Evidence of meeting #126 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bank.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any discussion on Ms. May's comments?
Hearing none, then I'll call the question.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. May, on amendment PV-4.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Again, this is an attempt to ensure that there is as much adequacy of the leave of absence as possible. Instead of saying that it “shall” be not less than one day's duration, my amendment would change that to indicate that each period of leave “may“ be of less than one day's duration. That is to make it workable in the real life situations of people who have been victims of violence.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
My question is for Ms. Hill and Mr. Gagnon.
What would be the implications of this change to go from “shall” to “may”?
Senior Director, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Sorry, just to be certain, are you suggesting that the word “may” would be replaced with “shall”?
Senior Director, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
So is it an amendment to an amendment?
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
No, sorry, maybe I misread Ms. May's amendment, but I thought that's....
Senior Policy Analyst, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
If this amendment were accepted, the last sentence would read, “Each period of leave may be of less than one day's duration.” Am I correct?
Green
Senior Policy Analyst, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
No, no.
Senior Policy Analyst, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
If—
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
With my amendment, you could take take less than a day.
Senior Policy Analyst, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
That is already what the language of the act allows. It was explained previously that the employer may give less than a day, or, if for operational reasons for whatever industry or sector, they cannot allow, for example, an employee to go for two hours, and then let this employee come back for the rest of the day, the employer also has the flexibility to request at least one day. The flexibility of “may be of less than one day” is already in the language of the provision.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Just to explain, the discretion here is entirely the employer's to state that there will not be permissible leaves of less than a day. The evidence before the committee was that many survivors will require only an hour or two to attend to tasks, to attend to psychiatric appointments, counselling for their child, or whatever is required, and that, especially when leave is unpaid, to have to take a whole day at a minimum rather than part of a day is unnecessarily difficult and adds additional stress to the people this bill is trying to help.
The change I am suggesting, just to be clear, is to put the benefit of this provision with the victim. I recognize that the employer may prefer to say, “You have to take a whole day; I'm not going to give you part of a day”, but I suggest that this is at least as important as a Canadian's right to vote. In that case, employers must give every employee, regardless of their job category, the time it takes to run out and vote. I'm asking for the same degree of flexibility to allow an employee who is dealing with a family member or who is personally the victim of violence to take, especially since it's not a paid leave, just a few hours out of their day as a right, and not to give the employer the ability to say that the employee has to take a whole day or nothing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 206 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 207 and 208 agreed to on division)
(On clause 209)
We have amendment NDP-6.
Mr. Dusseault.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Chair, this was a consequential amendment, if NDP-5 had carried. Given that it didn't, I don't see the reason to debate this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It is not moved, then.
(Clause 209 agreed to on division)
There are no amendments to clauses 210 to 261, which include divisions 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
(Clauses 210 to 261 inclusive agreed to on division)
Shall the short title carry?