Human Resources Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Now we go to Madame Chabot for six minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have some questions about the Canada Labour Code.

Now that we are deciding to grant 10 days of paid sick leave, we must also make sure that the right is properly documented. But as I look at the wording and the way in which the clauses have been drafted, I still see some questions.

I have to tell you that, in Québec, we have the same requirement for a medical certificate. The requirement to provide a medical certificate is found in the Act Respecting Labour Standards. Within that requirement, the circumstances must be justified. Breaking an arm is one thing, having gastroenteritis is another. I feel that some flexibility is needed so that the requirement does not become abusive.

I have a question about the proposed subsection 239(1.2) of the Canada Labour Code. It reads:

239(1.2) An employee earns,

(a)…at the beginning of each month after completing one month of continuous employment with the employer…

What do you understand by “continuous”? Is leave that was previously scheduled considered not to be continuous employment with the employer?

[Andrew Brown]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Chabot.

I would like to pass that to Douglas Wolfe. He will be able to answer your question about continuous employment.

[Douglas Wolfe]

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for the question.

It's a very important one. The period starts when employees begin their employment. When they take vacation or sick leave, that does not interrupt the continuous nature of the employment.

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

I have another question.

Bill C‑3 says—in subsection (1.4), I think—that we can accumulate days of leave. In other words, if someone has accumulated 10 days in their bank of leave and they are fortunate enough not to be sick, the bank of leave days can be carried forward to the next year and can be used in its entirety, as I understand it.

But does the counter go back to zero in terms of accumulating days of leave? I understand that you can't have more than 10 days. That's fine, it's a choice.

How can we make sure that people are not penalized in terms of accumulating days of leave in the following year if the 10 days per year in the previous year have not been used?

[Andrew Brown]

As the bill is drafted at the moment, employees who have not used all the days they have accumulated [technical difficulties], let's say eight days of paid sick leave during [technical difficulties]. On January 1, if employees have not used those days, they begin [technical difficulties] for paid sick days [technical difficulties] always possible to accumulate two other days up to the maximum of 10 days of paid sick leave.

That is how it works. Employees use all the days [technical difficulties] in the next year.

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

The interpreter is indicating a problem, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

There is a problem with your connection, Mr. Brown. Can you repeat that?

[Andrew Brown]

Of course.

If employees do not use days of sick leave in one calendar year, they start the next year with those days. They do not start again from zero, unless they have used all 10 days in the preceding year.

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

Are you open to the idea of crediting a certain number of days of paid leave for those starting in a position?

For example, let's suppose that a new employee has two months of continuous service and has therefore accumulated two days of leave. He falls ill and has to take, say, four days of leave. If I understand correctly, with the current wording, that employee will have two days of paid sick leave and two days of unpaid leave.

Would we be able to use some days of paid leave as a credit, to make sure that we are making the measure really work? Are you prepared to consider an amendment along those lines?

[Andrew Brown]

Thank you for the question.

As the minister said, [technical difficulties] is indeed open to the idea of amending that aspect of Bill C‑3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Now we'll go to Mr. Boulerice for the final six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to make sure I have a proper answer to an important question.

Ms. Chabot talked about the provisions to amend the Criminal Code. We want to make sure that the rights of healthcare workers in terms of striking, picketing and otherwise exerting pressure is fully protected. We have heard positive answers, but I did not take very good notes. So I would like the clearest answer possible, and to be shown that the right is protected in an act, a section or a provision.

We have witnessed some disgraceful actions and some unfortunate events over the last 18 months. We therefore agree on the principle that healthcare workers must be protected. However, that must not impede the right of those same workers to exert pressure as their collective agreements are negotiated.

I would like someone to confirm that this basic right is protected in a specific section or in particular legislation. That would allow me to give a clear answer to any union representatives who may be concerned about the issue.

[Laurie Wright]

Thank you for the question.

I will speak first and my colleague Ms. Klineberg can add more specific comments about the provisions in the Criminal Code.

First of all, we know that the bill must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the House, the minister was able to explain how the bill complies with the charter.

However, the charter's protections of freedom of expression do not involve forms of expression that are violent or that incite violence. A section specifies the kinds of activities that are criminal in nature.

I will now ask my colleague Ms. Klineberg to tell you about the provisions in the bill.

[Joanne Klineberg]

Thank you.

I will point out to the committee exactly where the issue of defence can be found in the bill.

Clause 1 of the bill makes amendments to the Criminal Code.

Clause 2 of the bill, which can be found on page 1 of the PDF version of the bill, will create subsection 423.2 in the Criminal Code.

Paragraph 423.2(4) of the bill deals with defence. It can be found on page 2 of the PDF version of the bill, around line 8.

That is the clearest way of showing you…

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

Forgive me for interrupting you, but I only have a minute left.

I wanted to ask a question that is a little technical in nature. It is about calculating calendar months in order to accumulate days of paid sick leave at a rate of one day per month. If someone were hired on March 6, they would not have worked for the entire month of March.

Do they have to wait until they have worked for the entire month of April to earn their first day of paid sick leave in May? Are we talking about four consecutive weeks, regardless of the hiring date, or are we sticking with the calendar?

[Andrew Brown]

According to the bill as drafted, the employee in that example will have to wait until May 1.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you to the witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

That concludes the witness section of this committee hearing. I need direction from the committee. It is my understanding that there is agreement for the committee to meet again this afternoon from 3:30 to 5:30 to begin clause-by-clause reading of the bill. Have we agreed on that, committee?

I see nods and acceptance.

We'll need to set a time today for the submission of written proposed amendments to the bill. What is the time you would choose, recognizing that the meeting is at 3:30 and the amendments should be provided to the committee in both official languages? I suggest two o'clock or 2:30. I hear 2:30 for any proposed amendments to the bill in both official languages. Do we have the concurrence of the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Just to be clear, are we talking about 2:30 p.m?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The deadline is 2:30, Mr. Boulerice.

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

Great.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I'm told by the clerk that two o'clock would work better than three to prepare for 3:30, but it's at the committee's prerogative.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Is that for the amendments or for the meeting?