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.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I think it's important to remember that it's about the quality of the investigation, not just getting it done quickly. Certainly no one wants to leave someone hanging for an extended period of time. You also want to make sure that the investigation is done well and thoroughly.
We won't be supporting the amendment.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
What we're saying, then, is that we're going to allow this process to be open. It can take an infinite amount of time. How does that defend the person who's been victimized? How does that create a system of safety for that person?
When we had witnesses come forward, this was one of their biggest concerns. They want a system that will allow a safe haven for them to come forward with their stories, and allow them to know that action is going to be taken on their behalf. If you're not going to put teeth in it, then there's no point to this legislation because, at the end of the day, that's the system we have right now, a system where there are very few accountability measures in place.
So, individuals come forward. They have concerns. They express them, which is an incredibly vulnerable thing to do, an incredibly brave thing to do, and then there's a system that's purposely situated to fail them. That investigation can go on for months, years, or decades because there's no timeline in place for when that actually has to be concluded and when that report has to be submitted.
Those are empty words, then, from this government in terms of protecting victims and wanting to take a stand for them. That's just simply not true if you don't put the accountability mechanisms in place. One very simple way that the accountability mechanism can be put in place is by offering a timeline to victims. It's the least we can do to defend them.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
I would like to propose a subamendment.
In certain cases, a three-month deadline could rush the investigations, and they could end up with conclusions that are too hasty. Employees alone cannot estimate the timing of an investigation. They do not have the expertise or the objectivity.
My proposal would, in subsection (4.1), replace “shall complete the investigation no later than three months” with “shall complete the investigation according to the deadline established in the regulations”. That would allow for more consultations in order to set a meaningful deadline.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Just before I go to the officials, I want to be clear. This is groundbreaking legislation that is being put in place, and it's strengthening the laws that—
3:40 p.m.
A voice
Oh, oh!
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, can we not have some respect at the table, please?
3:40 p.m.
A voice
What's that?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It's strengthening the laws that are currently in place, and it will protect employees who are working in federally regulated organizations and in industry. Can the officials please clarify whether employees will be put at risk if we don't include this proposed subsection?
3:40 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
The intention, absolutely, is to put in place timelines through the regulations. I think something to note—and it was the first point I made—is that part of the purpose in putting them in regulations is so that you can truly reflect the range of different workplaces that we have: ships, air, remote locations, those types of things.
The other thing we need to think about through the regulations is where there are extenuating circumstances that would need to be reflected. In some cases, a specific timeline may not make sense.
Finally, we intend to put forward proposed regulations for a timeline by which an employer needs to respond, a timeline for the appointment of a competent person, timelines for investigations, and so on and so forth. Certainly, through the regulatory process there would be timelines put in place.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Those regulations will be available to us to see when they're put in place, right?
3:45 p.m.
Brenda Baxter Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes. After consultation, a regulatory passage is drafted, and it comes through the Treasury Board committee for approval. It then is available for public comment with regard to those regulations. Those comments are considered, and the regulations are revised based on those comments. They go through the Treasury Board committee again for approval before they come into force.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
So, there will be a timeline in place then, and it will be available for people to see.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
The amendment seems reasonable to me, because it supports exactly the argument that my colleagues opposite have put forward, that the deadline could be fixed following consultations held by the department.
Essentially, we are transforming a possibility into a certainty. The legislation is specifying that there actually is a final deadline for investigations, to be established by regulations following consultations held by the officials. In that way, we can be sure that there will be a fixed deadline and there will be flexibility as the regulations are prepared.
So I am in favour of the amendment that the New Democrats are proposing. I feel that it is a way to make the amendment more attractive in the eyes of the government and that it basically reflects what the officials from the department of labour have presented.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you.
We need to vote first on the subamendment. Beforehand, though, I'm going to ask the clerk to clarify one thing.
April 18th, 2018 / 3:45 p.m.
Olivier Champagne Legislative Clerk
Before the question is called, and given that members of the committee do not have the paper version of the subamendment, I would like to point out that the word “délai” is in the singular. So it would be “terminent celle-ci conformément au délai butoir fixé par règlement”.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I would like to clarify something.
The subamendment is for the subsection to read, “Les personnes chargées de l'enquête terminent celle-ci conformément au délai butoir fixé par la réglementation”. Is that correct?
