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 for your interventions and for your participation in this committee meeting.

My question, which follows on those of Ms. Dabrusin, is for Ms. Fortin and Ms. MacEachern.

A few weeks ago, Canada Post employees spoke out in the press and denounced a culture of psychological harassment and reported on certain events. In addition, during the public consultations conducted by the Prime Minister, a worker called on him directly to denounce this culture.

In this committee, witnesses said that supervisors were psychologically harassing and bullying employees. It seems that these behaviours were directly related to their bonuses.

Is this kind of remuneration part of the culture at Canada Post? We were talking about sick leave and people working overtime on their own route.

You said you have already implemented measures, but I would like to know whether you think Bill C-65 could help to improve the situation and mitigate these common practices that have emerged in recent weeks at Canada Post.

[Derrick Hynes]

The argument we've been making is that we believe the definition is more suitably placed in the regulations because they allow it to be updated as our understanding of this particular issue changes and evolves over time.

The minister alluded to this in her comments when she talked about cyber-bullying. That was something we didn't even know existed a decade ago. Regulations don't change on a dime. They have to go through a process. Regulations are as strong, in terms of how they have to be enforced by those over whom they are held, as if the language was written directly into the law.

We believe the experts should be engaged fully in developing that definition of what is and what is not harassment. We believe that process will take some time, as it did when we went through part XX and did the violence piece of the occupational health and safety regulations. It's a process the parties should go through—the experts from labour, the experts from business, the experts from government, and outside stakeholders—so that we can engage fully and comprehensively to get a full understanding of what should and should not be contained in that definition.

At the end of the day, whether it's in the legislation or in the regulation, I don't think it makes a difference in terms of how it will be enforced, but I think having it in the regulation gives us the opportunity, under this broad framework the government will be creating with Bill C-65 and the changes to the Canada Labour Code, to go through that process, which will take some time, and I frankly don't think it could be solved at this table in the weeks ahead in finishing this piece of legislation in particular.

[Derrick Hynes, Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, committee, for having me here today. I'm pleased to be here to speak to you on behalf of FETCO about Bill C-65.

By way of background, I should tell you that FETCO stands for Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications. That's a mouthful, so we usually go by the acronym of FETCO. Our members are all federally regulated firms in the transportation and communications sectors. We've existed as an employers' association for over 30 years. We are generally large employers in the federal sector, encompassing nearly 500,000 employees and representing well-known firms such as Air Canada, Bell, CN, CP Railway, and Telus, to name a few. Our members are almost exclusively predominantly unionized firms, and we have a rich history of tripartite collaboration within the federal sector.

Our key message today is this: FETCO members are highly supportive of the spirit and intent of Bill C-65. We support the minister's commitment to ensure employees have access to an efficient and effective process when they bring forward complaints of violence or harassment in the workplace.

Canadian workplaces should be free from harassment and violence, period. To this end, our member organizations typically have in place workplace policies that are already largely consistent with the process that will henceforth be mandated under part II of the Canada Labour Code via this bill. We are committed to doing all that we can as employers to improve these processes where deficiencies might exist.

FETCO members applaud the minister and senior officials from ESDC on the work completed to date on this matter, especially related to the comprehensive consultation that has been undertaken over the past 18 months, which we expect will continue once the bill becomes law. This bill, I believe, in fact comes from that consultation. The consultation work dates back to June 2016. In tripartite meetings held on harassment in the workplace, FETCO members noted that government has heard and subsequently responded to concerns raised by key stakeholders. Bill C-65 acknowledges these concerns, which are related to the protection of privacy in the process, the role of the workplace committees, and the responsibilities of the ESDC health and safety officers.

FETCO members also appreciate that government has chosen to provide a broad framework via this piece of legislation but to allow some of the details to be worked out by the parties via the regulatory process. As an example, we are pleased to see that the definition of “harassment” will be tackled by a regulation, thereby allowing two things: first, that the definition can be revised on an ongoing basis in a more seamless manner via a regulatory review; and second, that key stakeholders—of note, representatives from both the labour and business communities—can be involved in developing these important definitions.

FETCO's review of Bill C-65 has resulted in two specific concerns that we hope your committee can consider in your ongoing review of the bill. In fact, I think it's fair to say that our concerns are probably more on the operationalization of the bill through the regulatory process, but I'd like to raise them at this table nonetheless.

First, we would appreciate it if the government provided greater clarity on the potential intersection of this new ESDC harassment process under Bill C-65 with the investigatory powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Our hope is that there would be a single clearly defined process for all harassment complaints. Bill C-65 and the Canadian Human Rights Act provide dual opportunities for such complaints. Each, however, has specific language that could refuse complaints that are being heard elsewhere. It would add certainty if government provided clear direction that these clauses would be used when dual complaints on essentially the same issue are filed.

Second, Bill C-65 speaks to the appointment of a competent person to investigate all harassment and/or violence complaints. We request that government provide greater clarity on this process, as there is already some confusion in this space under the current violence investigation process. Specifically, we request that government acknowledge competent persons can be employees in the organization in question and that the employer would retain the ultimate responsibility for appointing the competent person, as long as they meet the clear criteria that are outlined under regulation. The process should not necessarily default to an outside investigator.

In conclusion, I'd like to repeat our key message: Canadian workplaces should be free from harassment and violence, period. FETCO members are highly supportive of the spirit and intent of Bill C-65. Our members' current practices generally align with this bill. We support the minister's commitment to ensure that employees have access to an efficient and effective process when they bring forward complaints of violence or harassment in the workplace. We are pleased to be part of this solution.

Thank you.

[Marina Mandal, Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to appear this afternoon to participate in the committee's review of Bill C-65. My name is Marina Mandal, and I'm the CBA's assistant general counsel.

The CBA is the voice of more than 60 domestic and foreign banks that drive Canada's economic growth and prosperity. The CBA advocates for public policies that contribute to a sound, thriving banking system to ensure Canadians can succeed in their financial goals.

Canada's banks fully support the federal government's actions to strengthen legislation on harassment and violence in the workplace. The CBA's position on this issue is clear: harassment and violence have no place in the workforce or in society. Canada's banking sector will continue to set an example for creating safe, rewarding, and respectful work environments for all employees.

The CBA actively participated in the government's consultations leading to Bill C-65, and we're pleased that the bill contains provisions that address what was a key focus for us: protecting the privacy and confidentiality of employees throughout the process of investigating any allegation of harassment or violence. We look forward to working with the government to ensure that Canada continues to have world-class health and safety advancements for all Canadians, including the more than 275,000 diverse employees of Canada's banking sector.

Canadian banks pride themselves on having leading practices in place to help prevent and address harassment in the workplace. In fact, many of the measures outlined in Bill C-65 are already reflected in existing bank practices. Banks have clear written policies that outline the following: behaviours considered to be workplace violence or harassment, steps employees should take when aware of an incident, how the organization will respond to allegations, and explicit protection against retaliation for raising a concern about workplace violence or harassment. Banks also have mandatory training for all employees on violence and harassment as a condition of continued employment.

If a complaint is brought forward in a bank, there are multiple channels through which incidents of violence or harassment may be reported. This includes channels that do not involve the parties' direct management. An example is an ombudsman office that is independent of other bank departments and reports directly to the most senior levels of the bank—directly to the general counsel or the bank's president and CEO.

Banks investigate all allegations of workplace violence or harassment, and more generally inappropriate conduct, regardless of whether the alleged conduct, if it was found to have occurred, would meet the definition of “workplace violence” or “harassment” under either the bank's own code of conduct or employee policy or under the law.

Prior to commencing an investigation, banks will determine whether it is appropriate for the parties to remain in the workplace during the course of the investigation and will ensure all parties are offered personal support during the investigation—for example, through counselling services offered through the bank's employee assistance program. Once the investigation is complete, they will communicate the findings of the investigation to all complainants and respondents prior to notifying them of the outcome or implementing corrective action. Internal bank review processes must align with legislation and common law, but are created to be flexible in order to account for practical realities. Banks also ensure that all investigations are conducted by a trained investigator who is impartial to the parties involved.

In her speech in the House of Commons, Minister Hajdu said, “...our government recognizes that safe workplaces, free of harassment and violence, are critical to the well-being of Canadian workers....” We agree with the minister's statement, and banks have long worked hard to ensure this is the case within their institutions.

Thank you once again for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to participate in the committee's review of Bill C-65. I welcome any questions you may have.

[Ann-Therese MacEachern, Vice-President, Human Resources, Canada Post Corporation]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for inviting us to participate in this important discussion on Bill C-65.

I'm Ann-Therese MacEachern, vice-president of human resources. I'm with my colleague, Manon Fortin, who is vice-president of operations integration. We're proud to represent Canada Post, where we both have more than 25 years of experience at various levels within the organization.

Harassment and violence in the workplace are incredibly important issues, and we hope to contribute in a positive way to the development of this legislation. In the next few minutes, I will outline our approach to help ensure that our people feel safe, respected, and able to do their jobs without threat of harassment and violence.

First, it's important to understand the size and scope of our operations. More than 50,000 people, full- and part-time employees, work for Canada Post, not including our subsidiaries. With our size, our employees represent a microcosm of Canadian society. They interact with their colleagues, their supervisors, and countless customers in every province and territory.

It's our job to serve Canadians, and we're proud to do so, but it's also important to note that two-thirds of the complaints registered come from employees who believe they've been harassed, or worse, by a customer. As you see, our approach must be comprehensive, clear, and collaborative.

At Canada Post, our commitment is to create a workplace that brings out the best in our people and fosters a safe, supportive, and productive environment. Harassment, violence, or bullying in any form is not tolerated between our employees or against our employees. While nobody's perfect, we walk the walk with an approach that's focused on three main pillars.

The first is prevention through leadership, standards, training, and policies that reinforce expectations. Collaboration with our unions is also key. The second is an effective, appropriate, and timely response if an issue occurs, with numerous avenues for employees to be heard. The third is to review results, seek input, and look for areas to evolve and continuously improve our approach.

Prevention is the most important, so let me start there. It starts first with the tone that's set by the corporation through our values, our code of conduct, and our policies. As well, all five of our collective agreements include provisions with human rights clauses. These are more than just paper: they shape the culture and define the standards to which all employees must hold themselves accountable.

Leadership is where this approach is most evident. The day-to-day interactions our team leaders have with their employees and the tone they set are incredibly important. It's where I've seen a great deal of positive change in the last few years. Leaders who are accessible, know their people, engage with them in the workplace, and recognize good performance see better results. It also helps them to address issues with coaching, communication, and common sense.

To assist them, we provide training when they're first hired and refresher sessions on a regular basis. Core to the training is how to create a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. We also provide this type of training to all employees, starting with our onboarding process. I can provide more detail on the training during our discussion, but I'd like to highlight one example that demonstrates the importance we put on collaboration.

For more than 10 years, employees who are members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have participated in a training program called “Human Rights and Conflict in the Workplace”. This half-day training session was jointly developed and is co-facilitated with CUPW, our largest union. Approximately 30,000 employees have completed the training. Topics such as diversity in the workplace, harassment related to human rights, discrimination, and resolving conflicts are well received by participants.

This collaboration is not limited to training programs. Within our major facilities, we have long-standing local joint health and safety committees, where local management and union representatives work to prevent health and safety risks and address issues in a timely manner. In the event an incident occurs, employees have access to several options whereby they can be heard and supported, based on their comfort level. These are communicated to employees through various means to ensure they're aware of their options, as well as the consequences of inappropriate behaviour.

In all, employees have access to no less than eight different avenues, ranging from a discussion with a supervisor to confidential or anonymous programs run by third parties on behalf of Canada Post. I'd be happy to outline these in greater detail when we move to questions.

Regardless of their choice, complaints are addressed in a prompt and respectful manner. When investigating, management will not disclose the complainant's identity unless doing so is essential to resolving a complaint. This is important to the integrity of the process, just as important as ensuring the employee has the proper support in place once a report is filed. The investigation is quickly initiated and logged to ensure a proper response. The employee also has various avenues to turn to, such as employee assistance, for additional support.

Following an investigation, and depending on the circumstances, a range of consequences can apply. Some incidents are resolved with a frank conversation or a warning, while others involve more in-depth intervention. For serious violations, nothing short of dismissing the employee is the right thing to do. These decisions are never taken lightly.

As I said at the beginning, we've made progress, but improving workplace health, safety, and well-being is a continuous evolution. We collect and examine data on all our programs and review it regularly for trends, root-cause analysis, and improvement opportunities. This isn't just number-crunching; it's important in our ongoing improvement. Data allows us to detect trends to determine systemic issues. For example, this detailed level of analysis will greatly help to determine where we should place additional resources and support.

On behalf of Canada Post, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear. We applaud the government and members of the committee for working to provide clear expectations and direction for all federal employers through Bill C-65. Harassment, intimidation, and violence should not be tolerated in the workplace or any place. Employees should feel they have proper training, support, and protection, regardless of where they work.

Our approach has evolved over many years and aligns with the desired future state described in Bill C-65. We will continue to evolve and improve our approach to not only comply with the final legislation but also seek further improvements.

This is an important conversation, and you're on the right track. Start with prevention and collaboration, as it will have a tremendous positive impact on workplace culture. Ensure there are numerous avenues for employees to be heard and respected, constantly monitor progress, and look for opportunities to improve.

We'll be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

[Yves-Thomas Dorval]

My name is Yves-Thomas Dorval. I'm the CEO of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Quebec Employers' Council.

I'd like to thank the committee for hearing us on Bill C-65. I will speak in French, but you can ask your questions in English. Of course, for people who need it, they will need translation from French to English.

The Conseil du patronat du Québec, or CPQ, is an association of employers that either directly or indirectly represents over 70,000 employers, including several subject to provincial legislation and many others, to federal legislation. Our mission is to advocate best-possible conditions for employers to ensure they can be successful. Workplaces that are free form harassment and violence are essential for maintaining healthy working relationships, they give rise to productive environments and benefit the health of all workers.

In general, we support the goals and objectives pursued in the bill, which seeks to reinforce the code's regime to help ensure that workplaces are free from harassment and violence. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the CPQ, certain elements in the bill could be improved, at least in part. In the brief we have provided, we include our position on the regulation of harassment, which is based on our experiences with similar provisions under Quebec law.

Generally speaking, in terms of regulation, experiences in Quebec have shown that the subjective nature of perceptions can prove problematic when addressing and dealing with psychological harassment situations. The brief also contains quotes from a Quebec author who said that there can be no off-the-shelf solutions in these matters. Each situation is unique and must be assessed in the light of the particular facts and circumstances. The CPQ agrees with this statement. Moreover, experience has also shown that in some instances accusations of psychological harassment were brought forward by individuals suffering from personal problems. This can create workplace conflict situations that lead to an unhealthy work environment for everyone.

As for the CPQ's specific comments, we note that, in the section entitled “Definitions of the notions of violence and harassment”, the bill does not include any definitions of the terms “harassment” and “violence”. However, clause 14 of the bill provides that the definitions are to be prescribed by regulation.

In our opinion, this provision raises several questions. Foremost among these, the CPQ is left wondering why the definition of such a key notion should not be inserted directly into the code. A concept as potentially complex as harassment should warrant a carefully worded definition. To help illustrate this point, we cite another example from Quebec. In the Act respecting labour standards, psychological harassment is defined as follows:81.18 … any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affects an employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful work environment for the employee.

The following article should also be taken into consideration:A single serious incident of such behaviour that has a lasting harmful effect on an employee may also constitute psychological harassment.

In strictly theoretical terms, the definition of “psychological harassment” does not appear in the least problematic. However, experience has shown that the definition, which seems appropriate at first glance, could have been improved through the addition of a more complete explanation.

In our brief, we mention an employer's management rights can sometimes be a factor at the root of a workplace conflict. In short, it is important to recognize and clearly explain what constitutes psychological harassment and violence.

As for the expanded scope of the regime under the code, we note in our brief that the notions of harassment and violence, which will apparently cover acts of a sexual nature, will in future be prescribed by regulation. If the bill is to be adopted in its current form, it is essential that the regulation be simultaneously adopted, as otherwise it could occasion a regulatory vacuum.

If an investigation by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour becomes necessary at some point in the process, it should be done at the appropriate time. As such, the involvement of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in the resolution of complaints, as currently outlined in the bill, raises a few questions.

It should be kept in mind that international best practices mention that more intervention is needed, meaning that the community must take on these types of issues. We are not against the fact that there is intervention when appropriate, but we want to remind you that it should occur sparingly. Our brief contains several questions about this.

In closing, I would like to stress that we support the bill. We are providing some nuances from the Quebec experience and invite members of the committee to take these examples and situations into consideration. I think that some additional clarification could be added.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon. 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 federally regulated private sector employers. We are very pleased to be joined today, via teleconference from the Quebec Employers' Council, by Yves-Thomas Dorval, president and chief executive officer, and Guy-François Lamy, vice-president, work and legal affairs.

Can you gentlemen hear me?

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

Is Bill C-65 good or should we reinforce it? That's my question.

Do you have any suggestions for strengthening the bill we are currently studying to encourage a culture change? We all agree that we need to change the culture. With respect to prevention, is there anything that we could strengthen in the current bill?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will ask my questions in French. You can use the simultaneous interpretation services, if you want.

We have talked at length about the investigative process and the complaint process. I would now like to talk about the prevention process and the culture change.

Will the measures in Bill C-65 strengthen prevention? Do you have any other suggestions?

You can start, Mrs. Major.

[Cody Woodcock, President, Youth Committee, Teamsters Canada]

I am Cody Woodcock, a proud Teamsters member, who comes from the rail industry out of Red Deer, Alberta. I currently serve as the Teamsters Canada youth committee president. I am honoured to speak on behalf of 120,000 Teamsters members across Canada, and for all Canadians battling mental illness.

In 2015, the Teamsters Canada youth committee embarked on a social media campaign called “Make it Mandatory” in order to convince government to take action on this issue. The campaign began in response to the Edmonton Hub Mall shooting in 2012, where an individual turned on his co-workers, shooting four and killing three of them. Our committee member was a co-worker at G4S at the time.

It was realized that not only was the shooter in need of help for his mental illness in the workplace, but also something needed to be done for the victims left in the aftermath of this tragedy. Teamsters Canada is concerned that workers and their employers do not receive all the assistance they need in the workplace to stop the stigma and to prevent, accommodate, and support individuals in the workplace who suffer from mental illness.

The youth committee created a seven-part web series that has been viewed over two million times. I encourage all of you to take the time to view these videos at makeitmandatory.ca. We are fortunate in our videos to have Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Thomas Mulcair, Elizabeth May, Murray Rankin, Steven Fletcher, and Rodger Cuzner express their support for taking action on mental health in the workplace. The cause has support from all political parties, as the illness affects people from all walks of life. We have gained support by meeting with over 50 MPs here on the Hill, as well as back home in our own ridings.

We have been supported by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, the United Way, Military Minds Inc, Respect Group, and the Canadian Mental Health Association, as they, too, see the need for action.

In the rail industry, sadly the reality of my job is that crossing fatalities and accidents occur far to often. My co-workers and I must come to terms with having a hand in another person's death. Everyone deals with this tragedy in different ways, but often feel they don't have the supports in the workplace to navigate through these issues. The result can see individuals turning to different vices to temporarily numb the pain or they are forced to leave the industry as they struggle with mental health.

Our goal now is to propose an amendment to start the conversation on how to include a mental health initiative in Bill C-65. The bill seeks to prevent incidents of harassment and violence in the workplace, and to protect employees from these behaviours. We would like to see it go further to protect workers by ensuring everyone has access to support in their workplaces.

The stigma is still very present, and the government must force a discussion about mental health in the workplace. We need all parties to acknowledge mental illness as a disease, as it is no different from any other illness that causes physical damage. By adding the definition of “health” to section 122 to state that health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being would make it that mental health would be formally considered in existing rules, and would be better protected in the workplace.

Thank you.

[Phil Benson, Lobbyist, Youth Committee, Teamsters Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the committee for having us before it.

My name is Phil Benson. I'm a lobbyist for Teamsters Canada. With me is brother Cody Woodcock.

Teamsters Canada supports Bill C-65 and endorses the Canadian Labour Congress submission.

Today we will not discuss the bill in our presentation, though in the question-and answer-period, we look forward to discussing issues such as the difference between legislation and regulations, and the role of unions in the workplace. Instead, we are seeking an addition to the bill to make mental health awareness and support mandatory in workplaces.

We propose language for the bill—which you have—as well as suggestions for regulatory change, and a standard.

To be clear, we are not legislative drafters. Teamsters Canada welcomes any language the committee deems appropriate to reach the goal of making it mandatory.

[Troy Winters, Senior Officer, Health and Safety, Airline Division, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)]

We've heard the words of all the parties and have spoken with the dedicated staff of the labour program. I truly believe that everyone here wants to reduce violence. However, Bill C-65 proposes changes to the internal complaint resolution process that ensure that incidents of harassment and violence will not be brought to the joint health and safety committees for investigation or resolution.

Additionally, by changing sections under 134, 135, and 136, the bill reduces the investigative duties of committees and representatives. This is a departure from the rest of Canada, where health and safety law is defined by a concept known as the “internal responsibility system”, under which employers lead with the participation and consultation of health and safety committees.

CUPE has always contended that when violence, regardless of the type, happens in the workplace, the health and safety committee should be involved at an appropriate level so that they are able to determine the systemic breakdowns that allowed the violence to occur. For all hazards, health and safety has practised in Canada jointly with employers and workers through the internal responsibility system; for violence it should be no different. If the changes to the ICRP and the duties of the committee under Bill C-65 take effect, workplace harassment and violence will be handled solely by the employer.

As Marie-Hélène has stated, our flight attendants frequently deal with harassment, but we know, and we also hear in the news, about flight attendants being attacked while working on the airplane. We also know the potential for violence to all of our border guards, postal workers, armoured truck drivers, and many in the federal service. Why would we change the law to stop the committee from investigating these incidents? Who is better positioned than the people on the committee who actually operate these flights to help make the skies safe? In the case of sexually based violence and harassment, why would we remove the one legal route that could provide a trusted non-managerial source to help victims and survivors?

The Minister of Labour has stated that the goal is to prevent violence, to respond when violence occurs, and to provide support to survivors. It is CUPE's position that one of the best vehicles to accomplish all these goals is the existing health and safety committee structure. We implore the committee to recommend amending Bill C-65 to allow health and safety committees to do their job around all forms of violence.

We look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.

[Marie-Hélène Major, Secretary-Treasurer, Airline Division, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)]

Thank you.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees welcomes this opportunity to comment on Bill C-65 and present our recommendations to this committee for consideration.

CUPE is Canada's largest union, representing 650,000 members across Canada. We have federally regulated workers in communications, energy and transportation such as airlines, light rail and ports.

I represent the Airline Division of CUPE with over 12,000 unionized flight attendants.

I know the work environments of CUPE members expose them to numerous work-related hazards, most of which are well regulated. However, in spite of the demands of their work environment, which we strive to handle, workers should never be exposed to violence in the workplace whether in the form of verbal threats, harassment, physical violence, or sexual aggression and violence.

The close working environment, the occupational power hierarchy, and the spectrum of violence create a complex multi-dimensional issue, which will require close attention to ensure a process is developed that will respect principles of justice, human rights, equality, and privacy in the application of our health and safety laws.

CUPE strongly supports the government's renewed efforts on violence prevention, especially the often overlooked sexually related violence, and would like to echo the positive aspects of this bill as have been expressed by our colleague.

However, as was hinted at earlier, different types of violence will require different solutions, and while aspects of Bill C-65 provide positive steps towards facilitating safe and accountable workplaces and the prevention of violence, CUPE strongly believes that some of the proposed changes will have the opposite effect in the workplace.

Limiting the role of health and safety committees will, in the view of CUPE, lead to a chilling effect on reporting and increase the opportunity for all workplace violence, including systemic harassment, sexual violence, and assaults, to remain unaddressed.

As a case in point, sexual harassment and assaults on women within the airline industry are common experiences for our members. Heavy-handed management tactics, flawed policies, and flight crew power dynamics cause our flight attendants to be very hesitant to report. Frequently, members will come to us for help but wish to remain anonymous. In our experience, it's not only the shame of being a victim that keeps them from coming forward; it's the fear of reprisals. Even after we explain how we can help protect them, they are reluctant to go through the process for fear of experiencing victim shaming and blaming, having to face their aggressor, and potentially losing their job as a result of a poorly conducted investigation. They have no faith in the system's ability to protect them from traumatization and further abuses. In fact CUPE members have, in the past, reported incidents to the union but have prevented the union from moving forward for fear that they will lose their job or that their eligibility for promotion would be reduced.

Ensuring that workers do not experience reprisals from their employer when they report violence, allowing them access to their health and safety committees if they want it, and building in support and transparency for complainants are crucial factors in reducing barriers to reporting.

The role of health and safety committees is therefore, in the view of CUPE, essential for incidents of sexually based harassment and violence.

Thank you.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

My concern is that yesterday we heard that 22% of people in the public service said in a survey that they've experienced harassment in the last two years, and yet, if I got the numbers right, one third, I think, have not taken any action.

I think we are all very concerned about the people who don't come forward. We can look at the people who are experiencing harassment. Many of them say they don't want to come forward to anybody who is within proximity in their workplace, such as friends of the boss, people who might be working in the same department, and people they're going to have to interact with. We heard yesterday about a tip line that is actually causing more people to come forward, because it's more anonymous. It may be even in another part of the country that the complaint is registered and the process is given.

One of the reasons for Bill C-65, because the current system isn't working, is to have that ability to go external if needed, for people to feel.... It's an irony, but maybe they have more confidence if it's somebody who is not in close proximity.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Will the amendments to the Canada Labour Code proposed in Bill C-65 have immediate effects on the current collective agreements? You talked a little about it, but could you give me more details?