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.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent so that, instead of talking about a three-month deadline, we indicate that the deadlines would be established in the regulations.
I emphasize that the word “délais” would be in the plural, because there can be several kinds of investigations.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
This is what we would say, “Le ministre termine l'enquête conformément aux délais établis par la réglementation suivant la date à laquelle la plainte lui a été renvoyée”.
By putting the word “délais” in the plural, we give ourselves the manoeuvring room we need to accommodate situations that might arise during the investigations.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Again, could the officials give us some feedback on whether this is a good idea? Before, you commented that timelines were a good thing, that they could help bring structure, stability, and accountability to the policy that's in front of us. With regard to the amendment that's being put forward now, would you say the same thing?
Would it be beneficial, then, to put forward a timeline pursuant to regulation, taking into consideration, of course, the point you just made that sometimes it can take a year or two for a proper investigation to be completed? Understanding that, could we put forward a call for the regulations to be considered? Is that a good idea? Does that add teeth to this policy? Does it help it?
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
First, we'd need to think again about whether it is the intention of the committee to have it apply broadly to all of part II and all of occupational health and safety, because the range of different types of investigations that we undertake in that regard is really broad. Are you looking at it being narrowed to harassment and violence, or are you thinking more broadly?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I suppose, then, we're asking two things. One, should we, or could we, be looking to amend this section to just apply to cases having to do with harassment and violence? We could amend it in that direction to say that it is pursuant to, let's say, a three-month time frame, or further amend it to say that it's pursuant to a time frame dictated by the regulation. That would be one direction.
The other direction that we could go is to say that it applies to all of part II and it simply comes under the regulatory time frame.
I would be looking to you, if I may, for some recommendations.
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
With the indulgence of the committee, I'd need to talk to the officials behind me. I need their advice on how it would fit within this legislation. I can only speak broadly from a policy point of view.
Can I take a few minutes?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thank you, and thanks for giving me the time to talk to the officials.
I have a couple of things to note in response to the question that I was asked. Just so that we understand the amendment and the subamendment that are being considered, these are timelines that would potentially apply to the investigation by the labour program, not to the investigation by the competent person or that type of thing. It's strictly the labour program investigation. That's what this amendment is about.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Again, as I mentioned, the way it's currently crafted, it would apply to all of part II. In response to the question about whether our advice would be to narrow it, if you were to contemplate this, the answer is yes. Just because of the breadth of different types of investigations the labour program already does under part II, if the intention were to move forward with something like this, we would suggest that you think about narrowing it to harassment and violence.
The other thing I would note, too, is that if it's the committee's desire to put in place a reg-making power, if you will, to move forward with regulations that would prescribe a timeline by which the labour program needs to complete an investigation, right now we don't know how long it would take us to do these investigations because we haven't done them before.
If there were a desire to do regulations, we wouldn't be in a position to know what that timeline would be, not even through the regulatory consultation phase. We wouldn't be in a situation where we had enough data to be able to set a reasonable timeline until we had been operating for awhile. It would be a regulation that we wouldn't actually be able to put in place for a number of years, until we had the data to know how long it took us to do these types of investigations.
The last point I'll make in response to the amendment that's set out is that the employee would be able to extend the investigation period, and that seems to be the only way that the investigation period could be extended. That might be a little bit problematic because, if, for good reason, we as a department aren't able to complete the investigation within a period of time, leaving it to just the employee to be able to extend it could create operational problems for us.
4:15 p.m.
John Nater Perth—Wellington, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to admit that this isn't my normal committee, so please bear with me. I'm certainly not an expert on the regulatory process, but I would seek some clarification from the officials. In terms of the regulatory process that was mentioned earlier, you mentioned it would go through Treasury Board for approval. Is this different from going through Canada Gazette, part I and Canada Gazette, part II?
April 18th, 2018 / 4:15 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
It's exactly the same. You go to the Treasury Board committee for approval to publish in Canada Gazette , part I. Then there's a public comment period. Those comments are received by the program. We consider those comments, look at what adjustments would need to be made to the draft regulations, and go back to the Treasury Board committee for approval of any changes. Then they're published in Canada Gazette, part II, which brings them into force.
4:20 p.m.
Perth—Wellington, CPC
If you were to propose amendments on the day this came into force, just hypothetically, how long would you envision that process taking?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
The entire regulatory process? It depends on the complexity of each set of regulations. We have to do consultations, so we would expect that the regulations could be published in the Canada Gazette by the fall of 2019.
4:20 p.m.
Perth—Wellington, CPC
Has the department prepared any draft regulations at this point?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
No. What we would be doing at this point is consulting with various different stakeholders with regard to the various different components that we would have to have built regulations on.
