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.