Health committee  That's the question for you and every Canadian—

Health committee  —that needs to be answered and that I've tried to address in the framework—

Health committee  I'm not sure the federal Human Rights Commission is correct when you square it with the Supreme Court decision in Irving. Assuming, for the purpose of the question, that it is, then you're partway there, but I think the legislative framework still needs to be completed. Legisla

Health committee  By the way, a good test of whether it's under the Canada Labour Code would be whether, if somebody trips and falls, they can file a workers' compensation claim against the federal government. Everywhere you have a claim or everywhere the federal government can enforce safety laws

Health committee  One way, which is the current way we're doing it, is case by case in the courts. That's expensive, it's time consuming, and with all due respect to the committee, it's an abdication of legislative leadership. I think a minimal legislative framework has to be put into place. The

Health committee  The federal government, as it has jurisdiction over criminal law under the Constitution Act of 1867, also has constitutional jurisdiction over federally regulated workplaces. My recommendations go to those federal workplaces. I think also, because of what the chief justice said t

Health committee  There is no testing, unfortunately, and that's the whole point. It was co-workers who had to restrain, as I understand the facts of that case, the pilot. There was no employer permission. There was no legislative mandate for the employer to actually deter and detect substance abu

Health committee  Personally and through any organizations I represent, no.

Health committee  I'll restrict my answer more to the mandate of workplace safety, if I may. I think the focus on a safety sensitive position and more information and more potential testing is again to focus on the welfare and safety of the worker. Employers generally are neutral on the politics

Health committee  I think, in the amendment to the Canada Labour Code that we're suggesting, it authorizes employers with workers in safety sensitive positions only to do random testing. Again, it is primarily for the purpose of deterrent, but also for detection, and there is a cost associated wit

Health committee  As it relates to the first recommendation, it's simply putting in a policy statement that workers ought not to come to work under the influence of cannabis or other drugs without a medical authorization or prescription, which answers one of your questions, and without employer ap

Health committee  I'm not a medical expert. The oral fluid testing technology is advanced beyond what you've just suggested as a methodology. Certainly THC, depending on how much you consume, can stay in the blood for 21 days. That's clear. The common rule of thumb is that you can sleep off the ca

Health committee  Right. I'm going to address that. Sorry, I'm not getting around to it as quickly as I should.

Health committee  The oral fluid testing can measure present impairment. That's my understanding.

Health committee  I'm not aware if they, especially all five together, have been presented before to a federal parliamentary committee or provincial legislative committee. Controversy complements controversy, so perhaps—to calm the fears of many employers, and they are quite worried, about being a