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.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
We'll remove them, as long as they're included under part II of the Canada Labour Code.
5:35 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I may have misunderstood your question.
This amendment says, “in relation to occurrences of harassment and violence”—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I want to change that, because we want to make it broader to include all of part II.
5:35 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
You want to take that out.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
The only reason I wanted to put in “including occurrences of harassment and violence” was to highlight that those were included. But if it creates issues, it's fine to leave it under part II of the Canada Labour Code. I just want to make sure that violence and harassment are going to be caught. That's the most important part.
5:35 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes, they would be caught. Even if you removed them, they would still be caught because they're caught under all of part II.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Let's take that out. It will read, “under part II of the Canada Labour Code involving a member of the Senate or their staff or a member”, etc.
5:40 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—editor]
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
She withdrew it, but I wanted clarification on what we could do. For the record, do you wish to withdraw CPC-7?
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you.
Now we have Liberal amendment 15.1 on what?
We haven't voted on anything—
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I asked for a vote on LIB-15.1, which is Ms. Damoff's amendment.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you.
One moment, because we just want to make sure we name this correctly.
We're good? Okay.
MP Dabrusin had her hand up first, and then MP Harder, but we do have LIB-15.1 in front of us.
Go ahead.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have LIB-15.1 in front of me and I appreciate that we now know that we're looking at 15.1 and that helps. We thank you for dealing with that procedural issue for us.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around this, because I think the intent around the table is very good and I agree with it. If we are doing something that affects the entire act—and I keep saying throughout—I get nervous about how it can play out. I'm just trying to make sure that when we do this, we're not suddenly creating hindrances in any other part of part II, for clarity's sake.
When we look at this, it's a carve-out just for political staff essentially, as defined at the bottom. I get two parts. It says “or their employees”. We had a section about former employees. Do they get captured within that term “employees”, based on the changes we've made?
5:40 p.m.
Charles Bernard Director General, Portfolio and Government Affairs, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Those employees would be covered, because they work for the employer. According to the definition,
former employees would be covered in the same way.
April 18th, 2018 / 5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, that's helpful just to make sure that we're making it consistent with everything else we're trying to do.
We're now looking at carving out the words “in relation to occurrences of harassment and violence”. Do I have that correct? That would be the amendment there.
It works as far as when you're looking at how the delegated authority works. Am I correct? You don't see any challenge if, for example, someone trips going in? That's fine.
Do you see any potential challenges with any of those health and safety measures? I'm not an expert in the Labour Code. I keep getting nervous when we're starting to play around with different parts where I wasn't expecting to be. Is there anywhere you could see this being a problem, that suddenly we're looking at other types of potential injury claims they could fall within?
5:45 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
From a practical operational point of view, I don't see an issue, no.
5:45 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
No, I don't—
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Not that I'm aware of, no.
I'm not a lawyer.
