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.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any discussion or are there questions to officials? Do officials have anything they want to add?
On amendment CPC-12, do you want a recorded vote?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm easy. It's up to you to ask.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 690 agreed to on division)
(Clause 691 agreed to on division)
(On clause 692)
We have CPC-3.... I'm sorry. We have CPC-13 on clause 692. My eyesight's going. I'm not seeing clearly.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I could restart with CPC-3 and we could go forward again.
5:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
This is a simple amendment. Before ministers of transport amend shipping regulations, they have to consult with appropriate stakeholders. I've been reading from testimony given at the transportation committee by different stakeholders who are impacted by this. This amendment is simply making it a requirement that the minister consult with stakeholders.
That's pretty reasonable. That's something most ministers already do, but sometimes we see them acting without consulting any stakeholders. I'm starting to be concerned that these Bretton Woods institutions modifications in a previous clause were maybe done without any real consultation or without checking what other governments and other parliaments are doing. In this particular case, I think it's completely reasonable to say that the minister should consult with stakeholders, and to legislate so that Parliament can direct the ministers to do their work in a certain way. I think it's perfectly reasonable and well within our power.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There were a couple of things that jumped out on this. One is the ability to be dynamic and nimble with the regulations, and that they allow for that response. There was one specific example. If regulated vessel speed restrictions are in place for a specific period of time but whale pods enter the area earlier than expected, the minister may vary the starting point through an order to ensure that environmental safeguards are in place at the appropriate moment. Conversely, if a whale pod leaves the area earlier than expected, restrictions could be adjusted via a ministerial order to ensure that there are no undue burdens on the shipping industry and do so in a timely manner.
To your point about consultation with organizations and stakeholders, I think we would all agree that this is what the minister does and, in fact, what departments and committees do all the time. I think that's addressed, so from my perspective, there's reason to not support the amendment on that basis.
It's been a long day.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we are all a little weary. It would have been much better to do this over a number of days. I think I mentioned that at the beginning, early this morning, when we talked about my motion, which would have allowed us to consider doing this mass of amendments over a number of days and give proper consideration to them. I guess I'm saying I told you so, a little bit, to members of the government. If we had done a different process, one that was more respectful of the public, we would have ended up with a much better result.
That being said, what CPC-13 does is it provides an obligation for the Minister of Transport to consult, but the Minister of Transport defines what that appropriate consultation is. I wouldn't suggest it is handcuffing the minister in any way, but it does provide an obligation for the Minister of Transport to do that consultation. Even in the case of killer whales, it obliges the Minister of Transport to do a rapid consultation. It means reaching out to people. I believe that is the way government should work. The minister should talk with the people who are primarily concerned by it and can then make an order based on the information that he or she receives. That's the way governments should work, so I'm supporting this amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 692 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 693 to 712 inclusive agreed to on division)
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, folks. That finishes division 22.
Division 23 deals with the Marine Liability Act. There are no amendments to this division, but if there are any questions, officials are here.
I will give people a moment to consider whether they have questions. Seeing none, I will call the question.
(Clauses 713 to 747 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 470)
We will come back now to amendment CPC-9 on the one clause we had stayed. We will have that debate before we go to the regular motions.
Does anybody else have anything they want to add to the discussion we already had on CPC-9?
The floor is yours, Mr. Sorbara.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaking to this amendment, it's obviously a subject that hopefully no family experiences, but unfortunately some do. With regard to the amendment itself, currently mothers do have access to 17 weeks of leave. That's under current legislation. The impact of this amendment would be, yes, to bring in the fact that both parents, however defined, would receive or be eligible for 12 weeks of leave. We talk about the unintended consequences of legislation. The unintended consequence of this legislation could potentially be that the 17 weeks mothers currently receive could then be actually limited to, or brought down to, 12 weeks because of the amendment. We would not want that to happen in any way if in the circumstances a family faced that situation.
The second issue is that the content of the motion that has been brought forth, which is a very worthy thing to study and consider judiciously, is currently in front of the HUMA committee. They are studying it. Frankly, although each committee is the master of their own domain, we should let the committee continue to do that work and obviously consider where they come out when the report is finally completed. We should let the committee continue to do its work judiciously, much like any other committee would.
Those are my two cents, Mr. Chair.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Mr. Chair, I will say that I am incredibly disappointed and incredibly frustrated at this Liberal government right now, and I'll tell you why. Let me start with a bit of a push-back on the comments that were just made. They were much like the ones made earlier. I don't believe they're ill-intended comments, but they're ill-informed comments. I'll push back on those quickly before I get to the main point of what I'd like to say.
The 17 weeks that were referred to as maternity benefits are intended as maternity benefits. Yes, the officials did indicate that if a mother happened to be on maternity benefits and lost the baby during that time, she would still be able to get maternity benefits because they are intended not as parental benefits but as maternity or pregnancy benefits. I don't really see how there's an argument that this jeopardizes a mother's ability to access those. If there's a concern that we don't want them stacked, then let's deal with that, but that's a separate issue. To try to pretend somehow that as a result of putting in a bereavement leave someone would be losing the benefits they currently have is completely inaccurate and disingenuous.
In terms of the other idea that there are these sickness benefits, I've already laid out very clearly the argument as to why that is not the case and they are not intended to be. Numerous cases in which they do not apply have been brought to our attention, so there's clearly a need for this. There's no doubt about that.
Let me get to the key point here, which is why I'm so incredibly frustrated with this government. For whatever reason, which I cannot fathom, Liberals seem to not want to proceed with some kind of a benefit for these families, but they clearly do not want to be seen to do that, so they try to find every excuse and reason they can come up with not to proceed.
I'll remind members that when this motion was first brought forward in the House of Commons, the Liberal government had a parliamentary secretary stand up in the House of Commons and oppose this. This changed only because parents across this country spoke out in great numbers very vociferously and not only informed the parliamentary secretary who had been directed to stand up and oppose this how cold-hearted what she said was but also reached out to Liberal MPs in various parts of the country where they happen to live. There was a lot of push-back. I can say that many members of the government did come to me and were privately expressing their support. I believe that, whatever happened within caucus, something changed and therefore the motion was supported.
However, what I've seen since that time is every effort to continue to make excuses and to make it appear as though the government is supportive of these families when clearly it has no intention to take action.
This very morning I was at the human resources committee. We realized that the timeline the human resources committee had proposed was in contravention of the motion the House of Commons had passed, and we sought to rectify that situation and give the government the opportunity to make sure it kept its word and make sure a report was brought forward prior to the end of the session we're currently in. When that was proposed at committee, a Liberal member immediately moved adjournment of that debate, and all of the Liberal MPs voted to adjourn debate while all of the other members, NDP and Conservative, voted not to.
It's very clear that this was intended to make sure the report would not be produced before Christmas, as it was supposed to be. It would mean that the government wouldn't have to respond within a time frame that would be sufficient to enable this to be done before the next federal election. Again, it's designed to try to prevent the government from having to do anything while being able to give us some nice words and make these people feel a little better that someone is listening to them, although they're not going to do anything.
I've always said that actions speak louder than words, and the actions have very clearly spoken. We're seeing it again here.
On one hand, the HUMA committee is saying that we can't get this done in the time frame that was promised to these families, and then we have members on the finance committee saying, well, let's let them do their work, however long it might take. That isn't going to get the job done, and I'm incredibly disappointed to hear what I've just heard. I really wish that Liberal members would back up their words with actions. I hope that it's just one member on that side—not all—and that we will get support for this motion and see this done, or maybe the other committee will decide to actually keep their word and do as they promised.
Some way or other, I certainly hope that it'll get through to this government that it's important, and that you can't just show symbolism and you can't just have words for these things. You actually have to to take action and accomplish something for these families.
I certainly hope that message will finally sink in.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Did I see your hand up, Mr. Kmiec?
Mr. Julian was next, and then you, Tom.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thanks, Peter.
Obviously you had time to consider this, because that's why you asked to suspend the meeting and then consider it some. I can only assume that the department gave advice on what it thought was reasonable and then you checked in with your colleagues at some point. What you're saying now is that you should have just voted against it when the issue came up when there were more officials here earlier in the day. That's basically what I heard.
Mr. Sorbara, you said that committees are masters of their own domain. We're the masters of our own domain and we can amend the BIA right now. If you'd like to offer a subamendment or another member would like to, if there is concern over this difference between 17 weeks and 12 weeks, we can literally do that right now. If we got a commitment from you that you'd then say yes to the 17 weeks, we could raise it higher just to make sure there's no difference between the two.
I'd like the officials to explain that to us. Would there actually be a difference between the two? You could get a legal opinion from the Department of Justice so that we could then consider it, but to do that at this committee, then, we would have to unanimously approve a delay, like Mr. Julian had asked for earlier today, for the further consideration of clause 470—specific to this one clause—to give ourselves another day so that Department of Justice officials could give us an opinion on whether the 12 weeks would actually interfere with the 17 weeks.
The 17-week maternity benefit, as I talked about with the officials, doesn't apply to fathers. In a situation like mine, I would have gotten no leave, and that just seems patently unfair. For parents who lose a child, the father is just as affected as the mother, but in this scenario what we have before us is that the mother will be covered for 17 weeks, and if the child passes away a day after those 17 weeks, she will not be eligible for any other leave except for the five days—three paid and two unpaid.
What we're proposing to add is 12 weeks. Now, again, if there's a problem with the 12 weeks, we can change it to 17 weeks, or you can go and pass a unanimous motion to delay consideration of clause 470 until tomorrow or another day this week to give the Department of Justice officials time to write up an opinion on whether this would conflict with the labour code and moms would then lose their benefit access to the 17 weeks in such scenarios.
I actually think that's not true. That is very likely untrue. I cannot see a judge ruling like that. I cannot see anybody seeing the facts before them and saying, “No, you should lose access to it” in a particular case. I think it's a disingenuous argument to have delayed it until now and to now say, “this is the problem we have” and to quibble over the 12 weeks.
If that is the issue, then offer a subamendment. Show some goodwill here. We've offered an amendment. Amend it to 17 weeks and we can both agree that we've passed at least one opposition motion today, which hopefully will never benefit anyone in this room—heaven forbid. No one in this room should benefit from it. Hopefully, it will benefit somebody else out there like the people I met last week, the moms and dads who have lost children, and like the ones that Mr. Richards is trying to help with motion 110 at HUMA. That committee can do its work separately from what we're doing.
We can amend the BIA today and report it back to the House of Commons with an amendment that will help fathers and will help parents. That's all it's about.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll have Mr. Julian, and then Mr. Fragiskatos.
There are officials in the room if people want to call them forward.
Mr. Julian.
November 20th, 2018 / 5:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm pretty disappointed, too. We tried to accommodate the government to come back to this issue. Obviously, they were struck by the compelling reasons why this amendment should be adopted, which are in the scope of the BIA, so completely in order. Instead, we get to the end and we're told, “No, we're not going to be considering the amendment.” This is after dozens and dozens of opposition amendments have been turned down by this government. This is after the bill was flagged as being deeply flawed, yet the government just bulldozed through the amendments, refusing any amendment, and bulldozed through each clause.
We end up with a badly flawed bill, badly flawed, one that would be subject to legal challenge, because the government mechanism from the Prime Minister's office on down didn't allow for members to consider appropriate amendments, amendments that would have improved the legislation.
Now we have before us an amendment that is in the scope and that would definitely help people. This committee has the ability to adopt it and, in a very real way, provide some support for parents of a child who has died. There is nothing more tragic than a parent having to deal with the loss of a child. I know friends who have had to deal with it, and it is the most profound sadness and tragedy. We have an ability to provide some supports because of the huge gaping holes in the current legislation, which doesn't allow for bereavement leave when a child dies.
Yes, there are a few cases in which you could get three days of paid leave—as if, in any way, that compensates for the loss of a child or allows a parent to go through the intense grieving, the intense arrangements that have to be made. They're dealing with so many things at once, and the government says that three days is enough. They say that in some cases, with maternity leave benefits, it will apply. Yes, in some cases it will, but in most cases it won't. If it's a woman who has come through maternity leave and her child dies, after four and a half months it does not apply. After five and a half months, six and a half months, one year, two years, three years, four years—there is absolutely no application. For a father, for a non-birth mother, there is no application at all. One might say that if your reaction is profound enough, if you suffer severe depression and you have to take medical leave, it applies, but that's not what we're considering today.
We're not considering the “some exceptions”. We're considering the fact that this is a gaping hole in the legislation, and we have the power now around this table to fix it. We have the power, the ability. We have an amendment that is already here, obviously seriously considered by the government members, because they asked us for a break and they asked us to come back to consider it at the end. I don't think any member of the opposition thought that the consideration at the end would lead to the same casting aside of the amendment that we've seen with all the other opposition amendments. It's a question of how we approach governance. It's a question of how we deal with helping people. Right now this committee has the opportunity to fix that flaw in the legislation and provide for parental leave in the most tragic of circumstances, when a parent loses a child.
I hope government members will vote for this amendment, because it means helping parents at a time that is most tragic and most critical for them. Talking points simply won't address this situation. Saying that, yes, there are a certain number of cases in which maybe somebody can access this type of benefit or that type of benefit does not provide support in most cases. We've heard testimony to that effect. Let's get on with it, and let's adopt this amendment.
It's not as if the opposition has been asking too much. We've put forward dozens of amendments. This is the only amendment that the government would have said yes to—the only one. It's not as if the opposition has weighed in and tried to usurp government power. In fact, it's quite the contrary. I think the opposition amendments, the dozens we've offered, have tried to fix the evident and obvious flaws in this bill that we heard from repeated testimony in front of this committee.
At this point, after ramming through this legislation, after this bulldozer impact, the government has an ability to do one good thing. I think that's all we are asking for: that government members do one good thing today.
5:35 p.m.
London North Centre, Lib.
I have never lived through what Mr. Kmiec has lived through. I can only imagine the pain and suffering he and other parents have gone through. I say that in the most sincere way I possibly can. I have family members and friends who have dealt with the loss of a child.
All of us on this side, and obviously across the way, agree with the substance of this amendment. I can understand the concern that has prompted it, but I don't think it's unreasonable to also suggest that we ought to let our colleagues on the HUMA committee carry out their work. It's very difficult for us to make a decision when we don't have the facts in front of us.
To make a decision along these lines would not be a wise course forward. Obviously, this would make for a substantive policy change. We ought to have all the facts in front of us before we move in that direction. That's why I go back to the point that Mr. Sorbara started with. Let's allow the HUMA committee to carry out its work on this and then make recommendations. Then we can see the direction forward.
I remain very open to the amendment in principle.