This is page numbers 2525 - 2568 of the Hansard for the 19th Assembly, 2nd Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was going.

Topics

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you, Member. Minister.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Yes, there has, and every jurisdiction other than the NWT and Nunavut have similar provisions to the group termination provision. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you, Minister. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Steve Norn

Steve Norn Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh

No, nothing further. I just wanted to know that. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Are there any other general comments? Does the committee agree that there are no further general comments? We can proceed to clause-by-clause review of the bill. Committee, we will defer the bill number and title until after consideration of the clauses. Please turn to page 1 of the bill. Clause 1, does committee agree?

---Clauses 1 through 10 inclusive approved

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Clause 11? Member for Frame Lake.

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Madam Chair. I do have a few more questions of the Minister on this clause, and they really pertain to page 6, over on the next page. I just wonder: why is the employment standards officer the individual who is making the determination? Why is it not the Minister? Thanks, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. Minister.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Thank you. I believe that is best practice. I think there are maybe two jurisdictions in Canada in which it's the Minister who makes these types of decisions. There is more to this than just reading a briefing note and making a decision, and that's what Ministers are good at. There is case law that has to be looked at; there is substantial case law around provisions like this in Canada. Perhaps I could ask Ms. Mathisen to explain because I saw what happened during the pandemic when the employment standards officers had to make decisions. I saw the work that went into making those decisions and the things that they had to look at, the research they had to do. Perhaps I can ask Ms. Mathisen to explain the process and why it is an appropriate decision to be made by an employment standards officer. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you, Minister. Ms. Mathisen.

Mathisen

Thank you, Madam Chair. The employment standards officer would be making the decision, but as the Employment Standards Act is under the Minister's authority, he would still technically be accountable for the decisions made under the act. I would like to clarify: the language that we used in Bill 20 was modelled after other jurisdictions' language in this regard. As the Minister noted, there is substantial case law that does exist already that would help guide our interpretation of these provisions should a situation occur, and so that would be very beneficial to our office in determining whether or not a waiver would be granted or ordered. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. Member.

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm still of the view that I think this should be the Minister making a decision. The Minister should be held accountable. It's probably not going to happen all that often, I hope, and I think it has lots of political ramifications. I think the Minister should be the one making the decision, but I'm going to let that one go for now. I'm just wondering: the way that this section reads now, this is not an application-based process. Somehow, a notice of termination lands on an employment standards officer's desk, and they have to make the determination about whether it meets the timelines set out in the bill or the act. Then they have to determine whether all of these terms and conditions are met. That seems to place the onus of dealing with a waiver on the employment standards officer rather than on an employer, so why is this done this way? Why is it not an application-based process? Thanks, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. Minister.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Thank you. The notice is essentially an application. If there was an application, it would be a duplication of the information contained in the notice, and so it would just be more paperwork. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. Member.

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Madam Chair. Is there a prescribed form, then, for notice, or is it just a letter that an employer would submit? Is there direction in the bill that the notice should contain reasons as to why a waiver is being sought? I don't think that's the case at all, but I'd like to hear from the Minister. Thanks, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. Minister.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Thank you. For those operational details, I would ask you to hand it to Ms. Mathisen.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Ms. Mathisen.

Mathisen

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would add that, first off, in the committee's motion to amend, they had also considered including an application process, and we had had a discussion about whether an application would be appropriate. Our department's fear in introducing an application was that it could actually open up scenarios where employers might potentially test the waters by submitting an application to our office to try to circumvent a proper group termination notice. Our intention with this bill is that it would only apply to very few exceptional scenarios. Although it may not read that it's written out that an employer would be required to provide specific reasons, upon receipt of inadequate notice, our office would contact the employer and ask for information to verify whether the circumstances met the criteria in the waiver of the exception provisions. That's typically how things work in employment standards, is that there is a dialogue back and forth when making these decisions and that dialogue would continue until our office felt satisfied we had enough information to make such a decision. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. Member.

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Madam Chair. I appreciate that explanation. I just don't understand why we wouldn't make this an application-based process. Just getting a notice of termination, the employment standards officer, then they have to determine whether a waiver is being sought in the first place, then they have to determine whether they need more information. Why not just make it clear right up front that it's an application-based process? I think the wording in the bill now is going to delay a decision because the employment standards officer is going to have to go back and forth. I just don't get this.

My preference is that the onus be put on the employer to say very clearly, "We are seeking a waiver, and here's why." Leaving this on the back of the employment standards officer, I just don't think is an appropriate way to do this. The onus should be on the employer if they're going to seek this, and I don't think it has to be an onerous thing. I think they can develop a form, check off all the information, provide the contact information. "We are seeking a waiver, yes, and here's the reason why we're seeking a waiver." It could be done very easily. However, to just get a letter that we're going to terminate a number of employees, and then the employment standards officer has to figure out whether it fits the right time period, and then they have to go back and ask for more information about what the grounds are for the waiver, it just doesn't seem to make any sense to me. With that, Madam Chair, I want to move a motion to amend this section, if I may.

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

I move that clause 11(3) of Bill 20 be amended by deleting the portion of proposed subclause 41(6) preceding paragraph (a) and substituting the following: "(6) On application, the employment standards officer may, by order, waive the application of subsection (2) if the officer is satisfied that." Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

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