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.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

This amendment proposes a general, non-restrictive framework that reflects Canada's national diversity in choosing investigators. The goal is to allow for an investigation that is fairer and more open-minded, but above all, one that is free of bias and able to earn the victims' trust. It is important for that to be in Bill C-65.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Yes.

Our proposed amendment is intended to ensure that the investigation can begin as soon as the complaint is made, in order to avoid re-victimization. If the objective of Bill C-65 really is to improve workplace conditions and the working climate, it must at least be amended so that the investigation begins a maximum of 14 days after the complaint is received, in order to assist the victims.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am sorry that I could not be at Monday's meeting of the committee. The leader of my party was in my constituency. I know that my colleague Ms. Quach did a good job.

The NDP is proposing an amendment to Bill C-65—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good afternoon, everybody. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, we are resuming our study of Bill C-65, 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.

We're going to start right away, but again I would like to welcome the departmental officials. We have from the Department of Employment and Social Development, Brenda Baxter, director general, workplace directorate, labour program; and Barbara Moran, director general, strategic policy, analysis and workplace, labour program. From the Department of Public Works and Government Services, we have Charles Bernard, director general, portfolio and government affairs. Welcome to all three of you again, and thank you for being here.

We're going to get right into it. We are on NDP-9.

Is there any discussion?

MP Trudel.

[Barbara Moran]

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, under part II of the code, they are protected. They cannot be somehow disciplined for bringing forward that complaint. It's under section 147 of the Canada Labour Code. It's protection against any disciplinary action.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Personally, I find it completely absurd that as we are discussing Bill C-65, which deals with harassment and violence, we can't even include the words “harassment” and “violence” in the clause we are debating.

This was requested by the vice-president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. In her opinion, we have to add the occurrences of harassment or of violence, otherwise we'll only talk about accidents and injuries. If we want to refer to harassment and harassment-related violence, we have to include those terms, and this is where she suggested we include them.

[Barbara Moran]

Sure. One comment is that, because of the change that was made to the definition, if you move forward with that, it can't be “harassment or violence”. It would need to be “harassment and violence”. That would be one thing.

On the French/English thing, usually when we use incidents in French, we use “occurrences” in English, so I would say “occurrences”.

All I would add, though, is the point I made a little while ago. This is for all of part II, which is much broader than harassment and violence. The intention, I believe, in adding in the reference that's in Bill C-65 now to physical or psychological injuries was to get at the impact of these acts, and so in particular adding the psychological injuries was really intended to get at the impact, particularly of harassment and violence. That would be just something I would note for your consideration.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

If we do not want to amend the existing act by adding a term, we might as well not be here. Under the best of circumstances, we would not be sitting here and we would not have heard from witnesses, including employees of the House of Commons, of MPs and of crown corporations, who have experienced incidents of harassment, whether isolated or repeated. In that sense, I agree with my colleague Mr. Warawa: if we cannot agree to call a spade a spade and if the purpose of Bill C-65 is not to end incidents of harassment, we might as well close our books and leave things as they are.

This bill is important to the government and to all the opposition parties. Our job is to improve the bill. Adding the term “incidents of harassment” in this particular case seems to be fully consistent with the purpose of the act, which is to end harassment in the workplace, whether in institutions under federal jurisdiction, or in parliamentary institutions in particular.

In that sense, the NDP proposal is constructive and I think it would be a shame if the government decided not to add it on the pretext that it is already in the bill. If we are here to push through a new bill, it is precisely because there are problems and the tools the government currently has are inadequate to end harassment. As you accurately pointed out, we received a three-page letter from the minister, asking us to do everything possible to end harassment. This is a specific instance where we can do something.

I think the opposition is taking a constructive approach toward the government by stressing the importance of including incidents of harassment in Bill C-65. This suggestion does not come from us, but from the NDP, but it is fully consistent with the spirit of the minister's letter and with the spirit of the bill. As a result, I think this proposal is very good and, of course, I intend to support it.

On the other hand, it is clear that if the opposition supports definitions that are struck down by the government each time, it will be a one-way process. I would even say the result could be watered down. I do not think that is what the committee wants, nor is what the minister asked us to do.

Thank you.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

I would like to add that even the Liberals, in amendment LIB-2, use the term “incidents”. This amendment would amend Bill C-65 on page 2 to read “all incidents of harassment”.

In Bill C-65, the word “incident” is already used 14 times. I do not understand how that could create a precedent since it is already used.

Our amendment would simply add the word “incident” to the purpose of the act; it would not replace another term. I do not see how that could create a serious precedent or make the bill so complex.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

“Accident” exists in the current legislation. What is being proposed is to add “, incidents of harassment or violence”. That's what Bill C-65 is all about. Are we supporting Bill C-65, yes or no?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Under section 122.1, the present wording is, “The purpose of this Part is to prevent accidents”, etc., and the amendment, then, would add “, incidents of harassment or violence” and then it would carry on reading “and physical or psychological injuries and illnesses arising out of”.

Just for clarity, what we're talking about is to add into the existing legislation “incidents of harassment and violence”.

And what is Bill C-65?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

This amendment comes from the vice-president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, which strives to prevent accidents and illnesses in the workplace. She would like us to add the word “injuries”. This term is already used, but she would like the term “incidents” used because the “incidents” and “accidents” are not the same thing, and if only “accidents” is used, the victim might not feel protected.

As the Office québécois de la langue française pointed out, these two terms are not interchangeable. An “accident” results in material and physical damage, while an “incident” refers to an event that is not significant in itself, but that could have serious consequences.

Since the term “incident” is already used 14 times in Bill C-65, we would like it to be used here as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good afternoon, everybody.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, we're dealing with Bill C-65, 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.

We are here to do clause by clause but before we get into that, I would like to recognize that we have a number of guests joining us today. From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Brenda Baxter, director general, workplace directorate, labour program; and Barbara Moran, director general, strategic policy, analysis and workplace, labour program. From the Department of Public Works and Government Services, we have Charles Bernard, director general, portfolio and government affairs.

Welcome to all of you.

For the benefit of my colleagues, they are here to answer any questions that you may have from a potential legal perspective on some of the amendments, and especially if we get into amending those amendments. There may be some specific ramifications and we may want to utilize the services of the people sitting before us.

Also, because it is going to be captured in Hansard, I would like to wish MP Dabrusin a happy birthday.

Labour

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, the member well knows that all members in the House believe that harassment of any type is unacceptable in the workplace or anywhere. We put forward Bill C-65, which is legislation that would cover the Parliament Hill precinct and all federally regulated workplaces. The legislation is currently in committee and we are accepting some amendments from all parties. It is going to be a strong piece of legislation.

We committed to this in the past election and we are going—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you. I want to take a step back because I believe both of you talked about former employees.

Ms. Zubi, you spoke specifically about some of the thoughts you were having, after the fact, about the work environment you had worked in and had left.

Ms. Beaumont, I think you maybe had mentioned having interviewed former employees as well. The reason I mention this is that when I look at the legislation, it seems to cover current employees, but I don't believe it covers people who have left their place of employment. Do you think there would be any value in changing this so that former employees could also benefit from the new Bill C-65?