Evidence of meeting #46 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
(Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to on division)
(On clause 39--Full-time employees)
We will now go to clause 39.
Monsieur Giguère.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I'd basically like to go back to the definition of "full time" and "part time". Clause 39(2), on lines 24 and 25, ends with "…normally scheduled hours of work established for persons in that class of employees." So, that means that there are fewer than 40 hours of work per week. It's basically a provision—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
This is a question that deals with subclause 39(2). Are there any comments on that from colleagues or from officials at the table with respect to “full-time basis”?
Mr. Guiguère, I'm not seeing 40 hours. Perhaps you could clarify your question for us.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
With that, I'm basically saying is that, here, "full time" isn't necessarily 40 hours a week. It could be 20 hours a week. There's an overlap between full time and part time. I'm also wondering what category an on-call worker would be under or, quite simply, in this case, someone who replaces someone else for a long period, such as for a maternity leave.
The difference between "full time" and "part time" doesn't seem clear to me. Could you please clarify that for me? That's all I'm asking.
4:15 p.m.
General Director, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
It's already in the Pension Act. It's a wording that has already been accepted and applied in practice. We didn't reinvent the wheel here.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
No, but can you explain to me the difference between a full-time employee, a part-time employee and an on-call employee, in this case?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Department of Justice
What's really key is the class of employees. If you're considered in the same class of employee and a PRPP is available to members of that class, you're entitled to also become a member. So you become a member of a PRPP. The hours are essentially not that relevant, if the PRPP is available to the same class.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The answer is that you're using the definition that is standard in the Canada Labour Code. Is that correct? In the pension...?
Maybe you could just clarify the act for me, Ms. Lafleur.
March 6th, 2012 / 4:15 p.m.
Lynn Hemmings
It's the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Ms. Hemmings.
Mr. Marston, do you want to speak to this?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Really, are we not talking about permanent employees as opposed to a part-time employee, rather than about hours of work?
4:15 p.m.
General Director, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
“Full-time” is not defined the same way by every employer. We're using language here that allows for different employers to define it.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
When you say that you can have a permanent employee who has part-time hours, they're still permanent to the company. Then you can have a contingency worker who could work the same hours, but at some point their job ends and they're gone. That is the point I was making.
Thank you.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I asked Ms. Glover and Mr. Jean, but here is a question that I ask for myself.
My understanding is that this language is being used to enable as many employees as possible to qualify for the pooled registered pension plan. It's to be a broad enough definition so that as many employers as possible who work for a company can access this pension plan.
Am I correct in assuming that?
4:20 p.m.
General Director, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Yes.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Just as a quick comment, if it helps to explain this, I as a police officer might work 60 hours a week and then take four days off, which is not the same as someone who works nine to five—a 40-hour week—and is considered full-time. So there are classes that are indicated. This is important in order to include as many people as possible who can take advantage of this.
For those reasons, I would say let's proceed and call the question, if you choose to do so, Mr. Chair.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We are on clause 40.
Monsieur Giguère, you wanted to speak to clause 40.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
So it was the same discussion.
(Clause 40 agreed to on division)
(On clause 41—Advance notice to employees)
Now, on clause 41 we have an amendment that is not in your package. We'll call it amendment NDP-5.1. I believe it is from Monsieur Giguère.
As we don't have it, Monsieur Giguère, let me ask you to read the amendment into the record.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I have no problem with that, Mr. Chair.
At the end of clause 41(1), we would add paragraph (d), as follows:
(d) the right of any employee to object to being a member of the plan because of their economic choices.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
This would add, after paragraph 41(1) (c), a paragraph (d): "the right of any employee to object to being a member of the plan because of their economic choices."
I'll take discussion on the amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Is there any discussion on the amendment?
Ms. Anderson, do you wish to comment on this?