Evidence of meeting #97 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was incidents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
A voice
I believe it's MPs and everybody.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Right, but there's another one that doesn't; we must have had it in two parts. This one would refer to MPs having training, so “employers”.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Can you read out the result of that vote, how many in favour and how many opposed?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
I believe it was 4 to 5. I think I'm counting correctly.
(On clause 3)
We have LIB-2 for discussion.
Go ahead, Mona.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
It's the same idea, but we still have to adopt the amendment.
This amendment is similar to what you suggested. We are proposing that we use the word “and” instead of “or”, so that this is in line with what is proposed in our first amendment.
There will be other amendments to replace the word “or” with “and”.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I'm a bit surprised that our government colleagues voted down our amendment that proposed that we provide training on harassment. This amendment was put forward, but there was no debate. We immediately went to the vote and the amendment was not adopted. However, all of the witnesses we heard were in favour of the idea of providing training to employees to raise awareness about harassment.
I'm surprised that the government is not in support of training to prevent harassment in the workplace. I would have expected that when the amendment was tabled, we would have heard the argument from the government not to support this amendment, instead of, I would say bluntly, opposing and moving on to the next one.
We heard that training is critical to prevent harassment, and I'm disappointed to see that we had the opportunity to discuss those issues previously and that this is just not considered or even discussed.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
We accept the point you're making, but we have some minor amendments to a later opposition amendment.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Are you suggesting that you will address the training in the later...? Good.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Just to clarify, what we're looking at right now is Liberal-2, which is again one of these changing “or” to “and”, and I think this is going to occur a couple of times moving forward.
Is there any discussion, or can we accept that amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to NDP-4, Madam Quach.
4:45 p.m.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
The current provision in the bill specifies that employers must make information available to employees “in printed or electronic form”. Our amendment aims to replace the word “or” with the word “and”, so that prevention will be more effective. We don't want the employee to be forced to ask where the information is; he or she has to be able to find it easily. In a harassment case, it can be quite intimidating for an employee who needs to have access to information to have to go to an employer to obtain it.
According to the recommendations of the representatives of the Workers' Health and Safety Legal Clinic who came to testify before the committee, among others, this information has to be easily accessible, in a printed document, and in any other available form. It must be accessible to all employees and victims.
We can't let employers foster discomfort and intimidation around this issue. If the information is accessible in a paper document, this could facilitate access to services.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour of NDP-4?
(Amendment agreed to)
Now we have NDP-5.
Madam Quach.
4:45 p.m.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
We want workers to be better protected by business policies, and we want this to be guaranteed by the Canada Labour Code. This is in keeping with the wishes of the Workers' Health and Safety Legal Clinic, as well as those of the Fogler, Rubinoff LLP legal firm, and of the founder of the Rubin Thomlinson LLP legal firm.
We want employers' freedoms to be specified in the fundamental bases. We want immediate assistance to be provided in cases of workplace harassment or violence, we want the information to be protected, and we need a system to deal with complaints. We want all of that to be included.
We want to remind you that this is not extravagant. These are services that have to be offered to employees who are victims of harassment or violence.
This also allows employers to know what to expect and to have a better understanding of what is happening in the workplace. Earlier, in discussing the Conservative amendment, we talked about prevention, and this will come up again a bit later. I think that everyone needs to be made more aware and to have the appropriate tools at their disposal. In order to do so, this amendment needs to be passed.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Of course, the law and the regulations always have to be balanced, and we are aware of that. Recently, we saw a harassment situation in Quebec. We wanted to avoid imposing an administrative burden on employers by forcing them to have a policy with a cumbersome bureaucratic process. There is a very easy solution which others have applied, including the Government of Quebec. It involves developing framework policies that can be adopted by employers.
The New Democrats are suggesting that policies be developed. Knowing how to get immediate assistance, for instance, is an extremely important element. One of the most desirable objectives of this bill is that employees whose workplace is subject to federal regulation, or who report to a parliamentarian, be well informed about what they can do if they find themselves being harassed. Making this clear in the act is really a part of prevention, which is the first of the three pillars: prevention, intervention, and, ultimately, support. This seems very constructive to me.
I would like to know how the government sees this amendment. In my opinion, this too is a legislative matter, and it gives sufficient leeway to define how we will proceed with regulations.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I support this amendment, and I'd like to hear the government's opinion.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is CPC-3, and I'll just note that if it's adopted, NDP-6 would be considered redundant.
Is there any discussion?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Chair, we have a subamendment to CPC-3. Proposed paragraph 125(1)(z.161) would stay the same except to remove the words “the prescribed”. We would suggest adding a paragraph 162, to be worded “undergo training in the prevention of harassment and violence in the workplace”. We feel that it adds to this.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative