Bill No. 29 - Labour Standards Code - Third Reading

MS. CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : Mr. Speaker, when this bill came to the Law Amendments Committee, on which I am privileged to sit, we came forward to the chairman before the committee even began and I said to the chairman, I think there must have been a mistake, I want to give you this amendment that we are bringing forward because I think there must have been a mistake.

We were told by the government that they were introducing legislation to mirror the federal legislation. Our interpretation of that was now that there is a more expanded leave, and that leave requires 17 weeks or 600 hours of work to be eligible, that it would only stand to reason that to mirror that legislation would mean that after working that eligibility period to receive your benefits - 600 hours, 15 to 17 weeks, depending on how you do the math - that your job would be protected.

It became quickly and sadly clear that it wasn't a mistake at all, although it did seem to take some of the government members on that committee by surprise. This government not only was not introducing legislation to mirror the period of job protection with the period of eligibility, but it was introducing brand-new legislation to put Nova Scotia at the very bottom of the pack for job protection for women.

Just to reiterate for the benefit of the members of this House: in B.C., New Brunswick, and Quebec there is no minimum time period for your job to be protected; in Alberta the time period is 90 days; in Ontario the time period is 13 weeks; in Saskatchewan, P.E.I., and Newfoundland and Labrador the time period is 20 weeks; in Manitoba it is 7 months; and here and in Nunavut it's 1 year.

So we have a brand-new piece of legislation that makes this the least attractive province to be a working mother in all of Canada. Congratulations to the government on that point.

We've already said a lot about this bill, but I will reiterate a couple of points. One is that for anyone who has been following the news south of the border and around the world, I think it goes without saying that it's a tough time to be a woman.

What we are seeing is a galvanizing of energy around very egregious stories and issues that have been brought forward through the MeToo movement and other channels. I would argue that while people get very upset about the outcomes, the stories they hear, or the injustices they see that are blatant and clear. I would argue that we have a role in those, here in this Legislature. Our role is to change the system so that those outcomes don't occur.

One of the issues we see is the continually diminished credibility and ability for advancement of women. We know that we have fewer women who are board chairs, we have fewer women running Fortune 500 companies, we have fewer women in politics, we have fewer women everywhere you look that people look to as a place of power, with a very notable exception of the caring professions.

I want to argue that it's precisely legislation like this, which frankly should be uncontroversial. In a liberal democracy, in 2018, the amendment that the NDP brought forward should be uncontroversial, Mr. Speaker. There should be no question about this.

This isn't something outlandish. We're not being Communists by asking for this amendment. What we're doing is we're arguing for basic equity, basic principles of equity that I would argue are already recognized by almost all of the members in this House.

Mr. Speaker, we have a role to play in equality, and right now we have a choice, which is to erect a barrier, which again is shocking. But in this day and age what we're doing is introducing regressive legislation when it comes to women's ability to participate in the workforce, or we can help, we can be helpful in this regard. I think it's clear where I think we're landing on this one.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is an equity issue. With all due respect, yes, sure, business owners have to be able to adapt to changing conditions, but we have a lengthy maternity leave that is already enshrined in our laws in Canada and has been for quite a long time. And we have business owners who do and in many cases, happy to oblige their workers in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, to argue that I think as the minister said in his opening comments on the introduction of this bill, I believe he said it would be an abuse of his power to set a lower limit without consulting. Frankly, I think that's absurd. That's exactly what the minister's job is: the minister's job is to ensure that this legislation is in accord with the principles of equities and in accord with the federal legislation and lets women into the workforce in Nova Scotia and allows them to be at home with their children.

I don't think he's accomplishing much of that, Mr. Speaker. I, myself, would not have been able to take what I think was a well-earned maternity leave with my second child, had this legislation been in place.

I know that my colleagues have some words to say about this, Mr. Speaker. In closing I just want to urge the government to sometimes, occasionally, use this Chamber in the way that it was intended. I was asked by the media today, how do you feel about the fact that the government just never gives an inch; that no matter what amendments you put forward, no matter what conversation you try to have, no matter how constructive the Opposition tries to be, that you never made any progress - how do you feel about that?

I said well, I feel not at all surprised and deeply disappointed at the very same time. I was elected by my constituents to come here and try to participate in the process by which we make laws in this province. I know there are many people in this House who prefer to be in their constituencies, who feel that that is the place where they can make a difference. In many cases that is true, but I would argue that all of us have a responsibility to show up in this Chamber and to do what we can.

Speaking for myself and maybe some of my colleagues on this side of the House, sometimes it feels pretty useless to be over here because it feels like even when we introduce a very common-sense item for discussion, we are continually shut down. In this particular case, as I said when I started, this should be an uncontroversial amendment - to make it so that women can take a maternity leave, once they are eligible for it, and have a job to come back to. In 2018, in Nova Scotia with a Liberal Government that talks about their commitment to gender equality, should be uncontroversial. Frankly, it's disappointing and disheartening to be standing where I stand today, making these remarks.