Evidence of meeting #55 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Don't get me wrong, that's not an unreasonable period of time.
9:05 a.m.
Manager, Labour Law Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
We feel that a 30-day period makes it possible to make a single payment for all the money owing—be it severance pay, any payments related to licensing, vacation pay or any other payments. This way, a check can be made out to cover all the money owing.
Another element should be mentioned. Currently, there is a deadline for submitting a complaint. A complaint can be submitted within six months following the set payment date. In this case, it's virtually impossible to calculate six months from the “without delay” reference. We are faced with a real administrative problem when it comes to determining the date, while 30 days is at least a clear period.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
With respect to the amendments that are being made in general, one of the items that has come up is what the comparability is, particularly with provincial jurisdictions, and where the intent was to drive these changes. Maybe you could touch a little on that with respect to what provincial jurisdictions do in this same space and the comparability between what is now being implemented versus the provinces.
9:10 a.m.
Manager, Labour Law Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Each province has its own labour laws, so I will generalize, as opposed to going into the specific cases. The provinces generally do not have the same problem of discrepancy between the two. They tend to actually specify when wages must be paid upon termination of employment, and that includes vacation pay, severance pay, and everything put together.
Right now we are just eliminating an inconsistency in the code, and therefore we will be consistent, as provinces are consistent, with respect to the payment of wages.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
Thank you.
Now we will go to clause 220 on proposed section 191.
9:10 a.m.
Manager, Labour Law Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Okay. Clause 220—
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
I just noticed that paragraph 188(b) has not been translated into French.
9:10 a.m.
Manager, Labour Law Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
The reason it wasn't translated into French was that only the English version of the legislation was being amended. The purpose of the amendment was to use a neutral term. It said
“his year of employment”.
It was only in the masculine in English. We inserted the word their to also include the feminine.
This amendment applies only to the English version. There was no issue with the French version.
9:10 a.m.
Manager, Labour Law Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Very well. Clause 220, which amends section 191, basically adds two new definitions to the general holiday division of the code. These two definitions are “holiday pay“ and “holiday with pay”. The reason for this is that we are using these terms thereafter. This is a drafting issue. It is just to ensure that we don't have to repeat the same words throughout all of these provisions.
Again, “holiday pay” means pay that's calculated in accordance with section 196, so that's a new formula, and “holiday with pay” simply means a holiday for which an employee is entitled to holiday pay.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Manager, Labour Law Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Clause 221 concerning proposed section 196 is where we actually set down the new method for calculating holiday pay. As was explained during the overview, there will be two systems, one general and one for commission-paid employees.
The general system will be that employees will be entitled to one-twentieth of the wages earned in the four-week period preceding the week of the holiday. Just to be clear, wages in this case include not only salary and hourly wages but any vacation pay, any previous general holiday pay in that period, etc., so it's any earnings in that particular context, excluding overtime pay.
For commission-paid employees, this will be averaged over a 12-week period. Again, maybe just an element to add is that this would apply only to commission-paid employees who have at least 12 weeks of service. The reason for that is that otherwise they might actually average over a longer period even though they haven't worked 12 weeks, so we just want to make sure they are not disadvantaged. If they don't have 12 weeks of service, they will be covered by the general rule, which is the average over four weeks.
That is for proposed subsections 196(1) and 196(2). I'm not sure if there were questions on that.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki
There will be questions, but perhaps you could finish proposed section 196, and then we'll open it up.
9:10 a.m.
Manager, Labour Law Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Should I do the whole thing?
9:10 a.m.
Manager, Labour Law Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Okay.
Proposed subsection 196(3) is actually the requirement for employees to be employed for 30 days. This is a requirement that already existed under section 202 of the code. We have simply moved that provision from section 202 to proposed section 196, the reason being that usually we want eligibility requirements to be at the front end in any division of the code so that people know whether or not they are entitled. This really just clarifies the matter. This is not a new requirement. This is the same requirement that was there before. It's simply been moved.
Proposed subsection 196(4) looks at employees in a continuous operation. There has been no change with respect to this provision. It has simply been moved from elsewhere in that division, and it simply mentions that for employees in continuous operations—which have been defined at the front end and which include people who work for, let's say, transportation or telecommunications, and those particular activities that have to be maintained 24 hours a day, 7 days a week—basically the rules that applied before will still apply.
On the one hand, if they do not report to work on a day after having been called to report to work, even if it's a general holiday, they will not be entitled to holiday pay. Second, if they have made themselves unavailable to work under a particular policy in their workplace, again they will not be entitled to holiday pay for that.
We have clarified the language under proposed paragraph 196(4)(b). It basically states exactly the same thing as was the case before, but we have tried to make it clearer to avoid any inconsistent interpretations.
Finally proposed subsection 196(5) simply specifies that when looking at the length-of-employment requirement, we are clarifying that this does not mean the employee has to work for 30 days. We only mean that they have to be employed for 30 days, so if they have been employed by their employer for a 30-day period but have worked two days a week in that period, that's not a problem. They will still be entitled to holiday pay.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a few questions regarding these changes to holiday pay.
You mentioned that people who are not eligible for holiday pay will now receive some money thanks to these amendments. Is that true?
9:15 a.m.
Manager, Labour Law Analysis, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Have you estimated how many workers will be eligible for that pay from now on?