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.

[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?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you. I have another question, and I would like you to answer it quickly because I don't have much time left.

Ms. Beaumont, in your opinion—you talked about this in your presentation—what parliamentary authorities are in the best position to help members and senators develop policies on harassment and violence, as laid out in Bill C-65?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

My first question is for both of you, ladies.

You said that the culture had to be changed, and I think that's very important. I believe you talked about ways to ensure prevention. Could you suggest ways to strengthen Bill C-65 in terms of prevention? We all know that the current culture on the Hill needs to change.

Ms. Beaumont, I'm listening.

[Beisan Zubi, As an Individual]

My name is Beisan Zubi. I am a former Parliament Hill staffer. I worked on the Hill twice, first from January 2011 to September 2012 as a political researcher in the NDP's media team, and then again in 2014 as a communication and logistics assistant in the NDP House leader's office.

My time on the Hill was very intense. Within a couple of months of my being hired, we had entered into a federal election that put us in official opposition status. We hired hundreds of new staffers in a very short period of time after that. Jack Layton died that summer, which threw us into a leadership race. Then we had a new leader. And then I left the Hill to do my master's degree in Toronto.

A couple of months after I finished my studies, I was back on the Hill. There was a terrorist attack. There was a sexual harassment scandal. I burnt out pretty quickly and left. I was there for about four months that second time.

I tell you this only to give you some context around the intensity of what it was like to work on Parliament Hill at that time, and I think also, in general, to frame why all the sexual harassment I was seeing and the terrible behaviour that I was experiencing seemed almost normalized. It felt like everyone was acting out because they had to. We were all on this intense and abnormal political odyssey. I don't say that to justify anyone's behaviour except, perhaps, my own in explaining why it was so difficult for me to register just how off an environment it was and why I went along with it for so long.

A year ago I wrote about my experiences on Parliament Hill for Vice, where Hilary works, in an article entitled “Here’s why I never reported sexual harassment while working in Parliament”.

Among the reasons I named in that piece are that it happened when alcohol was involved; because no one saw it; because everyone knew about it; because the perpetrator worked for the victim's party; because the perpetrator worked for a rival party; because it happened so fast; and because I didn't work there anymore.

I understand that Bill C-65 is not a panacea, but I'd hazard a guess that it doesn't do very much to protect people in many of these situations. In fact, the onus to report is on the victim. They have to work within their own party infrastructure and go to the whips. Sexual relationships between managers and subordinates aren't prohibited or even disclosed. And the culture piece, which in my opinion is the most pernicious and toxic part of all of it, isn't addressed.

I do get that you can't legislate office culture, but the normalization and glorification of alcohol and drinking, of aggressive behaviour, and of sexually explicit language are, in my experience, a large part of the Hill's culture, and I don't know if I see that changing.

The open secrets that we all participated in still hound me and make me feel guilty. I almost feel complicit in accepting my own mistreatment, and in how it could have created more abuse for women who came after me and who are still on the Hill. The political partisanship that makes you feel like you're in a never-ending campaign makes the idea of launching a complaint against someone in a rival party automatically seem partisan, and launching a complaint against your own team seem treasonous. As well, very little is being done to hear from and protect former employees, who are potentially more able and freer to speak out without fearing for their current jobs.

I have to say I'm disappointed that I am the only former Parliament Hill staffer who will be speaking on the record in regard to this bill. I was contacted by this committee on Thursday of last week. I was able to shift my schedule to accommodate it to speak as an individual, but I'd like to remind us all that harassment is received and processed differently. The intersectional perspectives of young queer men and women, black women, indigenous women, differently abled folks, and racialized staffers who don't benefit from the same systemic privileges that I do would have been an impactful and educational component of any holistic conversation about harassment.

I just want to say a couple of things on the record.

The first, I think, is the most important. Even though I worked in a partisan position, I made friends and acquaintances across the board. This isn't a problem within one party or group. At 25, 26, and 27 years old, I was subject to sexual harassment—innuendoes, inquiries, and general creepiness—from men, generally exclusively men, anywhere from 10 to 40 years older than me, from the Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, and NDP caucuses, from staff in all of those caucuses, from bureaucrats, lobbyists, and journalists.

You have to believe me when I say the problem was cultural. The types of sexual harassment were myriad. They involved touching, groping, comments, come-ons. My body was discussed in front of my face. Older men would tell stories to a table of young staffers about bedding other young staffers. Alcohol and gossipy conversations that you would turn a blind eye to at 32, I can say, having worked outside politics for almost four years, in retrospect, were very abusive and very destructive as far as work environments go.

I am still working through and processing my feelings of anger at the environment, but I didn't want to stop my intervention on that note, so I'd like to share one final thing.

I burnt out of politics really hard when I left. While I've toyed with the idea of going back in some capacity, as I noted in my Vice piece, Parliament Hill just felt fundamentally unsafe for young women. However the one ray of hope that I had, and the one that I would like to leave you with, is that I was lucky enough to have great managers at the NDP, including Kathleen Monk, who went to bat for me, protected me, and warned me when they could. It was a negative and toxic environment, except for brief moments of success and support. However, behind all those moments I experienced were women who wanted to make sure that women were getting credit that was due and that young women weren't being dismissed as women or as ornaments.

Yesterday, I joined the board of my local chapter of Equal Voice and I hope to one day be as supportive and fiercely protective of, and to advocate for, more women in the House moving forward. I don't necessarily agree with our Prime Minister on everything, but the one issue that I know he is right about is this: “Add women, change politics”.

I would like to leave you with that cultural suggestion.