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.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
I would like to add that even the Liberals, in amendment LIB-2, use the term “incidents”. This amendment would amend Bill C-65 on page 2 to read “all incidents of harassment”.
In Bill C-65, the word “incident” is already used 14 times. I do not understand how that could create a precedent since it is already used.
Our amendment would simply add the word “incident” to the purpose of the act; it would not replace another term. I do not see how that could create a serious precedent or make the bill so complex.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
If we do not want to amend the existing act by adding a term, we might as well not be here. Under the best of circumstances, we would not be sitting here and we would not have heard from witnesses, including employees of the House of Commons, of MPs and of crown corporations, who have experienced incidents of harassment, whether isolated or repeated. In that sense, I agree with my colleague Mr. Warawa: if we cannot agree to call a spade a spade and if the purpose of Bill C-65 is not to end incidents of harassment, we might as well close our books and leave things as they are.
This bill is important to the government and to all the opposition parties. Our job is to improve the bill. Adding the term “incidents of harassment” in this particular case seems to be fully consistent with the purpose of the act, which is to end harassment in the workplace, whether in institutions under federal jurisdiction, or in parliamentary institutions in particular.
In that sense, the NDP proposal is constructive and I think it would be a shame if the government decided not to add it on the pretext that it is already in the bill. If we are here to push through a new bill, it is precisely because there are problems and the tools the government currently has are inadequate to end harassment. As you accurately pointed out, we received a three-page letter from the minister, asking us to do everything possible to end harassment. This is a specific instance where we can do something.
I think the opposition is taking a constructive approach toward the government by stressing the importance of including incidents of harassment in Bill C-65. This suggestion does not come from us, but from the NDP, but it is fully consistent with the spirit of the minister's letter and with the spirit of the bill. As a result, I think this proposal is very good and, of course, I intend to support it.
On the other hand, it is clear that if the opposition supports definitions that are struck down by the government each time, it will be a one-way process. I would even say the result could be watered down. I do not think that is what the committee wants, nor is what the minister asked us to do.
Thank you.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
The definition of the words “incident” and “accident” is not the same in English and French.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
But it is there, in the French version.
This is “accidents”; this is “incidents”.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
I do not see it in French, in clause 122.1.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bryan May
Certainly. We're just going to suspend very briefly just to make sure we are actually looking at the current documents.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Could we get some clarification from the department on one part? I'm focusing on the last two words of the proposed amendment, “harassment or violence”. Adding in those terms, adding this proposed amendment specifically referencing harassment or violence, would that cause any trouble for its operation within the act as a whole? I'm always mindful of the fact that it's operating within an act as a whole.
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Sure. One comment is that, because of the change that was made to the definition, if you move forward with that, it can't be “harassment or violence”. It would need to be “harassment and violence”. That would be one thing.
On the French/English thing, usually when we use incidents in French, we use “occurrences” in English, so I would say “occurrences”.
All I would add, though, is the point I made a little while ago. This is for all of part II, which is much broader than harassment and violence. The intention, I believe, in adding in the reference that's in Bill C-65 now to physical or psychological injuries was to get at the impact of these acts, and so in particular adding the psychological injuries was really intended to get at the impact, particularly of harassment and violence. That would be just something I would note for your consideration.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Just to clarify then, really in the way it operates within the statute, you would be looking at impact, not cause, in that section. Everything else is worked around focusing on impact, not cause. There are many other causes that also could fall within part II, correct?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Right.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Chair, according to what I understood of Ms. Moran's explanations, the section in the Canada Labour Code applies much more broadly, of course, but we are talking about a context where the person sustains a psychological or physical injury.
What is interesting in the bill on harassment we are studying now is not necessarily the impact of reprehensible behaviour, but the behaviour as such. It may happen that a sexual harassment situation is not judged according to the impact on the affected person. Our objective is to prevent that behaviour. That is one more reason to include the term “occurrences of harassment” in the definition, as my New Democrat colleague has proposed.
Do you understand, Ms. Dabrusin? You presented a good argument. The Canada Labour Code aims to determine whether the person has suffered an injury. In this case, however, we are not seeking to determine whether the harassing behaviour injured the person; the harassment as such is unacceptable and that is what we are trying to target. That is why this is indeed innovative, and a new element in the Canada Labour Code. It is the legislator's role to take this reality into account.
Our purpose is really to target harassment, and not necessarily the consequences it may entail. The law already takes the consequences of harassment into account. If a person suffers psychological or physical injuries because of harassment, we take that into account; that said, we deal with the symptom. In this case, however, we want to attack the source, i.e. the occurrence of harassment.
4:30 p.m.
Salaberry—Suroît, NDP
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Personally, I find it completely absurd that as we are discussing Bill C-65, which deals with harassment and violence, we can't even include the words “harassment” and “violence” in the clause we are debating.
This was requested by the vice-president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. In her opinion, we have to add the occurrences of harassment or of violence, otherwise we'll only talk about accidents and injuries. If we want to refer to harassment and harassment-related violence, we have to include those terms, and this is where she suggested we include them.