THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 9, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met by videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave) and, in camera, to study matters relating to social affairs, science and technology generally, as described in rule 12-7(9)
Senator Chantal Petitclerc (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon. I am Chantal Petitclerc, Senator from Quebec, and it is my pleasure and privilege to chair this committee.
Today, we are conducting this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology via videoconference.
Before we begin, I would like to share several helpful suggestions which we feel will assist you in having an efficient and productive meeting.
[English]
I would ask you to keep your microphones muted at all times. You are responsible for having your microphone muted, and I will appreciate that you mute and unmute when speaking.
I also ask that you use the “raise hand” feature when you are wanting to ask a question or make a comment.
[Translation]
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue. If you experience other technical challenges, please contact the committee clerk at the technical assistance number provided.
Please note that we may need to suspend during those times, as we need to ensure that all senators are able to participate fully.
[English]
Finally, I have to remind you that Zoom screens are not to be copied, recorded or photographed. You may use and share official proceedings posted on the SenVu website for that purpose.
[Translation]
I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in the meeting today.
With us, we have the Deputy Chairs of this committee, Senator Bovey and Senator Frum. From the steering committee, we have Senator R. Black. We also have Senator Dasko, Senator Forest-Niesing, Senator Kutcher, Senator Manning, Senator Mégie, Senator Moodie and Senator Simons.
Welcome to this meeting of our committee. Today, we begin our study of Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave). We will have two groups of witnesses.
Our first witness is the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons. Without further delay, I would like to introduce Matt Jeneroux, Member of Parliament for Edmonton Riverbend.
[English]
The floor is yours. We are looking forward to your opening remarks.
Matt Jeneroux, Member of Parliament for Edmonton Riverbend: Thank you, senator. Good to see so many of my other senator friends on the committee here today. Thank you for letting me join you.
It is truly an honour to appear before the committee to discuss our compassionate bereavement bill, Bill C-220. I will keep my comments short in hopes that we can get around to everyone who has any questions or comments. I am somewhat familiar with committees in the other place — as you refer to it — but I can’t stress enough how excited I am to appear here in the Senate alongside so many of you. A couple of my friends are joining us on the next panel. I hope you like them as much as I do. I want to reference, again, all the amazing work they do, not only with our bill but for all Canadians. I sincerely hope they can also assist in answering any of your questions.
Our bill proposes to extend the length of compassionate bereavement leave for up to five days beyond the death of a loved one. Currently, there is a total of five days of leave with only 72 hours of paid leave for federally regulated employees. Imagine that, Madam Chair — only five days. You lose a loved one in a tragic circumstance, to cancer or — God forbid — a child, and then you’re given five days. That’s it.
Imagine all the practical necessities to consider after your loved one’s death, for which you are only now — according to the Canada Labour Code — provided these five days. These include necessities like funeral planning, estate planning, getting your banking details in order and perhaps selling a property, but above all, grief.
We’ve heard from so many people who have taken the leave. Having to return to work so soon after the death has resulted in more work loss and time down the road. They ended up having to take more time off to process the death and to grieve.
Bereavement has become a topic that we, as representatives, must discuss. We’ve seen more than 25,000 Canadians die from COVID-19 in the last year alone. What’s really heartbreaking is that many people had to see their loved ones die while in a long-term care home behind a paned-glass window. That leaves thousands of Canadians to grieve while trying to juggle their job and other personal responsibilities.
This being said, Madam Chair, grief impacts all people differently. While some people might want to return to work quickly, that’s not the case for others. It’s important to have bereavement supports in place for Canadians, especially as our population ages.
Now is an important time to be talking about grief and its impact on workers. Every Canadian will be impacted by grief at some point in their lives, and this fact has been especially poignant during the pandemic.
Kind of a neat story throughout this process, Madam Chair, has just been the tremendous support we’ve seen from all parties in the House of Commons as evidenced by its unanimous votes through all stages in the Commons and in committee. In particular, I wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for the support of my good friend Liberal MP Anthony Housefather; Minister of Labour Filomena Tassi, who has simply been wonderful to deal with, both her team and her office; our Senate sponsor, Senator Seidman; and my friend Senator Simons who, along with me, has put in tremendous effort to ensure this has really been a non-partisan process.
I’ll end there, Madam Chair. Again, I’m really looking forward to our discussion about Bill C-220, as I truly believe we have an opportunity to make more bereavement support available to working Canadians. Enacting these changes will help millions. Thank you again.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation and for being here. We do have questions for you.
Colleagues, we have a bit of a shorter meeting today, so please try to keep your preambles short and the questions focused.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux. It’s nice to see you again. I want to thank you for this bill and let you know that I certainly support it, as one who has been through grief a number of times with loved ones. I only wonder why it has taken so long to get to this place, but thank you for bringing it here. I have one quick question. Can you please clarify for us that these five days do not all have to be taken right away? As one who has gone through losing two husbands, I can tell you that sometimes the need for grieving time comes a little bit later. I think I’m right in saying it can be taken any time in a period of time. I would like that clarified, please.
Mr. Jeneroux: Thank you, Senator Bovey. It’s good to see you again, too. We’ve had many travels together, as we both enjoyed our time.
You’re right; that’s a key point. It’s important to recognize that — let’s take cultural communities, for example — not all cultures have a funeral right after the death of a loved one. Some do. Some have a process further down the road for that funeral. Therefore, we’ve built in that — this is actually Minister Tassi’s suggestion — the leave allows you up to 10 days for a leave of absence from employment, which may be taken during the period that begins on the day the death occurs and ends six weeks after the latest of the days in which any funeral, burial or memorial service of the deceased person occurs. You’re right, so many people grieve differently, and that’s a key component to this bill.
Senator Bovey: I really appreciate that. I have no further questions and thank you for this.
Senator R. Black: Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Jeneroux. Thank you for joining us today.
First I want to say thanks for introducing this important legislation. I understand that you’re hoping long-term reforms will be made to the Employment Insurance Act to complement your bill and thus ensure that Canadians who do not work in the federally regulated sectors will also be included at some point in the future.
Can you explain what you’re hoping the government will do in this regard and why it’s important?
Mr. Jeneroux: Thanks, senator, for raising that very important question.
Right now with private members’ bills, as you all know, we can’t impact the public purse. We can’t demand that the government spend more in EI. We can’t demand that the Prime Minister go and spend a specific amount of money with private members’ bills. What we’re able to do is change the Labour Code. We’re doing that in hopes of getting this to an additional five days. What we then hope is that EI will follow that process.
We’ll then have 10 days of leave. Right now we only have 72 hours, so three days of those are paid. We’re hoping that in the process — and those are some of the conservations we’re having on the side with this bill discussion about extending that — that EI follows along with that.
The other key issue that you brought up is that this impacts federally regulated employees and employers. That’s about 18,000 employers. What it doesn’t do is impact the private sector, so to speak. It would fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces to change their employment or labour acts, or whatever they’re named in specific provinces, to then follow the process that we’ve set out here.
We asked the Library of Parliament to do some research for us, and they said about 96% of the time that a change is made at the federal level, it’s also made at the provincial level. We’re hoping that’s the next step, once we’re able to set the standard at the national level.
Senator R. Black: Thanks very much. I have one tiny question. It follows along with the money piece. Do you have any idea how much this legislation will cost the average Canadian taxpayer if it’s implemented?
Mr. Jeneroux: Again, we asked the Library of Parliament to run an analysis of the cost. It would depend on the size of the employer. For example, large enterprises in many federally regulated sectors — like banking or telecommunications — would likely not incur additional costs as the work of employees on bereavement could either be reassigned to other workers or postponed until the employee returns.
For the smaller enterprises who operated in scheduled industries, like interprovincial or international trucking, there would likely be an impact. That being said, a smaller employer who is required to delay a shipment or replace bereaved employees on short notice would likely incur some additional cost. However, our analysis also indicates it is important to note that the additional costs would apply across the entire sector and would not advantage or disadvantage any individual firms in that case.
The important thing to note is that we don’t suddenly see an increase in deaths because we’ve gone and passed a bereavement leave bill. It’s there if people need it and they want it. Some people might not want to take it and that’s fair. But we’re hoping that we give them that option and it’s there for them.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Congratulations on your bill, Mr. Jeneroux. Thank you for joining us and welcome. In these times of pandemic, Canadians really need this measure, so I thank you for it.
My question is about the limited number of workers, or rather the limited number of categories of workers, who could take advantage of this additional leave. If I understand correctly, the measure applies to federally regulated, private-sector employees, but not to federal public servants, employees of Parliament, or provincially regulated employees. As we know that illness and death do not discriminate, I would like to ask you this question: How did you determine who could take advantage of these measures, and according to which criteria?
[English]
Mr. Jeneroux: Thank you for the question, senator. It’s 18,500 employer — you’re right — who would benefit. It does include about 6% of Canada’s workforce, which is around 1 million employees. That does include the air and ground transportation sector, federally regulated banks, telecommunications companies, most Crown corporations, Canada Post, VIA Rail, but the scope of what we can do within the federal government is change the Canada Labour Code, but we can’t go into each province and change each of their labour codes.
Ideally, we’d see this proceed in the manner that it sets a standard across the country; this is what the federal government and Labour Code now suggest in terms of what type of bereavement leaves are in place. Again, 96% of the time we see provinces get on board and alter their individual labour codes, hopefully at that point in time being able to cover more Canadians.
There are still 1 million employees that are covered under this, which I don’t think is insignificant, so it would certainly help out a big sector of employees. But you’re right; those are the next steps that we hope we can take after this.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you for joining us, Mr. Jeneroux. I see that a number of people will not be able to take advantage of this measure. If we consider people in precarious employment who have no protection under the labour standards, how will this legislation be able to help them?
[English]
Mr. Jeneroux: Again, I think that’s the key question. It sets a standard across the country in terms of what the Canada Labour Code can cover. Those individuals don’t fall under the Canada Labour Code.
I wish we could, as part of this process, go and change Alberta’s employment act, Manitoba’s or Ontario’s, so more of those people could be covered. We can’t do that as federally elected officials. But I can certainly stress that we’ve already had conversations with a lot of the provincial counterparts, so hopefully once we’re through this process, we can then go and change that relatively quickly.
I know that the stakeholders who are on your next panel have already been doing some of that work, particularly the Heart and Stroke Foundation in terms of their lobbying and advocating efforts to make sure that those are the next steps so those people are covered. Ultimately, that’s exactly where we want to get to. We want to ensure that every Canadian who wants and needs that time to grieve can take it.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much for allowing me to sub in for Senator Omidvar today.
Mr. Jeneroux, you and I have worked for a long time on this bill, and I was very interested to see that the bill includes not just full-time employees but also part-time workers, casual workers and contract workers and that its benefits extend if you suffer multiple deaths and losses in a year, as many people have, frankly, in this year of COVID-19.
I’m wondering if you have heard any concerns from employers about what that might mean if they are extending this leave to casual and contract workers or that, if there’s a case where you’re unlucky enough to suffer the loss of two parents in a year, people might be taking multiple leaves? Have you heard any concerns from people about the economic costs?
Mr. Jeneroux: Thank you, senator. This is like going back to my MLA days, being questioned when she was a reporter. Tough questions as always, senator.
The common perception is that suddenly a bunch of people are going to be going off on bereavement leave and workplaces are going to suffer. I’ll quickly pull up the stats. We saw 284,000 deaths in Canada in 2019. It’s hard to justify how many people have actually taken leave or would take leave, but the number of individual organizations that suffer through that, it’s largely nominal in the fact that you see so many organizations do a lot of this on their own. Imagine going to your employer and saying that you lost your husband, grandmother or a child. Most employers would say to take the time, we will sort things out on the back end. Take the time to leave.
That’s not the case with every employer, right? That’s the importance of bereavement leave, so we can set that standard so employers work toward that.
From the economic point to your question, it’s important to note that a lot of employers — small businesses, for example — will see the loss of an employee for a period of 5 or 10 days as significant. But it’s also important to note that there are so many people who either don’t take that leave or have, on the back end, decided that maybe they should have taken that leave. There is the mental health burden on an individual, the stress of going through that, maybe reflecting six months down the road thinking, “You know what, my employer wasn’t necessarily there for me so I’m going to leave my employer,” or, “I’m going to take sick days or a leave of absence down the road.”
The economic piece is so difficult to quantify in that aspect because you see so many of these cases where, if individuals are not feeling supported by their employer, they will leave their employer. That’s a much larger impact on the employer than it is if they were to simply allow the initial leave.
Senator Moodie: Mr. Jeneroux, my question is around who qualifies for this bereavement leave and, as a neonatologist-newborn intensive care specialist, it will be no surprise that it focuses on the extremes of newborns, the extreme of the spectrum of life. Would an extremely preterm infant — a 22-weeker — who as born alive and who dies, qualify? If a parent or parents lose twins at separate times in the newborn period, would that qualify twice, cumulatively? Finally, does a miscarriage qualify as a loss? It has recently been recognized in New Zealand, as you probably know, and there is full entitlement for bereavement leave.
Mr. Jeneroux: Thank you, Senator Moodie, and thank you for what you do. My wife is a general surgeon. The aspect of having to see kids in the NICU or here at the Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton, and seeing the impact that has on the family is significant. I couldn’t imagine seeing that myself so, again, thank you for what you do.
There are two or three parts to your question, senator. For the first part, if you don’t mind, I’ll just list who is defined as immediate family and then talk about New Zealand, because I think that’s an important piece. Who is identified right now under the Canada Labour Code as immediate family, which is who would be able to take this leave, is an employee’s spouse or common-law partner, an employee’s father and mother and a spouse or common-law partner of the father or mother; the employee’s children and children of the employee’s spouse or common-law partner; the employee’s grandchildren; the employee’s brothers and sisters; the grandfather and grandmother of the employee; the father and mother of the spouse or common-law partner of the employee and the spouse or common-law partner of the father or mother; any relative of the employee with whom the employee permanently resides; and common-law partners who have been cohabiting for at least a year.
That’s the under the Canada Labour Code. It’s essentially separate from the scope, if you will, of our bill. We’re not intending to redefine the family member and the definition of a family member.
Senator Moodie: My question is more about what qualifies as a death that’s recognized, and is there a cumulative if twins are lost in the newborn period? Do you get two bereavement leaves or is that counted as one for parents?
Mr. Jeneroux: You would certainly get two, from my understanding of the legislation, because it’s not tied to you only getting one leave a year. So if you had twins or triplets, it would qualify.
To your other point about New Zealand, I think what New Zealand is doing is really exciting. It happened about three quarters of the way through our bill, so it was part of a technical briefing with the department on how our bill could be shaped with the changes that happened in New Zealand and what we could do differently. The answer back from the department was that there was essentially a policy declaration within the department that covers the scope, gets into detail about each family member. Within that, the position of the department is that miscarriages up to — I forget the number of weeks — are then qualified under that policy declaration as family members to be allowed to take the leave.
To ultimately get to the place where New Zealand was, it’s unfortunately not in the scope of our bill, but that’s hopefully the next steps we’ll see with better bereavement supports in our country.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux, for being here today. I have a question of clarification. I wanted to understand why those who are receiving compassionate care leave can also access this. Why did you do that? Why didn’t you just say, “Okay, we’re going to increase the number of days from 5 to 10 for everyone?” What is the compassionate care addition, what does that add on to your bill, and why is it structured that way? Why didn’t you say, “let’s just add five days, off we go?”
Mr. Jeneroux: Thanks. I have a story for you, senator.
Senator Dasko: Good. I’m all ears.
Mr. Jeneroux: This was kind of how the bill started. It has been a bit of a process. The bill essentially started — I passed the Compassionate Care Leave Act when I was elected provincially in Alberta. That was for caregivers and I wanted to come federally and extend the caregiving to after the death of a loved one, thinking you care for someone but then the caregiving ends at the death. I wanted to extend that piece, so I went through the initial stages where we finished second reading under that auspices. That’s what we were going to do.
Senator Dasko: Excuse me. That would have been paid leave, because compassionate care is a paid leave under EI, right?
Mr. Jeneroux: Compassionate care is a paid leave up until the death of a loved one, and then it stops. As you know, with private members’ bills you can’t impact EI. So you can’t ask the government to then pay that five days after the death of a loved one. All we can impact is how long that leave is, which falls under the Canada Labour Code.
What happened, after exploring the compassionate care leave piece and thinking that’s where we wanted to go, was a conversation, and the reason why I credit Minister Tassi with a lot of this. She said that if you’re just looking at the caregiver piece, it just allows that caregiver piece those five extra days, but if you were to increase the scope to bereavement leave, it allows everyone.
Think of a tragic death — a car accident, a homicide — where you don’t have the time to be the caregiver, the death happens immediately, then wanting that time to leave. That’s why we shifted from compassionate care to bereavement care, and that’s essentially where the bill has landed now.
Senator Dasko: Why is the compassionate care piece still there? Why didn’t you just drop that altogether and say, “We’re going from 5 to 10, period, for everyone.” Why is that piece still there? Am I missing something?
Mr. Jeneroux: If you take compassionate leave, you’re still eligible for this as well.
Senator Dasko: Yes. So then why would you have to put that in the bill?
Mr. Jeneroux: I don’t see it in the bill. Is it in the bill?
Senator Simons: Maybe I can help. On first blush, it’s only for people who are the immediate family members, but this bill also allows bereavement leave if you weren’t an immediate family member but you were a qualified compassionate caregiver. Sometimes you can be a qualified compassionate caregiver to your maiden aunt or to your very best friend. When you have been on compassionate care leave, then you can also qualify for a bereavement leave even if technically you’re not an immediate family member.
Senator Dasko: I am trying to understand why that piece is there because to me it doesn’t — I’m asking if it adds something or not.
The Chair: Did you want to add to that, Mr. Jeneroux?
Mr. Jeneroux: I think Senator Simons did a great job. You’re right, senator, the compassionate care piece is mentioned in the summary. You’re right; it’s there. It’s just the extension if you’ve cared for somebody or if you’ve had that tragic incident; everybody is now included as opposed to just having that compassionate piece. The reason we included it is for those on compassionate care leave, on leave related to critical illness or in respect of the deceased person as it’s listed there.
Senator Dasko: I guess I don’t have any more time.
The Chair: You don’t, but we have another panel. Maybe you can explore a little more with our next guest, because I want to make sure that we have enough time with our next panel. What I will do — unless I see someone who wants a quick supplementary, which I don’t — is thank you, Mr. Jeneroux, for being here. Thank you for being patient. We appreciate your patience, just as we appreciate the patience of our next panel. We will begin right away.
From the Heart and Stroke Foundation, we have with us Patrice Lindsay, Director, Health Systems Change and Matthew Musgrave, Specialist, Government Relations and Public Engagement. From the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, we welcome Julie Kelndorfer, Director, Government and Community Relations.
I will invite Ms. Lindsay and Ms. Kelndorfer to make their presentations. Thank you.
Patrice Lindsay, Director, Health Systems Change, Heart and Stroke Foundation: Honourable senators, thank you for this opportunity.
My name is Patrice Lindsay. I’m the director of Health Systems Change at the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I am pleased to speak to you today about why our organization is supportive of Bill C-220. I am accompanied by Matthew Musgrave, our government relations specialist.
For more than 60 years, the Heart and Stroke Foundation has been dedicated to fighting heart disease and stroke. We are a lead funder of life-saving health research in Canada. We work to empower people in Canada to live healthier lives, in part, through promoting systems change and best practices. We also strive to support those living with heart disease and stroke conditions, as well as their families and caregivers.
For example, we run two online peer support communities that allow people living with heart conditions, as well as their families and caregivers, to share their experiences, tips and strategies with one another on how to cope and live with their conditions, and, importantly, how to support each other through those final days, the time of death and shortly after.
We develop and share resources especially for caregivers, focusing on things such as access to survivor and caregiver benefits created by the Canadian Virtual Hospice.
We’ve organized many webinars to help enlighten and inform people in Canada about how to cope with managing these conditions for people at various stages of illness. One example is, with the recent switch to virtual care, we have done a lot to provide support to our patients. COVID-19 required our organization, like many health charities, to help everyone navigate the disrupted health care system and the barrage of health information out there.
Since our founding, the death rate from heart disease and stroke has declined by more than 75%. That said, there is so much more work to do. In fact, one person dies of heart disease, stroke or vascular cognitive impairment every five minutes in Canada, even today.
Each death is tragic and requires a compassionate response from all levels of society, including our government. Extending bereavement leave for workers will provide more time to grieve, plan funerals and finalize estates. A few months ago, I lost my sister to a chronic condition, and personally, I understand the value of this extra time for self-care and finding strength so that when you return to work, you are able to be present and provide meaningful engagement with your staff.
While this bill only affects employees of federally regulated industries, its passage would have knock-on effects throughout the country, as noted earlier by Mr. Jeneroux. We hope that, in the same spirit, all governments at the provincial level will follow suit. The bill also sends an encouraging message to the private sector highlighting the importance of providing their employees the time they need following the death of a loved one.
Additionally, this bill proposes that eligibility be expanded to include workers on compassionate care leave in the event that one of their loved one passes away. This is critically needed after all the time they have spent caring for somebody.
Serious cardiac events and strokes can impact entire families. I’ve seen what this does to families and how much stress it can cause. The physical and emotional changes in care providers are not insignificant. Family care partners, especially spouses, are instrumental and need that time to process. Too often, these caregivers face financial impacts, and physical and emotional costs, including significant time away from work.
COVID-19 has created additional stress for those living with heart conditions and those providing care. We recently did a survey and heard from 624 care providers, and 50% of them acknowledged that their own emotional and physical health were at risk and that they had grave concerns. More than a quarter expressed concern about their financial situation, including their ability to meet basic needs for food and stable housing.
Canada’s caregivers deserve a compassionate care leave program that prioritizes their mental health and allows them to focus on their recovery without fear of financial woes or job losses.
Bill C-220 takes important steps to improve compassionate care leave. Its passage will pave the way for further enhancements, including more support from Employment Insurance. Honourable senators, Bill C-220 offers us a tremendous opportunity to touch the lives of everyone in Canada following the death of a loved one, including our country’s dedicated caregivers.
This opportunity must be seized before Parliament rises for the summer in case a federal election is called. We kindly ask that you do everything in your power to pass this legislation prior to the summer recess, otherwise we may lose a historic opportunity to improve compassionate care leave in Canada for federally regulated workers.
We thank MP Matt Jeneroux, Senator Seidman and Senator Simons for their leadership on this important issue. Thank you or your time. I look forward to answering your questions.
Julie Kelndorfer, Director, Government and Community Relations, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada: Good afternoon. My name is Julie Kelndorfer and I’m the Director of Government and Community Relations for the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.
I also am one of the 90,000 Canadians who live with MS in Canada, a country with one of the highest rates of MS in the world. I am pleased to present to your committee on Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave), and illustrate the important perspective of caregivers who are impacted by MS.
For a bit of context, as I noted, Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world. An estimated 1 in every 400 Canadians live with this disease. It is a chronic, episodic, progressive and often disabling disease of the central nervous system. Since that includes the brain, spinal cord and optic nerve, MS can affect vision, memory, balance and mobility. Women, like myself, are three times more likely to be diagnosed with MS than men. On average, 12 Canadians are diagnosed with MS every single day.
MS impacts all Canadians, not just the people who live with it. Their families, friends, communities and country are all touched by this disease. When it comes to caregiving, spouses, mothers, fathers and children, as well as friends, often become caregivers. This critical caregiving role is integral to the health and quality of life of people with MS. It is also integral within our health care system.
Caregivers for people with MS are among the millions of Canadians who provide essential care to family members and friends with chronic disease and disabilities. Their contributions result in huge savings to the health and social care systems each year. The challenges caregivers face continue to grow in number and complexity, and are compounded by the additional impacts of COVID-19.
Canadian caregivers exhibit increasing levels of chronic stress due to the added caregiving responsibilities placed upon them. Unfortunately, caregivers often sacrifice their own health as they carry out this vital role. Long hours of caregiving and weeks without relief contribute to high levels of stress, often resulting in illness for the caregiver. This is illustrated by George’s story.
When George quit his job to provide full-time care for his wife, he had no idea how his life would change. Financially, they were okay, although they had to scale down. He felt proud about his decision. A year later, George was experiencing depression. He loved his wife dearly and didn’t regret the decision, but he missed the stimulus of his previous job. His days were filled with the endless routine of caregiving and household chores. Friends no longer stopped by. He lost confidence and could no longer see beyond the caregiver role. He too had become impacted by the effects of MS.
When it comes to end of life, the intensity of caregiving only increases. For people living with MS the end of life is difficult to predict, which leaves their caregivers in a precarious position as they are unable to access support programs that require the care recipient to have a serious medical condition with a significant risk of death within 26 weeks. Therefore, this bill, which extends bereavement leave, is critical in supporting all MS caregivers grieving the death of their loved one.
Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave), if passed, would extend the period of bereavement leave for which an employee is entitled by five unpaid days. It also expands eligibility for the leave to include employees who, at the time a family member passes, are on compassionate care leave to help take care of someone who is sick. This will mean after someone dies employees would be entitled to two weeks of unpaid leave to take space to grieve and to make the arrangements they need to honour their loved one.
We are among several organizations who represent patients and caregivers that support this bill. Grieving is hard enough without needing to worry about having to go back to work before you are ready. Caregivers have to grapple with the physical, emotional and financial strain of their caregiving responsibilities, and even more practical and emotional challenges once their loved one passes. At a time when so many Canadians have lost one or more loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic, we think it is critical to extend this support.
The MS Society applauds all involved in this private member’s bill, including the leadership of Member of Parliament Matt Jeneroux, Honourable Senator Seidman and Honourable Senator Simons. Their focus on supporting caregivers in Canada, especially at such a difficult time in a caregiver’s life, is so needed.
It is significant to note that this bill was supported by all parties during the debate in the House of Commons. Supporting caregivers in Canada is vital to strengthening the social fabric of communities across our country to meet the needs of Canadians, including people affected by MS, either first-hand or as a family member or caregiver.
Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak today. I am hopeful you will support this bill and move it along quickly to recognize the importance of caregivers, their needs and their essential valued role in our country.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you both for your presentations. That’s very helpful in helping us understand what this bill can and hopefully will do.
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank both our presenters. You have stated the position articulately and with a great deal of knowledge and compassion. As I said to Mr. Jeneroux before, this is a bill I wholeheartedly support and I think you wouldn’t be surprised at how many Canadians have lived the path that you just defined.
I don’t have a question; I just had those words of thanks.
Senator R. Black: Either witness could answer this. The vast majority of Canadians do not work in federally regulated sectors, which means they will not be included in the changes proposed by the legislation. Can either or both of you comment on what you and your organizations are looking for to ensure that all Canadians receive this opportunity for leave, going forward? What are you hoping for in the future? Thank you.
Ms. Kelndorfer: As Mr. Jeneroux stated, this is leading by example. As he stated, changing the federal Canada Labour Code will be significant for the provinces to see that and, I believe, all employers. Part of our responsibility as stakeholders will be to ensure this message is shared amongst the provinces, as well as to employers. The chamber of commerce is a great avenue to do that. Those are some of our plans moving forward.
Matthew Musgrave, Specialist, Government Relations and Public Engagement, Canada, Heart and Stroke Foundation: Thanks so much for the question, senator. As my colleague mentioned in her remarks, I consider this bill a piece of incremental progress. While the bill is focused on federally regulated sectors, we’ve heard from Mr. Jeneroux’s remarks that many of the provinces and territories will be looking to make similar amendments and make sure their labour legislation is in line with these sorts of standards. This is an important piece and something that many health organizations, including Heart and Stroke Foundation and other organizations, can play a role in facilitating.
The other piece is around the private sector piece mentioned by my colleague at the MS Society. This bill is an opportunity to start a conversation in all workplaces about what we can do to support people in difficult times of grief and how to support workers who are also caregivers. We see quite a few individuals who work full time and part time and are caregivers in their spare time, and the work they do is incredible. It is so hard to calculate that benefit.
I think this is a piece of incremental progress and it’s just the start of many other opportunities to further enhance, but we really do support this bill. It’s a meaningful piece of legislation and something we hope all of you can get behind. Thank you.
Senator R. Black: Thank you. Good to see you again, Matthew.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much. It’s lovely to see all the people I’ve been meeting with over the last few weeks. Thank you for being here today and for all the support you have given to Bill C-220 through its evolution.
I want to come back to the question that Senator Dasko was asking, which is that this bill not only gives bereavement leave to immediate family members but also to non-immediate family members who may have been designated compassionate caregivers. I wondered, because your own expertise is in that compassionate care area, if you could explain why you think it’s important that this bill isn’t just for the typical and immediate family members.
Ms. Lindsay: This is so important. I have personal experience. I’m the primary caregiver to an elderly Italian couple who live next door because their children live far away. I spend hours every day looking after them. If they passed away, by definition I don’t qualify as immediate family, but it has taken a toll on me emotionally. Many people we know are living alone. When you look at heart disease and stroke, many women live alone because they have outlived their husbands. Others come in to take care of them and form that bond. So they should be given the right to be able to grieve and have that space to grieve because it affects them no less. They love somebody no less because they are not blood relatives or immediate relatives as defined in labour law.
We think it’s important that you recognize those relationships and the care and compassion people have given to those who are not immediate family members, and they should also be allowed that time and support to take that space they need.
Senator Simons: To clarify, you would not qualify for this. This is only in the case of somebody who is already a designated compassionate caregiver. I don’t want people to misunderstand. It’s for that very small group of people who might have been granted a leave of absence already to care for someone who is close to them but is not an immediate family member.
Ms. Lindsay: Absolutely. And their role doesn’t stop the minute death occurs. They carry all of that emotion and all of that connection with them and should be allowed that time.
Senator Simons: Julie, did you want to respond to that question?
Ms. Kelndorfer: Thank you, Senator Simons. I would agree; if someone has a long-term caregiving role, such as when they take compassionate care leave — no matter if they’re an immediate family member or not — they need that bereavement time.
For a disease like MS, which is long term, caregivers come in all sorts, as I mentioned. They can be spouses, but they can also be friends, and long-term friends, who could then apply for compassionate care leave. This would be available to them as well, which is so important and so supportive of the caregivers. As we talked about, this is a much more inclusive piece. I think that’s a critical piece in the discussion of bereavement leave.
Senator Simons: Thank you both very much.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I have a quick question for you both concerning the future implementation of these provisions and what, if any, participation you plan toward the communication plan. When death occurs, you’re not really doing anything other than concentrating on the task at hand and on your bereavement, so you’re not looking up resources. I’m wondering how you go about ensuring that this is well communicated and that people are aware of the access they have to these benefits.
Ms. Kelndorfer: Thank you very much for the comment and question. That’s an important piece, because navigation for caregivers is a huge and important role. For an organization like the MS Society, we have what we call a navigation service, a knowledge network that would share those resources. We also have a network of caregivers. There are people who have identified themselves as caregivers in our community, so our communications would go out to them.
As well, social media is a factor in our communications these days. We have developed support groups within Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all sorts of social media. We also have peer-to-peer in other support groups. This information is important to be shared amongst all our MS community. And I would say, wider than that, our health charities are a larger coalition as well.
Ms. Lindsay: I would echo that. We sit at many coalition tables. Although we and MS are here representing today, we represent a much broader group of health charities that deal with caregivers.
For Heart and Stroke, we have our online communities. We purposely raise these issues within our conversations. On our website we have resource packages where people know what’s in the community, and these will all be added. We bring up the topic in many different forums. I deal with caregivers all the time. Every day I’m talking to at least one or two, and we raise this in our conversations. We will work with other health charities and with our partners to increase communication. We also link with several patient-run groups — HeartLife Foundation in British Columbia and others — where we can actively bring this to them and ask them to communicate it. It will be a wide, spider-effect networking.
Senator Moodie: I wanted to add on to the question that Senator Forest-Niesing asked.
In terms of being able to target and get this information out to particular groups — groups that are challenged by language or that have specific cultural needs — what do you have in place, and how available is that for groups? Is that an area we can improve on, in terms of getting information about these resources out at the right time and in an easily accessible way?
Ms. Lindsay: To be honest, that is a big challenge. Thank you very much for raising that issue. I think it’s something we all have to work harder at.
Certainly we have strong ties with South Asian and Indigenous communities. We’ve been building our relationships with various First Nation communities. We will take this and talk to them and co-develop the messaging and language. We can’t just provide it to them; we need to make sure it is culturally sensitive. So we will open up those conversations.
It has been a challenge for all of us. I don’t think anybody can say they have perfected this. We are certainly committed to looking at those opportunities and to finding an appropriate way forward.
Ms. Kelndorfer: I would agree with what Patrice has said. As well, other stakeholders who are part of our communities include our clinicians, so funnelling that through our clinicians, their health systems and the health care professionals within those is an important communication structure that we would use.
There are specific caregiver coalitions in each of our jurisdictions, and they too will be part of the communication strategy. It’s an important question and great area of need, for sure.
The Chair: I see no other colleagues having a question. If this is the case, I would like to thank our witnesses for your patience in getting our meeting started with a bit of a delay. Most important, thank you for your work on this bill and for everything else you do. You’ve been very helpful in terms of helping us to understand this bill.
(The committee continued in camera.)