Human Resources Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand that there is an order to follow for voting on amendments, as there should be. It is part of the rules of procedure of the House of Commons. However, although I am in agreement with the spirit, or the objectives, of the NDP amendment, I think this amendment would be much clearer and more direct if any reference to “dependent contractors” were removed.

I want to point out that there are two important definitions in part I of the Canada Labour Code. First is the definition of employee, which starts out, “any person employed by an employer and includes a dependent contractor”.

Just above that, we have the definition of a dependent contractor, which includes the following:

(c) any other person who, whether or not employed under a contract of employment, performs work or services for another person…

That person is also an employee, then.

What the unions told us in this regard was clear. For example, I will quote the steelworkers:

Employers may try to continue using the services of employees during a strike or lockout by labelling them as “dependent contractors”. Not only would this undermine the purpose of the Bill, it could also lead to lengthy litigation where unions and employers will spend resources arguing over whether an employee is a dependent contractor, instead of trying to resolve the work dispute and finalize a collective agreement.

That is why I am proposing a subamendment to amendment NDP‑2. I propose to delete the following words: “including a dependent contractor who is an employee in the bargaining unit on strike or locked out”. The amended amendment would then read as follows: “(b) any contractor or any employee of another employer”. That would eliminate the concept of “dependent contractor”.

That would adhere to the spirit of the act, which is to prevent recruitment of replacement workers, not to have exceptions, includings, in-the-event-thats, or maybes and leave room for interpretation. That is the meaning of my subamendment. You are going to receive a copy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

Before we go to Mr. Sheehan, let me be very clear. We're doing clause-by-clause consideration today. Introducing amendments and subamendments is in order.

The legislative clerk has advised me that the subamendment by Madame Chabot is in order, and it is currently on the floor for discussion.

Go ahead, Mr. Sheehan.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

To speak on the subamendment, I am going to reference the amendment as well, in the sense that the bill, as currently written, makes the clarification and ensures that dependent contractors are treated as employees, since that is how they are defined in the code.

We can't support the subamendment because we don't think it's necessary and could lead to an inconsistency in how dependent contractors are treated under all other provisions of part I of the code.

Again, I would ask Ryan to see if he agrees with the statement that the bill as currently written makes this clarification and ensures dependent contractors are treated as employees, since it's how they are defined in the code.

I would ask for some comments on the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mr. Cowling.

[Ryan Cowling]

I can tell you what the bill does as it's currently written with the words “dependent contractor” in there. Essentially, the wording is there to clarify to the reader that we're using an undefined term at the beginning of proposed paragraph 94(4)(b), which is “contractor”. If you were reading the code as a person wanting to apply the law, you might think the word “contractor” includes dependent contractors. However, as I mentioned earlier, under the definitions of the code, dependent contractors are explicitly employees.

The rationale for having the words “other than a dependent contractor” there is to avoid confusing the reader as to whether these provisions are treating dependent contractors as contractors or employees.

To be consistent with the rest of part 1 of the Canada Labour Code, they should be treated as employees. This is just to say, “We've used the word 'contractor', but, to be clear, that does not include dependent contractors, because they're under it as employees.”

That's the intent of that wording.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Cowling.

Seeing no further discussion on the subamendment by Madame Chabot, I'll call for a recorded vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

We'll return to the amendment by Mr. Boulerice.

Is there any further discussion on NDP-2, the amendment by Mr. Boulerice?

Seeing none, I'll call for the vote on the amendment by Mr. Boulerice.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

We'll now move to NDP-3.

Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is literally an amendment to add a comma. I never thought that in my life I would one day find myself in Parliament asking that a comma be added to a bill, but it is a request that was made by some unions in order to be forearmed against an incorrect interpretation of this provision. To their minds, the comma had to be added in order to create a distinction.

It is no more complicated than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. Is there any discussion on NDP-3?

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I was wondering what reaction I would get.

Now, the comma is going to displace Madame Chabot's BQ-2—just so you know.

Madam Clerk, I'm going to call for a recorded vote on NDP-3. If adopted, BQ-2 cannot be moved.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Madame Chabot, do you have your hand up?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I spoke to the legislative clerk and he told me what I had to do, but I am not sure I remember it.

I understand that if amendment NDP‑3 is adopted, amendment BQ‑2 cannot be moved, so that settles the question of proposed paragraph 94(4)(b). However, I would still like to move the amendment to paragraph 94(4)(c) contained in amendment BQ‑2.

I would like to move an official amendment that would amend the bill by adding after line 4 on page 5 the following:

(c) any employee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will ask the legislative clerk to speak to what I'm advised is an accepted procedure to get it to the floor for the committee to then decide.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Chabot has moved her amendment by removing part (a) of amendment BQ‑2, which will therefore be composed simply of part (b).

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay. Are we clear? If there's ambiguity on the procedure I'm going to get you to consider, are there any questions?

Go ahead, Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I don't know what we're left with. What are the NDP and BQ now doing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I'll ask the legislative clerk to speak to it. Members, if you have any questions, simply direct them here. I don't want anybody confused.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

NDP-3 was adopted, so it's behind us. Now, on BQ-2, Madame Chabot is moving the amendment in a new form by simply keeping paragraph (b), which says, "by adding after line 4 on page 5 the following: (c) any employee." That's all that's left.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It's adding that onto line 4, so line 4 would read, “any employee of another employer...”

[Philippe Méla]

No, it's after line 4.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It would go after that. It's going to say, "any employee of another employee, any employee."

Is this what we're left with?

[Philippe Méla]

No. It's on page 5, line 4.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes.

[Philippe Méla]

You can read, "or any employee of another employer." It's added just after that as a new paragraph: “(c) any employee."

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It's a proposed new paragraph (c), "any employee."

[Philippe Méla]

That's right.