Human Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2018

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Therefore, you're familiar with the situation that was identified. Given the legislation as it's currently drafted, can you assure this committee that the situation that the opposition attempted to allude to—the situation of the minister being biased in the decision-making approach—would not happen with this legislation?

[Brenda Baxter]

The officers that are put in place are delegated by the minister. Those officers are trained to make sure they consider facts, make impartial decisions, and ensure that those decisions are put in place. That's the approach that's taken currently with the cadre of officers with regard to all of part II of the Canada Labour Code.

The extension of the provisions with regard to sexual harassment and violence would be dealt with in the same way. Our officers are extensively trained. They have to qualify and certify to be an officer, and they receive recertification on a regular basis to ensure they understand the code and implement the provisions of the code in an unbiased manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Go ahead, Madame Trudel.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you for being here.

I'd like to pick up on a discussion we had with the minister about financial resources. The slew of measures contained in Bill C-65 will have significant financial implications. Therefore, I'd like to know whether new funding will be available to help employers provide training and access the support needed to investigate allegations of sexual harassment and, of course, any harassment.

If so, can you tell me how much funding will be provided and, above all, where the money will come from?

[Barbara Moran]

Any time there are changes and updates to the legislation, resources are put in place to help employers adjust to them. That's in the form of education and training, and that type of thing. In addition, there's an intention to put in place an outreach hub that will allow employers and employees to get support in understanding the legislation and what their rights and responsibilities are under the legislation. The inspectors themselves will receive training to address issues related to harassment and violence, and to ensure they understand the legislation as well and are able to support employers in moving forward with it.

There will be costs associated with implementing the legislation for employers, and to the extent that we're able to provide employers with this type of material to help them, it will assist them. In the long run, there should be a reduction in cost for employers, because there should be a reduction in absenteeism, an increase in productivity, less litigation, and so on. There are going to be short-term costs that we will help them through, and then in the long term, there should be a reduction in cost for them.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

I also wanted to know whether you have determined how much funding will be allocated and, if so, where the money will come from.

[Barbara Moran]

In moving forward with the legislation, we are still developing regulations. Until all of those regulations are developed, we won't be able to have the full gamut of all the educational products and training and that type of thing.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

When inspectors go into workplaces, will employers have to bear the associated costs?

Will inspectors be brought in to conduct the investigation and then determine whether the harassment claim is founded?

[Barbara Moran]

The employer isn't required to pay for the inspectors. That's covered by the labour program.

[Brenda Baxter]

Employers would be required to potentially pay for a competent person if it was an outside third party and if there was an associated cost.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

If it turns out that an inspector needs to be brought in but the employer is not willing to assume the associated costs, will the employer have an obligation under the act or regulations? If the employer does not want an inspector coming into the workplace, will the regulations or the act come into play?

[Barbara Moran]

Regardless, if the employer and the employee haven't reached a resolution of the issue, the employer is obligated to have a competent person and is obligated to pay for it. The only time the labour program would come in is if they don't do that.

The employer is obligated to conduct the investigation, and if they hire a third party to do it, then the labour program would only come and investigate if that process hadn't been followed, so the costs for this competent person would be borne by the employer.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

In the case of collective agreements, how will the process work?

Will the union have to work with an inspector who is conducting an investigation, or will the inspector operate independently?

[Barbara Moran]

In a case in which there are collective agreements, often those collective agreements will set out a process by which they would deal with harassment and violence in the workplace. Those collective agreements will need to abide by the legislation, so in some cases that may mean the processes will need to be adjusted in order to be consistent with the legislation.

If there is a process in place, though, through a collective agreement, as long as it adheres to the requirements of the legislation, that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Now we go over to MP Damoff for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here.

We had a lot of talk in the first round about delegation of authority. Could you clarify for me? A fisheries minister doesn't go out and build docks. He delegates his authority to officials within his department to do that. Would that be similar to what the minister was talking about?

[Barbara Moran]

Yes, it would be delegated.

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

Thank you.

One of the things you mentioned was that the employee is required to make their employer aware of the situation, and that happens prior to going further. Is that correct?

[Barbara Moran]

It could be the employee. It could be anyone. Basically, if you were a bystander and you saw a situation of harassment, you could bring that forward to the employer as well. In order to trigger the process, the employer just has to be made aware that there is an issue.

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

What about a situation like what was happening at the maximum security Edmonton Institution, where they knew that taking it to the employer...? The employer was already aware of the situation, and nothing would happen, so would someone still be required in a situation like that, when they knew the complaints had come forward and nothing had happened? Would they still have to notify the employer before they advanced it further?

[Barbara Moran]

How would they know that the employer was aware? That would be my first question. Certainly I would think that they should once again bring it to the attention of the employer.

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

The report talked about retribution against people who came forward. People were very hesitant to come forward, because employees talk to each other, right? When employee one comes forward and it causes problems for them at work, employee two is fearful of coming forward because they're fearful of the same situation. If they have to continually go to the employer....

Do you follow what I'm saying?

[Barbara Moran]

Yes.

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

In that case, it was probably employee 35 who had gone forward to the employer, and nothing had happened except hell for those employees, so what's the process?

I mean, if they have to go to that employer, they're not going to do it. There should be something in place, I would think, whereby there would be someone independent that they could refer this to if they really were fearful of retribution in their employment.

[Barbara Moran]

There are two things I'll mention. First of all, under the code there are protections against reprisal. If there is reprisal, that is a contravention of the legislation, and they can complain about that as well. They are protected under the code for that.

The second thing, though, is that if the employer has been made aware of the issue of harassment and has done nothing, has not initiated the process as per the legislation, then yes, they could come to the labour program and indicate that the process has not been followed by their employer.