Evidence of meeting #50 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Andrew Brown  Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Judith Buchanan  Director, Labour Standards and Wage Earner Protection Program, Compliance, Operations and Program Development, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Thank you very much, and I am really glad that I have the two students here today to hear what you're saying.

I'm a vice-chair of the status of women committee, and what we are studying at that committee right now is the economic security of women. So when you're talking about barriers to non-traditional employment, certainly this is one of them. If we want to have women as full participants in the workforce, we need to have a strategy that you're talking about.

I am so proud to see this bill coming forward and to have been, I think, a seconder on it.

How would you determine “hazardous”? Would that be part of the consultations that would take place, to determine what is hazardous in the workplace?

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

The way I tackled that issue in the second part of the bill, which is now mostly redundant as a result of the budget, was that “hazardous” would be defined by a medical practitioner. That individual would determine if the workplace environment was hazardous, but I don't want to preclude anything by saying that's the only way it can be done. I think the study should look at that was well.

I think somebody needs to oversee it, because every case is going to be a little bit different. Involving a medical practitioner is a natural and obvious choice, but I don't want to preclude anything by saying it's the only one.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Also, I want to talk about the consultations that would take place for this strategy. In Oakville we have the Operating Engineers Training Institute, and sheet metal workers have a training centre there. I wonder what your thoughts are on including some of those stakeholders that are training the trades, that are working with the young people to bring them into the trades, to have them as part of the consultation to ensure they're aware of it, for one thing, so they can help promote the trades to women. I wonder what you're thoughts are on including them in the consultation.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

There are a number of these organizations that exist throughout the country, which quite frankly I didn't even know existed before I got involved in this, such as—and I'll get the names wrong—Women in Work Boots.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

And there is Journeyman. I forwarded Jamie McMillan's name to you.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

That's right. A number of them have been very supportive of this, because it's something they've been fighting for internally for quite a while. They absolutely need to be consulted on this. The bill specifically says “other relevant stakeholders”, to keep it broad so that that can be determined. By default, I think, those are the organizations that absolutely need to have a voice at the table, because they are the ones that have seen in real time what it's actually like for women who are in these situations.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

I'm going to jump in here, Pam. I'm sorry. I'm hearing that there are some issues with the buses. We obviously don't want to have the same issue, but I know there was some discussion about wanting a bit of an opening here, so if we want to, maybe we can go over to Bob or Pierre for 60 seconds. Then we'll head out.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

I can start and then give Pierre the last few seconds.

I just want to say that it's a good bill. As a former carpenter, I absolutely understand the trades and the need for this.

I'm a little concerned, though. Subsection 3(2) talks about “consultations”. To me, it puts it at risk, based on what.... It's not just a slam dunk once it gets passed in the House that this is going to happen. There seems to be a procedure laid out after that, which may put the entire thing at risk. That concerns me.

Briefly, what are your thoughts on that? Then I'll turn this over to my colleague Pierre.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

You have about 10 seconds, Mark.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

I think it's a relevant point. All I can do in a private member's bill is to ask for this study to happen. I can't force the government to do anything afterward, but based on what comes out of it, I likely will be one of the people who is very much encouraging the government to make the necessary changes, regardless of which government it might be or what party represents the government at that time.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Pierre.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Congratulations. You've taken this ball a long distance down the field and are very close to a touchdown. That is a great achievement. Those of us who have been around for a while know that it's rare for PMBs to get this far, this fast. On behalf of our team, I want to offer you personal congratulations for how far you've taken this.

Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you very much.

All right, guys. We're going to suspend. We will be coming back here to wrap things up. Thank you.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Welcome back, everybody.

Unfortunately, we have run out of time for Mr. Gerretsen, but I just want to give him a moment if he has any last-second thing he wants to add to any of the questions that were asked. I know we were cut off.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

No, Mr. Chair, but I just want to take the opportunity to thank the committee members for their interest in this. The questions from all members who had the opportunity to ask them and the comments that were made are, I think, extremely valid. l thank you for the work that you will be putting forward on this, and I look forward to your recommendation that will come back to the House. Thanks.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you, Mark. I think I speak for everybody here when I say, congratulations. You and your staff have put in a significant amount of work, so you should all be very proud of where we are with this today. Thank you.

For the sake of time, we are not going to suspend. We have the departmental officials here at the table, so there is no need to suspend at this point. We are going to move directly into departmental testimony, and then we'll get into questions and go through as many as we can.

Mr. Andrew Brown, the next 10 minutes are yours, sir.

March 23rd, 2017 / 11:40 a.m.

Andrew Brown Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development

Good afternoon.

I am pleased to appear before you today as part of the committee's study of Bill C-243, a bill proposed by Mr. Mark Gerretsen, the member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands.

I am the senior director working on employment insurance policy at the Department of Employment and Social Development.

With me today is Judith Buchanan. She is the director for labour standards and the wage earner protection program, also at Employment and Social Development Canada.

I propose to provide you with a brief overview of the bill, to give you a description of key benefit and leave provisions that currently support pregnant workers, to identify some of the considerations regarding the bill's provisions, and to describe some of the recent and ongoing activities that are closely aligned with the bill.

The bill proposes the following amendments to the Employment Insurance Act: to allow pregnant workers to start receiving maternity benefits earlier than those currently available if the worker leaves a job that may pose a risk to her or to her unborn child; to mandate the Minister of Employment and Social Development, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, to conduct consultations on the prospect of developing a national maternity assistance program strategy; and to mandate reporting to Parliament on those consultations as well as ongoing reporting to Parliament.

Let me begin by describing the current benefit and leave provisions. EI maternity benefits are intended to support a woman's income when she's out of the workforce to recuperate from pregnancy and childbirth. Under the Employment Insurance Act, eligible workers may receive up to 15 weeks of maternity benefits. Those maternity benefits can start as early as eight weeks before the expected date of birth and must end no later than 17 weeks after the child is born. Depending on what suits the mother's situation, benefits can be started before or following childbirth.

EI parental benefits are intended to support parents providing care to a newborn or newly adopted child or children. Eligible parents may share up to 35 weeks of parental benefits following the birth or placement of the child for the purpose of adoption.

Federally regulated employees under the Canada Labour Code have corresponding job protected leave. Leave provisions are largely a provincial/territorial responsibility and vary across the country.

EI maternity and parental benefits are available across the country, except in Quebec. Residents of Quebec may be eligible for maternity, paternity, and parental benefits under the Quebec parental insurance plan.

In addition, the federal jurisdiction, and the Province of Quebec specifically, offer preventive withdrawal job protection for pregnant and/or nursing women related to workplace health and safety risks.

Federally regulated employees under the Canada Labour Code may request a job reassignment based on medical advice. Once the request is made, the woman may take leave with pay until the employer either accommodates her request for reassignment or confirms that they're able to do so. If a job reassignment is not provided, the woman may take an unpaid leave of absence for the duration of the risk.

In Quebec, the safe maternity experience program, Pour une maternité sans danger, provides for preventive withdrawal, as well as wage replacement, for employees under provincial jurisdiction. In 2014, there were over 35,000 claims in the province of Quebec representing 40% of live births, and approximately $228 million was paid in benefits, in addition to the benefits that were paid through the Quebec parental insurance plan.

Turning to the provisions of Bill C-243, it seeks to advance gender equality by addressing a workplace health and safety issue. First, the bill would raise awareness of this key reproductive health issue in the workplace and the importance of positive responses to promote gender equality, particularly in occupations that are traditionally dominated by men, such as the skilled trades.

Second, the EI provisions of the bill would provide flexibility to pregnant workers to begin their maternity benefits sooner and enhance income security when they're unable to be accommodated by their employer in unsafe workplace conditions.

While Bill C-243 does not provide additional weeks of maternity or parental benefits, by providing earlier access to maternity benefits, the bill is expected to result in incremental program costs.

Specifically, for an EI claimant who does not currently use all of the combined weeks of maternity and parental benefits and who starts to receive maternity benefits earlier in accordance with the bill, that claimant would be expected to receive additional weeks of benefits.

Let me also address some potential shortcomings of the bill.

First, the onus is generally on an employer to provide a safe workplace. Providing income replacement for workers during preventive withdrawal may implicitly signal to employers a reduced onus on them to address workplace health and safety issues and to identify accommodative options.

Second, allowing all 15 weeks of maternity benefits to be taken before the expected date of birth would deviate from a key policy intent for maternity benefits and leave, which includes providing mothers with time off to recuperate after childbirth. In addition, mothers could potentially exhaust their maternity benefits before the baby is born and before parental benefits could be paid, leaving a gap in income support.

Third, there are some remaining, largely minor, technical issues related to the bill. For example, it would be important that EI provisions come into force on a Sunday to align with the concept of an EI week.

Finally, I'd like to close by speaking about the alignment of recent and ongoing activities with the bill, including, of course, yesterday's budget announcement. I'll turn now to slide 5.

The government has committed to improving the flexibility of EI parental benefits and corresponding leave, and the inclusiveness of supports for caregivers. The objective is to evolve to meet the changing needs of the workers and their families in this country.

Yesterday, budget 2017 announced the government's proposal to provide more flexibility for maternity and parental benefits and more inclusive caregiving benefits to help support Canadian families. Specifically, it proposes to allow women to claim EI maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date, providing more flexibility compared to the current eight weeks, if they so choose.

I'd also like to tell you about some of the alignment of other recent activities with the bill.

Last year, between May and August, the EI Service Quality Review Panel travelled across the country and sought input on ways to improve services to EI claimants. In October and November of 2016, Minister Duclos held online consultations with Canadians to seek their views on the government's mandate commitment for more flexible parental benefits. The consultations specifically included the issue of considering earlier access to maternity benefits for pregnant workers due to workplace health and safety risks. Those consultations were also brought to the attention of provinces and territories at various levels through the Forum of Labour Market Ministers, a key forum through which the federal government maintains ongoing engagement with provinces and territories on labour market programs and issues.

Federal-provincial-territorial collaboration is important to continue building on an efficient labour market and a skilled labour force. Subsequently, the “Employment Insurance Service Quality Review Report: Making Citizens Central”, was released on February 1, 2017. Furthermore, the summary reports on the consultations with Canadians and stakeholders on maternity, parental and caregiving benefits were released on February 27 of this year. In addition, an annual report to Parliament is mandated on the operation of the EI program. Through the annual “EI Monitoring and Assessment Report”, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission reports on income supports, including maternity and parental benefits, employment supports, and service delivery.

I think you'll see that an awful lot of recent government activities are very closely aligned with the bill's objectives and with the text of the bill.

I will close there. Thank you very much for time. I look forward to your questions.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

For the first question, MP Warawa, please.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Thank you.

I appreciate the testimony but I think the most relevant part is on pages four and five of the deck. The previous pages, considering the announcements of the budget, are likely no longer relevant.

Some of the comments made were that there were incremental, increased program costs by moving it to 15 weeks, possibly being taken all prior to delivery. You were making your presentation en français, so maybe I misunderstood it, but I thought you said it would be more expensive to do it that way because of incremental program costs and the additional weeks of benefits. That's how it was translated.

If 15 weeks is 15 weeks, and if you take those 15 weeks and move them around, how would they amount to additional weeks of benefits?

12:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development

Andrew Brown

It doesn't provide for individual access to a greater number of weeks. However, if a person were currently to leave the workforce, for example, 12 weeks prior to...women who do not currently use all of their weeks of maternity and parental benefits. They have up to 15 weeks of maternity leave and up to 35 weeks of parental leave, so there's a possibility to take up to 50 weeks. At the moment not everybody uses all of those 50 weeks. In some cases they may use only 40 weeks.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

What is budgeted and what is spent in the program?

If we plan, if we budget for—in this year or in previous years—enough money so that every Canadian who could possibly qualify for those 15 weeks of pregnancy would be covered.... I think in your calculations, you're hinting that not everybody takes the full 15 weeks, but we've still budgeted so that everybody could.

Is that correct? Is it a correct assumption that not everybody takes—

12:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development

Andrew Brown

I don't think it's fair to say that it's budgeted that way. I think we have estimates that are developed and arrived at each year by the EI chief actuary.

They look at the actual use of our benefits, whether regular benefits or special benefits. The benefits are not fully utilized by all people, for various reasons. For example, someone who suffers a job loss may find a job before their EI runs out and not use all of the weeks available. Similarly, for various reasons—

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

I have limited time. I'm sorry for cutting you off, but I understand your point.

What you're saying is that not everybody takes the full 15 weeks, and you're assuming that by moving it around, more people would take the 15 weeks.

12:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development

Andrew Brown

Yes, that's correct, the 15 weeks and the 35 weeks for parental leave.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Okay. I don't think it's fair to assume that and for the department to disqualify certain Canadian women who are expecting a baby because it is assuming that more people may then take this.

If more people take this, maybe more people need it. We need to take care of Canadian women who want to have a baby.

Also, you said that by taking all 15 weeks prior to delivery—or in this case the government announced they could have 12 weeks—there was concern that their maternity benefits may end before parental benefits begins.

When can parental benefits begin?