Evidence of meeting #97 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was incidents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Barbara Moran Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I need to check with our legal counsel there just to see what that would do. Should I do that now and take two minutes?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I would like to say something, Mr. Chair.
It is an interesting proposal, because it is consistent with the spirit of the definition that was just adopted, but it is a bit more specific. What I like about the proposal from my NDP colleague is that it adds the notion of an isolated gesture.
According to the evidence we have heard, MPs work in their constituency office and on the Hill, but also anywhere else that they exercise their duties. I think this clarification could be useful for the interpretation of the definition of harassment. For instance, it would clearly stipulate that while we are exercising our duties, whether we are on the Hill, at a riding office or somewhere else that we are working, our conduct and gestures, whether isolated or repeated, can constitute harassment.
I think that is a constructive addition to the bill.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I would point out that we have had the privilege of submitting this proposed definition to both the lawyers and the unions, and they seem to support it. We will see whether it is possible to add this, but I would simply like to point out that the unions and the lawyers liked this definition.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
There are two things. One of the things the proposed definition does is it proposes including any proscribed “action, conduct or comment”. What that does is it provides a regulation-making power such that you could further define what is meant by an action, conduct, or comment. If at that stage you wanted to add in words such as “isolated or repeated in nature”, you could do that through the regulation-making power.
There's nothing preventing you from adding it in here as well, but our advice would be to leave it as broad as you can and use that regulation-making power, as time goes by, to see if you need to add additional boundaries around it to make sure that it's as all-encompassing as you wish.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Thank you for the reminder. I want to just ensure that all members of the committee received the letter from the minister that talked about what the intention is to do within regulations. I think it was very comprehensive, and there was quite a bit more there than I was expecting, which is a good thing. I would agree with that.
Mark.
April 16th, 2018 / 3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you for that, Chair. I found the letter from the minister inappropriate in that it was premature to thank the committee for its good work on this when we haven't finished the work. I would appreciate a letter—I think all of us would—after the work is done.
Also, I really want to respect the independence of committee work. I found that the minister was premature, and may even be seen as guiding the committee in its work.
We had heard from the witnesses about the importance of the definition, and that it was foundational to the legislation being effective. We heard from witnesses who are experts who deal with harassment issues. They shared that, I think, 50% of the people who actually are found to have been guilty of harassment did not realize they were involved in harassment, that their actions could be deemed harassment. That's 50%. Whether it was 50%, or 51%, or 49%, it's a substantial number of people, so we need to define it.
Then we heard from different witnesses over and over again on the importance of defining. I think the NDP's suggested amendment is reasonable. It provides that foundational guidance of what harassment is. Then you build on that by regulation, but your foundation needs to be clear.
I'm happy that the government has introduced an amendment on harassment, but again, it has to be clear. I think the amendment that we're going to be looking at now provides that clarity.
To provide a vague definition does not meet the needs of what was being asked for by the witnesses: having a definition. If we as a committee say we've been asked for a definition so we'll give you a definition, but we're going to keep it so general that it really doesn't meet what they were asking for, it's so general that it could be deemed vague.... The government has clearly said from day one they want to deal with the legislation. You have that as your base, but definitions would be dealt with by regulation. I'm concerned that if it's left in a vague form—and that is what the government has said it wanted to do all along—we are not respecting what we heard. Providing that clarification, which the NDP amendment provides, is very important for that foundation to the legislation. I therefore support it.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with what my colleague, Mr. Mark Warawa, said.
We have to remember that the bill we are considering and are in the process of adopting applies to employees under federal jurisdiction and, as I said, it also applies to harassment in the political environment on Parliament Hill.
In this regard, we clearly remember testimony from MPs about situations that had absolutely nothing to do with their work, isolated situations that occurred outside MPs' normal working environment. These situations did not occur in the House of Commons or at riding offices, yet the conduct and gestures seem to match the definition of harassment exactly.
As legislators, we must clearly indicate that MPs are subject to the harassment legislation and must comply with it wherever they are. Our objective is zero tolerance of harassment.
The improvements suggested by the NDP serve this purpose. We are talking about actions, comments or conduct, but what is interesting in the proposed amendment to the basic definition is the reference to isolated gestures. This provides a reference to place that is not otherwise mentioned in the definition. This is therefore a constructive amendment. It means that even if an MP is in a dark corner and does something that violates the spirit of the act, they are at fault and will have to suffer the consequences.
In this sense, I think this is a very good addition by my NDP colleague and I intend to support it. As legislators, our role is to give clear directives to the those who will be implementing the act that we are in the process of adopting.
4 p.m.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the public servants who are here today.
I am just trying to understand why it would be better to include that in regulations rather than in the definition, especially in the part that refers to an isolated or repeated gesture. It can indeed be something that occurs just once as opposed to repeatedly. The seriousness of the incident also has to be considered.
The witnesses who appeared before the committee stressed that it can be an isolated incident. Whether a repeated event or an isolated incident, the seriousness of the act must be considered. The witnesses we heard considered it very important to include that in the definition, and that is why I am defending this point.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I would like to get a better understanding of why it would be preferable to include that in regulations as opposed to the definition.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
I think that any more detail you put into the definition just makes it so.... For example, did we miss anything? The only reason I was suggesting that you could put it in through the regulations is that, first, there is a regs-making power in there, so you have the ability to do that. What the regulation-making does is provide further opportunity for consultation on that, if there is a desire to further define.
There may be a desire to go beyond that in terms of being able to further specify what the different behaviours are, but if it's the will of the committee to put that in, it certainly doesn't cause trouble to the legislation itself.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I wanted to jump in because in some of the discussion it sounds a bit like what's being said is that if we don't put in these extra words, there is no definition of harassment, but there is one, and I take to heart Ms. Moran's comment, which was that there is a risk when you start getting too subspecialized, in that it seems like an exclusive list, a closed list. There is that concern as well. Gestures and contact could easily be included within “action” and “conduct” as well when we're dealing with it. How much are we parsing out within the actual statute? I also take it that it won't do grave harm to include them, but I do take to heart that it might make more sense to include them in a regulation.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
All in favour of the subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived)
All those in favour of LIB-1?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Quach.
4:05 p.m.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
Can I vote on division without opposing the amendment?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
On division? Yes, of course.
(On clause 1)
Moving on to NDP-3, is there any discussion?
Madam Quach.
4:05 p.m.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
This amendment comes from the vice-president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, which strives to prevent accidents and illnesses in the workplace. She would like us to add the word “injuries”. This term is already used, but she would like the term “incidents” used because the “incidents” and “accidents” are not the same thing, and if only “accidents” is used, the victim might not feel protected.
As the Office québécois de la langue française pointed out, these two terms are not interchangeable. An “accident” results in material and physical damage, while an “incident” refers to an event that is not significant in itself, but that could have serious consequences.
Since the term “incident” is already used 14 times in Bill C-65, we would like it to be used here as well.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
I find it a little bit confusing because it's almost like you're implying that harassment could be considered an accident. I think trying to include that “prevent accidents”, and tying it to harassment, I don't think I can support that. It opens too many doors that imply different things.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I know there can be accidents, but I think we should stipulate that there can also be incidents. As we said earlier, harassment essentially involves repeated or isolated conduct which, in itself, does not necessarily constitute a physical attack, but it can have consequences. I think this is a valid clarification.