal labour standards to strengthen the rights and protections of employees in the federally regulated private sector, and provide a solid foundation to equip employers and employees to succeed in the changing world of work.

Right now, a person has to be continuously employed by a single employer for a period of time in order to qualify for many of the protections and labour rights set out in part III of the Code. It can be difficult for employees who change jobs often to meet those requirements.

To improve employees' eligibility for labour standards, amendments are being proposed to eliminate the minimum length of service requirements for general holiday pay, sick leave, maternity leave, parental leave, leave related to critical illness and leave related to death or disappearance of a child.

The length of service required to be eligible for three weeks of vacation with pay would also be reduced from six weeks to five weeks.

Many employees have difficulty achieving work-life balance due to lack of time or scheduling conflicts. This is especially true for non-unionized employees and employees with precarious jobs, who do not enjoy the same stability and working conditions as permanent full-time employees.

To further improve work-life balance, the Canada Labour Code would be modified by adding an unpaid break of 30 minutes for every five hours of work, a minimum eight-hour rest period between shifts and unpaid breaks for nursing or medical reasons.

Amendments would require employers to provide employees at least 96 hours' advance notice of their schedules; add four weeks of vacation with pay after 10 years or more of service with the same employer; introduce a new five-day personal leave, of which three days are paid, and five days of paid leave for victims of family violence out of 10 days in total; improve access to medical leave by allowing it to be taken for medical appointments, clarifying that it covers organ or tissue donation, and only allowing employers to request a certificate for a leave of three or more consecutive days; and introduce a new and unpaid leave for court or jury duty.

Amendments are also being proposed to enhance the leave of absence for members of the reserve force in order to ensure that reservists are properly trained to deploy on missions while balancing fairness for employers. Specifically, the proposed amendments would reduce the length of service requirement to be eligible for the leave from six to three months, allow the leave to be used to attend Canadian Armed Forces military skills training, and limit the maximum amount of leave that an employee may take to 24 months in any 60-month period, subject to exceptions such as declared national emergencies.

Workers in atypical jobs face different challenges from those faced by employees with normal jobs, and those challenges can vary from worker to worker. For instance, temporary and part-time employees may not be paid at the same rate as their full-time colleagues and may have trouble qualifying for certain rights and protections, which makes their situation more precarious.

To ensure that employees in precarious work are paid and treated fairly and have access to labour standards, amendments are being proposed to require that casual, part-time, temporary and seasonal employees are paid equally to full-time employees when performing substantially the same job for the same employer. This requirement would not apply if the differences in rates of pay are based on objective factors such as seniority or merit.

Amendments would protect temporary help agency employees from unfair practices such as being charged a fee for being assigned work; require employers to provide employees with information about labour standards requirements and their conditions of employment; entitle all employees to be informed of employment or promotion opportunities; and prohibit employers from treating an employee as if they were not their employee in order to avoid their obligations or to deprive the employee of their rights.

Amendments would treat employees' length of service as continuous in cases of contract retendering within the federal private sector, or when their employment is transferred from a provincially regulated employer to a federally regulated employer. They would allow an employee to seek reimbursement of work-related expenses and raise the minimum age for work in hazardous occupations from 17 to 18 years of age.

Amendments are also proposed so that employees who are terminated receive advance notice and sufficient compensation to protect their financial security.

Specifically, in situations where 50 or more employees are being terminated, employers would now be allowed to provide pay in lieu of the required 16-week group notice or a combination of notice and pay in lieu. Employers would also be required to give employees eight weeks' individual notice of termination or pay in lieu. The ability for employers to request waivers from the group termination requirements would be eliminated.

In situations where less than 50 employees are being terminated, the current two-week individual notice termination requirement would be replaced with a graduated notice of termination that would range from two weeks' notice, pay in lieu of notice or a combination of notice and pay in lieu for employees with between three months and less than three years of continuous employment, to a maximum of eight weeks after eight years of continuous employment. Employers would also be required to inform terminated employees about their termination rights.

Finally, a number of amendments to the code's administration provisions are also being proposed to resolve technical issues, eliminate duplication of recourse mechanisms, clarify existing provisions and ensure the efficient treatment of complaints.

Some examples of the proposed changes include broadening the scope of health care practitioners—nurse practitioners, physiotherapists, midwives—who can issue medical certificates. This is to reflect changes in the way health care services are delivered and improve access to the leaves as well as to help reduce pressure on the health care system.

Amendments would also transfer responsibilities for adjudicating genetic testing complaints from adjudicators to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, as will also be the case with respect to the adjudication of wage recovery and unjust dismissal complaints.

I will now turn to Charles Philippe Rochon to outline subdivision B, head of compliance and enforcement.

8:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Yes, we'll go to questions on subdivision A first. I know there are a number of questions on this tonight, about the briefing.

Who wants to start?

Mr. Sorbara.

8:50 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Thank you, Chair, and welcome everyone.

What I really like in these CLC changes is something that I've read about for a very long time with regard to what happens at Pearson airport. This is with regard to contract flipping or contract retendering and how folks out there, and workers out there, have been...I'm going to use the word “injured” and I'll use it in that context, figuratively and not literally. This would apply to that sector of business where they are under a union contract, where the contract for the business potentially gets retendered and it wouldn't be a race to the lowest common denominator.

Am I reading that correctly?

8:50 p.m.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Barbara Moran

Yes, it would. What's proposed in the part III is that if an individual is working.... Let's say they're a forklift operator. They're driving the forklift one day and that contract changes. It's gone to a different employer. There's no break in employment. That same person is still driving the same forklift. It means they'll be seen as having continuous employment for the purpose of eligibility to leaves and other things.

8:50 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Of course, and it's with reference to the wages that were.... Effectively for a person working for $18 or $19 an hour, the contract was retendered, say for fuelling the planes or loading. The next day or the next week, the employees would be re-offered the employment, but then their wages would be cut. That's generally what, in a sense, was happening in some circumstances.

8:50 p.m.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Barbara Moran

The part III changes that I described won't affect the remuneration. The remuneration piece is a part I aspect, and in fact, in our recent news release, there was a commitment from the Minister of Employment and Workforce Development to look at doing a regulation that would extend the protection of remuneration levels to workers covered by collective agreements at airports and airlines.

8:50 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Thank you.

For the 96 hours' advance notice of scheduling, that strikes me as.... My question is this. If there is a collective agreement in place, for example in the transport sector, when there's a big snowstorm and the railways need to get employees there, you may not have 96 hours of notice. In the airline sector, if there's a disruption due to weather, you may not have 96 hours' notice.

Does the collective bargaining agreement supersede the 96 hours? I'll be frank. This just does not seem very realistic in today's world.

8:50 p.m.

Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

Barbara Moran

For the 96-hour advance notice provision, there is also a provision in the legislation that says, if the issue of scheduling is covered by a collective agreement, the collective agreement would supersede this, so it addresses just the sorts of cases you described.

8:50 p.m.

Charles Philippe Rochon Senior Policy Analyst, Labour Standards and Wage Earner Protection Program, Workplace Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development

I can perhaps add that there is a provision with respect to the 96 hours, but also with respect to some of the other elements, in terms of breaks and all that, to provide exceptions in the case of unforeseen circumstances that could have a health and safety impact, an impact on the public, or on the operations of the employer. The legislation recognizes that there may be certain circumstances where that is just not feasible.