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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Chair, I was late on Monday because of the weather.
I agree with having consistency in the bill and I have no issue with that, but the fact of the matter is that this bill was introduced by the government with an “or”, and now it says “and”. My colleague is only asking why. It's a simple question that she politely requested an answer for.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Just for clarification, the bill was not tabled with a definition, so the reason for the changes is as a result of what it says in the definition.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
Can the officials perhaps help me understand the difference in legal terminology, if we use “and” rather than “or”? Does it make a difference?
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I'm not legal counsel, but my own opinion is that the definition that was arrived at is meant to cover a continuum. It's that “harassment and violence” means.... What it means is that every time it shows up in the legislation, it's seen as along this continuum. In other words, the process is the same; there is no differentiation between an act of harassment and an act of violence. It's behaviour along this continuum of harassment and violence.
To reinsert the word “or” would be problematic for the flow of the legislation, because it would introduce the concept of harassment being a type of thing that is different from violence, whereas the definition that was arrived at on Monday is that it's a continuum of behaviour.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
By way of clarification, I don't think we can go back to change clauses that have already been adopted, so if we were to change it, it would only be going forward.
Is that correct, that we can't go back and change clauses, so we would only be looking at it going forward?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Okay, but also I think it's important to take the meaning of this in the context of the entire definition: “harassment and violence” means “any action, conduct or comment”, etc. I think it's important to take it in that context, that it's not referring to an act of harassment or violence, but is saying what harassment and violence actually are. In terms of this bill, “harassment and violence” means “any action, conduct, or comment, including of a sexual nature”, and the definition is included in the bill now. That was a result of LIB-1 being adopted on Monday.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
My colleague is correct to say that we have adopted a definition that is about harassment and violence. Our party had introduced a motion whereby we had separate definitions for “harassment” and “violence”, which was defeated on Monday by the government. That explains why now, because the government didn't want to have distinct definitions of “harassment” and “violence”, we are caught with two words that don't have a distinction between them.
April 18th, 2018 / 4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I want to bring it back to the fact that it's a defined term. We actually made the definition in response to hearing from many witnesses that we needed a definition within the legislation. That's in fact what the amendment LIB-1 did, add a definition as requested.
“Harassment and violence” is a defined term, which then goes on. It's not as though you're adding in the words as they might be understood colloquially; it's a defined term that we added in by amendment LIB-1. That was in response directly to what we had heard from witnesses, just to clarify that point.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
LIB-14 just introduces what we heard. One was that there should be a five-year review. I think our colleagues on the other side also agreed with that.
The one thing we're adding in here is that the report should also contain statistical data, because we know, and even heard from our officials today, how important that data is going to be to the review and the future and the regulations as they come forward. That will give us the flexibility to try to understand what's going on.
Thank you.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
My colleagues and I will be supporting this and the reason is that it's a really great accountability measure. It means that the department run by the government of the day would have to come forward with a report, which I think is really good in terms of review and in being able to make sure that we make adjustments in the regulatory part as we move forward in order to better support employees.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Chair, did you say that NDP-19 would be redundant with that one? If we voted for LIB-14, would NDP-19 become redundant?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Yes, there's an overlap between the two. Correct, if this were adopted, we would likely make this inadmissible. Is there any further discussion?
All those in favour of LIB-14? Opposed?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 12 to 19 inclusive agreed to)
We go to LIB-15. I believe that is by MP Fortier.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 20 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 21)
We go to CPC-7.
MP Harder, please.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Chair.
This amendment looks to take care of a concern that many witnesses brought forward. A lot of witnesses shared stories about being very fearful of bringing their stories forward to a supervisor. They would feel more comfortable if they had the opportunity to bring forward a concern directly to someone who is at arm's length from the process, or from their supervisor, or from the person who harassed them or committed a violent act toward them.
This amendment is being put forward to put in place a third party, or an individual who is at arm's length, to deal with a concern brought forward and properly address it in a way that looks out for the needs of the complainant or victim.
This amendment states that the process would be performed by the deputy minister of labour, instead of being in the hands of the minister. The minister would be mandated to not interfere in that process.
It's particularly important to look at the fact that this amendment only applies to the House of Commons act. As members of Parliament, we want to make sure that staff within Parliament have the opportunity to bring forward a concern when a violation takes place. Instead of having to go to the minister—who may potentially be partisan—let's remove that responsibility from the minister and put it in the hands of the deputy minister, who is a non-partisan, non-elected official. It would be up to the deputy minister to oversee the investigation, creating a sphere of safety for the victim coming forward to share his or her story and pursue an investigation.
This amendment is intended to remove the potential for political interference in what should be a non-partisan investigation.
It's important to note that I am speaking about this today not only because it the day the legislation is brought forward, but also because it's an amendment for all governments regardless of the party in power and the individual who holds the ministerial position or oversight over this department.
You'll recall that when the minister appeared before this committee, she said that all powers related to investigating harassment are delegated to her officials. This amendment simply codifies that existing practice by putting it within the legislation so that this is the ongoing practice, regardless of the government of the day. In other words, the practice today might be that the minister removes herself and puts herself at arm's length, but the practice of another government down the road might not be that. That's why it's important to make sure we're standing up for victims and creating a safe sphere for them by making sure the minister is not actively engaged in this process, but rather a third party or non-partisan individual. I would recommend that person be the deputy minister.
It is important to acknowledge that—if my memory serves me correctly—every witness who came forward to this committee said this was essential. I was at that table and made sure that I asked those witnesses about this, whether they felt the minister should be in this position or if they felt that it would be best put into the hands of a third party. I do believe every witness said it would be best put into the hands of a third party.
I would ask this committee to give consideration to this amendment in order to help strengthen it and make sure that it is not partisan in nature.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We agree 100% with the intent of this. In terms of political staff, or the staff working for MPs, or in the Senate, or for ministers, the ability to remove whatever minister from whatever party is in power is important, and we did hear testimony to that effect.
We have alternative wording because the wording that has been presented is too broad. If you work in the Library of Parliament, for example, it would still be removed. We would be changing the situation.
The wording we would propose specifically talks about a member of the Senate or their staff, and a member of the House of Commons or employee. I can't amend this, so maybe I could get some direction from the clerk on how to do this, because if we defeat this, I'd like to introduce alternative wording. Our opposition to this amendment is not because we don't support the amendment's intent, but because we have better wording. We need direction from the clerk as to how to do this.
