Human Resources Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2018

[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?

[Yves-Thomas Dorval, President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Employers' Council]

Yes. We hear you very well. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Excellent. Before I forget, when you are speaking, just for the recording of the testimony, please identify yourself, because if you go back and forth, we won't know who said what.

Joining us here today from Canada Post Corporation are Ann-Therese MacEachern, vice-president, human resources, and Manon Fortin, vice-president, operations integration.

Welcome to both of you.

From the Canadian Bankers Association, we have Marina Mandal, assistant general counsel. Welcome.

From the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications, or FETCO, we have Derrick Hynes, executive director. Welcome, sir.

From Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, we have Sheryl Johnson, lawyer. Welcome.

Each of you will have seven minutes for your opening remarks, and we'll have a series of questions. We're going to start off with the Quebec Employers' Council.

Gentlemen, the next seven minutes are yours. If you can identify yourself, that would be great. Thank you very much.

[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]

Thank you very much.

Up next, from the Canada Post Corporation, we have Ann-Therese MacEachern and Manon Fortin. The next seven minutes are yours.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now, from the Canadian Bankers Association, we have Marina Mandal, assistant general counsel, for seven minutes, please.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, Ms. Mandal.

Next, from Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications, or FETCO, we have Derrick Hynes, executive director.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, Mr. Hynes.

Next, from Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, we have Sheryl Johnson, who's a lawyer.

The next seven minutes are all yours.

[Sheryl Johnson, Lawyer, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP]

Thank you.

I think primarily the reason I'm here is that I think my textbook has come to the attention of someone. Published in September, it's a guide for the understanding and prevention of sexual harassment. It's not focused on just the workplace, but I have been practising labour and employment law for over 20 years now. I've had a lot of experience on both sides of the road and also with regard to the practical implementation of what you're suggesting with regard to the bill.

I thought I could comment with regard to what my friends have said, and I do agree that what needs to be included in the bill is recognition that it should be dealt with by the parties internally. However, there should be mechanisms built in as well so that if the parties don't get it right and the employer doesn't do a proper investigation, it does default back to the government to address it. It's just to make sure that there's a safety valve there with regard to getting it right in the workplace, because it never should be the case that anyone has to endure that as part of the terms and conditions of their employment.

With regard to the definition of harassment, generally it is included right in the legislation. Currently there is the definition of sexual harassment in the code. It's there specifically. I believe that the definition should be updated. Especially when I was doing training with regard to sexual harassment, and even when I was doing the cover for my book, a lot of people were coming back to me with pictures that involved touching—and it was a man touching a woman. Sexual harassment can happen to anybody in the workplace. It can happen regardless of your gender, your gender identity, your gender expression, your sexual orientation. The way that sexual harassment is currently defined, it still seems that it involves a man and a woman, and there's touching or something of a sexual nature. As discussed earlier, there is also psychological harassment. All forms of harassment can happen in the workplace, and sexual harassment is not limited to actual sexual advances, sexual solicitation, unwanted touching, or unwanted comments. I think the code needs to be updated in that regard.

I agree with my friends on the practicality with regard to balancing this important issue—preventing anyone from having to endure, as a term and condition of employment, harassment or violence—with a need for privacy. Lately we haven't had that. Lately it's been the case that people have been assumed guilty without due process. Unfortunately, that ruins people's reputations and their careers. I applaud the efforts made in this bill to ensure that privacy is respected with regard to the process.

Again, as part of my process in writing the book and part of my practical experience—and hearing what my friends, especially Canada Post, have said with regard to their process—I'd say you need to have prevention and collaboration, effective and timely responses, and review and updating. I did look at the bill with regard to subclauses 3(1) and 3(3), about proposed subsection 125(1) and the regulations. I would encourage the consideration of not only addressing general policies but also having policies for anti-harassment, anti-discrimination, and anti-violence as specific requirements. I don't see that specific wording currently in the bill as it's drafted. I believe this would be a way of giving it some teeth and ensuring that this is implemented and the process followed through in the way you intend it to be.

There's one other potential pitfall that you might experience with the way it's currently drafted. Subclause 5(1) of the bill talks about amending subsection 127.1(1) of the act by having it be reported to a “supervisor”. It can well be the case that the supervisor is the one who is the alleged harasser. That person can't be the one you go to or the one you address the complaints to.

With regard to what the banks do, they have an independent outside party, the ombudsman, accepting those complaints, because the complaints might be against the supervisor or the supervisor's manager.

The supervisor isn't in a position to be the one to address the issues or concerns, so having an outside individual who's not directly in that person's chain of command is something that should be addressed and included in the legislation.

I'm happy to answer any other questions or concerns you have with regard to practicalities of implementation or anything with regard to sexual harassment generally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Excellent. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.

First up is MP Kmiec, for six minutes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will begin with the Conseil du patronat du Québec.

In your presentation, you made some suggestions for improving the bill, but you also spoke about the management rights of employers. Based on what the committee heard yesterday and other testimony, there are sometimes differences of opinion. I'm not talking about sexual harassment, but harassment in the workplace, so the difference between harassment that may occur in managing staff for performance purposes and what an employer must do to ensure that employees do the work they are paid for.

Where is the fine line between harassment and employee management by the employer? What advice do you give to employers to draw the line between the two? Is there another source of information or do you have examples of advice you give to your members?

[Guy-François Lamy, Vice-President, Work and Legal Affaires, Quebec Employers' Council]

Thank you.

I would refer you to the definition of psychological harassment found in Quebec's Act respecting Labour Standards, that Mr. Dorval mentioned in his response. Psychological harassment is defined as hostile vexatious behaviour with a generally repetitive nature that leads to a situation of psychological harassment.

The Quebec experience has shown that since 2004, many complaints filed in Quebec related to the employer's right to manage; that's why we talked about it. This was because the complainants had a poor understanding or misinformation about the definition of psychological harassment. In other words, the fact that a manager monitors the performance or work performance of an employee should not constitute psychological harassment.

Of course, if this monitoring or management is done in such a way that it sounds like vexatious, hostile and repetitive conduct and it falls into abuse, that's where the thin separation you talked about should be made. This is why we find it interesting to specify, perhaps in a definition in the legislation, that the employer's right to manage does not constitute psychological harassment.

Instead, it is the analysis of how the interventions are made that makes it possible to determine if a person is turning toward psychological harassment. In our opinion, we must go back to what constitutes vexatious conduct. In other words, unpleasant comments are not necessarily vexatious, but if they are made in such a way that you feel a malicious intent, they could be problematic. To answer your question, that's where we should draw the line.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Do you think the federal legislation should be more like the Quebec act that I have before me? The definition in the Quebec legislation is fairly long and lists criteria like vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures that affects dignity or integrity and results in a harmful work environment.

Should criteria like this be put in the federal legislation?

[Guy-François Lamy]

We think so. As we mentioned, the definition in the Quebec legislation is good. To improve this act, I would suggest that clarification be made about what is not psychological harassment.

Subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act specifies what is not discrimination. This federal provision should be used as a model for what is not psychological harassment and make clear that the right to manage does not constitute it either.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

One minute.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Very quickly, Mr. Hynes, you said that your preference was not to have a definition in the law on what constitutes harassment. Can you please explain some more on why you say that? I'm not a lawyer, as I'll say right away, but my understanding is that it would be preferable to have either a fixed definition in the law or a very fixed definition in common law to eliminate all the gray zones and make it easier for an employer or an employee to understand where that fine line is and where the risks are. If you have a definition that could possibly change from year to year, something that could be considered harassment one year would not be considered harassment the next year. How would your members feel about being placed in such a situation?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, sir.

MP Dabrusin is next, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

My first question is for Canada Post.

I don't know if you were both here earlier today, but we had Monsieur Girouard, from the union. He spent his entire opening statement setting out what he described, from his perspective, as a systemic issue of harassment within his workplace. I hear that you have set out all of the processes you have in place for people to come forward, but for me, it kind of goes to the heart of what we're trying to do here. You spoke a lot about collaboration, but this morning there was clearly a fair bit of complaint.

How does this legislation help us to bridge that gap between what I heard this morning to what I'm hearing this afternoon? How can this legislation help, and is there anything that needs to be improved so we can bridge that gap?

[Ann-Therese MacEachern]

Canada Post has been focused for many years on ensuring we create the right workplace climate. We have a very collaborative relationship with our unions. We share a goal in this particular space, both in health and safety and in workplace harassment, to make sure our people are safe and are free of harassment. The way we manage that is through joint committees with our unions. We have both local and national joint health and safety committees in facilities across the country. We also have joint human rights and employment equity committees with our unions. We meet with them at a minimum of twice a year to—

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

I don't have much time, but what I'm getting at is that I was presented with two very different perspectives on the same workplace. I believe you when you say that you both want to have a workplace free of harassment. That's fair. However, I'm looking at this legislation and I'm trying to figure out how it's going to address exactly that scenario. How is it this legislation can respond or help you better respond to what I heard this morning? Do you see any gaps where you feel it might not be responding and might not get us to where we need to go?