Evidence of meeting #3 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Pardon me, Chair. The amendment that the analyst referred to I will be withdrawing, and I will be presenting the one I just read into the record, Chair.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Clause 6 was carried.
We're on clause 7. I understand there is an NDP amendment, NDP-1, to clause 7.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are two amendments, NDP‑1 and NDP‑2. If possible, I would like us to consider NDP‑2 first, since it concerns two elements. If it is rejected, NDP‑1 becomes relevant. I wouldn’t want NDP‑1 to be adopted and prevent the adoption of NDP‑2. It’s a matter of logic.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
NDP‑2 clarifies the problematic statement we discovered regarding the calendar year for the acquisition of the first day of sick leave. Here we’re proposing 30 consecutive days instead of one calendar month.
NDP‑2 also provides that everyone starts the program with a minimum of four days in their sick leave bank. We talked about this earlier today, and it was the subject of recommendations from several associations and health professionals. Earlier today, the Minister seemed open to such a change to avoid a situation where someone has to wait three or four months to get enough sick days to look after a flu, for example, or some other kind of illness.
Therefore, we concluded that four days was the appropriate number based on the recommendations of health care professionals. Subsequently, this allows people to continue to accumulate sick leave to a maximum of 10 days, as originally provided for in the Canada Labour Code.
The amendment also clarifies the 30 consecutive working days, and not the calendar month, for obtaining these days.
There are the two elements that make up NDP‑2.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Monsieur Boulerice.
I understand the amendment is in order, although for clarification, if NDP-2 is adopted, NDP-1 and BQ-1 cannot be moved due to conflict of lines.
So, the committee has heard the amendment.
December 14th, 2021 / 4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Chair, could I hear from from the officials about what's being proposed before us, if that's okay.?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Who from the officials would like to speak to the amendment put forward by the NDP?
Andrew Brown Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Dispute Resolution and International Affairs, Department of Employment and Social Development
Good afternoon, Chair. I'd be happy to speak to that.
As I understand it, the proposed amendment would provide for four days of medical leave with pay for employees. It was not 100% clear to me after what period of time that would be, or if there would be any period of time after which they would need to work to obtain those four days, and that subsequently they would continue to earn an additional day of medical leave with pay up to the maximum of 10—but after a 30-day period of continuous employment, rather than referring to completed months of employment as is referred to in the bill unamended.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
To the official, so that would potentially lead to more than 10 days of paid sick leave?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Dispute Resolution and International Affairs, Department of Employment and Social Development
As I'm understanding it.... There was one piece there in the amendment that I was not clear about, namely whether there is some requirement to obtain those first four days of medical leave with pay. However, my understanding is that it would ensure that people are not beginning with having to earn.... It wouldn't take as long to have access to those first four days of medical leave with pay. They would have access to that sooner, but they would continue to be earning days for each 30 days of subsequent continuous employment. That is the difference with the specific calendar months' approach of the bill unamended.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I would like to make a clarification. I just noticed that there is a portion missing in the English version and that is present in the French version of my amendment, which states “jusqu'à concurrence de dix jours par année”—a maximum of 10 days. That last bit isn't in the English version.
Liberal
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Boulerice, your amendment continues in the text of the bill. When “one additional day of leave” is written in English on page 3 of the amendment, that is a cut that is consistent with the way an amendment is written. However, it is all there in the English text of the bill, “day of leave, with pay up to a maximum of 10 days in a calendar year”.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Okay, you have heard the amendment. We will vote on amendment NDP-2.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
The amendment is defeated.
Monsieur Boulerice, you have another amendment that you want to move?
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Yes, it is NDP‑1, which essentially takes up the notion of the 30 consecutive days of work that are necessary to acquire an additional day of leave, which is in addition to the four days initially banked that were provided for in NDP‑2.
These four days don’t exist in NDP‑1, unfortunately—let me make an editorial comment here. NDP‑3 focuses solely on clarifying the 30 consecutive days of work that are necessary to earn one additional day of leave. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether a person was hired on March 7, March 15 or March 26, it’s the number of days worked that counts, not the date they were hired.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Okay, you have heard the second amendment from the NDP. Before we proceed to a vote, be clear that if NDP—
Madame Chabot.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I don’t know if I have a point of order, Mr. Chair, but I would like a clarification.
You have put amendments NDP‑2 and NDP‑1 under discussion, but I would like to propose BQ‑1. Is that possible?
Legislative Clerk
Ms. Chabot, as you have just said, we have reached NDP‑1, and what the chair was about to say is that if NDP‑1 is adopted, BQ‑1 cannot be proposed, because there will be a conflict of lines.