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.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
Are you talking about the parentheses or the commas?
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
Yes.
It's just to make sure that it's not getting indefinitely....
Liberal
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I think the issue I would have is that your timelines, even if we set them out in the regulations, are going to vary depending on your particular workplace for the different circumstances. It would be challenging to set out in a comprehensive way in the regulations specific timelines for when you have to have the training. I think that would be my caution. What this would require is for the regulations to set out some very specific timelines, which I think would be challenging, frankly, for employers, to some extent, and wouldn't give them the necessary flexibility.
Brenda was just referencing that trucking would be different from marine, which would be different from other.... There are very different workplaces, if you will. You could be on a boat, on a train, or on a plane, and some of the training requirements for when you would need to have this particular training need to have flexibility for the employer.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
In that case, would there be some way of wording this so as to provide flexibility but also force the employers to provide this training? If the law stipulates that training must be provided, but no one is forced to offer it, and no one makes sure that the employees and employers have received it, including it in the act will serve no purpose.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Sure. I'd have to talk to the folks and see if there's a way we can do it where it isn't specific to the regulations, and that makes it clear that you want the training to be done within some sort of established timeline, if I understand you correctly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Folks, we have not suspended, so please stay in your seats. Thank you.
Can we can come to order, please?
Ms. Moran.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you for giving me the time to consult.
The collective wisdom suggested that one thing to think about on this is that if you leave it vague by just saying that the training is required, then you're saying to the employer that he or she has to provide that training. If you put in a timeline, whatever the timeline might be and however you want to do the timeline, it provides the employer with a bit of an out, as in, “Oh, that person's only here for 90 days, so I'm not going to bother training them.” Or for 60 days, you're not going to....
It's just something to be cautious about. If the committee wishes to proceed with making some reference to timelines, rather than suggesting that it be set out in regulations I would suggest that you put in something like “receive training within reasonably practicable timelines”. “Reasonably practicable” is terminology we use in various parts. It would allow some flexibility, if you felt you needed to put in some reference to timelines.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
I understand your reasoning. I will use those words rather than precise terms. That will solve the issue in cases where there is a 30-day time period although the person has only been hired for 20 days; this situation does seem a bit unusual, however.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Okay. We're now still dealing with our second subamendment to CPC-3 and the wording, just for clarification, would be at the end of the word “training”, where it would say “within practicable reasonability”...?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
It would say “reasonably practicable”.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you. You can tell I'm not a lawyer.
Then we would have the word “timelines”, so it's with “reasonably practicable timelines.”
Okay. All those in favour of subamendment number 2 for CPC-3?
(Subamendment negatived)
Now we go to amendment CPC-3 as amended, correct? All those in favour of CPC-3 as amended?
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
Next is NDP-6.
Madam Quach.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
Did you not say that this amendment would be redundant if CPC-3 is passed?
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 4 agreed to)
(On clause 5)
On clause 5 we have amendment LIB-4.
I have a couple of notes here. The amendment should read “harassment and violence” instead of “harassment or violence”.
Then also, if this is adopted, amendment NDP-7 cannot be moved due to redundancy. As well, if it is adopted, amendment LIB-6 is also adopted as a consequential amendment.
Mr. Blaney.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Chair, this amendment seems constructive.
In practical terms, thanks to this amendment, if an employee is subjected to harassment by her line supervisor, the person will not go to that supervisor first to disclose the harassment. That would not make sense. The victim will address her complaint to the designated person.
This is indeed something we heard. We discussed it and it seems a constructive and necessary element to add to the bill in order to protect the complainant, the alleged victim.
I said you did good work.
