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]

Thank you very much for being here and for your testimony, which is very important for the committee members.

My first question is for you, Ms. Ebbs and Ms. Adamson. You touched on this a little bit earlier, but I would like to hear more about Parliament Hill, which is a special place to work because of its strong politicization and its high proportion of non-union employees. During several testimonies, we heard about the risk of unfair dismissal. This risk is all the greater here.

In your opinion, does Bill C-65 sufficiently protect employees on Parliament Hill from unfair dismissal? They are the ones who are likely to be when the identity of the victims or the employer is disclosed. Do they even file a complaint about harassment or workplace violence? I would like to know what you think.

[Catherine Ebbs, Chairperson, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board is an independent quasi-judicial statutory tribunal with the unique expertise required to deliver on its two key services, adjudication and mediation.

The FPSLREB was created on November 1, 2014, from the merger of the former Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, bringing staffing and labour relations under one umbrella. The board and its predecessors have been responsible for administering public sector labour relations for 50 years, and for resolving public sector staffing questions for over 10 years. With public service modernization in 2005, the board gained jurisdiction in the human rights area, both in staffing and labour relations.

At its foundation, the board's purpose is bringing the highest values of Canadian justice to bear on labour relations, grievance adjudication, and employment and staffing issues in the federal public sector. It is committed to resolving those issues impartially and fairly. This contributes to a productive and efficient workplace and helps to achieve harmonious labour relations and a fair employment environment for public sector employers, employees and their bargaining agents.

The FPSLREB operates with neutral and impartial board members. Most board members come with deep expertise and experience gained by working either on the management or the bargaining agent side of labour relations and staffing. As prescribed by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act, their appointment is made in recognition of that expertise with, to the extent possible, an equal number appointed from among persons recommended by the employer and from among persons recommended by the bargaining agents. However, despite being recommended by the employer or the bargaining agents, they do not sit on the board as representatives of the viewpoints or interests of either side.

At present, the FPSLREB's composition consists of one chairperson, two vice-chairpersons, and seven full-time members, as well as one part-time member. The board is currently working with the government to fill board member vacancies. A selection process is under way to appoint full-time and part-time members.

The FPSLREB has jurisdiction over several areas of federal public sector labour relations and staffing matters. Specifically, the board administers the public sector collective bargaining and grievance adjudication systems for the federal public service as well as for the institutions of Parliament. It resolves complaints related to internal appointments, appointment revocations, and layoffs in the federal public service. It resolves human rights issues in grievances and complaints that are already within its jurisdiction, as well as pay equity complaints in the federal public service. It also administers reprisal complaints of public servants under the Canada Labour Code.

Through the board's dispute resolution services, expert mediators and panels of the board help parties resolve a variety of labour relations and staffing disputes and complaints coherently and consistently and reach collective agreements often without resorting to a hearing.

Through the board's adjudication services and via fair and impartial hearings, it ensures that well-reasoned decisions are produced by an expert board for the federal sector.

The decisions made by panels of the board add to its growing case law in both staffing and labour relations, which is accessible to anyone.

During a continued period of legislative change affecting its work, the board has revisited how best to ensure uninterrupted service excellence while looking toward the integration of its additional mandates. This holistic approach to the formulation and implementation of a renewed vision in the efficient delivery of its mandate encompasses the values of fairness and transparency in its proceedings and includes one-stop shopping for mediation, adjudication, arbitration, and conciliation for the federal public sector.

The board has set a clear direction on providing a fair hearing and rendering well-reasoned decisions with a dedicated focus on dispute resolution.

Now I'd like to talk about the current mandate of the board under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

While the bulk of the board's caseload comes from its stakeholders who fall under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the board also has significant experience with the issues of parliamentary employers and employees. It has been the board responsible for this area since parliamentary employees first attained the right to bargain collectively in 1986. The FPSLREB is the expert board with respect to parliamentary labour relations. Part I of PESRA is administered and applied by the board, which hears various kinds of labour relations disputes, including such things as applications for certification, unfair labour practice complaints, and designations of persons employed in managerial and confidential capacities. The board also adjudicates grievances referred by parliamentary employees.

Now I'd like to talk about the impact of Bill C-65 on the work of the board. The FPSLREB has significant hands-on experience and expertise with labour relations and employment matters in the federal public service and for parliamentary institutions. From 1986 to 2000, public sector employees had recourse to the board, which was called the Public Service Staff Relations Board at the time, to challenge work refusal “absence of danger” decisions. These were not called appeals at the time, but they served the same function. During this time, parliamentary employees had no recourse with respect to occupational health and safety matters under part II of the Canada Labour Code.

In 2000, recourse for both private and public sector employees was transferred to appeal officers of the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal of Canada. Beginning in 1986, public service reprisal cases were heard by the board. This continues to the present. Reprisal complaints were not included in the transfer to the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal that took place in 2000.

The FPSLREB also has a great deal of experience with issues of harassment. It has dealt with these issues for many years. Harassment matters have come before the board through various legislative routes, such as grievances for violation of a collective agreement, grievances against disciplinary sanctions, matters pertaining to duty of fair representation and unfair labour practices, and staffing complaints.

Under Bill C-44, which received royal assent in June 2017, parliamentary employees will have their ministerial appeals and their reprisal complaints heard by the FPSLREB. Most political staffers will be added to the parliamentary employees and will also have their appeals and reprisal complaints heard by the FPSLREB.

To summarize, the board has extensive expertise and experience with occupational health and safety reprisal claims under the Canada Labour Code. It will retain its current mandate for reprisal claims from federal public service employees, and will acquire a new mandate for parliamentary employees, including most political staffers, for appeals of ministerial work refusal decisions regarding absence of danger, appeals of ministerial directions regarding contravention complaints, and reprisal complaints.

Given the board's substantial experience with the matters I've just described, I would like to conclude by saying that the FPSLREB has the adjudication and dispute resolution expertise to deal with appeals under part II of the Canada Labour Code, as it did before 2000, and to extend its current public sector mandate for reprisal claims for the federal public service to include parliamentary employees.

Thank you very much.

[Manon Poirier]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We at CPHR Canada are honoured to appear before your committee for the study of Bill C-65. CPHR Canada is a group of human resources associations across Canada. CPHR Canada is the national voice on the enhancement and promotion of the human resources profession. With an established and credible designation, CPHR Canada works on national issues related to the profession and is proactively positioning the national human resources agenda on the international stage.

In October 2016, the Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations, its nine provincial associations and three affiliated territorial associations chose a new name and introduced a new Canadian designation, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources, or CPHR. Only one designation—CPHR—is used for the standard of quality, in line with the model adopted by many other professions and professional designations in human resources around the world.

Our 27,000 members ensure the integration, development and well-being of workers, and help employers of all sizes meet the challenges of today's and tomorrow's labour market, challenges such as an aging workforce and the need to attract skilled workers, significant technological changes and an increasing regulatory burden. We are on the front lines of dealing with complaints of harassment and violence in the workplace. As such, we are ideally placed to assist parliamentarians on many strategic issues, including employment insurance reform, access to high-quality job training for all Canadian workers, pay equity, and of course, the features of Bill C-65.

Bullying, harassment, and sexual violence have no place in today's workplace, yet according to a survey conducted for the federal government, 10% of respondents said that harassment is common in the workplace, and 44% said that while it is not frequent, it happens. Most respondents agreed that incidents are under-reported and often dealt with ineffectively. According to our own data collected in my own province of Quebec, 60% of organizations surveyed reported receiving complaints related to harassment.

Obviously, this cannot continue. The issues underlying bullying, harassment, and violence in the workplace, including challenges faced by victims in the complaint process, have a direct impact on mental health, absenteeism, and loss of productivity. Bill C-65 is long overdue. In our submission, we will address three main issues: definition and implications for performance management, investigation of complaints, and prevention of harassment and violence through culture change.

We would like first to address the definition of bullying, harassment, and violence. We also believe that Bill C-65 should define workplace bullying, harassment, and violence, and we are pleased to learn that the minister is open to amendments in this respect. Definitions would provide clarity and direction to employers, employees, and the courts in understanding the legislator's intent. There are examples in provincial legislation that could guide the legislators for the federal sector. Recommendations from the standing committee would be invaluable in this respect, and we would be pleased to review them prior to their adoption.

One aspect that is of concern to members of CPHR Canada relates to issues surrounding performance management. Any definition must recognize that reasonable performance management is not harassment. An employee may feel anxious and stressed when receiving performance feedback or a written warning, a performance improvement plan, or progressive discipline. Anxiety and stress can obviously lead to illness, but it would be a tremendous burden on employers should they face harassment and bullying claims because they are properly managing performance. In that respect, we recommend that reasonable performance management be explicitly recognized in defining harassment, and that reference to illness be more clearly linked with events related to harassment, violence, and workplace safety.

Other key aspects of the bill of particular interest to HR professionals are the provisions relating to the investigation.

We are particularly concerned about the complaint process when complaints are filed against supervisors. Right now, the bill does not clearly set out whether an alternative will be available to someone who would like to make a complaint when the alleged harasser is their supervisor. This mechanism must absolutely be included if the intent of the legislation is to make reporting easier. When someone wants to make a complaint, if the first step is to go to their supervisor when the supervisor or the supervisor's supervisor is the subject of the complaint, it is highly likely that the complaint mechanism will not be effective. This is especially true for small organizations.

We urge you to clarify this aspect and provide an alternative for cases where the complaint is directed to the supervisor or the employer. Any disclosure process must be clear, simple and impartial, and include people working for small organizations.

We strongly support that any investigation relating to a complaint of harassment or violence must be assigned to an individual who is competent to do so. It is our recommendation that regulations need to be prescriptive in defining who is authorized to conduct investigations. Issues such as fairness, impartiality, and privacy are crucial components. Done badly, investigations can cause even greater damage to workplace relations.

Investigations must be performed by trained professionals who are subject to a code of ethics and rules of professional conduct and, in some instances, bound by professional secrecy.

A final word on investigations is that we strongly urge that regulations provide for what might be included in an investigator's report. Beyond a finding of whether there was bullying, harassment, or violence in the workplace, the investigator could, or actually should, make recommendations on practices that need to change or be initiated within the organization. The report should also create an obligation to abide by the recommendations within a set time frame. This approach would send a very clear signal that the federal government is serious about addressing bullying, harassment, and violence in the workplace.

I would like to turn to our third and final point, which is the issue of prevention.

The #MeToo movement has created a widespread public conversation on bullying, harassment, and violence. The movement has created an environment where individuals feel safer to lodge complaints and expect these complaints to be dealt with, but each time this happens, high personal and business costs result and productivity suffers. We need to do better.

Culture change is required in Canadian workplaces to prevent bullying, harassment, and violence. The government has committed to put in place supports such as awareness-building on harassment and violence, education and training tools for employees and employers, and direct support to help employees navigate the process and support employers in putting in place policies and processes. We look forward to hearing further details. We submit that support for training, especially in small and medium-sized organizations, is necessary.

Our members, the professionals who are responsible for policies, training, and prevention of bullying, harassment, and violence in the workplace, are keenly aware that culture change is required. The following key aspects, we believe, are necessary in every workplace to drive a change of culture: communicating regularly with employees; ensuring supervisors and managers apply policy; disciplinary management, if necessary, to correct wrongdoing; education and training workshops to facilitate changing attitudes and behaviour; and finally, support and training for managers.

In closing, we would like to reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity to participate in these hearings. We look forward to working with you on the next steps.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Dr. Sandy Hershcovis]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. It's an honour to be here today to speak to you about Bill C-65. I've specialized in the scientific study of workplace harassment, including workplace bullying, incivility, and sexual harassment, since 2004. My specific expertise lies in the consequences of these forms of harassment for employees and organizations as well as coping strategies that employees use. Most recently, I have begun to focus on witness reactions to these forms of harassment.

I commend this committee for working to introduce a bill that will help victims and employers create a more respectful work environment.

In my comments, I will focus on four main points: definitions, language in the Canada Labour Code, reporting processes, and mandated training. I have also submitted a brief that provides specific recommendations for this committee to consider.

Bill C-65 aims to cover all forms of workplace harassment, including sexual and non-sexual harassment.

In the February 12 meeting in which Minister Hajdu answered questions about Bill C-65, there were a number of questions pertaining to the definition. I agree with the minister that the definition needs to be broad enough to capture workplace harassment in all its forms. I also agree with the concerns that without a clear definition that explains what constitutes workplace harassment, it will be difficult for organizations to develop policies and properly train employees.

As my first point, I will begin with sexual harassment. In the social sciences, sexual harassment is defined in three categories: sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention, and gender harassment. The current definition in the Canada Labour Code, which is being repealed, covers only the first two categories. I would like to encourage the committee to develop a definition that covers all three.

Sexual coercion is defined as actions that make the victim's employment or advancement contingent on sexual favours. Unwanted sexual attention includes expressions of unwanted sexual interest. Gender harassment includes verbal and non-verbal behaviours that convey insulting, hostile, or degrading attitudes toward one's gender.

A recent example reported in Science magazine described women on a geological expedition to Antarctica who reported that they were pelted with rocks by male colleagues, called names, had volcanic ash blown in their eyes, and were told that women should not be field geologists.

Sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention are traditional sexual behaviours or come-ons, while gender harassment is not sexual. It's a put-down that focuses on gender.

Research shows that 89% of harassed women report gender harassment with no unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion, and that gender harassment has similar negative consequences for victims as the other two forms of sexual harassment, so exclusion of this form of harassment from the sexual harassment definition misses the majority of cases of sexual harassment.

In non-sexual workplace harassment, researchers found that all forms of psychological harassment, from minor slights to threats and physical abuse, have significant negative effects on the well-being of employees as well as their job attitudes and work performance. I agree with the minister that the language needs to be broad enough to encompass all harassment, including those that span traditional workplace space and time boundaries. In my brief I suggest working definitions for both sexual and non-sexual workplace harassment for you to consider.

My second point focuses on language in the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-65 attempts to inject harassment and violence into an existing health and safety labour code. From a layperson's perspective, reading through the code it appears to focus mostly on physical safety, which of course is very important, but I think workplace respect is equally important. More fully integrating harassment and violence language into the Canada Labour Code would send a message to federal organizations and employees that harassment prevention is a Canadian priority. To that end, I suggest the committee replace the term “health and safety” with something like “health, safety, and respectful treatment” wherever it makes sense to do so.

My third point pertains to reporting. Minister Hajdu correctly explained that a key driver of workplace harassment is power. Harassment in all its forms is much more likely to come from a person in a position of power. When harassment comes from someone in a position of power, it has significantly stronger negative effects on victims than when it comes from a co-worker. Also, witnesses are less likely to intervene on harassment from a powerful perpetrator. Because of the power differential, reporting harassment is a big problem. Victims fear reprisal, disbelief, and inaction. This bill addresses perceptions of disbelief and inaction by requiring an investigation, but I'm concerned that fear of reprisal may still prevent reporting.

Research shows that those who voice complaints of workplace harassment experience considerable counter-retaliation, and that retaliation is more likely from a powerful perpetrator. Proposed subsection 127.1 requires that employees make a complaint to the supervisor as a first course of action. Since harassment often comes from the supervisor, I think the bill needs to clearly state that where the supervisor is the source of the complaint, employees may take their complaint directly to the labour board.

Finally, I want to briefly mention that for repeat offences, it would help if the Canada Labour Code were to mandate respectful workplace training. Since workplace harassment is often driven by cultural norms, organizations that are found to be in violation of the Canada Labour Code on more than one occasion would benefit from civility training. I think the Canada Labour Code should specify mandated training in these circumstances.

I'll stop there and welcome any questions from the committee. Thank you once again for your important work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good afternoon, everybody.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration 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.

Today the committee will hear from witnesses on the subject of human resources practices and organizations dedicated to addressing sexual misconduct. I apologize in advance if I butcher any of your names. I've been practising for the first couple of minutes here, and I'm not confident I'm going to get them all right.

From the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, we have Caroline Senneville, vice-president, and Jason Godin, union representative. Jason I believe is coming to us via video conference. Can you hear me okay, Jason?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to the last question I put to you, so that all of our guests may reply. I want to hear what you have to say about the fact that Bill C-65 aims to exclude the joint occupational health and safety committee from investigations into cases of sexual assault or harassment, or any other type of harassment. One of the main arguments we have heard here at committee is that such incidents need to be handled very confidentially.

What do you have to say about confidentiality, as it relates to the importance of keeping the union in the process, as well as the occupational health and safety committee?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I barely have three minutes to wrap up, but I would like to hear all of your comments.

Bill C-65 aims to set aside the joint occupational health and safety committee, a joint committee that involves the employer, workers and the union on certain occasions. You mentioned the importance of including the union. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Do you think that the occupational health and safety committee should be maintained, and be a part of the investigation process into cases of assault or harassment?

Let's begin with Ms. Bauman.

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

My apologies for interrupting, but my suggestion is that you might put your heads together and provide guidance to this committee, because this committee is going to be making a recommendation to the government and possibly amending the legislation as it is now, sending it back to the House, and then to the Senate. This will be happening again in the Senate committee. If there is a lot of thought, and you get consensus on what the definition should be in Bill C-65, I think it would go a long way to achieving what you want.

I think there is support around here if it were a definition that we could all support. Particularly if the witnesses are supporting it, then that would go a long way.

I do have a question for Ms. Peckford and Ms. Sutton.

My curiosity in having studied criminology and Corrections Canada, and visiting the different institutions from the Fraser Valley, Matsqui, which is a medium security, and then going up to Kent, and to Mountain, and visiting the different.... There is a dynamic, a feeling, a culture around each of these institutions that's quite different as you move around.

My question is, for people working in these different environments, is there a different level of sexual harassment? Does it breed a sexual harassment environment?

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

Thank you.

I wanted to follow up a bit on the discussion we're having about remedies.

Ms. Bauman, you were talking about the Human Rights Commission as one place to go. Do you think this legislation deals with the two avenues clearly enough as to whether you would proceed by going through the human rights code or the labour program in the legislation set out in Bill C-65?

[Nancy Peckford, Senior Policy Advisor, Union of Safety and Justice Employees]

Thank you, Bethany.

I, in fact, wear two hats today. One is as an occasional policy adviser with the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, and the other is as the executive director of Equal Voice, where I will provide some comments. I concur with many of the statements that Bethany and our colleagues have made. The parliamentary environment is not dissimilar to what we in fact see on Parliament Hill. I think we welcome Bill C-65 as a very strong first step, but I think in order for you to all get it right, we do need to look at some significant amendments to the bill.

In short, when Equal Voice looked at legislation and workplace policies across the country, we came up with nine criteria that I think are applicable both to the parliamentary working environment and to many of the federally regulated agencies and departments on whose behalf this legislation is being drafted. Very quickly, we have 10 points that we want you to consider. Many of them have already been addressed. Really, at its heart, politics has to be taken out of this process at every stage of the game. We know on Parliament Hill and in federally regulated agencies like the RCMP, politics often is the primary consideration, not explicitly, but implicitly in terms of how employers deal with what is often egregious behaviour.

Clearly, in our minds, a definition of “sexual harassment” is prudent in moving forward. We need to recognize that harassment can take place outside the workplace, crucial for both federally regulated agencies and, obviously, on Parliament Hill, given the extent of activity that takes place outside this working environment, or a constituency office. We need mandatory training by qualified experts. I think that's really clear. I think mandatory is key.

We have to ensure that the competent persons who are identified are in fact truly independent as many others have said, and that they have the qualifications necessary, otherwise this bill will not serve anybody in the long run. We too are very concerned about confidentiality involved in the cases of Correctional Service Canada, RCMP, and Parliament Hill. We know that confidentiality is a really tough one and that lots of people aren't coming forward because they are not trusting of that process. We have to make sure that the results of the investigation are clearly communicated and there is some stipulation for recourse. We know that the House of Commons policy that many parties have worked really hard to improve is vastly underutilized because people are not confident that their employment or their identity will be protected.

Finally, there are just three more points. Clearly, we want time limits stipulated in the bill so investigations don't go on for months, if not years, which we're seeing across the board. Employment and counselling services, I think, are fundamental especially on Parliament Hill where we know that the environment can be really toxic in certain instances; and even with the outcome of an investigation, we do need to ensure that people actually get the kind of support they need.

What we understand about harassment is that, really, we're forfeiting, in fact, in some cases, the pipeline of the future in terms of women coming to the Hill really wanting to make meaningful contributions to public service, using an opportunity to work in an MP's office as a way to do that and better understand political processes. If they have a highly negative experience, we've lost them. We've lost a potential MP, we've lost a potential elected person, and I would say on the USJE side of the House, we often see that. Often highly qualified women who leave Correctional Service Canada, say, “No, I can't do this. On I must go.” That would be true of the RCMP as well.

I'll leave it there.

[Greg Phillips, President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees]

Honourable members of Parliament, we would like to thank the members of this committee for inviting us to appear so that we might voice our opinion with respect to Bill C-65.

My name is Greg Phillips. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, CAPE. CAPE represents some 14,000 public service employees. The vast majority of our members are economists and social science workers who advise the government on public policy. We also represent the translators and interpreters who work every day to preserve and promote Canada's linguistic duality. Last but not least, we also have the great honour of representing the 90 analysts and research assistants employed by the Library of Parliament.

Accompanying me today is Colleen Bauman, a partner at Goldblatt Partners LLP's Ottawa office. She has a great deal of experience dealing with harassment issues and concerns in many different workplace settings, including the federal public service. I am also accompanied by Claude Vézina, CAPE's executive director, who manages the employees responsible for helping members who are experiencing workplace harassment issues.

As you are no doubt aware, the problem of harassment and violence in Canadian workplaces, including the federal public service, is an ever-present problem. Harassment not only harms the individual victims, but it also has a negative impact on workplace morale and productivity. CAPE is very pleased that the government is taking steps with Bill C-65 to help prevent and address this problem. In particular, CAPE is relieved to see that the legislation extends protection to parliamentary employees, including CAPE's members at the Library of Parliament.

CAPE has been fighting for many years for parliamentary employees to have the same protections as other federal employees. Historically, employees of Parliament did not even have the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In 2005, CAPE intervened in support of them in Canada v. Vaid, a case in which the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to all employees of the federal government, including those working for Parliament. While it is a positive development to see that Bill C-65 extends the protections of the Canada Labour Code to parliamentary employees, it is unfortunate that it has taken until 2018 for this to happen.

While CAPE fully supports the introduction of comprehensive legislation to address the problem of harassment in both parliamentary and other federal workplaces, we are concerned that as drafted, Bill C-65 does not go far enough and leaves too many important details to be determined by regulations. Today I'd like to speak briefly about three areas of concern that CAPE has with Bill C-65: the failure of the legislation to include a definition of harassment, the failure of the legislation to guarantee that employees will have access to independent and impartial investigations for harassment complaints, and the failure of the legislation to provide for redress for victims of harassment.

The government has stated that Bill C-65 is part of its commitment to eliminating harassment and violence in federal workplaces, yet surprisingly, the bill fails to define the very thing it seeks to eliminate, leaving it instead to be determined at a later date by regulation. CAPE submits that the definition of “harassment” is too important a matter to leave to regulation. Employees and their representatives need to know now whether the legislation will take a narrow and restrictive approach to harassment, excluding some victims from accessing its protection, or if it will be defined broadly and include all forms of personal harassment, such as conduct and/or behaviours that create an intimidating, demeaning, or hostile work environment.

CAPE submits that the legislation should be amended now to add a broad and purposive definition of “harassment” that will offer the widest-possible protection to employees. In CAPE's view, a definition similar to the one that is currently found in the Treasury Board's Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution, which includes both personal and grounds-based harassment, would be a good starting plan.

Our second area of concern with Bill C-65 is that the legislation fails to guarantee that employees will have access to independent and impartial investigations for harassment complaints. Having an independent and impartial investigator is the hallmark of a procedurally fair investigation. An independent investigation ensures that all parties—complainants, respondents, and witnesses—feel that they can speak freely and participate fully in the investigation without fear of retaliation or negative consequences. Indeed, one of the most common concerns we've heard from our members about the current process is that the investigation of their complaint was neither fair nor impartial.

Bill C-65 provides that these employees can complain about their workplace harassment, and where the employee and employer fail to resolve the complaint between themselves, that complaint can be referred directly to the minister for investigation, bypassing the workplace health and safety committee. However, it fails to guarantee that the harassment investigation will be independent and impartial. CAPE submits that the bill should be amended to add this type of requirement.

The final area of concern that I want to speak about today is the failure of Bill C-65 to provide for redress for victims of harassment. It is commonly said that there will be no right without remedy. In other words, a right is meaningless if you have no remedy for its violation.

Meaningful remedies ensure the victims are put back in the place they would have been but for the violation of their rights. Currently, if a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act involving harassment on protected grounds is founded, the victim may be awarded remedies including making available to the victim the rights, opportunities, or privileges that were denied, compensating the victim for any lost wages, compensating the victim for any pain and suffering that the victim would have experienced, or compensating the victim for discriminatory treatment that was willful or reckless.

In contrast, at present, the harassment investigations under the Treasury Board policy may end with a finding of harassment but without any corresponding remedy for the victim. An anti-harassment regime that provides no power to award remedies, or one that caps them at $20,000 for pain and suffering like the current CHRA provisions, will discourage victims from coming forward. CAPE submits that the anti-harassment regime under Bill C-65 should provide for real remedies and redress for victims of harassment.

In conclusion, CAPE sees Bill C-65 as a very positive step towards addressing the problem of harassment in federal workplaces. CAPE is hopeful that the reluctance that many employees currently feel in reporting workplace harassment and violence will be addressed and alleviated to at least some extent by the legislation you are currently working on. However, we ask that you consider improving its effectiveness by including a definition of harassment, a guarantee of independent and impartial investigation, and provision for redress for victims. All three of these additions will encourage more victims to come forward and make legislation more effective at eradicating harassment and providing meaningful remedies to its victims.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good evening, everybody.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code in regard to harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

Today the committee will hear from witnesses on the subject of the work environment and the resources available to the employees of the Parliament of Canada.

We're very pleased to be joined by a great panel of witnesses here this evening. From the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, we have Greg Phillips, president, and Colleen Bauman, a partner in Goldblatt Partners LLP; from the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Local 232, Nasha Brownridge, president, and Nina Amrov, chief steward; and from the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, Bethany Sutton, interim director, policy, projects, and media, and Nancy Peckford, senior policy adviser.

Welcome to you all, and thank you.

Each organization will have seven minutes for opening statements.

We're going to start off with the Canadian Association of Professional Employees. Greg Phillips and Colleen Bauman, the next seven minutes are yours.

[Pierre Parent]

It's a difficult question to answer.

We're monitoring Bill C-65. Unfortunately, the regulations are not drafted, so it's difficult to see the final effect of Bill C-65.

Fear of retribution depends on the structure, and that is why I go back to the structure of members' offices. If I go back to your reality, it concerns the structure of your offices. They are small offices, whereas in a bigger environment, in a corporate environment, you feel a bit more secure.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

In terms of sexual harassment, there's been a lot in the news, and we know that it's been an issue in members' offices—some members' offices, not all—for years, for decades.

Based on what's in Bill C-65, do you see this legislation changing people's ability to come forward? Will it make it easier if someone is in that position? The issue before has been their fear of retribution. Putting aside all the training and things you're doing outside of the legislation, do you see this legislation assisting in that process?

[Pierre Parent]

My answer will be very short.

Right now, we have no suggestions. Once Bill C-65 receives royal assent, we will adapt to it. Our internal processes are solid enough to help us going forward. So I don't have any specific concerns.