Human Resources Committee on Nov. 6th, 2012

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Again, as I mentioned, we are creating a new administrative review mechanism, and this is where we provide for it. An employee or employer who is affected by a payment order or a notice of unfounded complaint could request, within 15 days of being served the order of notice, to have the decision reviewed.

We are adding under proposed subsection 251.101(2) a requirement similar to what employers currently must face when they ask for an appeal. If they're asking for a review of a payment order, they have to first deposit with the minister the amount specified in the payment order. This is to make sure that if they lose their case, the money will be provided to the employee.

Proposed subsection 251.101(3) specifies that the minister, or somebody delegated by the minister, can confirm, rescind, or vary the amounts. We have provisions for the service of documents and proof that they've been served.

Proposed subsection 251.101(6) specifies that the review should be final subject to potential appeals to referees. Proposed subsection 251.101(7) provides that the minister could, rather than have an internal administrative review, send the matter directly to an external referee. The reason for this is that sometimes there may be legal cases where we know from the get-go that it's going to be too complex for an internal review. We can bypass that particular provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Carry on.

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

Under proposed section 251.11, we are currently modifying the existing provisions for appeals to referees. To go to a referee after an administrative review, the grounds for appeal must be specified in writing, and you can only go to a referee on issues of law or jurisdiction. Issues purely of fact should have been dealt with under the administrative review mechanism. If the employer or corporate director asks for an appeal, he has to make sure that any amount in a varied payment order has been deposited with the minister.

Proposed section 251.12 deals with the appointment of a referee. We've done some tweaking to that provision, because there is now the administrative review mechanism. We're specifying that the referee would be dealing with the decision on review. This is a consequential change to ensure that it meshes with the new administrative review mechanism.

Proposed section 251.14 deals with the deposit of moneys. This is a consequential amendment. Currently, the code provides that where moneys have been deposited with the Minister of Labour regarding an unpaid wage or a successful payment-order appeal, the minister can give it to the employee. Typically, to be paid back to the employer, it would have to go through a referee, who would order a reimbursement of the amount to the employer. We know that referees will not be appointed in every case, and we've specified that the minister can reimburse the employer as well as the employee. It's a consequential amendment.

Proposed section 251.15 contains amendments with respect to the enforcement of orders. Where a payment order is filed in court for enforcement, you can either file a payment order or a varied order, that is, an order that has been varied on administrative review. We're also specifying that you cannot file a payment order for enforcement purposes if it is still subject to a review or an appeal. We don't want to have something enforced before it should be. So this is a consequential amendment.

We have minor transitional provisions. When these provisions come into force, any complaint that has been made before the coming into force will be dealt with under the old system, or the current system. It will be the same for the appeal of payment orders or notices of unfounded complaint. This is to ensure that things now in the system continue to be dealt with under the rules that were in effect when this came into force.

Finally, under the coming-into-force provisions, everything would come into force by order in council. The reason is that there will have to be quite a bit of development of internal policies and of new structures, as well as communication of the new rules to employers and employees. The way it's been structured, different provisions could come into force at different times.

I think that concludes the clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Rochon.

We will—

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Go ahead.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I assert that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities lacks the authority from the House to propose amendments to Bill C-45 or to issue a report to the Standing Committee on Finance, and therefore we should not hold this farce of a clause-by-clause hearing. What we have here is a bastardization of the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Okay, hold on. This is not.... If it is a point of order—and I don't know if it is—I hold that we have the absolute jurisdiction to do what we did, and I won't hear anything further with respect to the jurisdictional question.

You've made your comments. I certainly don't appreciate them. I think it's absolutely in order for us to have done what we've done, and I so rule. Thank you.

Thank you for providing us the information. You're now free to go.

[Charles Philippe Rochon]

It was my pleasure. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

We have some committee business to deal with.

I might say that, in my view, we can now take a letter to the finance committee, which is seized with the jurisdiction of actually considering the clause-by-clause of this particular bill and entertaining amendments that they may or may not pass. This committee's job would be to have reviewed the process and the clause-by-clause, free to make any recommendations or any proposed amendments. That's as far as we can go.

I would propose to take a letter to Mr. Rajotte on behalf of this committee, thanking him for his letter inviting our committee to consider the subject matter of Bill C-45 and other measures, and more specifically the subject matter of clauses 219 to 232.

There are basically, in my mind, two options. One of the options would say that, after hearing from the witnesses and considering the provisions contained in clauses 219 to 232, the committee wishes to inform him that it has no amendments or recommendations to forward to the standing committee. Or, in the alternative, it would say that it does submit the recommendations and amendments attached.

Those are the two options. I'm open to a motion for either option or to hear discussion on those matters before a letter is drafted.

Ms. Leitch, go ahead.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move that the current legislation as presented to this committee and as discussed today be accepted without amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favour of the motion? All those opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

Seeing no opposition, the motion carries, and I will draft a letter in accordance with that.

I don't think—

Go ahead.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Were you finished conducting your business with respect to the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

Yes.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I have one statement.

I wish to express to the officials who came today our appreciation for their time and for the explanation of this, unlike what was characterized by my opposition colleagues with respect to their time and efforts in order to present to this committee. Our officials, the bureaucrats of this government, I think do an outstanding job of making sure that parliamentarians are well informed. I just want to make sure that we all thank them for their time today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I recognize Monsieur Lapointe.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I appreciate Ms. Leitch's comment. One word in particular really got my attention. It is the word “unlike”. I feel that all the comments my colleagues and I made today have demonstrated our utmost respect for the work accomplished by the representatives who appeared before us. I do not see where the words “unlike the NDP” are coming from. I feel it is important to put that on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I might say, just for the record, that I certainly don't agree with the characterization that Mr. Cleary has given—absolutely not—but having said that, I might say, before Mr. Boulerice speaks, that had we used the traditional “conservative” approach, you might not have dominated the questions as you did. I think that in the end it probably worked somewhat to your advantage.

Go ahead.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would simply like to clarify this situation. In line with what my colleague Mr. Lapointe said, I do not appreciate any innuendoes to the effect that we are not respectful of the excellent work accomplished by public servants. On the contrary, we are the first ones to defend those services.

The fact that we have dominated the question period of the clause-by-clause study shows that we, in the NDP, are doing our homework and that, in this committee, we take the process of amending the Canada Labour Code very seriously. We are the ones who have addressed the largest number of questions to the officials who appeared before us, because we wanted to receive clarifications and answers to our questions. We thank them very much for the work that they do. We also thank them for joining us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Komarnicki]

I might add that the process that the chair thought would be workable was the one that turned out to give you that opportunity. I think that Mr. Cleary, in fairness, was talking more about process than with respect to the witnesses, and so I take that as fair in that sense.

With that, we will adjourn.