Evidence of meeting #189 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lori Straznicky  Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Kim Rudd  Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Richard Stuart  Executive Director, Expenditure Analysis and Compensation Planning, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Blaine Langdon  Director, Charities, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Pierre Mercille  Director General, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Mark Schaan  Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
Khusro Saeedi  Economist, Consumer Affairs, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Cathy McLeod  Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC
Eric Grant  Director, Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Christopher Duschenes  Director General, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Blake Richards  Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Barbara Moran  Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Sébastien St-Arnaud  Senior Policy Strategist, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, 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
Deirdre Kent  Director General, International Assistance Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Louisa Pang  Director, International Finance and Development Division, Department of Finance
Joyce Patel  Acting Director, Lands Directorate, Lands and Environmental Management Branch, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. David Gagnon

4:10 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

On this one, what the amendment is seeking to do is to take a situation that I think was discussed briefly in the previous conversation we had here, the idea that with this five-day bereavement leave that's being contemplated, there is a requirement that a woman have three months' continuous employment to be able to qualify for that.

Obviously you can understand the difficulty with that. For someone who maybe hasn't had three months' continuous employment but yet is in that situation, I would hope that we would want to give them the opportunity to have a few days at minimum. We have the discussion for later about whether we're going to do something that's proper bereavement leave, but in this instance, all it's doing is simply saying, look, let's remove this requirement of the three months' continuous employment so that someone can still have those few days to essentially bury their child.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I just wonder whether we have to deal with CPC-9 before we can deal with this. Should we stand this one, too, or can we deal with it now?

4:10 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

I don't think we would have to, because we're talking about two separate things.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

All right, we'll go to Ms. Rudd on this one.

Go ahead.

4:15 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.

Kim Rudd

Thank you.

I think one of the things we have to remember is that this minimum requirement of three consecutive months of attachment to a workplace is for all the leaves under the act. It's maternity leave. It's bereavement leave. It's all of the leaves, so it would make it inconsistent within the legislation.

The other thing I think we have to acknowledge is that if someone's only been on the job two or three days and, unfortunately, needs bereavement leave, that's paid by the employer. I think it's reasonable to suggest that employers have an employee with an attachment to their place of employment prior to receiving that benefit.

The third thing is that without doing an in-depth analysis, as we're talking about with the other CPC-9 and the motion at HUMA right now, I don't think it would be responsible, frankly, to put something like this into legislation.

For those reasons, I won't support it.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay.

Is there any further discussion on CPC-10?

Mr. Kmiec.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Can I just get officials to tell me what the other leaves are that match with this particular section—the five-day leaves? Can you just enumerate them for me?

4:15 p.m.

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

Barbara Moran

Sorry, are you looking for the other five-day leaves?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

I'm asking about any other leaves that have a similar five-day provision, where you have three months of work and afterwards you can....

4:15 p.m.

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

Do you mean in terms of paid leave?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Yes.

4:15 p.m.

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

Barbara Moran

Maybe what I'll just start with is to say that essentially this eligibility period is for the paid leave. The code has eligibility periods for paid leaves. In general, there isn't an eligibility period for the unpaid leave. In fact, what this bill proposes is to remove the eligibility period for a number of the leaves. It's just for the paid leave component.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

That wasn't my question.

I was actually asking specifically what the other leaves are.

November 20th, 2018 / 4:15 p.m.

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

Charles Philippe Rochon

For the other leaves, including some that are being added as part of this bill, we're looking at bereavement leave, which is the one mentioned here, leave for victims of family violence and the new personal leave. Those would be three examples.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Can you just repeat the last one?

4:15 p.m.

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

Charles Philippe Rochon

The last one was personal leave.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

What other ones are not being added in the BIA?

4:15 p.m.

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

Charles Philippe Rochon

If you look at paid leaves, these are the examples under the code that would still have a minimum length-of-service requirement.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

It just seems to me that some of them are pretty serious. Obviously, leave for victims of family violence is pretty serious, but nobody can really plan for the death of their child.

I understand that if you start a new job, and you're only in it about two months, you should have some type of.... The terminology used was “attachment to the employer”, and then after three months, you qualify for a bunch of other benefits.

The only suggestion I would make is that what this amendment is seeking to address is something totally unplanned. The death of your child is not something you plan for, typically, I would hope. It's a life event during which you may find yourself in difficult circumstances that you didn't plan for. Whether or not you've recently changed your work and find yourself in what could almost be called precarious employment, you'll want leave for at least a few days.

You could always take unpaid leave, but a child dying is not a cheap affair. Having gone through this, again, personally, it's not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. Having to lose just a few days of pay would be quite a big deal. I just think that removing the three-month requirement for employment in order to be eligible for those five days of paid bereavement leave, for such a huge life-changing event that will probably follow the employee for the term of their employment, is very little to ask.

This is not weeks. This is five days. It's pretty small. It's pretty simple, I would think, at least as a change. CPC-11 is the same concept. When I look at these other types of leave and other leaves available in the labour code, there are some for very important life events and some that I would say are for lesser but still very important events.

A child's death should not be something you use vacation days for. A child's death is not something you should use some sort of personal leave for. There should be dedicated leave for it. If you find yourself with a new employer, you're trying to prove yourself to them. I understand that. Again, it's not something you planned for. It's not something you can adjust your schedule around when you're seeking new employment to better yourself and to get a better job. I just think the compassionate thing to do in this case, for bereavement leave, is to do away with the three-month requirement and give them the five paid days.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Is there any further discussion on this point?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 478 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 479 to 513 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 514)

On clause 514, we have CPC-11.

Who's speaking about this one?

4:20 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Really we're talking about the same arguments here.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Then there needs to be no further debate.

4:20 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

No, I don't think there needs to be any further debate.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We are voting on CPC-11.

4:20 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

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

(Clause 514 agreed to on division)