Human Resources committee  With the indulgence of the committee, I'd need to talk to the officials behind me. I need their advice on how it would fit within this legislation. I can only speak broadly from a policy point of view. Can I take a few minutes?

Human Resources committee  Thank you. There are a few points I would note on the amendment. The way it's crafted, those timelines would apply to any contravention under part II; it's not just for harassment and violence. One thing, therefore, that needs to be considered when considering timelines is how l

Human Resources committee  One of the things we heard in the consultations that we undertook was a lot of concern about the protection of personal information. A number of experts came forward indicating that they were concerned that people are not now coming forward and won't in the future with complaints

Human Resources committee  That's absolutely correct. I'm sure the committee members would not share it, but it's that perception, and it's for that individual. They would not necessarily feel comfortable coming forward to a committee with their issue.

Human Resources committee  Yes. The intention is, through regulations, to be quite explicit in terms of the role of the workplace committee. Part of that is to make sure that there isn't a misunderstanding in the reading of this legislation that the intention would be to cut workplace committees or health

Human Resources committee  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:

Human Resources committee  Thank you for the question. There are a few things to consider in looking at timelines. You need to look at the totality of the federally regulated sector. You have to think about whether timelines would be practical if you're on a ship, for example, when they're at sea for long

Human Resources committee  The only thing I would note is that in French, I would prefer that we use the word “oralement“ rather than the word “verbalement“, for consistency with the rest of the Canada Labour Code.

Human Resources committee  The word “verbalement” is used, but I recommend that we replace it with the word “oralement”. Other than that, it doesn't cause us concern.

Human Resources committee  It should be “orally”.

Human Resources committee  Speaking from the operations side, it's certainly easier if it's in writing. If a complaint comes forward to the labour program, for example, that the process hasn't been followed, it's easier if it's in writing. Right now the legislation is silent on it. I would again defer to.

Human Resources committee  I'll check. Maybe that's a good point. We can't think of anything, but if you don't include “orally or in writing”, then it leaves it up to jurisprudence to determine that, if you leave it not specified in the legislation. If you put it in, then it could be limited if somebody d

Human Resources committee  I think this amendment is suggesting, first, to provide a person other than the supervisor. There is a protection already in the code, not even within Bill C-65 but within the Canada Labour Code, that protects an employee against reprisal. If they bring forward any complaint, und

Human Resources committee  Thank you for giving me the time to consult. The collective wisdom suggested that one thing to think about on this is that if you leave it vague by just saying that the training is required, then you're saying to the employer that he or she has to provide that training. If you

Human Resources committee  It would say “reasonably practicable”.