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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
I want to make sure that we're clear, because we haven't seen the tabled amendment as of yet.
Go ahead, MP Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Can I get direction from officials on part II of the Canada Labour Code? What is your advice on the wording here and of removing the minister?
You do have a copy, right?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes.
Off the top, I'd suggest that you'd have to think about what the intention of this amendment is. If the concern is trying to address the potential for political interference, for example, is it relative to all of part II—what I'll call tripping hazards and things like that—or is it mostly limited to what C-65 is trying to address, which is harassment and violence? That would be off the top.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Does it actually matter? If it's a tripping hazard, does it matter if it's the minister or the deputy minister?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I would have to check and talk to folks.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to answer Ms. Damoff.
I would say yes and no: no, because if you have a hazard issue in your office, it's not a big problem, but if the minister makes an inquiry into a political office, then this is a back door to do exactly the same kind of political interference. That's why my colleague is so adamant about building a firewall without a back door. This could be the back door: not necessarily harassment, but it could give a new power to the current or then minister to enter by a back door to go into a riding office or member's office and then be able to access some potentially sensitive information because of an inquiry. That's why my colleague is so adamant and why we believe this conversation is so important and has to be settled at the political level.
Thank you.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It was changed to the minister, though, when you were in government. This isn't adding it in this bill. It was already in there. We're not adding extra powers for the minister.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
They are whispering in my ear that this bill is the first time that it applies to Parliament. That is why it's important to keep a firewall.
The problem is that the firewall is there only for harassment, not other issues. That may seem like a detail, but it would allow an ill-intentioned minister to meddle in a political office, regardless of their party. If the suggested amendment were passed, the minister would not be able to access it when it is related to politics.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I would like to add that these are small details, but, as you know, democracy is fragile, and as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. So I think it's an important aspect.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
We want to make sure we're doing this correctly, including procedurally correctly.
MP Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Could suspend for five minutes so that the officials can confer, and we can confer among ourselves.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Sure, that sounds good.
Do I have unanimous consent that, when the bells start ringing shortly, we can continue for at least 15 minutes?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
We have 25 minutes and 24 seconds until our vote. We'll try to use the next 10 minutes or so to the best of our ability.
MP Damoff.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Could the officials assist us in getting our intent into wording?
Our intent is that the minister be removed from involvement in anything to do with political staff. We thought we would do this using all of part II of the Canada Labour Code. If you have better wording, that's fine, too. Are there any unseen issues with its being part II of the Canada Labour Code?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I'm not a drafter of legislation. I don't have that background, so I wouldn't be able to recommend specific language to make the amendment you've brought forward apply to all of part II.
In response to your question, is there a material difference for the labour—
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I know there is a material difference, but is there a problem?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Is there a problem with how it would operate practically? Not particularly. Under part II, currently, for example, the department is delegated those responsibilities. In practice, this legislative change would not make much of a difference for my colleagues in operations. It's a change in who ultimately has the power, but, in reality, it's all delegated down to the department.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Should we say, “under part II of the Canada Labour Code, including occurrences of harassment and violence”, or should we say, “under part II of the Canada Labour Code involving a member of the Senate”? Or does that matter?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Again, I'm not a drafter. I don't know that you'd want to include those qualifiers, “harassment and violence” and so on.