Thank you very much.
Good evening. I would like to begin by thanking members of this committee for inviting UFCW - Local 232 to testify on a very important piece of legislation, and to all of your respective political parties for providing the unanimous consent that fast-tracked this bill to committee.
It's quite disconcerting that the House of Commons employees or political employees are not covered by the Canada Labour Code, leaving workers with little job security and fewer rights than other employees in Canada. We are happy to see that this bill will, for the first time in history, extend health and safety provisions to these workers, but note that the bill is still limited in this regard.
I often joke about wearing many hats. Here, I am president of UFCW - Local 232, representing approximately 250 NDP staff working for the House of Commons. I am also a young female political staffer who has volunteered and worked in MPs' offices, as well as working in multiple departments in the public service. I am also a friend, a daughter, a colleague, and a partner. In wearing these multiple hats I have come to know all too well the pervasive culture of harassment here on Parliament Hill, and have witnessed and experienced harassment. In my different capacities I have been confided in, I have consoled, and I have advised. I have also confided in and sought advice from others.
I am grateful that our staff have a union that has historically emphasized the importance of anti-harassment provisions, and that has trained individuals, processes, and procedures specifically addressing the issue.
These hats I referred to also place me in a unique position to testify before you today, as does the very existence of our union. We recognize particular challenges that are ahead of us with this legislation, notably the concept of parliamentary privilege that protects you, the members of Parliament, but this will not stop us from trying our very best to ensure that staff interests, rights, and safety are not sidelined, and we hope you will join us in this effort as you have been.
First, we cannot stress enough the importance of including a broad, comprehensive, but flexible definition of what harassment is and is not. A definition can prove an effective tool for not only identifying instances of harassment, but also as a preventive measure. Our collective agreement includes a definition that has been developed between our union and management teams over the years. This definition has served our local well in helping our staff and management recognize harassment and in validating individuals' experiences.
We believe it is difficult, if not impossible, to govern what is not defined in law, and recommend against leaving this aspect to regulations as we fear this will be detrimental to the effectiveness of this legislation in the long term. We also have significant concerns with allowing a largely partisan board to make decisions on this bill as it relates to parliamentary staff at the regulation stage.
Second, our recommendation for this committee would be to consider mandatory management and anti-harassment training for employers, notably members of Parliament. In every election, talented individuals from across Canada are elected from diverse backgrounds, and often our newly elected officials have little to no management experience. They are suddenly thrust into this role of managing staff in a fast-paced and very complex environment.
As a union local, we can say that many situations we handle relate directly to this situation. In some cases newly minted managers need to be taught and learn effective management skills. This is a simple solution to a large problem, and goes beyond the House of Commons' efforts to implement sexual harassment training for MPs, which, while a great step forward, leaves us with some concerns, or at least many questions. Training our employers on proper healthy communication with staff is absolutely critical to preventing all forms of harassment, and this training cannot be elective. This has been tried and has not worked on the scale that we all know is needed.
Next, our union local shares the concerns of many other unions regarding the exclusion of health and safety committees from this process. This is misguided and could negatively impact an individual's willingness to come forward and report harassment or violence. This bill must be amended to ensure that unions are able to continue their work in preventing and addressing harassment, as well as supporting survivors in the aftermath.
We would also like to seek clarity on how this bill will affect the union's ability to investigate and take action on allegations of harassment within their existing processes and frameworks. On this note we believe that any effective anti-harassment legislation must first ensure that employees have the ability and right to form and be represented by a union, with no barriers. This unfortunately is not currently the case for political staff.
Another critical point to be made is that, as it is written, the bill does not fully address remedies and repercussions. We are particularly concerned with the potential remedies and repercussions when an MP is involved in the harassing behaviour. This is the issue I raised earlier surrounding where parliamentary privilege becomes all too apparent. How do we protect employees who have been harassed in a parliamentary workplace? Privilege not only keeps MPs from being terminated or disciplined in the traditional sense, but also allows them full autonomy over the hiring, discipline, and management of their employees.
What then happens to an employee who has been harassed and could be required to continue working for or with their harasser in order to maintain their livelihood? For that matter, what happens while they are going through this process?
This leads to our final comments. First, we are calling for additional paid leave for employees who are addressing incidents of harassment through the proposed process. It is unimaginable that an employee, particularly where a colleague or an employer is responsible for the alleged harassment, would not have access to additional paid leave beyond the current paid vacation and sick days provided by the House of Commons.
Finally, in her comments, the minister spoke to the issues of privacy, confidentiality, and the fear that exists for individuals coming forward concerning their experiences with harassment. Staff often fear reprisal if they come forward. They fear for their livelihood, their career, and their reputation. Political staff can also fear for the reputation of their party and their employer. Women in particular also fear for their physical safety.
Despite the requirement for a competent third party under the legislation as it exists, there is an overwhelming likelihood that, at one point in the process including the mediation stage described by the minister, an employer will become aware of the allegations and identity of the individual.
This becomes problematic as, to our knowledge, this bill does not contain provisions protecting staff against unfair termination. For members of our bargaining unit, we have a clear and defined process by which staff can be terminated through a series of oral and written warnings as well as a grievance and arbitration process. However, this is not the case in other political offices. Therefore, I ask, what stops a member of Parliament or an employer from terminating an employee who has used this process or come forward with a complaint?
This committee needs to seriously consider the possibility that employees will continue to fear for their livelihood and their jobs even if this bill is passed. While this legislation provides a procedure for dealing with harassment, it does not necessarily provide concrete protections for employees working outside of a unionized environment.
It is not necessarily the process itself that will make employees report their experiences. It is knowing that they are safe, that they will be heard, and that they will not and cannot be penalized for coming forward.
Once again, we would like to thank members of this committee for welcoming us here today and allowing us the opportunity to provide insight and recommendations on this critical piece of legislation. We look forward to your questions.
Thank you.