Moved third reading of Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave). When I spoke to Bill C-220 at second reading, I acknowledged the unanimous support this bill received in the other place, and I am pleased to see strong support here too, in this chamber.

I would like to commend Member of Parliament Matt Jeneroux for his work on this important issue and thank the honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their study of this bill.

I would also like to thank Senator Simons for her role as a friendly critic of this bill and her energetic commitment to seeing it through.

The objective of Bill C-220 is simple. It first expands the period of bereavement leave from 5 working days to 10 days with 3 of those days paid for all employees who fall under the Canada Labour Code. This would mean that approximately 18,000 federally regulated employers and up to 2 million workers would qualify for this benefit in Canada.

Bill C-220 also proposes to extend the same bereavement benefits to those who are on unpaid compassionate leave caring for a non-immediate family member. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, it is important to note that, within the Canada Labour Code, for the purposes of compassionate care leave, the definition of “family member” is larger in scope than that of “immediate family member.” Currently, as stated in the Canada Labour Code, bereavement leave only applies to the loss of an immediate family member.

By modifying subsection 210(1) of the Canada Labour Code to include the term “family member” within the eligibility criteria, bereavement leave would be extended to caregivers caring for someone who is not an immediate family member.

On June 9, the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee held a hearing on Bill C-220 and heard from Member of Parliament Matt Jeneroux, the sponsor of the bill. In his opening remarks, he said:

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.

While it is true that this bill will only benefit 6% of the Canadian workforce, I believe that Bill C-220 provides us with an opportunity to show leadership on this issue in the hopes that it will incentivize action for the majority of workers in this country who fall under provincial labour codes.

The committee also heard from Patrice Lindsay from the Heart and Stroke Foundation who argued that, while Bill C-220 only affects federally regulated industry, its passage would have knock-on effects throughout the country. She said:

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.

She also said:

Each death is tragic and requires a compassionate response from all levels of society, including government. Extending bereavement leave for workers will provide more time to grieve, plan funerals and finalize estates. . . .

Julie Kelndorfer, a representative of the MS Society of Canada, spoke about the importance of extending these benefits to caregivers. She said:

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. . . .

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.

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology examined Bill C-220, voted unanimously to support the bill and reported back to this chamber without any amendments or observations.

Honourable senators, we all understand the important leadership role federal legislators can provide by passing this legislation. I am confident that our actions now will have that knock-on effect for the majority of workers in this country, in other jurisdictions and in the private sector. Thank you for your support.

Honourable senators, I am so pleased to speak to you again today as the official critic for Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code bereavement leave. I will keep my remarks short and plain because Bill C-220 is itself short and plain. The bill would modify the bereavement leave provisions of the Canada Labour Code to add an additional five days of unpaid leave for people who are mourning the death of a close family member or who are mourning the death of a person to whom they were providing compassionate care. The leave can be taken at any time up to six weeks after the death.

The change is straightforward and largely self-explanatory, as I outlined at second reading and as Senator Seidman has outlined here this afternoon. It would give a little more time, the equivalent of an extra workweek, to grieve and to plan for those Canadians who work in industries that are federally regulated, including those who work in sectors such as aviation, telecommunications, broadcast media and banking.

It would only have a direct impact on about 6% of Canadian workers, and it would only provide unpaid leave, but it would be an important first step to expanding bereavement leave for all Canadian workers.

I want to thank all of my Senate colleagues for working diligently and so co-operatively to bring this bill to third reading today. I want to thank, of course, Senator Judith Seidman who stepped up to serve as sponsor of the bill. I also want to thank all the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and especially committee chair Senator Chantal Petitclerc for holding hearings and summoning witnesses at short notice so expeditiously and for holding an extra meeting for completing clause-by-clause deliberations.

I also want to sincerely thank my ISG colleague Senator Ratna Omidvar who allowed me to attend all those deliberations at committee in her stead. I was so pleased to be present, albeit via video, to ask and answer questions and to support the bill as it passed through the clause-by-clause process unanimously and without amendments.

I take that as a strong signal of the support for this plain and useful bill in every quadrant of this chamber.

But, today, I first and foremost want to commend Matt Jeneroux, the Member of Parliament from Edmonton Riverbend, for sponsoring this bill and shepherding it through the parliamentary process. When he first asked me to help him in this effort, I said I would do so largely as a courtesy for a fellow Edmonton parliamentarian, but over the months that he and I worked together on this initiative, meeting with stakeholders, speaking with the media, I took on his cause as my own. And as a fellow Edmontonian, I’m proud to ask you today to stand together to bring this bill home with all due speed. Thank you and hiy hiy.

I would like to ask a question.

Senator Simons, would you take a question?

Certainly.

I had a question for Senator Seidman too, but I’ll ask you instead.

I will vote in favour of Bill C-220 because, as you said, it was passed unanimously in the other place. Nevertheless, I have some concerns about the bill, especially as regards the process and how quickly it was passed.

This bill will have a major impact on the Canada Labour Code and businesses. However, House of Commons and Senate committees did not hear from employee or employer representatives. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, for example, would really have liked to participate in the consultations but wasn’t able to. Don’t you think there should have been broader consultation, for one thing? For another, shouldn’t this bill have come from the government, given that it amends the Canada Labour Code and that it’s likely the Employment Insurance Act will have to be amended to fund these benefits?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. First, what do we say to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and to the other employee and employer representatives who were not invited to speak? Second, do you think we should continue this practice of having public bills introduced this way by parliamentarians?

Thank you very much for these questions.

I can say I can’t speak for what happened in the other place. Certainly the bill took its fair time to move through the system and there were substantive amendments at committee with members of all parties basically rewriting the bill in committee. Perhaps it was because of that that there were not the witnesses called because they didn’t know where the bill was going to end up. I honestly can’t speak for what happened in the other place.

As I’m not a member of the Social Affairs Committee, I guess I can’t speak to the lack or presence of witnesses at that committee either. You raise a fair point. The other group that was not heard from was members of the labour unions that represent some of these industries. For example, we didn’t hear from the postal workers or from ACTRA, which represents people who work in broadcasting. In a perfect world, it would have been useful to hear from those voices. I think that’s a very fair critique.

Whether it makes sense for public interest bills to be moved as private member’s bills, private member’s bills are very circumscribed in that people cannot propose bills that would have significant changes to the cost of things in the same way that we cannot in our Senate public bills.

To me, this is such a modest change — five days of unpaid leave — that I don’t think the lack of those witnesses precludes my confidence in supporting this bill. You raise an excellent point and in a different calendar year with different access to translation and committee time, we probably ought to have done so.

Senator Gold, Senator Bellemare has a question for you. Would you take a question?

My question for you is very similar to the one I asked Senator Simons. You taught law in university, so you know full well that the Canada Labour Code is at the foundation of the relationship between employees and employers. In general, when changes are made to the Canada Labour Code, they are often done through social dialogue.

This debate is about increasing the length of bereavement leave, which may seem harmless, but it is being done through a public bill introduced by a parliamentarian.

Do you support this type of process? Don’t you think that the government should take the initiative and engage in broader public consultation, according to standards appropriate to everyone?

I would like to hear your views on this and on the fact that the parties at the very heart of the Canada Labour Code and its fundamental role were not consulted.

Senator Bellemare, do you have a supplementary question?

I have a brief remark that is also a question.

If the bill had been a government bill, the leave might have been given in the form of a reimbursement or a payment as part of a salary, but in this case it is unpaid leave. That makes a big difference for Canadians who are grieving a death.

What are your thoughts on that?

Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock, and pursuant to rule 3-3(1) and the orders adopted on October 27, 2020, and December 17, 2020, I am obliged to leave the chair until seven o’clock unless there is leave that the sitting continue. If you wish the sitting to be suspended, please say, “suspend.”

I hear a “suspend.” The Senate will suspend until 7 p.m.