Human Resources committee  I may have misunderstood your question. This amendment says, “in relation to occurrences of harassment and violence”—

Human Resources committee  You want to take that out.

Human Resources committee  Yes, they would be caught. Even if you removed them, they would still be caught because they're caught under all of part II.

Human Resources committee  I would have to check and talk to folks.

Human Resources committee  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?

Human Resources committee  Maybe I'll just say that on Monday the amendment that was passed with regard to the definition was to define it as “harassment and violence”. I don't have the wording in front of me with the definition. What that meant is that this needs to carry all the way through the bill, so that every time you see “harassment or violence” in the bill, in order to be consistent with the definition arrived at on Monday it has to be worded “harassment and violence”.

Human Resources committee  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.

Human Resources committee  That's correct.

Human Resources committee  Yes.

Human Resources committee  The way it's set out in the legislation is that if an employee who has brought forward a complaint to the employer about harassment and violence feels, anywhere along the process, that the process hasn't been followed by the employer—for example, the employer did not respond to the complaint, did not appoint a competent person, or anything like that—then the individual can complain to the labour program.

Human Resources committee  I think it was in reference to proposed subsection 127.1(9.3) and in response to the question about whether or not our advice would be, if you were to move forward with this, to have it apply to all of part II or to narrow it to harassment and violence. My suggestion is that you would want to consider narrowing it—

Human Resources committee  —just because of the breadth of the various incidents that are dealt with under part II.

Human Resources committee  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.

Human Resources committee  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.

Human Resources committee  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?