Finance Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I asked you to break it down.

[Margaret Hill]

Which one in particular?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

It's his amendment that he just spent the last few minutes speaking about. Again, that would be NDP-3.

[Margaret Hill]

Yes. Would you like us to walk you through what it would do?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Yes.

[Margaret Hill]

Okay. I'm sorry.

The amendment would amend the legislation to require an employer to provide at least seven days' notice rather than 24 as set out in the legislation prior to changing a period or shift during which an employee is due to work or adding another work period or shift to an employee's schedule.

The second amendment proposes to remove the exception where an employer would not be required to provide advance notice of a change in situations where the change to or addition of a work period or shift is necessary to deal with the situation that the employer could not have reasonably foreseen and that presents or could reasonably be expected to present an imminent or serious threat of serious interference with the ordinary working of the employer's industrial establishment.

The third amendment proposes to remove the exception that would not allow an employee to refuse to work overtime to fulfill family responsibilities where it is necessary for them to work overtime to deal with a situation that the employer could not have reasonably foreseen and that presents or could reasonably be expected to present an imminent or serious threat of serious interference with the ordinary working of the employer's industrial establishment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just to clarify because it may show up on the record wrong, I think you meant the difference between seven days and 24 hours. The way you stated it, it almost sounded like 24 days. So that would be the difference. Is that right?

[Margaret Hill]

I'm very sorry, we can't hear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's strange. Try the earpiece.

My point was, just for the record, in your response you said the difference between seven days and 24, and I really think you meant 24 hours.

[Margaret Hill]

Yes, I did. My mistake. I'm sorry for the confusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas, do you have any further questions?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

No. I just wanted to run through it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion on NDP-3?

Then I'll call the question.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 197 agreed to on division)

(Clause 198 agreed to on division)

(On clause 199)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We have CPC-3 in the name of Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

We did hear testimony from the CFIB in regard to concerns that smaller and medium-size enterprises may not be able to comply in a timely way with the requirement in the legislation for an employee to be notified whether their flexible work arrangement has been approved.

My proposal is simply to bump it up to from 30 days to 90 days, which, given the complexity and diversity of the federal regulated labour space, I believe would give those small and medium-size businesses the capacity to be able to respond in a timely way. Again, 30 days, I believe, is too quick, and 90 days is still within enough of a timely basis without having too much of an onerous side.

I would hope that members of the committee would give it all due consideration. I look forward to hearing some support from all sides. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, witnesses, these changes would only apply to federally regulated workplaces. Is that correct?

[Margaret Hill]

It applies to federally regulated private sector workplaces, not the federal public service.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Federally regulated private sector workplaces. Thank you.

Has it generally been the tradition that legislation introduced by the federal government for federally regulated private workplaces is then adopted by the provinces to cover their jurisdiction as well?

[Margaret Hill]

As you know, under the Constitution, responsibilities for labour issues are shared between the federal government and the provinces and territories. Part III, which is the part that relates to flexible work arrangements, applies to the federally regulated private sector. Provinces and territories have it within their full domain to make legislation changes to their labour standards that affect workers and workplaces within their jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I just want to clarify that, again, the people I'm thinking about, Mr. Chair, are not so much the Bank of Montreal, RBC, or some of the other large, federally regulated private workplaces. We're thinking more of trucking companies that are small but are doing work interprovincially. We're thinking about the many railroads that cross provincial boundaries but may not necessarily have the same capacity as the larger ones, and about the small companies that perhaps are doing work offshore of Canada in oil and gas. To be fair, oftentimes these small firms are already doing these things on a regular basis, to keep their staff.

We are talking about the administrative burden and suggesting, instead of it being a hard and fast 30 days, that they have 90 days to come up with and submit a full scheme. I would hope there would be some flexibility, because this is an area where we should not be adding more burden to small firms that are already struggling. It's one more disincentive to performing and hiring. If there are new requirements that come on, especially with a diverse workplace, again, some people may say they don't want to hire, given the uncertainty or the extra paperwork. We want to avoid that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, we're ready for the question on amendment CPC-3

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 199 agreed to on division)