Evidence of meeting #26 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consultations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
May 24th, 2022 / 3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
If I understand that, they're hoping that the negotiation will intensify and it will get done in this budget year.
The next question is on division 29. According to the legislated employment equity program, the government does not keep records of federal companies with fewer than 100 employees. Is that correct?
3:10 p.m.
Zia Proulx Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
This is Zia Proulx from the labour program. I'm not sure I understand the question related to division 29.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Does the legislated employment equity program keep records of companies with fewer than 100 employees?
3:10 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I will turn it to my colleague Douglas Wolfe, who may have an answer to this one, because this is not in the proposed changes included in division 29.
3:10 p.m.
Douglas Wolfe Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
The employment equity program would normally apply to companies that have 100 employees or more.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Does the legislation apply to employers that have fewer than 100 employees?
3:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
As of December 1, the legislation will apply to all employers within the federally regulated jurisdiction.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
It will, then, if they're under federal jurisdiction, even if they have fewer than 100 employees. That's perfect. Thank you.
3:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
That's correct.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
In some skilled trades, employees work for more than one employer if they have different contracts. In a situation in which a worker has multiple employers, how will this bill provide paid medical leave for the worker?
3:10 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
One change that we included in C-19 was to make sure that employees whose employers change as a result of a transfer of business or a contract retendering process would not lose their earned days of paid sick leave during the year if they're working in the same job. That was one of the changes proposed in BIA 1 that was not proposed in the original Bill C-3, which received royal assent in December.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Again, I don't know if that really answers the question.
Who's responsible, then, for that paid medical leave, if they're doing it for multiple different...? Is it that they earn that time with the first contract and then once they get to the second or third...? Can anybody provide clarity on that?
3:10 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
If they're doing the same job and it's a result of a transfer or contract retendering process, then the new employer would be responsible for their paid sick leave.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Super.
I guess my final question will likely be for multiple officials.
With respect to each division we're discussing today, what do you think is the greatest risk to the changes being proposed with C-19?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Whoever of the officials is the best suited to reply to division 26 and then divisions 27, 29 and 32.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Director General, Employment Program Policy and Design, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I'm so sorry. My audio cut out on the question on division 26.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For each division, what do you think the greatest risk is with the changes that are being proposed in Bill C-19?
3:10 p.m.
Director General, Employment Program Policy and Design, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
For the division 26—and I guess I can speak more generally—we proposed these changes in anticipation, based on all of the data and information we have right now. The context that we're in right now is a situation of labour shortages, so with the changes in division 26 we're trying reach those who are furthest removed from the labour market.
As we've seen how the pandemic has been unfolding, the biggest risk is that another shock or another change occurs. Then we would have to go back and see how to address that. Particularly for the changes in division 26, we hope our projections and the changes we're introducing will have the impact we hope for. Again, the labour market is such right now that there's so much unpredictability that we can't be sure.
That's the risk I would flag for the changes on division 26.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Ruff.
We'll now move to Mr. Van Bynen for five minutes.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses for participating in the discussion today.
This question could be directed to Ms. Casey or Ms. Dabboussy.
We've committed to enhancing our employment insurance system for the 21st century. We've paired these commitments with programs to enable employees to acquire skills and best practices that fit our labour markets. I'd be interested in knowing why, despite the offering of these programs and those during the COVID-19 pandemic, a modernization is necessary, in your opinion.
Ms. Casey.
3:15 p.m.
Acting Director General, Employment Insurance, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
I can take that question.
In terms of modernization, the EI program has not been reformed as a whole. Although numerous improvements have been made to the program over the years, it hasn't been reformed as a whole for multiple decades. As such, it is important.
Something we clearly heard from stakeholders during phase one of the consultations is that the program is in need of comprehensive reform, hence the continuing consultations on EI to inform the government's long-term plan for EI modernization.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
As a follow-up question, how would these proposed changes affect the programming currently under EI part II? Why is it a good idea to broaden eligibility?