Bill C-65 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to strengthen the existing framework for the prevention of harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in the work place.
Part 2 amends Part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act with respect to the application of Part II of the Canada Labour Code to parliamentary employers and employees, without limiting in any way the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Commons and their members.
Part 3 amends a transitional provision in the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

Canada Labour Code

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Winnipeg Centre.

I am pleased to provide some perspective on some of the amendments proposed as part of the other chamber's consideration of Bill C-65.

The issue of workplace harassment and violence is complex. The measures required to eradicate these behaviours must take many factors into consideration. For example, women tell us that they do not come forward because they feel that it is not worth the risk or it is embarrassing. Many fear potential consequences. Perhaps most disappointing is that many simply do not believe that coming forward will make a difference.

Reporting an incident requires courage. Women fear reprisals or even losing their jobs, and the stigma associated with being a victim can make it extremely difficult to report an incident. It is clear that if people know that they can come forward without fear of being identified, it will reduce their hesitation around speaking out.

One of the key elements of this proposed legislation is support for affected employees. Privacy is integral to that support. We believe that the success of Bill C-65 is closely linked to ensuring the privacy of those involved in incidents of harassment and violence. It is with this perspective that we considered some of the other chamber's proposed amendments.

The other chamber put forward two amendments that proposed that the minister's annual report and the annual report prepared by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board contain statistical data related to harassment and violence, categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Information categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the CHRA would include information such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability and others.

Our government supports the amendment being proposed with respect to including this information in the minister's annual report. However, we do not support the amendment to the section that would apply to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board's annual report. I will explain.

The first amendment proposed relates to the annual report the Minister of Labour would publish each year providing data on incidents of harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, including parliamentary workplaces. The proposed amendment would require that the data collected from employers for the annual report by the Minister of Labour include information on whether the incident could be considered a prohibited ground of discrimination. This would provide very useful information on the nature of these incidents so that together, we could work to prevent their occurrence.

However, we also recognize that collecting this data would represent certain risks to colleagues. Perhaps the most pressing would be the risk to the privacy of the individuals providing the information. This is particularly true for smaller organizations with fewer employees, where the risk of being identified is very real. To mitigate this risk, the provision of this information would be entirely voluntary. It would be up to the employees to decide whether they felt comfortable disclosing any details about themselves that could potentially identify them down the road. We feel that this is the best approach.

We felt it was important to support acceptance of the amendment to include the data in the minister's annual report because we believe that this risk would be effectively mitigated, and because the potential benefits are significant.

The data that would be collected could be used to determine whether Bill C-65 is doing the job it is supposed to do, particularly for those who are most vulnerable to incidents of workplace harassment and violence. This data, which would cover incidents in both federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces, could be used to make adjustments if there is evidence that this is not the case.

Our government is committed to making evidence-based policy decisions. The more data we have to work with in the future, the better our ability to do just that. However, as I mentioned, we do not support the other place's proposed amendment to require that the statistical data in the board's annual report include information that is categorized on the same grounds. While we support the intention of the amendment, we do not think it would be feasible. The report that is produced by the board captures only appeals made in relation to part II of the code. Only a smaller subset of those appeals would apply to harassment and violence. These appeals would not relate to investigations of the incidents themselves, but whether or not the process to deal with the incident under the code has been followed.

Given that the report would cover only the appeals that the board hears, and these appeals would relate to the process followed, the dataset would be far too small to report according to prohibited grounds of discrimination without revealing the identities of the individuals involved. I think we would all agree that breaching privacy and in any way discouraging individuals from coming forward is the last thing we want to do.

Let me be clear. This report by the board would only capture appeals, it would not capture the total number of incidents of harassment and violence occurring in parliamentary workplaces. Those incidents would be captured in the previously mentioned minister's report.

We know that these behaviours are not exclusive to our workplaces. However, with the rise of movements such as #MeToo and #TimesUp, we are understanding where we need to act and how we need to enable people to come forward. This legislation would help to create a culture where certain behaviours are simply not tolerated.

This is what Bill C-65 would help accomplish: a profound change in culture, a culture where people work in a safe workplace, one that is free from harassment or violence. For this to happen, people need the option of reporting reprehensible behaviour without fear of retaliation. Bill C-65 would help ensure that is the case.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to our hon. colleague's speech and I appreciate what he had to say.

As I have with many of our other colleagues throughout the day, I want to ask our hon. colleague this.

Earlier this summer our Prime Minister had an opportunity to deal with an issue that was brought forth to the media with respect to something that happened about 18 years ago. Instead of actually apologizing, he shared that perhaps in certain circumstances men and women would experience that situation differently. Therefore, I would like to ask our hon. colleague this. Does he feel the same? Is it his opinion that victims of harassment and violence experience such incidents differently from the perpetrators?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-65 is trying to create a single, integrated regime that would protect federally regulated employees from harassment and violence in the workplace. We are trying to create a level playing field so that harassment and violence is reduced in the workplace, regardless of whether the employee is parliamentary staff, exempt staff, an employee of a Crown corporation or part of the federal public service.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is all very well and good, and we support these steps forward, but will there be any real money, any federal money, to support the work that will be needed to help workplaces train and support the staff who would be going through these processes?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that we ensure that victims feel supported when they come forward. Bill C-65 would ensure that victims are provided with adequate assistance and that workplace committees were put in place to help support victims.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that we have to make sure that victims of violence and harassment feel that they are going to be supported and that they are going to be believed, but leadership starts at the top. We have to make sure that the rules apply to everyone, regardless of position.

When the HUMA committee was studying this, a question was posed to the officials about whether this legislation would apply to the Prime Minister and the ministers. The answer was that they were not certain it would.

Does our hon. colleague feel that the rules should apply to all, regardless of their position?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to get to the bottom of why Bill C-65 was introduced. Research shows that harassment and violence in Canadian workplaces is persistent, and often incidents go underground, because people fear retaliation. Bill C-65 seeks to create an environment and culture that would make victims feel safe coming forward. It is extremely important for employees to come forward without fear of retaliation.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his speech.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[Translation]

I am very proud to be here today.

As leaders at all levels of society, as leaders in all organizations, as leaders in our communities, we have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure a harassment- and violence-free workplace. Too many women and men suffer harassment and violence in the workplace, and no one should be exempt.

I am also extremely proud to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-65, which amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, to eradicate harassment and violence from federally regulated workplaces, including the federal public service and parliamentary workplaces.

Bill C-65 draws on existing Canada Labour Code provisions pertaining to violence and sexual harassment to design a comprehensive approach that covers all forms of violence and harassment, from bullying and teasing to sexual harassment and physical violence.

This bill also applies to all health and safety protections, including measures relating to harassment and violence in parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons, and to political staff working on Parliament Hill.

There are currently two separate regimes in place to deal with issues of violence and sexual harassment under the Canada Labour Code. They each have their own requirements and mechanisms for settling disputes, which creates an imbalance in how these matters are dealt with.

The current regimes do not apply to the same workplaces. Current sexual harassment rules only apply in the federally regulated private sector and most Crown corporations, whereas rules pertaining to violence also apply to the federal public service. Neither framework applies to parliamentary employees.

Bill C-65 would create a single, integrated regime to protect all federally regulated employees against harassment and violence in the workplace. As part of the Government of Canada's strategy to combat gender-based violence, the bill proposes a new framework that will prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring, respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur and support victims of harassment and violence while also protecting their privacy. Protecting victims' privacy is extremely important.

More specifically, Bill C-65 would amend the Canada Labour Code to expand the existing violence prevention requirements in part II of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with occupational health and safety; ensure that employers take preventive action and protect employees from harassment and violence at work; and repeal the existing sexual harassment provisions in part III of the code, which deals with labour standards, to create a single integrated regime to protect federally regulated employees under part II of the code.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to require employers, through the regulatory framework and the corresponding regulations, to prevent harassment and violence. This includes ensuring that employees receive training, or even that they take the initiative themselves, and working with employees to develop a harassment and violence prevention policy.

The bill would also require employers to respond to incidents of harassment and violence, within a specified time frame; resolve the complaint and, if a resolution is not possible, designate a competent person to conduct investigations; inform the complainant and, in accordance with privacy measures, update the workplace committee on the investigation; implement the recommendations resulting from the investigation; and record and report all incidents of harassment and violence.

The bill would require employers to support employees who are victims of harassment and violence, as well as protect their privacy, which includes providing assistance and giving access to the workplace committees.

The bill will repeal the sections of the Canada Labour Code that permit exemptions to the establishment of a workplace committee, and will only allow exemptions when there is already a committee with the same health and safety responsibilities. It will broaden the scope of part II of the code to include staff of ministers' offices, who are also known as exempt staff.

The amendments to the Parliamentary Employment Staff Relations Act are extremely important. Bill C-65 would enact part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, which incorporates by reference part II of the code. The act applies to parliamentary employers and employees, without limiting in any way the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Commons and their members.

More specifically, Bill C-65 would amend the act in order to incorporate by reference the provisions concerning workplace health and safety found in part II of the code with certain changes. First, the Deputy Minister of Labour will exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the minister when a member of the Senate or House of Commons is involved. Furthermore, the application of all directions and any appeals of these directions will be undertaken when they are tabled in the House of Commons or the Senate, or both. Appeals of these directions will be referred to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

The bill would amend the act to ensure the protection of parliamentary privileges by stating that all powers, privileges and immunities conferred or imposed may be exercised as long as they do not interfere, directly or indirectly, with the business of the House of Commons or the Senate.

Bill C-65 would require annual reporting and a five-year review, which is also appreciated. More specifically, the bill's proposed amendments will require: the Minister of Labour to prepare and publish an annual report that contains statistical data relating to harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, including parliamentary workplaces; that the harassment and violence provisions introduced in the Canada Labour Code and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act by Bill C-65 be reviewed five years after coming into force and every five years after that and that the responsible minister prepare and table reports on these reviews in every House of Parliament; and that the federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board submit an annual report on its activities under part III of the PESRA and part II of the code as it applies to parliamentary workplaces and that the responsible minister table the report in each of the House of Parliament.

There are 10 Senate amendments of which four will be accepted by the government, one is to be amended and five rejected.

The amendments that are to be accepted will strengthen the legislation to prevent workplace violence or harassment. They are: amendment 3, which will provide greater certainty to those who experience workplace violence and harassment by explicitly stating that nothing in this part shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the rights provided for under the Canadian Human Rights Act; amendment 5(b), which replaces the term “trivial, frivolous, or vexatious” with the term “abuse of process” so as to eliminate negative associations regarding coming forward with complaint; amendment 6 so that the annual report prepared by the minister regarding incidents of workplace harassment and violence includes information that is categorized according to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act; and amendment 7(a), which will provide greater certainty to those coming forward with complaints, including complaints outside of harassment and violence, that Bill C-65 would not limit one's ability to take a case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Amendment 4 is to be accepted with amendments. The suggestion from the Senate is to add two paragraphs to clause 3 of the bill. We are rejecting these two amendments and renaming them. The addition of these names aligns with the intent of Bill C-65 regarding the training of designated persons to whom complaints can be made.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendment 1. Replacing the word “means” with “includes” would result in a lack of clarity for both employers and employees.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendment 2. In focusing on harassment and violence, it would create an imbalance relative to all of the other occupational health and safety measures under part II of the Canada Labour Code.

We propose that the paragraph from amendment 4 be deleted because the addition of the proposed paragraph would mean that a single incident of harassment and violence in a workplace would be considered a violation of the Canada Labour Code on the part of the employer, which would undermine the framework for addressing harassment and violence that Bill C-65 seeks to establish.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for our colleague across the way. That was probably one of his most enthusiastic and well thought-out speeches, so I want to thank him for that.

We have talked a lot in the course of this debate. It has been very enriching and we are learning a lot from colleagues on both sides of the House. Does our hon. colleague feel with regard to how our Prime Minister explained away his groping incident that he should, at the very least, have instead issued a formal apology to the victim?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak to other people's experiences; I can only speak to my own. In the workplaces I have been involved in, whether in the military or the University of Manitoba, we have always tried to follow a very high code of conduct, especially at the University of Manitoba. In my time in the military there were times when we sometimes did see behaviour that was not in the best interests of the Canadian state or in accordance with the values of the Canadian people. It was unfortunate. That was early in my career. I remember joining in 1996 and seeing some of those behaviours occurring during basic training. At the University of Manitoba I know there are a lot of codes in place that attempt to get to the nature of this and try to be respectful of people in all ways.

The problem sometimes in the politically charged atmosphere of the House of Commons is precisely that. It is politically charged. The motivations of the people involved make it difficult to come to a resolution on this. That does not mean a resolution cannot happen, but it becomes very difficult, because it is not done in full respect to the people who are involved, the victims, and others who might have been involved in any incident.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we heard some concerns about privacy today and I wonder if the member could comment on how Bill C-65 addresses those issues of privacy, how it would protect the anonymity of complainants in small workplaces or here on Parliament Hill.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the issues surrounding committees, for instance, are very important. In a workplace that is too small, under 20 employees, these things obviously need to be handled with a great deal of delicacy to ensure that everyone's privacy is taken into consideration. There has to be good sense in ensuring that occurs. The bill would bring two disparate ways of doing things under one code to ensure that there is equitable treatment of everyone across the board.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree that leadership begins at the top and that no one should be above the law, regardless of their position, when serious allegations are levied against them.

Does my hon. colleague feel that victims of violence and harassment may experience such incidents differently from their perpetrators?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. We know that human memory is very different for different people. The way one person experiences something is very different from any other person. That is important when we look at harassment. As it is defined, for instance, in the military, it is not about the perpetrator but the victim. We have to understand what is occurring if there is perceived harassment or someone feels they have been wronged, or if someone has said something.

In the military I have seen violence and things done against people. Those things could be real and they could be perceived by that person, but it does not matter because they need to be treated with the utmost respect to ensure that the situation is rectified in the long term and does not occur again. At the end of day, we have to ensure that there is a safe workplace so that it accomplish its mission and mandate and is functional, with all employees working together.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1. We all know harassment is serious, and it is a pressing matter that faces Canadian society today. It is good that this Parliament is debating legislation that would seek to address harassment in this very workplace and workplaces across Canada.

Harassment is a very volatile offence, because it is not subject to whether the offender intends to harass or not. Irrespective of the intent, the mens rea of the harassment, the act still harms the victim. This is why we must put a special emphasis on protecting victims' rights when implementing legislation aimed at stopping harassment. That is a Conservative principle, and it is a principle the Liberal government promised it would uphold.

It is wonderful that we are enjoying a political system where every party seems to understand the gravity of harassment, but statements must lead to thoughtful action. Harassment is an evolving issue, and any legislation regarding harassment needs to recognize this. As parliamentarians, it is vital we understand that protecting people from harassment requires a continual effort, and that harassment comes in many forms. Unfortunately, no two cases are exactly the same and there are always new cases emerging every day.

In addressing harassment, all people who feel they have been harassed simply deserve the right to be heard. As an example, we have to bring into this conversation the fact that our Prime Minister was alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment. Even though he was accused, he claimed that he had a different perspective from that of the accuser. This gave him the explanation he needed to protect himself.

I believe it is possible and even plausible for two individuals to have two completely different perspectives on an occasion, but it does not mean one person's perspective is not real. Canadians, women and I myself were very disappointed in our Prime Minister for not being up front from the very beginning when this behaviour came to light.

The young reporter took immediate action in putting her experience on record with her colleague and in writing an article. In light of that fact, it was disappointing that our Prime Minister did not lead by example for others in his response. He truly should have apologized.

The Prime Minister is the head of our country. He is the leader who insists he is the ultimate feminist. When one makes a mistake, it is important to admit that mistake, to deal with it appropriately and to take every decisive action possible to apologize. We have to take note that how he has treated his own circumstances is very different from how he treated members in this House who were simply accused and immediately faced repercussions.

In this particular case, Ms. Knight chose not to pursue the matter any further, which is her right. However, due process should be afforded in every case out of respect for the accuser and the accused. We cannot rush to conclusions or opinions on matters that are so delicate. We cannot dismiss claims without a fair and honest investigation, nor can we be so quick to convict someone of a claim. We are living in an age where the court of public opinion is quick to convict and does not often provide fair or accurate assessments of harassment claims.

That is why I am grateful that this Parliament is looking to enact legislation on workplace harassment and violence. We should be a true example to the rest of Canada, to the people we represent, and certainly to our own families and children about what our priorities are and what we want them to be for all Canadians.

We need to ensure that there is a transparent process, which respects the privacy of the victim, to assess harassment allegations. All people, irrespective of gender, have a right not to be harassed at their place of work, period.

Madam Speaker, we know that even you, as Chair of this House, take very seriously the responsibility to ensure that the employees of the House of Commons do not have to face harassment. To everyone's chagrin, we still know that it is a reality here on Parliament Hill. Every parliamentarian in this House is an employer to staff, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure a harassment-free workplace. Each one of us, within our own offices, must do everything we can to make it a place where it is a pleasure to come to work and there is no sense of apprehension or fear.

As Canada's leaders, we must set the standard in ensuring that our employees have protection from harassment, and I believe that Bill C-65 is a step in the right direction. However, in formulating this bill, I think the government dropped the ball in adequately consulting stakeholders on the matter. The National Association of Women and the Law and the Native Women's Association of Canada both said that they were not consulted during the drafting of the bill. Both organizations represent important demographics in Canada, and I believe that they could have contributed greatly in making this bill even better.

I would implore the government to remember to consult with key stakeholders, as there is safety in a multitude of counsellors, and Bill C-65 is all about making sure that workers are safe. When we say that we are going to consult, we need to be willing to consult people who agree with our perspective and with those who do not agree with our perspective but have things to offer that we have not thought about. In that case, I think that may be what happened here.

I will be supporting this bill, as combatting harassment is a pressing need in Parliament. It would set us on the path to safer workspaces in Canada. Sexual misconduct and sexual harassment have no place in Canadian society, especially within our political system, or actually anywhere.

Quite honestly, I feel that there is a lot more we need to do as a government to deal with sexual harassment beyond creating a legislative environment for rules and regulations within this place. We should be setting an example in a lot of the policies that are coming forward from various committees, such as the status of women committee, where we put the value of women far higher than I believe it is being placed today.

The bipartisan teamwork on the HUMA committee between the Conservatives and the Liberals proved that Bill C-65, if passed, would have a meaningful impact.

The Conservatives successfully introduced an amendment to prevent political interference in political offices during harassment investigations. Considering the sensitive nature of harassment claims, it is important that harassment investigations are not undermined by the perception of political interference or by actual interference. This was done by amending the law to have powers transferred from the Minister of Labour to the deputy minister, a non-partisan civil servant, in investigations involving the offices of members of Parliament. This would preserve the integrity of the investigation process. I am proud of that amendment that came forward from us.

The amendment to ensure strict timelines for investigations into incidents of harassment to ensure that investigations are carried out in a timely manner would also add to the integrity of the process.

The introduction of mandatory sexual harassment training is an essential part of this bill.

The preservation of the integrity of the process and the prevention of vexatious complaints would be ensured by requiring that such complaints were made within a prescribed time. I feel that this is a good move, and I am so pleased to see it in here, because we have to bring a balance to how we deal with these issues. We cannot afford to have public opinion determining what is right and wrong. It has to be the rule of law that ultimately succeeds, or we will find ourselves in chaos.

Bill C-65 would ensure that a mandatory review of the bill would occur every five years.

Bill C-65 would implement a fair and impartial process to ensure that the appropriate consequences would be applied to the offender.

I invite all members of this House to join me in support of Bill C-65 so that better protections from harassment for all Canadians are in place.