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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll have Mr. Kmiec and Mr. Richards, and then we'll go to a vote, if we can, depending.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I received a lot of really heartfelt cards and emails from both the minister and you, Peter, and others. I appreciate all that, but this is not just about me, because that's already happened to me. It's about all the parents to whom it will happen in the future.
If you look at the contents of the BIA, to say that we do not have the expertise or all the information is an argument against the BIA itself, because it covers so much territory. In the BIA, we, this committee, are going to create a leave of 104 weeks for every employee who will be entitled to it “if the employee is the parent of a child who has died and it is probable, considering the circumstances, that the child died as the result of a crime.” We are creating a leave of 52 weeks. Every employee is entitled to this, it goes on, if they are “a parent of a child who has disappeared and it is probable, considering the circumstances, that the child disappeared as the result of a crime.”
This is a situation of a crime, which is a justice issue. We on this committee—on division, probably—have agreed to a great many sections that we cannot say we have in-depth information and witness testimony available to us on, which is why I think this amendment is infinitely reasonable. We spent just as much time, I think, on those types of sections as we have on this 12-week leave. It's nothing comparable to what's being suggested in these two sections for parents who are suffering a type of bereavement connected to a crime.
Again, I think we're well within the balance of what the committee can consider, because it's been put into the BIA by the government. Because the government put it into the BIA, it is fully within the rights of this committee to amend the BIA as we see fit after having heard testimony and considering subject matter that we deem necessary and valid to our interpretation of what should go into this and what should be excluded from it.
All the amendments proposed by the opposition have been turned down, some of them for good reasons, and some of them for bad reasons, and I accept those results, on division, of course. But in here, we're creating leave for other situations. I don't think it's a good argument to say that we should let another committee do the work or that this should be studied somewhere else because they have more fulsome information or a more complete set of witnesses for them to consider a 12-week leave when we are creating a 104-week leave in one situation, a 52-week leave in another, 17 weeks here and 37 weeks there. We are creating leaves already, as it is. Concerning the full impact of a 12-week leave, if we need more time to consider it, take the time. We can pass a unanimous motion. We can delay consideration of returning the BIA to the House for a day or two, and we could still have it there by Thursday and let your Department of Justice study this further or we could study this some more tomorrow and have officials return for another two hours.
The committee is master of its own domain, to use an old Seinfeld line. We could totally consider this some more. Take another day. I don't see us having to vote on this immediately, and having you all vote against it and us vote for it. As a solution, we could help parents here, parents going through bereavement, having lost a child, not because of crime but just because life happens. I really think we're doing a disservice to those people who will find themselves in this situation. You mention that you know some of the people who have gone through things like this. This will be beneficial to them.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Before we vote, I just want to implore the members on the other side, government members, Liberal members, to show some compassion here. You have the ability to right a wrong. You all know it's wrong. I've heard it expressed. I've seen it on your faces. You know it's wrong. You have the ability to right this.
I just ask you to think about those families. Think about the grief that they experience, and just stand up, be counted and do what's right. You have the ability to do this. Words aren't enough. Take action, please, I implore you. Show some compassion for these people who have already suffered enough.
I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Do we still have officials from this section here?
Liberal
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to get a sense of the bereavement leave for parents whose child is a victim of crime or a victim of violence. How was that 104 weeks arrived at? Were they taking into consideration psychological impacts? Are there comparative bereavement leaves for child crime victims in other jurisdictions? I'm looking for the genesis of that 104-weeks figure in the BIA, and what the considerations were before that figure was arrived at.
November 20th, 2018 / 5:40 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Labour Standards and Wage Earner Protection Program, Workplace Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development
To clarify, the BIA does not institute new leaves—the 104 weeks and 52 weeks. These were put in place in 2012. What the BIA does is eliminate the length-of-service requirements, in order for an employee to qualify for these leaves. The code currently states that employees need six months of continuous employment. This will be removed as part of the BIA, and that's what the BIA does.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, but the question still stands. How is the figure of 104 arrived at? Do we know comparatively what other jurisdictions have, in terms of bereavement leave for parents whose child was a victim of crime?
Senior Policy Analyst, Labour Standards and Wage Earner Protection Program, Workplace Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development
I can only give a partial answer, because this decision was made under a previous government. What is clear is that there was already a model in Quebec, with Quebec's legislation providing, under its act respecting labour standards, for leave in cases of murdered and missing children. My understanding is that, at the time these provisions were put in, they were largely modelled on provisions in Quebec.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Would it be possible to provide further information to this committee if we gave you some time to do that work?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Sure. Maybe what I would offer again is my understanding, which predates my involvement, that the 104 weeks was arrived at to match to a grant made available for these parents of children who are victims of crime. We would need to check in with our colleagues within ESDC to find out—and I would take Charles Philippe's word that it was in 2012—why 104 was arrived at. We don't know off the tops of our heads.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much. I believe the committee needs more information. I'm glad that you'd be able to provide it to us if we had more time.
I'm looking to you, Mr. Chair, and also the clerk of the committee. What is the best way for the committee to provide that time? Mr. Kmiec mentioned earlier perhaps our reconvening tomorrow night. Is that a motion we could then move so that we can meet tomorrow night to get the information back from the officials before we make a decision that I think a number of us have indicated is very important?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
What we have to deal with is the original motion. You're well aware of this clause of it:
If the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday November 20, 2018, all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible.
That is our direction from the committee, passed by the committee. We have to complete that task by tonight at 9 o'clock.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
That is unless we reconsider that, Mr. Chair. I'm asking for guidance on how best to reconsider that time frame.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll ask the clerk to intervene, but we had a motion earlier that was defeated, so I would think that any similar motion would have to be ruled out of order.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Okay. I will leave that for a moment, Mr. Chair. You could test, after we've had a bit more discussion on this, for unanimous consent for us to provide that 24-hour window, which would allow officials to come back with the information we're seeking before we make that decision.
I would argue in favour of members of the committee providing unanimous consent. This is a matter that deeply impacts people who are going through the most devastating family tragedy imaginable. I would hope that government members would allow the unanimous consent so that we could come back tomorrow night and complete our work. It is a 24-hour pause, but it allows us, I think, to complete the work and to get the right information before we make a decision that is so important.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Clerk, you explained to me how we would have to deal with this. I'll let you give that explanation.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. David Gagnon
Usually we deal with one substantive motion at a time. I believe that you're dealing with one such motion right now, and I think the motion you're referring to would be another substantive motion. Usually, it's just one at a time.
Liberal