SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Bill

Bill C-378

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 13, 2024
An Act amending the Canada Labour Code (complaints by former employees)
  • This is a bill called C-378 that is being introduced in the Canadian Parliament. It aims to amend the Canada Labour Code to give former employees more time to make a complaint about harassment and violence in the workplace after they have left their job. The bill states that the obligations of employers regarding these complaints will apply if the occurrence becomes known to the employer within two years after the former employee stops working for them. It also allows former employees to make a complaint until two years after they stop working for the employer or until two years after the resolution process is completed, if notice of the occurrence was provided. The bill is available on the House of Commons website.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • S1
  • S2
  • S3
  • RA
  • Yea
  • Nay
  • star_border

SteelmanSpren in Favour

  • Steelman Argument in Favor of Bill C-378: One could argue that Bill C-378, which amends the Canada Labour Code to provide former employees with more time to make a complaint relating to harassment and violence in the workplace, is a necessary and important step towards ensuring the well-being and safety of workers. Firstly, extending the timeframe for making a complaint allows former employees who may have been hesitant or unable to come forward during their employment to have a fair opportunity to report incidents of harassment and violence. It recognizes that individuals may need time to process their experiences and gather the courage to speak up. By providing a longer window for complaints, the bill acknowledges the potential challenges faced by former employees and aims to remove barriers to seeking justice. Secondly, this amendment promotes accountability for employers. By extending the obligations of employers to address occurrences of harassment and violence in the workplace even after an employee has left, the bill ensures that employers cannot evade responsibility simply because the victim is no longer employed. This encourages employers to take proactive measures to prevent and address workplace harassment and violence, knowing that they can still be held accountable even after an employee's departure. Furthermore, the bill recognizes that the effects of workplace harassment and violence can persist long after an individual has left their job. By allowing former employees to make complaints within a reasonable timeframe, it acknowledges the potential long-term impact on the mental and emotional well-being of victims. This extension of time ensures that individuals are not denied the opportunity to seek redress for the harm they have suffered. Lastly, this amendment aligns with the broader societal shift towards prioritizing workplace safety and addressing issues of harassment and violence. It reflects a growing understanding that workplace environments should be free from any form of mistreatment or abuse. By providing former employees with an extended timeframe to make complaints, the bill contributes to creating a culture of accountability and respect in the workplace. In conclusion, Bill C-378, by amending the Canada Labour Code to extend the timeframe for making complaints about workplace harassment and violence, serves to protect the rights and well-being of former employees, promote employer accountability, and contribute to a safer and more respectful work environment.

SteelmanSpren Against

  • Steelman Argument Opposing Bill C-378: One could argue that Bill C-378, which amends the Canada Labour Code to provide former employees with more time to make complaints about harassment and violence in the workplace, is unnecessary and potentially harmful. This argument can be framed using right-wing anti-government talking points. 1. Limited Government Intervention: Right-wing ideology emphasizes limited government intervention in the economy and individual affairs. This bill expands the reach of government regulation by extending the time period for former employees to make complaints. It interferes with the freedom of employers to manage their workplaces and could lead to an increase in frivolous or baseless complaints. 2. Burden on Employers: The extended time period for making complaints places an additional burden on employers, especially small businesses. It requires them to maintain records and evidence related to incidents that occurred even after an employee has left the company. This administrative burden can divert resources and attention away from running the business and hinder economic growth. 3. Potential for Abuse: Extending the time period for making complaints opens the door for potential abuse by disgruntled former employees seeking to harm their former employers. It allows for the possibility of false or exaggerated claims being made long after the alleged incidents occurred, making it difficult for employers to defend themselves against such accusations. 4. Statute of Limitations: The existing statute of limitations already provides a reasonable timeframe for employees to make complaints. Extending this timeframe undermines the principle of finality and certainty in legal matters. It could lead to situations where employers are held accountable for incidents that occurred many years ago, making it challenging to gather evidence and ensure a fair resolution. 5. Personal Responsibility: Right-wing ideology emphasizes personal responsibility and self-reliance. By extending the time period for making complaints, this bill may discourage individuals from taking immediate action to address workplace issues while they are still employed. It could foster a culture of victimhood and reliance on external authorities rather than empowering individuals to address problems directly. In summary, opponents of Bill C-378 argue that it represents unnecessary government intervention, places an additional burden on employers, opens the door for abuse, undermines the principle of finality, and discourages personal responsibility. They believe that the existing statute of limitations provides a reasonable timeframe for employees to make complaints, and extending it is not in the best interest of employers or the overall economy.
House Second Reading
  • Feb. 12, 2024, 11 a.m.
  • In Progress
  • Read
House First Reading
  • Feb. 12, 2024, 11 a.m.
  • Passed