Human Resources Committee on April 18th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good afternoon, everybody. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, we are resuming our study of Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

We're going to start right away, but again I would like to welcome the departmental officials. We have from the Department of Employment and Social Development, Brenda Baxter, director general, workplace directorate, labour program; and Barbara Moran, director general, strategic policy, analysis and workplace, labour program. From the Department of Public Works and Government Services, we have Charles Bernard, director general, portfolio and government affairs. Welcome to all three of you again, and thank you for being here.

We're going to get right into it. We are on NDP-9.

Is there any discussion?

MP Trudel.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am sorry that I could not be at Monday's meeting of the committee. The leader of my party was in my constituency. I know that my colleague Ms. Quach did a good job.

The NDP is proposing an amendment to Bill C-65—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Because we have so many amendments, you can read the amendment if you wish, but it's not necessary.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Okay, I will just explain it.

With amendment NDP-9, we want local and policy health and safety committees and representatives to be able to take part in the investigation process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-9?

MP Damoff, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We can't support this because there's a need to maintain privacy. We understand the importance of the workplace health and safety committees and the good work they do, and they will be involved in other parts of the process. However, if if someone is coming forward with a complaint, they may not want it to go to a committee. They may want to ensure that their privacy is maintained, and having it shared with a workplace committee....

I know there's this amendment, as well as some other ones that you have that are dealing with this. We won't be supporting it for that reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Is there any further discussion?

Monsieur Blaney.

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

Could I ask for a little clarification?

We are discussing amendment NDP-9, on page 19, are we not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Correct.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I believe so, yes.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have amendment LIB-5.

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

This amendment reflects the decision we made yesterday. Between the words “harassment” and “violence”, it should read “and” not “or”. We want it to be consistent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Okay. Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have CPC-5.

Mr. Blaney.

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

This is an amendment proposed by our colleague Rosemarie Falk. Essentially, the amendment is designed to ensure that investigations will be completed in a reasonable time. As we saw at the last meeting, the department is not involved in investigations. It must make sure that the process is observed. The goal of this amendment is to establish benchmarks.

Our proposal is to add to the following subsections:

(4.1) The persons who investigate the complaint shall complete the investigation no later than three months after the day on which the complaint has been referred to them.

(4.2) The employee may extend the investigation by no more than 30 days if he or she is of the opinion that more time is required to complete the investigation. The employee may extend the investigation period more than once.

The deadline would be three months and there would be a degree of flexibility in how the process unfolds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Is there anything further?

Mona.

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

I would like to know where in the testimony, the importance of setting deadlines was demonstrated. I am trying to understand on what testimony you are basing your proposal.

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

That is a good question. I recall that some witnesses said that they would like benchmarks to be established so that the process did not go on and on unduly. Those witnesses said that it was important not to let the process go on for ever. That is why we proposed this amendment.

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

I would like to know what the officials here think about it.

Could you tell us whether, in your opinion, it is necessary to set deadlines or whether it would be preferable to keep some degree of flexibility. Is that kind of approach acceptable in a bill?

[Barbara Moran, Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you for the question.

There are a few things to consider in looking at timelines. You need to look at the totality of the federally regulated sector. You have to think about whether timelines would be practical if you're on a ship, for example, when they're at sea for long periods of time. I think that's why our recommendation would be to set out specific timelines where appropriate through the regulations. The intention is to set out certain timelines through the regulatory process.

For example, you could put a timeline for an employer to respond within, upon its being made aware of an issue of harassment and violence. Through the regulations you could consult with all the parties to find out what would make sense in terms of a timeline and, frankly, to discuss with all the parties where you may need more flexibility because of the very different types of employers you have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Ms. Harder.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

In the circumstances, an individual comes forward who has a concern with regard to conduct or violence in the workplace. If that process of investigation is allowed to go on for an infinite amount of time, that individual will simply be revictimized, or the potential is there for that to happen. They're not only victimized or acted against by someone within their workplace, but then also by the system itself that has been put into place to protect them. There's no mandated time here. If an investigation isn't done for a year, two years, or three years, that individual will be sitting there waiting for this process to take place. As a result, if that process doesn't actually wrap up within a set amount of time, then that person is in fact victimized by the system or policy that has been put in place to protect them.

It would seem commonsensical, I suppose you could say, to put a time period in place during which, or by which, the investigation has to be wrapped up in order to protect the person who is coming forward with a concern. They need to know that the investigation will be carried out in a timely fashion and that a conclusion will be reached promptly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaney.

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

Essentially, I agree that a lot of deadlines can be included in the regulations. As the independent investigation is at the heart of the bill, it seems appropriate to us to include it in the legislation. It is an important indicator. As Ms. Harder has just said, we want to avoid victimizing complainants again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

MP Fortier.

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

Despite hearing all the explanations, I will not be supporting this amendment.

I think we have to give ourselves some flexibility. After consulting with employers, unions and other partners, we have to make sure that the regulations give them the flexibility they need to get the processes under way easily.