Human Resources Committee on April 16th, 2018

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That was the one thing on which there was very strong consensus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Agreed. Is there any further discussion?

MP Quach.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

I expect that this aspect was taken into consideration, but I'd like to know whether the victims who filed a complaint against their supervisor will have recourse to special provisions to protect them when they make their complaint. Will this be included in the regulations? We want to make sure that the victim will have a specific recourse that will allow her to submit the complaint without being subjected to reprisals.

[Barbara Moran]

I think this amendment is suggesting, first, to provide a person other than the supervisor. There is a protection already in the code, not even within Bill C-65 but within the Canada Labour Code, that protects an employee against reprisal. If they bring forward any complaint, under part II of the code, they are protected. They cannot be somehow disciplined for bringing forward that complaint. It's under section 147 of the Canada Labour Code. It's protection against any disciplinary action.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

Fine, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on amendment CPC-4.

Monsieur Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel that this is an important amendment and I'm anxious to find out the government's position on it. We already discussed it. Essentially, we realize that small businesses don't always have the resources to investigate cases of harassment. As was the case regarding the amendment we just discussed, it often happens that the aggrieved party and the employer work in close proximity. The purpose of this amendment is to allow the Minister of Labour to play an intermediary role and to act as a recourse for the employees of small businesses.

The amendment would add this:

(1.1) In the case of a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment or violence in a workplace at which less than 20 employees are normally employed, the employee who believes on reasonable grounds that there has been a contravention of this Part may refer his or her complaint to the Minister in accordance with subsection (8).

What we want to do, basically—and this seems like an important point to us—is to see to it that the department is not just a sort of mailbox, and that the reply is not simply to go and see your employer and follow the process.

In certain cases, it's important that there be an independent third party. That is in fact what is done under other laws. We have to remember that both in a small business and any other business, there is always a contractual link between the independent investigator and the employer, since ultimately the independent investigator is paid by the employer. This creates a type of dependency that can change the perception of impartiality which is necessary in cases of harassment.

That is why there are specialists at the department who can evaluate the complaint filed by the employee and see whether there are reasonable grounds; they can then follow up on the complaint and receive the employee. I would say that this is an approach that aims to protect the potential victims of harassment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Bobby.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, I'm surprised at this amendment coming from the opposition, which was really quite articulate about removing the minister from any particular part dealing with a member of Parliament. Now it wants to include the minister in dealing with a small business, which could have the perception of politicizing.

That's why I cannot support it. It should be, as it is in the act, figured out by the business itself. This would add a political layer for a small business, and I'm surprised at such a thing coming from the opposition.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I understand your argument, and I would be very open to the idea of excluding parliamentarians' offices from this special recourse, so that they can follow the normal procedure.

This is far from being a partisan approach. I think it's an interesting argument to oppose the amendment.

I am aware of the fact that according to this amendment, the Minister of Labour stops being a spectator and becomes an actor with regard to businesses that are under federal jurisdiction.

I asked the minister to tell us what happens currently if an employee feels he or she is a victim of harassment, if the employer does not act or does not respect all of the steps in the process. We always hear the same thing from the department: the employer must apply the process.

What do we do when people do not follow the process? It is the role of the department to support the victims of harassment. This has in fact been done for decades, in Quebec for instance, and it works well.

That is the purpose of this amendment. I would be quite open to the idea of excluding parliamentarians if you think there is potential interference here. Be that as it may, this amendment involves a very important aspect of the law, that is to say that the employer is responsible for ensuring his workplace is harassment-free, but should there be harassment issues, the department could intervene. This amendment would give it the power to do so.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

My only comment, Mr. Chair, is that it would appear to add another level, and the onus is on the employer to deal with the issue. I disagree with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Madame Quach.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's important that we support this amendment because it is true that in small workplaces it may be difficult for employees to put forward their point of view and defend their rights. It isn't easy to do that. Getting the department, public servants, or experts involved—they are not parliamentarians, obviously—can help create a certain independence to allow people to intervene. Personally, I support this amendment.

These are specific cases. In any case, all harassment cases have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Those who intervene will do so with as much discernment as possible. It's the same thing in businesses where there are conflicts, and in small businesses with fewer than 20 employees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Monsieur Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I want to thank my colleague, Ms. Quach.

I want to tell my colleague that the intention behind that amendment is to get the department, the experts and the inspectors to intervene. Currently, their role is to manage the process. However, sometimes the process is long and fastidious and it can be a torture for the employee, especially in a small business. So we have to offer another option.

This was in fact done, among others, by the Quebec Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail. We can learn from the best practices that are used elsewhere. In this way, the government and the department employees would play an active role in prevention and especially in helping to resolve harassment cases.

If we want to send a real signal, it's important. We always drop the ball into the employer's court without having any mechanism that allows us to say that things have gone too far. This may affect our effectiveness in reaching the act's objective. We have to give ourselves a tool for small enterprises.

I am aware of the fact that this is an innovative measure, but it seems to be the best way to attain the law's objective, which is to reduce workplace harassment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment NDP-7 is redundant, so we're now moving to amendment NDP-8.

Madame Quach.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment aims to lighten the procedure to handle victims' complaints. The amendment specifies the various ways in which the complaint can be submitted: it can be filed orally or in writing.

The Canada Labour Code does not specify whether complaints are to be received orally or in written form. If the complaint can only be submitted in writing, and the employer decides to handle the complaint, he could obviously require very cumbersome or indiscreet processes, for instance the use of very onerous forms. We want to allow the victims to file their complaint in two ways, that is to say either orally or on paper. We want this to be in the law. In this way, there would be a standard procedure for all workplaces and it would be clear to everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

MP Fortier.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I like this amendment, but I'd like to ask the officials to explain to us how it could be interpreted. I don't see a problem, but it would be interesting for you to tell us if the proposed wording is acceptable.

[Barbara Moran]

The only thing I would note is that

in French, I would prefer that we use the word “oralement“ rather than the word “verbalement“,

for consistency with the rest of the Canada Labour Code.

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

Excuse me; I did not understand that you said.

[Barbara Moran]

The word “verbalement” is used, but I recommend that we replace it with the word “oralement”.

Other than that, it doesn't cause us concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Could you say it in English, please?

[Barbara Moran]

It should be “orally”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

And it would be “orally” as well?