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.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
It would be like saying “verbally” in English.
I don't think this changes the intent.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
So it doesn't change in English? Because it's a drafting standards issue, somebody would have to move a subamendment to change that from “verbalement” to “oralement”.
MP Ruimy.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
With the “orally” part, is there a problem? If three months down the line somebody comes along and says, “Well, I told them”, but you don't have..., how would that play into that?
The only question I have about the “verbal” part of it is how do you prove that? Is there another legal way of approaching that?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Speaking from the operations side, it's certainly easier if it's in writing. If a complaint comes forward to the labour program, for example, that the process hasn't been followed, it's easier if it's in writing.
Right now the legislation is silent on it. I would again defer to.... But I think it's generally understood to be both, so adding “orally or in writing” is generally understood to be accepted, so it's just making that more explicit. Currently that's the understanding of the legislation, that you can submit it orally.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Is there another legal method of communicating that's recognized?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I'll check.
Maybe that's a good point. We can't think of anything, but if you don't include “orally or in writing”, then it leaves it up to jurisprudence to determine that, if you leave it not specified in the legislation. If you put it in, then it could be limited if somebody does come up with something that couldn't be considered orally or in writing, such as sign language.
We'd have to check on that, but that would be just one of the things to consider.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
That's something that could be, theoretically, added in regulation or changed in regulation.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
How do you avoid the he-said-she-said thing or the whatever-whatever-said, or the whatever-gender-said, “You said this. I said this.” And the “No, I didn't.”
Where does that fit into all of this?
April 16th, 2018 / 5:30 p.m.
Brenda Baxter Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I think the idea is that right now a complaint can be brought forward in any fashion, orally or in writing. When it comes to undertaking any investigation or exploration into that complaint, documentation is prepared, so just because a complaint was received orally wouldn't mean the entire investigation would be undertaken orally. There would be documentation.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
I understand that after the fact, there's the documentation, but is there a point at which the person says, “I told my supervisor about this incident” and the other side says, “No, you didn't”? I'm trying to understand how that plays together versus at the end of the investigation. The harassment has to be investigated, but it's more of he-said-she-said at that point. How does that play into this?
5:30 p.m.
A voice
Can we just go with a subamendment with “orally”?
5:30 p.m.
A voice
Do we have to change “orally” to “verbally”?
5:30 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
The idea is simply to replace the word “verbalement” with the word “oralement”.
5:30 p.m.
A voice
We can do it as if she moved it.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
We can do it as if she moved it? Okay. That's perfect.
The new wording in the French would be replacing “verbalement” with “oralement”.
We don't need a subamendment for that. We can do it as if MP Quach moved it.
If we could move the question, then, in terms of NDP-8, shall this amendment carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Seeing that the clock is at 5:30, we do need to wrap up. However, I do want to ask this committee to look very closely at the list we have and note that we are on page 3 of 7 pages. I would strongly recommend that we add a day. In terms of having an additional clause-by-clause meeting, obviously the day that would make most sense would be tomorrow. Could we maybe talk off-line and see what would work best in terms of time? The alternative is that we keep going or have additional time added on Wednesday.
Maybe the vice-chairs could meet after this to discuss either adding more time or having another meeting tomorrow night. We would have to post that fairly soon, correct?
All right. We're past 5:30. We will adjourn.