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.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
To counter that, again, when we're talking about accidents, we already have codes that speak to accidents. I don't think you're saying, “I accidentally hit you, I accidentally touched you.”
I don't think that's what you're referring to. You're talking about occupational health and safety. Trying to tie that together, why are you picking accidents as part of the harassment code?
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
Based on the arguments made by the vice-president of the CSN, there could be a legal gap in the definitions, which could hurt victims. So a distinction must be made between the two terms and the term “incident” must be included in the purpose of the act. That would help victims.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
I have a question for Madame Moran regarding this recommended....
Words have different meanings legally at times than what we understand in normal Tim Hortons type of language. If there has been concern with the use of the word “accident”, in the legal language, in legalese, would that create a concern such as that raised by Mr. Ruimy? Is there an advantage to taking it out or should we leave it in?
I'd appreciate your comment.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
This is for the whole of part II, which includes all occupational health and safety, so the terminology “accident” is absolutely appropriate.
In terms of adding a reference to including “harassment or violence”, why include just “harassment and violence” and not some of the other incidents, accidents, whatever they might be, that are related to occupational health and safety?
That would be my caution there with including “harassment or violence”, because this part deals with things that are much broader than just harassment or violence.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I would like to pick up on what Mr. Ruimy said. The word “accidents” is already in the bill. In addition to that, we would like to add the term “incidents of harassment”.
Our objective is for the bill to be as clear as possible. Incidents of harassment are at the heart of the bill we are considering. I would like to go back to the example of an MP who is neither in the House of Commons or in their office, and whose conduct towards a staff member at the end of the evening is inappropriate. That is an incident and not an accident. It is an incident that can have consequences and that can be considered harassment.
This is truly an essential clause of the bill. There are a number of amendments, but in order to have a stronger bill, the terms have to be clearly defined to make sure there are no loopholes that MPs could use to say that it does not apply to them because they are not in their office or in the House of Commons, for instance. We definitely want to avoid any gap in the legislation, as Ms. Quach said earlier. I am not an expert on harassment, but I can tell you that is what we are hearing.
It is especially important to include this term from the outset. I think the term “incidents of harassment” is actually more important than the word “accident”. This is central to the bill. We want to end incidents of harassment.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like the public servants to explain a few points in the notes we received. Adding the term “incidents” could impact the way incidents of harassment are investigated.
Is there a difference in the way investigations are conducted depending on whether it is an accident or an incident? That is what the amendment requested by the CSN vice-president seems to suggest.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Just so that I understand, you're talking about adding the word “incidents” instead of “accidents”?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Just adding “incidents”? I think I would have to, again, consult with some of the legal counsel. My own personal opinion is that I don't think “incident” appears at other places in the code so we'd have to look at that very carefully to see if we're introducing a brand new terminology that doesn't have definition within the code.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'm a bit concerned about adding new terms on the fly at this point, because we are dealing with terminology and we're dealing, not with a stand-alone act, but amendments to an already functioning act. I'm going to be put that as a thought that we should keep in mind.
The other part is, I don't really see how this terminology—if I'm looking at NDP-3—has anything to do with whether we're in our physical workspaces, such as our offices, or if we are out of our workspaces, our official workspaces as recognized. To me, the word “accidents” doesn't change that.
I want to keep us focused on the wording; I am concerned about starting to add extra terminology.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Under section 122.1, the present wording is, “The purpose of this Part is to prevent accidents”, etc., and the amendment, then, would add “, incidents of harassment or violence” and then it would carry on reading “and physical or psychological injuries and illnesses arising out of”.
Just for clarity, what we're talking about is to add into the existing legislation “incidents of harassment and violence”.
And what is Bill C-65?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
There is no word “incident” in this amendment. I'm just trying to clarify that.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
The amendment says “incidents of harassment or violence”.
Conservative
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay, sorry. Then I'm looking at the wrong one, because I only have the word “accident” in mine.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
“Accident” exists in the current legislation. What is being proposed is to add “, incidents of harassment or violence”. That's what Bill C-65 is all about. Are we supporting Bill C-65, yes or no?
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'm really just focused on the word “incident” because I want to clarify. Again, when I'm looking at NDP-3, I do not see the word “incident”.
Oh, it was replaced.
Liberal
