Human Resources Committee on March 23rd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good morning, everybody.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 26, 2016, the committee is commencing consideration of Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act (maternity benefits).

Welcome, Mr. Gerretsen. Thank you for being here. We are going to jump right into it. We'll give you 10 minutes to speak, and then we'll follow that up with questions until noon, when we will suspend for a few moments.

Then we'll come back and meet with Employment and Social Development Canada, specifically Mr. Andrew Brown, who I believe is already here. Hello. We'll give Mr. Brown 10 minutes, with a series of questions for the rest of that hour.

Just before we get started, I want to welcome MP Pam Damoff to our committee. Thank you for filling in for Mr. Long.

Mr. Gerretsen, the next 10 minutes is yours, sir.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for having me and for taking the opportunity to discuss my private member's bill.

I also want to take a quick opportunity to introduce you to my assistant, Steven Patterson, who has been extremely helpful on this bill from the beginning. He was still a student in fourth year at Queen's University when he started working on this bill. He has recently informed me that he is going to be moving on to go to law school. I knew that I would lose him eventually, in the fall. I feel that he has just as much right to sit at this table today as I do.

I'll keep my remarks brief, Mr. Chair, to allow as much time as possible for answers to the committee's questions. I'll first explain my rationale for introducing this bill, and then I will contribute my ideas for possible amendments given some of the events that happened in yesterday's budget.

This bill was inspired by a constituent in my community named Melodie. That is where it all began. I'll remind you quickly of Melodie's story, which highlighted a gap in the EI system and ultimately inspired me to introduce this legislation.

Melodie is a welder in my community. In mid-2014 she became pregnant, and like many expectant mothers, she consulted with her medical practitioner to ensure that she was taking all the necessary steps to have a healthy pregnancy. Upon describing the hazardous nature of her work environment to her practitioner, Melodie was told that she could no longer continue welding during her pregnancy, as the functions of her job would be unsafe and pose a significant risk to her future child.

She reached out to her employer, a well-established and highly reputable shipbuilding firm in Kingston, but ultimately they were unable to provide reassignment or modify her duties in a way that would mitigate the risk. Forced to stop working, Melodie applied for and was granted EI sickness benefits.

There are a couple of problems with this, the first being that Melodie was pregnant, but not sick. The second problem was that these 15 weeks of benefits ran out long before Melodie was eligible to officially begin her maternity leave. For two and a half months Melodie waited to receive the maternity benefits she was entitled to. This income gap led to serious financial hardship and ultimately resulted in the loss of her home and significant personal distress.

When Melodie approached my office in early 2016, we researched the issue and found that the primary source of the problem was a rule under section 22 of the EI Act that requires that a woman, regardless of her circumstances, wait until eight weeks before her expected due date before she can start receiving maternity benefits.

For women like Melodie, who are employed in occupations where it is unsafe to work at the early stages of pregnancy, this restriction can lead to long periods with absolutely no income.

Melodie's story is why I put forward this legislation. I strongly believe that no woman should be put in the position that Melodie was. In Canada in 2017, no woman should have to choose between pursuing her dream job and starting a family.

Evidence shows that women are still grossly under-represented in skilled trades, construction, engineering, science, policing, and many other professions that would be affected by this bill. My goal with this bill is to address one of the barriers to entry for women who want to enter one of these so-called non-traditional jobs. We need to think about how to level the playing field so that women have an equal opportunity to participate in all sectors of the labour force.

Mr. Chair, I was pleased to see that in budget 2017 strong measures have been included to do exactly that. Specifically, yesterday's budget proposes to allow women to claim EI maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date—up from the current standard of eight weeks—if they so choose. While there are some small differences between this measure and my bill, yesterday's proposed change introduces exactly the kind of flexibility that I have been advocating for with Bill C-243.

I will now move to the second part of my remarks, which is to propose some amendments to my bill. In light of the changes proposed in budget 2017 and reflective of the fact that all members will have an opportunity to vote on that on its own, I would urge the committee to vote down the employment insurance provisions of Bill C-243, found in clauses 6 and 7.

In addition, the parliamentary legal counsel recommended that the committee adopt amendments that would amend the preamble by deleting lines 19 to 23 on page 1 and an amendment that would change the title to “An Act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy”.

Today I am submitting these amendments to the committee. I can provide them to the chair who can distribute them to the analyst or clerk. These changes would leave the first part of the bill, the national strategy, unchanged. This part calls on the Minister of Employment to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that pregnancy is not a barrier to women's full and equal participation in all aspects of the labour force. To be honest, this has always been the most important part of this bill, as the changes to EI were only intended to be a first step, and not a final solution.

The strategy will give the government a mandate to engage in broad consultations and to consider more comprehensive and long-term solutions. It specifies timelines, a list of stakeholders to consult, and clause 3 lists five basic conditions the study must cover.

In hearing from experts, I believe these are all areas that could potentially be improved by the committee.

In closing, I want to reiterate why I feel having this debate and developing a strategy is so important. Many of the discussions about gender equality in the labour force have focused on including more women as doctors, lawyers, business leaders, and politicians. While well-intentioned, I think these conversations often neglect the fact that many women like Melodie want to be construction workers, electricians, mechanics, masons, carpenters, machinists, boilermakers, or welders, to name a few.

The national strategy proposed in Bill C-243 is an opportunity to further include these women in the conversation about gender equality.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, MP Gerretsen.

First we have MP Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, MP Gerretsen, for your bill.

I support the bill in principle. I do have a number of questions, though, starting with your suggestion that we delete clauses 6 and 7 of your bill because they appear to be redundant because of the announcements in the budget. Your bill was asking for 15 weeks. A pregnant woman qualifies for 15 weeks, and your bill was permitting that pregnant woman to use those 15 weeks however she sees fit, if she is employed in a high-risk vocation.

When I bounced this off constituents, off Canadians, what I heard was that each pregnancy is quite different. We have five children, and that's true. But if a woman feels her pregnancy is at risk, and she qualifies for those 15 weeks she could take eight weeks early, but you're saying allow them to take the whole 15 weeks if the pregnancy is at risk because they're in a high-risk vocation.

The women I'm hearing from are saying that if a pregnancy is at risk, allow the person to take the 15 weeks, whatever works best for them. If they qualify for 15 weeks, why would they not? Why would you have to be a forklift driver, a welder, or whatever? Let women choose.

You're suggesting you don't need the 15 weeks because the government's giving 12. Why wouldn't the government give 15 weeks if women qualify for 15 weeks? Why are they shorting the women by three weeks?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you for the question.

Regardless, you are going to be entitled to your 15 weeks. That's established in the Employment Insurance Act. Right now, you can take only eight weeks prior to your due date, and the remaining seven weeks have to be taken after your due date. That's the way the current legislation is. My proposal is to give women the opportunity to take all 15 weeks prior to the due date if, as you described, they end up in those circumstances.

The government, through its budget, is proposing to allow 12 weeks instead of the 15 weeks. The reason why they chose to do that, in my opinion, was that a woman's due date might not actually be when she delivers. So if her due date is June 8 but she doesn't end up delivering until June 15, for example—I'm just using my own wife's experience—then she might end up running out, because she has taken her full 15 weeks before the date when she thought she was going to give birth, but she ends up giving birth a week later. This gives a bit of a buffer. That's just my interpretation of it.

You might also recall that the Speaker said that this bill would require a royal recommendation because its second part, in particular the part about EI, so this would avoid and mitigate that, or remove the offending conditions. I think this is a great compromise to eliminate the requirement for a royal recommendation and that it would support women, because they will get the increase from eight to 12 weeks. Then the study, which is the first and major part of the bill, will go to address a lot of the other questions you had, such as “Why aren't they getting more time?” Ultimately, you are correct. They should be receiving more time, in my opinion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

So, the government is opposing women's having the flexibility, the choice to go the full 15 weeks, because they want to be a maternity coach. Is that what you're saying?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'm not here representing the government; I'm here representing my bill. What I can tell you is that my interpretation of the budget document yesterday is that the government is proposing to make some serious changes by adding flexibility that currently doesn't exist. The flexibility is only eight weeks; now they are proposing 12 weeks. In terms of this bill, that's a big win. It really is, because it's a step in the right direction. The second part is the strategy, which will go to address a lot of the other questions you had about whether there should be more time before for women in these hazardous positions. The strategy, which is the most important part, will go to address that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

You are recommending that we have Melodie as one of the witnesses. Your bill was built around her.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We were asked, by the clerk I believe, to submit a list of who we thought would be relevant, and we submitted her as one of the people, yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Did the government, the Prime Minister, support your bill?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The cabinet did not support the bill, because they deemed that it required a royal recommendation.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

We'll move over to MP Sangha, please.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, MP Gerretsen, for coming here to deliver this presentation. I hope that the study you have done on your bill will be helpful to us in the committee.

One initial reason why cabinet opposed your bill was that, while the bill was being debated in the House from October 6 to November 4, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development was engaging Canadians and key stakeholders through online consultations on more flexible maternity, paternity, and caregiving benefits and leave provisions. Those consultations were aimed at getting the view of Canadians on how pregnant workers could be better supported, notably in situations such as those described in your Bill C-243. This study concluded that 64% of the participants would favour taking EI maternity benefits and leaving earlier than currently allowed.

Have have you looked at the conclusions of these consultations by the minister? Do they support what the bill is proposing?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Chair, I believe that MP Sangha is reading a document from the minister's office. Would he be able to provide a copy to the committee?

[A Voice]

It's a list of questions.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

The question was prepared by me and I'm putting it now, reading it—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

It's out of order to suggest that, Mark, with all due respect.

Mr. Gerretsen, the question is for you.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister did conduct a consultation in the fall, and yes, that was one of the things that was ongoing at the same time as my bill. I was very encouraged by the results that came forward. Based on my notes, 56% of the participants in that consultation were in favour of the government's encouraging employers to make changes to modify workplace conditions, and 64% of the participants in the consultation would prefer seeing the EI maternity benefits become more flexible, for people to be able to coordinate how they're going to take their leave.

I like to think that perhaps the discussion around my bill helped the minister initiate the consultation. I think the evidence is clear that people are looking for this, and that's why you're seeing it come through, I believe, in the budget, because the budget is supportive of making it more flexible.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Do you think these consultations are meeting the requirement that Melodie explained to you when you wanted to initiate the bill?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Absolutely.

Melodie's concern was around flexibility and there didn't seem to be much discussion about it at the time on how it relates to her specific work environment.

She worked in a hazardous workplace. So few women get involved in becoming a welder, for example, because if they also want to have a family, they know they're going to have to choose at some point whether or not they want to continue welding or have a family.

The consultations that the minister held back in the fall were to try to engage members of the public and get feedback from them as to how they think that flexibility could be enhanced. So, to answer your question, yes, I do.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You're sharing?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Yes, please. I would like to share my time with Mr. Robillard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Mr. Robillard, you have about two minutes, sir.