Thank you. To the motion. Minister.

Thank you. This was discussed, the idea of an application, while we were working with committee. Ultimately, we came to an agreement that did not include an application. One of the reasons that I provided, and I don't know how influential this was on committee, but once we start introducing applications for this, it will give companies the opportunity to see if they can perhaps game the system. It allows them to test the waters. "Maybe I'll put in an application to see if I can lay people off sooner." That's not at all what this is intended for, this clause, and this motion introduces that idea. If anything, it would, I think, waste the time of the Employment Standards Office because they would have to deal with those companies who are testing the water.

I want to assure everyone that, if there is a notice of group termination, if there are 25, 50, 100 people getting laid off, you had better believe that the Employment Standards Office pays attention and deals with that immediately. It doesn't waste time; it doesn't dilly-dally and wait to make a phone call back; it jumps on it. That's what they do. In my opinion, I see this as adding red tape and adding time and really being contrary, I think, to what the Member's intent is here. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This was discussed at committee at length, and I do see both where the Member is coming from and also where the Minister is coming from. Ultimately, where I ended up sitting was feeling that I wanted to make sure I was doing my due diligence to ensure I was protecting the rights of employers and making sure that, if somebody decided that they were going to go down this path, that they were fully committed to it before doing it and respect the views of the department that it would potentially open up opportunity for people to game the system. Ultimately, I won't be supporting the motion for that reason, in that I feel that it is important that, if somebody is going to do a group termination, that they are committed to it from the outset. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. To the motion.

Question has been called. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I am not sure I can accept what the Minister said. Section 41(1) of the act, and this is one that is not being changed, says that an employer who wishes to terminate the employment of 25 or more employees at one time, or within a period not exceeding four weeks, shall give copy of the notice of termination to the employment standards officer and the trade union of which the employees may be members. This precludes a company from going on a fishing expedition, and if an employment standards officer gets a notice of group termination, and it's not for an actual termination, why would they even accept it? They could dismiss it very quickly.

I just don't accept what the Minister has said, that employers are going to be out there trying to game the system and that they are trying to do this testing the waters and so on. I just don't accept that as a valid reason to try to shift the onus back into the employment standards officer. I think it's much cleaner, clearer, the onus should be on the employer to seek the waiver, provide the information upfront, and let the employment standards officer do their work. That's the intention of this motion. Thanks, Madam Chair, and, Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The Member has requested a recorded vote. All in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

Abstentions? None. Thank you. The results of the recorded vote are: 1 in favour, 13 opposed, no abstentions. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Clause 11, does committee agree? Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I have one other issue I want to raise with this part of the bill. There are a number of reasons outlined that an employment standards officer could use to satisfy themselves that a waiver could be issued. Those are found in 6(a). The committee received correspondence from the Union of Northern Workers that expressed some concern about the broad and vague language of some of these provisions, in particular around (ii), climatic or economic conditions, so I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any kind of further case law or definitions or whatever that might inform how an employer can seek an exemption for climatic or economic conditions? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you. I just want to point out that this clause isn't set up so that employers seek exemptions. Generally, what we expect to happen, and what happens across Canada, is that employers' backs are up against the wall. They are laying people off without checking legislation because it's a dire situation and they have no choice. I just wanted to make that point.

There is case law around the climatic or economic conditions. As was mentioned earlier, this was modelled after other acts from around Canada. There are also a number of qualifiers. In 11(6)(a), it says that it has to be an unforeseen event. It has to be beyond the control of the employer. If you see 11(6)(b), it says the employer has to exercise due diligence to avoid the cause of the termination. In addition to the case law, there are qualifiers right within the act as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm not sure that really answered the question. Look, I fully understand that there are a number of reasons why a waiver could be granted: destruction or major breakdown of equipment or machinery equipment and a number of kinds of emergencies. I just wonder about broad and vague language like "climatic or economic conditions," and whether there is any kind of guidance there. There doesn't seem to be any kind of guidance in the bill, the act itself, around how this could be interpreted. On what grounds would an employment standards officer be able to grant an exemption? Simply a business is doing bad, and it wasn't foreseen? That might be good enough for an employer to lay off their employees. What kind of guidance is available here? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you. Businesses do bad all the time. That's not unforeseen. If you are going into business, you should foresee that you might not do well. That's just the way of the world. When we talk about economic conditions, that's a broader condition. There is some guidance in case law, but what happened is we did try and work to narrow this language down. In the end, what we did was we came back full circle, we had 10 times as many words that were basically a broad definition for climate or economic conditions. We could put "rain, snow, heavy winds," and other weather, but we are saying, basically, "climate conditions."

There were attempts made, but narrowing this down, I think, would lead us to situations where we are excluding companies who have legitimate claims from this exemption because they don't fit into the letter of the law. I think we've all seen policies that you kind of shake your head at because they don't seem to make any sense. It's a small technical point that is sort of working against the spirit of the bill. We wanted to avoid that, and we felt that there was enough case law, enough history with these types of clauses in Canada, that this was an appropriate level of detail. Thank you.

Thank you. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister's explanation. I don't agree with it. If climatic or economic conditions lead to destruction or major breakdown of machinery or equipment, it's already covered with (i). If climactic or economic conditions lead to some kind of an emergency, particularly climatic conditions, it likely could be and would be covered off by the kinds of emergencies that are specified in the following three subclauses there. I think having this broad and vague language in here is not very helpful and is probably going to lead to things getting taken to court and so on for interpretations, appeals, and so on. I think that terms and conditions already laid out here with (i) about destruction or major breakdown of machinery or equipment or the other provisions around emergencies already cover off what could be covered by climatic or economic conditions. With that, Madam Chair, I'm going to move another motion. I guess I'm not doing too well here today, but I'll go ahead and do it anyway.

That Bill 20 be amended by subclause 11(3) by deleting proposed subparagraph 41, (6)(a)(iii). Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.