Evidence of meeting #98 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you, sir.
Is there any further discussion on NDP-12?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
LIB-6 has actually already been adopted. On Monday we adopted LIB-4, and as a result LIB-6 was included in that. Are there any questions about that?
Mr. Blaney.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I would like to make a comment, Mr. Chair.
Since the beginning of this second working meeting, I have been noticing that a number of amendments are rejected by the Liberals when they are not the ones proposing them.
Be that as it may, I have to say that I intend to support this Liberal amendment because it gives more teeth to the bill. In this particular case, it protects complainants who might have had to complain about their immediate supervisors. This amendment is therefore valid.
I hope that my colleagues opposite will judge proposals on their merits this afternoon, that is to say by determining whether the proposals can improve the bill, and not because of the side of the table from which they came.
We will be supporting this amendment.
Thank you.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Once again, this reflects a decision we made on Monday. I hope that the proposal can be adopted.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
It has been withdrawn. Thank you.
Is there discussion on CPC-6?
Mr. Blaney.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Chair, this time, I hope that the government will have the opportunity to demonstrate its desire to give the bill more teeth and to ensure that, pursuant to the legislative provisions we are putting in place, the people who start a complaint process will be able to expect some results. I am talking about results in terms of the recommendations to be issued during the process, whether they are about mediation or about an investigation to be conducted by an independent investigator, but also about the deadlines involved. That is why we are bringing back this amendment. We know how important it is.
As we all know, the bill also applies to political staff as well as to federally regulated companies. Everyone should have fair treatment, meaning in a timely fashion. Clearly, some deadlines can be set by regulation, but I would be open to an amendment to the effect that the deadline be set in the regulations, but that it take the consultations into account. However, it is important that, as lawmakers, we indicate clearly that the approach in this bill is a serious one and we want it to produce results. That is why we want the deadlines to be specified, especially with regard to investigations, when one takes place.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you for explaining the proposal in more detail.
I would like to know if you have any data or expert opinion to support to the idea of such a restrictive deadline. If we cannot provide investigators and the process with a degree of flexibility, it can take away some of the bill's bite.
I would like to know if the officials have any data to show that this would strengthen the bill.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
I'm to go to Rachael, but if you would like to answer that question, sir....
Afterwards?
Rachael.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
You will recall that with regard to the last amendment put forward of a similar nature, having to do with the investigation, an amendment was brought forward by the NDP to open that up to a timeline that would be within regulation. This would allow your question to be answered. You weren't willing to entertain that proposal, and so I'm not sure that your question is being asked with sincerity in wanting to actually support the premise of this bill.
I would invite the officials to answer the question regarding the importance of a timeline and why we might want to consider putting limitations in place to stand up for the victim and make sure that he or she is granted a robust report and that an investigation be completed within a timeline. Is that important? Should we be considering this within this legislation?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Before we continue, can I please take a moment to ask that we try to keep the slings and arrows concerning someone's intent to a minimum? I find it difficult to suggest that you would necessarily know the intent of the question, but—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Please just let me finish, and then I'll give it to you, Mr. Blaney.
We have all worked really closely on this for quite some time and have kept those jabs to a minimum. I'm asking everybody on all sides to respect that tradition of the last couple of months.
Mr. Blaney, you have a point of order.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your intervention in the discussion, but I feel that you are raising something that is an issue of debate and not an issue of procedure. In that regard, I can add that we appreciate that the government is supportive of some amendments, but we feel that we should go as far as we can, and there are serious issues.
I would add that I could have said exactly what my colleague said, that we just tabled and are ready to move the very same amendment to have the exact day set by the regulator. We feel that it's very important to send a signal that a delay is required.
I would certainly like to hear the answer to the question asked by my colleague of the civil servants before you raised this issue.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
There is no question that debate is necessary to ensure that we have the best possible bill. My only request is to keep it civil and move forward in a timely fashion.
Ms. Moran.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you.
There are a few points I would note on the amendment. The way it's crafted, those timelines would apply to any contravention under part II; it's not just for harassment and violence. One thing, therefore, that needs to be considered when considering timelines is how long it can take to undertake an investigation. For example, prosecutions can sometimes take upwards of two years. Because part II covers a gamut of occupational health and safety issues, setting a timeline would, frankly, vary according to what type of incident you're investigating.
That would be one of the first points.
In terms of harassment and violence specifically, what Bill C-65 proposes is a new process. Currently sexual harassment is in part III; thus we, as the labour program, have very limited abilities to basically investigate whether somebody has a policy. What Bill C-65 does is bring the labour program into a much bigger role potentially, if there is a complaint that the process hasn't been followed.
Right now, we don't know how long those investigations will take because we haven't done one before. We need to get some data. If the legislation passes and once it comes into force, it's going to take us a little bit of time to figure out how long it takes us to do such investigations.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you.
I think the answer will be along exactly the same lines as the comment my colleague made.
As the mover, can I amend the amendment, or do I have to propose a subamendment, Mr. Chair?
I will propose the same subamendment as the one already proposed, but I will accept the comments made. So it would then say, “Le ministre termine l'enquête conformément aux délais établis par la réglementation”, specifying that the word “délais” would be in the plural.
Is that acceptable, Mr. Clerk?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
The amendment was proposed by Ms. Falk. I am not the mover.
4:05 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
She submitted it for distribution to the committee, but you are the one proposing it at the moment.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
In that case, can I amend my own amendment without making a subamendment?
