Human Resources Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

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

I understand that. I just want to say, for the benefit of all colleagues around the table, that I was unable to move amendment BQ‑1 because of a procedural issue. As a legislative clerk, you know, you understand the procedure, but not everyone here does. This is an open meeting, and for the benefit of all members of the committee, I would point out that I was unable to make a motion that may well be adopted anyway. We can vote on NDP‑1, and we can vote on BQ‑1 afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you. We will proceed to a vote on amendment NDP-1 with the understanding that if it is adopted, amendment BQ-1 cannot be moved due to a conflict of lines. So, we are voting on NDP—

Madam Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I don't understand how NDP-1 is different from the proposed legislation within the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mr. Boulerice will have to speak to that.

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

Thank you for the question.

The amendment simply aims to avoid the situation I have given as an example. If an employee is hired on March 8, the three weeks in March won’t count because they will have to work the whole month of April before earning the first additional day of leave. It may therefore take six to seven weeks before they are granted sick leave. The amendment proposes that the employee should get one day of leave after 30 consecutive days of work. This is equivalent to one month, but there is no need to follow a calendar.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay. It’s continuous.

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

It’s consecutive.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

The employee must therefore work for 30 consecutive days, rather than one month.

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

Exactly.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Kusie.

We were proceeding with a vote on amendment NDP-1.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Amendment NDP-1 is carried.

We'll now proceed to amendment NDP-3.

Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is very simple. We talked earlier about difficulties caused by having to get a doctor’s note for one or two days of leave taken consecutively. Several doctors and health care professionals told us that this would create an administrative burden and force people to consult doctors, who have other things to do.

We know from the survey that was discussed today that if we create additional barriers, such as the requirement for a doctor’s note, people may not take their sick leave. Yet the whole point of this is to make sure that people who are sick stay home because of the COVID‑19 pandemic and so on.

This amendment clarifies that the employer may request a doctor’s note, but only if there are at least five consecutive days of absence for medical reasons. The original legislation states that the employer may require this doctor’s note for one or two days of leave. We believe this is excessive and that a minimum of five consecutive days would be reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

If NDP-3 is adopted, BQ-2 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

We'll call the vote on NDP-3.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

We now move to amendment CPC-2.

Go ahead, Madam Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I move that Bill C-3 in clause 7 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 4 the following:For greater certainty, subsections (1.2) to (1.6) do not apply to an employee who is entitled to rights or benefits under a collective agreement, contract, custom or arrangement that are at least as favourable to the employee as a medical leave of absence with pay conferred by this Division.

That's in an effort to avoid the duplication of the policies of those unions in particular that already provide these leave provisions, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members have heard Madam Kusie's amendment.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Chair, I'm wondering if we could get an opinion from the officials on whether this is actually necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Who wants to speak to the question posed by Mr. Long?

[Douglas Wolfe, Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I could speak to that question if you'd like.

Can people hear me? It seems I had lost the connection for a moment there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes.

[Douglas Wolfe]

Okay. Perfect.

My understanding of the amendment is that it would provide for a somewhat looser definition than what is provided currently in the bill. I think employers would have somewhat more flexibility under this amendment than they would under the bill. That is, I believe, what would be the effect of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Monsieur Boulerice.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It’s a question I would also put to the experts who are with us.

I understand the intention of the amendment, and I quite agree that subsections (1.2) to (1.6) shouldn’t apply to an employee whose collective agreement or contract provides for greater benefits.

However, when we talk about a current practice or an agreement, I have the impression that it’s a bit vague. An employer could say that things work differently at their company and that people have personal leave they could use. We would then have to define what a company’s current practice is. I have the impression that this aspect is less clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Are there no further questions on CPC-2?

Madame Chabot.

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

I somewhat agree with what has been said, even with respect to the collective agreement.

The provisions of the bill provide for a certain number of days of sick leave, but of course if a collective agreement or contract provides for more, the provisions of the bill do not apply, so I don’t see the point of this amendment. It seems to me that it’s a basic rule, that it’s a minimum and that some people may be entitled to more leave.

I don’t see the need for this amendment, unless I’m given more explanation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madam Kusie.