Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I appreciate the explanation from my Conservative colleagues and I listened very carefully to the response from the government. What they've just acknowledged is that there isn't currently this leave provision in place. Medical leave is not leave in the event of a child passing away, and the current provisions around leave for a child victim of violence does not take into consideration the various other circumstances that parents could live under.

I'm going to be supporting the amendment because it does create a new possibility of leave for any parent who has lost a child. All of us as parents can understand the profound impacts that provokes. It shouldn't be left to having to take medical leave for somebody to try to access that leave.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have Mr. Richards, and then Mr. Kmiec, or whichever way you want to go.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards]

I want to respond as well to the comments made, Mr. Fragiskatos' comments. It's likely just a misunderstanding on his part, I hope, because certainly the two provisions he mentioned actually don't cover what we're talking about here. First of all, for the one he referenced about families that are victims of crime, we're talking about two different things here.

In this case, we're talking about a bereavement leave. This is for families that have lost a child. It could be, in many cases, sudden infant death syndrome or those types of things. We're not talking about crime in this instance, and that's very specific, obviously, to that.

The other thing he referenced was sickness benefits that are available to folks. Although there have been instances in which bereaved families, parents, have been able to access sickness benefits for that, we've heard from numerous families through the study that's going on, and I know through the work that I've been doing across the country to speak with these advocates and these families, numerous stories of individuals who aren't able to access those benefits for bereavement.

In fact, I can remember very clearly the heart-wrenching story of one advocate from Nova Scotia, named Paula Harmon, who had to tell her story to a number of officials and ultimately was sent to get a note for sickness leave. When she came back with it, and the reason the doctor had put on it was bereavement of daughter, she was told that she was ineligible as a result. She was kind of “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” told by the Service Canada official that if she could just maybe get the doctor to put some other type of reason, she might qualify.

That's one example of many, so it's very clear that it certainly isn't sufficient and isn't adequate to cover this necessity. The parents have told us, over and over again, about the trauma and the grief put on them by having to tell their story, in some cases up to 10 or 15 times to different officials in order to qualify.

On top of that, obviously it's a lot of extra grief to have to apply this way, even if they are able to get it, and in many cases, they're not. Clearly there's a need for a specific benefit tied very specifically to bereavement. We've heard that very clearly over and over again.

I really hope that maybe those misunderstandings have been cleared up and the government members will choose to support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We do have officials in the room for anybody with clarifications, as well.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Chair, I look at this and I feel that 12 weeks for parents who have lost a child is pretty darn reasonable, having gone through it myself in August. This has nothing to do with a crime being committed. This actually specifically mentions “including in cases of perinatal death.” There are a lot of things that can happen in an operating room or a delivery room where a child could be stillborn.

I had parents in my constituency office just last week, speaking to Blake's motion 110 and asking what they could do to advocate on behalf of parents who are asking for bereavement leave, specifically so they can bury their child and have time with their family.

I know it took me the better part of two months before I could return to work. You have to bury your child. You have memorial services. You have to talk to your family members. You may have other siblings of the child that you have to take care of. This is broader, too. This also includes other family members who you want to talk to, and you want to settle everything to do with their schooling, everything to do with, let's say, a memorial service and with the costs associated with it.

I think 12 weeks is the minimum we could offer parents who are burying a child. I know that, in my case, we don't have fixed leave for parliamentarians, and I didn't complain. I got back to work. I was answering emails when I could, and I did so. I don't think 12 weeks is too much to ask for when a death occurs. It's a huge thing to happen to a family, to lose a child, especially when there are siblings involved, so I don't think it's a lot to ask for this to be included.

There are other parliamentarians who have been working on issues associated with this. Laws are supposed to adjust for society, and in society today there are plenty of parents who are having to bury their children for different reasons, whether it's because of a stillbirth, a very late miscarriage or, in certain cases, medical mistakes or a medical cause for their passing.

Every single parent you talk to.... I've talked to a great deal of them over the past three or four months, people who have reached out to me, some in person, like Ashley in my riding whose three-year-old son Noah drowned in Florida last year. She's still bereaved. This is a year after the fact and she's still crushed by what happened. You can't blame her for that. Expecting her to return to work and apply for medical absences.... This is not a medical absence. This is bereavement leave, something entirely different.

I would look for us to be compassionate, to extend these 12 weeks to parents, to do it on their behalf. The laws are supposed to adjust to people and not force people to adjust to them. We're here for our constituents. We're here for people. We're here for parents. It should work the other way around. We should adjust the law so that it suits them.

Those are the points that I want to put on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion or any questions for the officials on this point, on this amendment?

Do the officials have anything to add? What are the implications of this on the bill?

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

There's one thing that I would offer. Currently under the code there are 17 weeks of maternity leave. That has been interpreted as being available to women who experience a perinatal death, so I would just offer that this is available. Adding a new leave of 12 weeks that specifically refers to cases of perinatal death.... I would just caution you about what that could mean for the current interpretation of maternity leave, which is for 17 weeks and currently covers perinatal death.

That's the only thing I would offer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We'll have Mr. Kmiec and then Mr. Julian.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

The official piqued my interest here.

With regard to those 17 weeks, does the perinatal part apply to fathers?

[Barbara Moran]

No, it's part of the maternity, so it would apply to the maternity benefits.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

A grieving father would not get any leave.

[Barbara Moran]

Correct. Maternity leave would only be available for the mother.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

What about those who are past their 17 weeks of maternity leave? Would they be covered? If someone is past 17 weeks and the child passes away on the 17th week plus a day would that person get an extra 17 weeks?

[Barbara Moran]

If they've taken their maternity leave.... They're entitled to the 17 weeks and that's it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

If the child passes away afterwards, the mother would get no extra leave.

[Barbara Moran]

I would add bereavement leave. They would be able to access bereavement leave, if the child passes away after the 17-week point. They would be eligible for bereavement leave and that would be eligibility for both parents as well, if they are both employees.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Can you just explain to me where this bereavement leave is found?

[Sébastien St-Arnaud, Senior Policy Strategist, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

In section 210 of the Canada Labour Code, there is bereavement leave. Employees are entitled to three days, and if they have three months of continuous employment, they are eligible for paid days.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Forgive me, did you say three days?

[Sébastien St-Arnaud]

Yes, three days, and in the BIA 2017, no. 2, we added two unpaid days, so once it comes into force—next year probably—an employee would be eligible for at least five days.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

A child passes away and you have five days, with three paid and two unpaid days. You have time for a memorial service, a burial, to maybe take care of your other kids, and then that's it. We're talking about 12 weeks here in comparison. Five days is what there is right now.

[Barbara Moran]

That is the period for bereavement leave, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

I think the more we're getting into this, the more we're realizing the importance of getting this amendment through.

How soon do the maternity leave provisions end, after the death or the birth of a child?