I understand your argument, and I would be very open to the idea of excluding parliamentarians' offices from this special recourse, so that they can follow the normal procedure.
This is far from being a partisan approach. I think it's an interesting argument to oppose the amendment.
I am aware of the fact that according to this amendment, the Minister of Labour stops being a spectator and becomes an actor with regard to businesses that are under federal jurisdiction.
I asked the minister to tell us what happens currently if an employee feels he or she is a victim of harassment, if the employer does not act or does not respect all of the steps in the process. We always hear the same thing from the department: the employer must apply the process.
What do we do when people do not follow the process? It is the role of the department to support the victims of harassment. This has in fact been done for decades, in Quebec for instance, and it works well.
That is the purpose of this amendment. I would be quite open to the idea of excluding parliamentarians if you think there is potential interference here. Be that as it may, this amendment involves a very important aspect of the law, that is to say that the employer is responsible for ensuring his workplace is harassment-free, but should there be harassment issues, the department could intervene. This amendment would give it the power to do so.