HUMA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Liberal
- Rodger Cuzner, Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member
Conservative
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The Chair called new Clause 0.1.
Brenda Baxter, Barbara Moran and Charles Bernard answered questions.
On new Clause 0.1,
“0.1 Section 122 of the Canada Labour Code is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
health means physical or mental health; (santé)”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Anne Minh-Thu Quach and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“0.1 Section 122 of the Canada Labour Code is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
harassment means any isolated or repeated conduct, comment, gesture or contact, including of a sexual nature, that is likely to cause offence or humiliation to an employee, including bullying, blackmail and coercion, or to cause him or her physical or psychological injuries or illnesses; (harcèlement)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Anne Minh-Thu Quach and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 2, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-65 be amended by adding before line 4 on page 1 the following new clause:
“0.1 Section 122 of the Canada Labour Code is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
harassment means any repeated vexatious comments or conduct — of a sexual nature or not — that occur in a work place against an employee and that are known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome; (harcèlement)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 7.
“0.1 Section 122 of the Canada Labour Code is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
harassment means any conduct, comment, gesture or contact, of a sexual nature or not, that is known or ought reasonably be known to cause offence or humiliation to an employee; (harcèlement)
violence means any exercise, or attempted exercise, of physical force by a person against an employee that causes or could cause physical injuries or illnesses to the employee, or any behaviour, including making a statement, that can reasonably be interpreted by an employee as a threat to exercise physical force against the employee that could cause him or her physical injuries or illnesses; (violence)”
The question was put on the amendment of Rosemarie Falk and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“0.1 Subsection 122(1) of the Canada Labour Code is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
harassment and violence means any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment; (harcèlement et violence)”
Anne Minh-Thu Quach moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “comment” the following:
“, gesture or contact, isolated or repeated”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Anne Minh-Thu Quach and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed on division.
On Clause 1,
Anne Minh-Thu Quach moved, — That Bill C-65, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 1 with the following:“122.1 The purpose of this Part is to prevent accidents, including harassment or violence,”
Debate arose thereon.
At 4:24 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 4:26 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Mark Warawa moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “or” with the word “and” and, in the English version, the word “incidents” with the word “occurrences”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Mark Warawa and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Anne Minh-Thu Quach, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Steven Blaney, Julie Dabrusin, Rosemarie Falk, Mona Fortier, Robert J. Morrissey, Anne Minh-Thu Quach, Dan Ruimy, Ramesh Sangha, Mark Warawa — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
Clause 1, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 2 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“2.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 123:
123.1 The Minister shall ensure that employers receive the prescribed training in prevention of harassment and violence in the work place and are informed of their rights and obligations under this Part.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Rosemarie Falk and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
On Clause 3,
Mona Fortier moved, — That Bill C-65, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 2 with the following:“tions, all accidents, occurrences of harassment and vio-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed to.
“(d) make readily available to employees, in printed and”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Anne Minh-Thu Quach and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
(a) by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following:
“(iv) the policies referred to in paragraph (z.161); ”
(b) by adding after line 30 on page 2 the following:
“(z.161) develop policies on harassment and violence in the work place, including policies respecting
(i) the procedure for obtaining immediate assistance,
(ii) the procedure for making complaints, including those involving an employer or a supervisor,
(iii) the handling of complaints, including the release of findings and recommendations,
(iv) the confidentiality of information relating to the identity of persons involved in a complaint, and
(v) the prescribed measures;
(z.162) collect, in the manner prescribed, data relating to occurences of harassment and violence in the work place;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Anne Minh-Thu Quach and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“(z.161) ensure that employees, including those who have supervisory or managerial responsibilities, receive the prescribed training in prevention of harassment and violence in the work place and are informed of their rights and obligations under this Part;”
Debate arose thereon.
Robert J. Morrissey moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by replacing the words “the prescribed training in prevention” with the words “training in the prevention”
(b) by adding, after the word “Part”, the words “in relation to harassment and violence”
(c) by adding the following:
“(z.162) undergo training in the prevention of harassment and violence in the work place;”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Robert J. Morrissey and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach moved, — That the amendment be further amended by adding, in paragraph (z.161), after the word “place”, the words “, within the periods prescribed by regulation,”.
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the subamendment was withdrawn.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach moved, — That the amendment be further amended by adding, in paragraph (z.161), after the word “place”, the words “, within reasonably practicable timelines,”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Anne Minh-Thu Quach and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Rosemarie Falk, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“(4) Except as provided for in the regulations, the obligations set out in paragraphs (1)(c) and (z.16) apply to an employer in respect of a former employee in relation to an occurrence of harassment and violence in the work place if the occurrence becomes known to the employer within three months after the day on which the former employee ceases to be employed by the employer.
(5) On application by a former employee, the Minister may, in the prescribed circumstances, extend the time period referred to in subsection (4).
(6) For the purpose of subsection (4), the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting an employer’s obligations in respect of former employees.”
The question was put on the amendment of Mona Fortier and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 2.
Clause 3, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Clause 4 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 0.
On Clause 5,
Robert J. Morrissey moved, — That Bill C-65, in Clause 5, be amended(a) by replacing line 7 on page 3 with the following:
“5 (1) Subsections 127.1(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by”
(b) by adding after line 16 on page 3 the following:
“ (1.1) However, in the case of a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment and violence, the employee may make the complaint to the employee’s supervisor or to the person designated in the employer’s work place harassment and violence prevention policy.
(2) The employee and the supervisor or designated person, as the case may be, shall try to resolve the complaint between themselves as soon as possible.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert J. Morrissey and it was agreed to on division.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also adopted:
That Bill C-65, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 3 with the following:“supervisor or designated person, as the case may be, failed to resolve the complaint between”
(a) by replacing line 9 on page 3 with the following:
“127.1 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), an employee who believes on reasonable”
(b) by adding after line 16 on page 3 the following:
“(1.1) In the case of a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment or violence in a work place at which less than 20 employees are normally employed, the employee who believes on reasonable grounds that there has been a contravention of this Part may refer his or her complaint to the Minister in accordance with subsection (8).”
(c) by adding after line 32 on page 3 the following:
“(e) in the case of a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment or violence, the employee has chosen in accordance with subsection (1.1) not to make a complaint to his or her supervisor.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Steven Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“(1.1) If the complaint concerns the employee’s supervisor, the employee may make the complaint to a person designated for that purpose in accordance with the regulations.
(1.2) The designated person shall investigate the complaint and try to resolve it with the employee and the supervisor as soon as possible.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Anne Minh-Thu Quach and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
At 5:34 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.