Human Resources Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead with the answer.

[Laurie Wright, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the provision.

The bill importantly contains in it a defence that means that a person who was engaging in [Technical difficulty—Editor] would not be found to have committed the offence. It's well established, because this is a defence that appears in another part of the Criminal Code as well. “Communication” is defined quite broadly. It would certainly include those who are picketing in order to exercise their right to strike. As well, it would cover a variety of types of communicative behaviour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

We'll now move to Mr. Boulerice. Mr. Boulerice is here on behalf of Madam Zarrillo.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to address you on this important bill, Mr. Minister. I thought it was interesting to hear you talk about your sense of urgency to get it passed so that we can provide this sick leave capacity for federally regulated workers.

Right away, I must say that I wish that sense of urgency had been there 12, 18 or 24 months ago when the pandemic was hitting full force. I feel that would have protected people and perhaps prevented the spread of infection and the overcrowding in our health care system. It is not as if the NDP didn't ask for it, because our leader has asked for it 22 times in the past year. It finally happened. We have talked about it before in the House. I understand that you are looking forward, but I feel this has dragged on a little over the past 18 months.

In your response to a question from Ms. Kusie, you opened the door for workers to have a few sick days already available. What Bill C‑3 is currently proposing is one day off per month, but it offers no leave bank to begin with. So to get two or three days of sick leave, it could take two or three months or maybe a little more if the employee was hired in the middle of the month, for example.

I'd like to hear your comments on that. Health experts tell us that people very rarely take only one day off when they are sick with something like the flu. Instead, they take two, three or four days off. Would you be open to the idea of setting up a bank of leave, maybe not all 10 days at once, but a small bank, so that the bill would be more realistic given how long people get sick for?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Yes. Of course, I would ask to see it in text, but, yes, we would be open to that. We've heard some very good arguments made, and again, whether it is one thing or the entire thing, I think we can reach an honourable compromise. Certainly we do not want to hinder people's ability to do this. The only other thing I would add, Mr. Boulerice, is that, to use a religious metaphor, there's nothing more irritating to long-standing parishioners than the newly converted. Here we are, as you said. This is important.

I would say that the urgency of it has changed even in the past few days. While I acknowledge that 20 months ago or 22 years ago, yes, this would have been a good thing, I would also say that, with what we know now about omicron and where it is in this country, the urgency of this has changed demonstrably in the past few days.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I have another question. The bill is written in such a way that it sounds like everyone is a new employee. I understand that it may take a new employee longer to accumulate 10 days in their sick leave bank. Perhaps they could have a bank of three or four days to start with. That would be helpful, and it's often the case in collective agreements, by the way.

On the principle, even though we may have found a compromise or middle ground in there, on the day the law comes into effect, what happens to individuals who have five, six or 10 years of seniority with a company? If everyone starts from scratch, does an employee with seniority have to start from scratch as well?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

The notion here is that new employees would accumulate those days over time. Arguments have also been made to us that perhaps instead of being accrued at the beginning of a calendar month, in fact the one day would be accrued after 30 days, or roughly four weeks, perhaps, of service or employment. That would not really cost much more if any more money, but it would allow greater flexibility for those employees who may be starting mid-month. They wouldn't have to wait a whole month and a half. They would get it after their first four weeks of working. That's something we're looking at.

On the issue of seniority, I'm going to ask my deputy to clarify that to make sure you get a clear answer.

Deputy.

[Sandra Hassan]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Boulerice.

As currently written, the bill does indeed treat all employees the same way, regardless of seniority. Everyone will be able to accumulate leave days starting with one day after one month of continuous service, regardless of whether they are a new employee.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you. That's clear. I feel like we can work on that.

With regard to employees having to request a medical certificate within two weeks of taking a single day of sick leave, I find that to be overburdening and a great deal of paperwork for physicians, who already have a lot of work to do.

Could we not consider requiring a medical certificate after at least four or five days of sick leave? For a day or two, that is a lot of paperwork for nothing, and it disincentivizes workers from using sick leave, according to a survey you mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Could you please give us a short answer?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Yes, I would be open to that. To Ms. Kusie's concern, when we're talking about employers, I think they just want to make sure that there's some assurance or a tripwire to make sure you don't see an abuse. We have a saying in Newfoundland about the biggest sleeveen in the harbour, and that just means that the people who sometimes abuse rules and that sort of thing shouldn't dictate the behaviour and the privileges that should be afforded to the great majority of people who abide by these things and do so honourably. It's about trying to find an honourable compromise here. I think we would be open to that.

We have also heard from stakeholders in the medical community, as I believe you have too. They have said that as we deal with the pandemic as well as a stretched health care system, lining people up to make appointments to get doctors' notes is also cumbersome, and I think that's also something we have to reflect on. Let me just say that we are open to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Minister.

I will now need direction from the committee and the minister. This meeting we scheduled to go from 11 a.m. to noon to hear from the minister. Before we go into the second round, what is the wish—

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

My intention, Mr. Chair, was to spend an hour with you. I believe we've accommodated for that.

I'm in your hands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's from the time you appeared. The hour began then.

What are the wishes of the committee? Do you want to keep the minister for the hour—

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

—which will reduce the time with the officials?

Okay. That's the direction from the committee.

Thank you, Minister and committee.

We'll move to the second round and the first questioner.

Mr. Jeneroux, you have five minutes.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and congratulations on being elected chair of our committee. We're in good hands so far. I'll pause at “so far”.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

A qualifier.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Yes, it's a qualifier.

Minister, thank you for accommodating the time. It's certainly a pleasure to finally get you here to be able to talk about this obviously very urgent legislation.

The piece I want to talk to you about most, Minister, in my brief five minutes, is the ability to look at some of the amendments that you've been open to so far. It sounds like they're piling up a bit, so I want to make sure that one doesn't get lost in that—namely, the private member's motion of my colleague Mr. Tom Kmiec on the bereavement leave. It's one thing to talk about sick leave, but we've seen so many Canadians then have to struggle post-death of their loved ones.

Just as a quick refresher, Minister, that's supporting parents who have received the trauma of a miscarriage by allowing them to receive three days of paid bereavement leave. We're committed to providing up to eight weeks of paid leave from employment in the event of a child's death or stillbirth. We will be submitting that in written form as an amendment, but we're hoping that we get your support for that.

I do want to come back to the fact that, on this side of the table, we're very concerned about getting this done urgently. From the very basic starting point.... My wife is a surgeon. She has been on the front lines. She has looked in people's eyes as they have gone through probably one of the most traumatic experiences of their lives. She's had to unfortunately be there when people have passed away. The urgency of doing this, I can say from my point of view, is very important.

To that piece, to getting this passed quickly, I'm really worried about your timeline here. Can you please talk about the bereavement leave, and can you also tell us how in the world you're going to get this done in the 48 hours that Parliament is essentially left sitting for?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I thank the honourable member for the question.

First of all, I think what Mr. Kmiec has gone through on a personal level is gut-wrenching; I can't imagine. I commend you and the members of your caucus for the amount of solidarity you've shown him. I've certainly heard from many members from your caucus who have approached me and talked about this on a deeply personal level. Let me say outright that I am fully prepared to take up the issue and give it all the consideration it deserves. I am very much open to seeing what we can do here.

As you pointed out, there are time constraints. We are keenly aware of that. I think this is an excellent opportunity and it makes a whole lot of sense, so let's see if we are able to accommodate it here.

Just for the edification of members, federally regulated employees are currently entitled to up to 10 days of bereavement leave in the event of a death of an immediate family member. In the event an employee is on compassionate care leave or leave related to critical illness and the family member they are caring for dies, then they are entitled to take bereavement leave.

That's where things stand right now. We are certainly open.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Minister. I think our committee is intimately aware, because there was, if I may say, a terrific private member's bill that came to this committee—sponsored by me, in particular—that helped to increase the bereavement leave. I know that this committee is intimately aware of that.

In terms of what you just hit on, for the federally regulated employees—I believe the number you said was 582,000 employees—they're in the airlines, the banks. We all know here that it's not everybody. You have even more work ahead of you in terms of getting the provinces on side with this, so to say that we need to urgently pass it here.... There's so much more to be done.

Again, I guess I'm a little worried about your timeline here, Minister, in terms of this making an immediate on-the-ground impact for Canadians, as you indicated in your opening comments.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

If we can give some 500,000-plus workers in this country the assurance that staying home is the right thing to do and that they will not be penalized financially for doing it, it's a good start. Every bit helps.

You were right to point out that we have a lot of work ahead. We have 94% of workers within provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and we have to be very respectful of provincial and territorial jurisdiction here, so we have a lot of work ahead of us. I plan on convening a meeting very early in the new year with my provincial and territorial colleagues to discuss exactly this [Technical difficulty—Editor] to make this national. What can we do collectively to make this a national plan? That is certainly our intention.

I agree. This is the beginning. It is a heck of a good place and start. The more people we can give the assurance to stay home and do the right thing with omicron now in Canada, the better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll go to Mr. Van Bynen for five minutes.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for taking the time again to join the committee and to answer our questions.

Bill C-3 is so important to strengthening Canada's safety net and ensuring that Canadians don't have to worry about staying home if they're sick or about being unable to pay their bills.

I also want to take this opportunity to quickly say thank you to the health care workers in my riding and across Canada who've been working day in and day out in an already overwhelming environment to keep us safe and to protect our health.

Since 2009, the government has created greater access to paid sick leave for Canadians. Could you walk us through a brief timeline of the work that the government has done since then?