Human Resources Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you so much, MP Vien, for this amendment. This amendment to the Canada Labour Code is a necessary and overdue measure to protect workers from the lasting impacts of harassment and violence. These are the measures that, for decades, New Democrats—the only labour party in the country—have been fighting for, and they would certainly hold employers accountable, empower former employees and align with the NDP's fundamental principles of justice and fairness, so I want to thank you.

We must also recognize the broader context in which this bill would operate, in light of the ongoing Black class action lawsuit with the federal government, which is a landmark legal action addressing systemic discrimination and harassment faced by Black employees within the federal public service. For decades these workers have reported experiencing pervasive racism, barriers to advancement and a hostile work environment that undermine their dignity and professional growth. The lack of protections in the Labour Code has meant that Black employees had to create their own class action lawsuit to seek the kind of justice and comprehensive redress that New Democrats know workers need and deserve. This highlights the urgent need for legal protections and accountability measures by extending the time frame to file complaints and hold employers accountable.

New Democrats believe this bill will provide indirect support for those aims of the class action lawsuit, which would ensure that those who have suffered long-standing discrimination would have the opportunity to seek redress and contribute to the creation of a fair and more inclusive workplace for all, which I'm sure all of us in committee want.

I'm worried, MP Vien, that the current delays that the Conservatives are perpetuating in the House of Commons are slowing down this and other legislation. What is the timeline in which this change to the Labour Code could become a reality, and what do you feel is the impact on workers of the House of Commons delays?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

You're setting a trap that I won't fall into.

Bill C‑378 is obviously extremely important. I support it with all my experience and all my heart.

Federally regulated employees currently have three months to share their perspective, which isn't long enough. Obviously, the sooner this bill is passed, the better. There are currently procedures in the House of Commons, so there may be delays.

Moving ahead will constitute a major step forward for federally regulated employees and former employees.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I agree, and I think that there are many private members' bills that are very important and that MPs have passion for and want to get moved forward. I hope that we can see this move forward and that the Conservatives make some decisions to get more work done.

In the meantime, we need mental health supports, which are necessary for all workers, not just federal workers. I'm wondering, MP Vien, did you hear, during consultation, the need for accessible, affordable mental health supports in Canada? Does the government, in general, need to expand mental health supports for Canadians? I know they've committed, but we haven't seen the money flowing with any speed.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Ms. Zarrillo, in all honesty, we didn't discuss additional funding or services that should be rolled out as part of this bill. The work focused more on the feasibility of the type of bill tabled and on the potential gains.

That said, the passage of this bill will undeniably make a significant and positive contribution to improving the mental health of employees. However, we didn't go down that road. The people whom we spoke to didn't ask us about these issues.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

During the initial tabling of this bill, a number of gaps were identified by New Democrats. One of them was accountability, or a check back to see if this was working in terms of improving the lives and work experience of workers.

Do you have any comments on the acceptance of an amendment around expanding having some accountability in the bill?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you for your question.

Yes, the member for Terrebonne and I discussed this a bit earlier in our conversation. I'm not a lawyer. However, I think that the regulations should be changed. That would be up to the executive.

If we could provide a recommendation to make companies more accountable to the government so that they document the files involving former employees, I think that this would be a good thing. The committee will no doubt prepare a report.

This would really give us a chance to see how things are going on the ground and how many people have used this extension. I should point out that the deadline will be extended to two years. The deadline is currently three months, but it will be two years.

It would be good to have more data on this issue. I think that the accountability aspect would be better supported.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Just talking about the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madam Zarrillo. We've gone over quite a bit.

Ms. Falk, you have five minutes, please.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Vien, for being here today.

I do want to make a note off the top. I found that last question about accountability from the NDP quite comical. Several times in this committee, we Conservatives have moved amendments to government legislation—one that comes to mind is the $10-a-day day care, which they voted against—so I would take that for what it is from the NDP.

All employees deserve respect and assurance of safety within their workplaces. I want to thank you for taking the time and doing the work to advance this important piece of legislation, which empowers workers and advocates on behalf of those who have experienced workplace harassment or violence.

As has been discussed, Bill C-378 proposes to extend the current three-month deadline for former employees to file a harassment complaint to a full two years. Under the current framework, while the extension is possible, the burden of proof rests on the victim to demonstrate why they were unable to meet the original deadline, requiring them to prove that their circumstances made it difficult or impossible to file a complaint within that initial time frame.

Can you please comment on why it is inappropriate to put that burden on the victim from that workplace?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

The victims are already traumatized when they file a complaint or a notice of an incident or occurrence with their employer or the person responsible and when they ask for more time on top of the current three months, for example—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

On a point of order, I'm having a hard time hearing the translation.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

That's another reason why I try to speak slowly. It helps.

A burden of proof comes into play.

When a former employee wants to use the extra time provided by the regulations to exceed the three‑month limit, it means that they were unable to meet this deadline. Mrs. Falk, it's an uphill battle.

You must first prove that you experienced trauma or had a certain health issue that prevented you from filing a notice of occurrence or complaint.

It doesn't stop there. You must provide documents and perhaps even visit a notary and make a sworn statement. You must provide medical documents. There are all sorts of requests, documents and sworn statements. It's in front of me. Two full pages of requests are made to the former employee. This may be enough to discourage them from filing a complaint.

When you have post‑traumatic stress disorder or are facing difficulties, you end up with depression or anxiety that you didn't have before. It's also complicated when you need to take all these steps. The burden of proof is currently placed on the shoulders of this person. I'm sure that not a single parliamentarian here wants that. However, I think that this is where things stand today.

If we could extend this deadline and remove this burden of proof and these additional hurdles, it would obviously make the procedure and the process easier for these former employees.

I don't know whether I fully answered your question.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Yes, absolutely.

I think this is something, too, that society is continuing to unpack, that processing trauma isn't black and white. It's very grey, and you can't really put a timeline on processing that.

Would you say, from your perspective, that this current three-month deadline is actually a discouragement to those who would be coming forward with a complaint, in the sense that it's just not enough time? I haven't even thought this through. Would you say it's not a big deal? As they're processing it afterwards, do you think maybe complainants would look at that three months and say “no”?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised.

The three‑month time limit is a major obstacle, especially since these people may not even know that a deadline exists. They learn about it only when they decide to file a complaint. I'm talking about accounts from people around me who experienced this. When they wanted to file a complaint, they found out about a deadline and then, whoops, the date had passed. This is the case for a number of people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos for five minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Vien, thank you for your work and, of course, your passion.

First, I believe that the Quebec legislation was passed in 2018. Is that right?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Exactly.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Okay.

What outcomes have been seen in Quebec after the passage of the bill? Have there been any positive outcomes? It has been six years. Has Quebec had time to form an opinion on the impact?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Good question.

Unfortunately, we haven't received much data. Our only data comes from the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, or CNESST, which manages all these files in Quebec.

We managed to find a great deal of data confirming—this isn't news to anyone—the increase in workplace violence, for example. Of course, we're analyzing the data to determine the types of trauma experienced in the workplace. However, there isn't much data on the extension of the time frame to two years. The data available comes from organizations such as Cindy Viau's group, which I referred to earlier this morning.

Ms. Viau told us that Quebec's experience with the two‑year deadline has been conclusive. Very few people come to her organization and realize that they have run out of time to file a complaint. Her organization receives very few cases of this nature. In other words, the two‑year deadline works. However, she pointed out that the three‑month time limit meant that many people actually exceeded the deadline. She recommended that we introduce a two‑year deadline, as is currently the case in Quebec.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

In your response to Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you spoke briefly about the experience of other democratic or G7 countries, such as France.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Of course.

We looked at experiences outside the federal jurisdiction. These experiences are informative. However, a number of them are also complicated. In the case of harassment in the workplace, labour legislation procedures have been combined with criminal proceedings. The level of trauma experienced has also been graded. Our situation isn't quite the same. Our approach is a bit more cautious. I would recommend that the House proceed in stages. Before, we had nothing. Then, we had a three‑month deadline. Even though we don't have any data, we know that the two‑year deadline works well in Quebec. Why not have a two‑year deadline at the federal level?

If by chance we decide later that two years isn't enough, we can perhaps take a look at the situation in other countries, such as France or Belgium. However, I think that we need to take a cautious and reasonable approach, as I said earlier. These changes also affect companies.

I think that two years is a long time compared with the current deadline. This doesn't mean that we can't change the deadline later. If we do change it, I think that we'll be increasing it, not decreasing it.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I would like you to talk about consultations. I'm sure that you held a fairly extensive consultation on this issue. How many organizations did you consult? Were the views on the two‑year deadline unanimous or divided? Were any concerns raised?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

First, I would like to point out that the National Assembly unanimously approved these changes. Moreover, civil society also fully supported these changes.

As I told you earlier, we contacted many groups. A number of them were reluctant to speak very openly on this issue. They felt that there wasn't enough time or that there weren't enough people. They had their own reasons. However, I can tell you that I didn't meet a single person who clearly told me that it wasn't a good idea.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm not surprised.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.