Human Resources Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, we are back in session for the second part, which is on the consideration of a private member's bill.

Welcome, Mrs. Vien.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 25, 2024, the committee is commencing its study of Bill C-378, an act amending the Canada Labour Code regarding complaints by former employees.

We have one witness appearing for us today. It is MP Dominique Vien, the sponsor of the bill.

Mrs. Vien, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for having me today.

I'm a bit emotional because the last time I appeared before a parliamentary committee was when Quebec tabled Bill 176 to overhaul the Act respecting Labour Standards. As part of our in‑depth review, a major change was made for workers in Quebec, namely the statute of limitations for filing a complaint in cases of harassment or violence. I had realized that Quebeckers had only three months to file a complaint. The decision was then taken to extend the period to two years. I will have the opportunity to show you that, currently, in Quebec, this judicious decision has been beneficial for many Quebec workers.

When I arrived here in Ottawa in 2021, my name was picked in the draw among all the MPs, and I wondered what I could possibly table as a bill. I looked at the Canada Labour Code and realized that it was out of step with what is done in Quebec, but also with what is done in the other provinces. In the case of Quebec, the statute of limitations for filing a complaint was increased from three months to two years in 2018. By the way, in Quebec, no distinction is made between current and former employees, which is not the case for employees falling under federal regulations.

Under the federal labour code, former employees of all federally regulated organizations and businesses had no window to file a complaint of harassment or violence up until 2021. There's no statute of limitations for current federally regulated employees. Former employees, however, were in a difficult position as they had no recourse. With the passage of the current government's Bill C‑65, that issue has been resolved. Since the passage of Bill C‑65, a three‑month time frame has now been instated. You might say that three months is better than nothing, but in fact, it's almost nothing.

Bill C‑378, which is being presented to you today, is a short bill, but it could have a very broad scope, meaning that former employees could at the very least benefit from what the most permissive—let's put it that way—province grants, i.e., Quebec, which offers a statute of limitations of two years instead of three months.

The government, or Parliament, I should say, is concerned about the three‑month statute of limitations, which seemed too short. I say that Parliament is also concerned because the Canada Labour Code and the regulations specifically state that permission may be requested so that a former employee can be entitled to a much longer time frame. This is a kind of tacit recognition that the three‑month statute of limitations is too short.

I will briefly describe what is being done outside Quebec. Five provinces, like Quebec, make no distinction between former and current employees, but they only grant a one‑year period to file a claim, whereas in Quebec, it's two years. Those provinces are Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia has a six-month claim period for former employees and no time limit for current employees. The other three provinces, Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, do not offer any recourse to former employees at this time.

To me, it doesn't make sense to not give former employees an opportunity to make claims. To give former employees only three months also shows a lack of empathy, especially as we know how hard it can be for former employees, or even current employees, to come to terms with the situation, their experience and what happened to them.

Obviously, three months go by in the blink of an eye. That's way too short a time frame.

For all these reasons, I think we should do something useful and move towards giving former employees a lot more time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Vien.

We will now move to the first round of questioning and Mrs. Gray.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Ms. Vien, and for putting forth your very impactful private member's bill.

Ms. Vien, we know that, this year, Statistics Canada reported that in Canada, 31% of men and 47% of women reported experiencing some form of harassment or sexual assault in the workplace. Worse yet, a survey last month by Traliant reported that 61% of Canadian HR professionals say harassment is a growing issue.

This Liberal government, in so many ways, doesn't focus on victims. I'm wondering if you can speak about that and about how your bill will impact people.

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

Psychological harassment, sexual harassment and workplace violence are not just a sign of the times. This behaviour has been going on for a long time. It needs to be stopped and stamped out. I think that, in order to do that, everyone must first be able to put a name to what is happening in their workplace.

You're absolutely right: The data is troubling. I looked at the data from the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, a well-regarded public institution in Quebec that ensures that workers are informed, compensated and protected. What you noticed in Statistics Canada's data has also been observed in Quebec.

Federally regulated businesses or organizations must submit reports to the government, and indeed, the data reveals marked increases in all kinds of workplace harassment or violence. I will choose my words carefully: It is a scourge. This is something we are seeing a lot of, whether it be in our personal lives, our lives in civil society or in any aspect of our public‑facing lives, particularly on social media. The workplace is no different.

We believe that this bill provides a toolbox and sends the message that any complacency towards workplace harassment and violence is over. There must be zero tolerance for that sort of behaviour. Let's give former employees the time they need to express their views and rights in this regard, because right now, they have virtually no opportunity to do so.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

This is a bit of a technical question: Could your bill have an impact on current employees, or is it reserved strictly for former employees?

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

That's an excellent question, Mrs. Gray, because as it stands, it depends on a person's employment status. For current employees, the bill would have no impact, as federally regulated employees are exempt from a statute of limitations. They obviously have no need to worry about such matters.

The major step forward contained in this bill is that it gives former employees more time. Right now, if you're a former employee, you have three months to file a complaint, but we don't think that's enough. Bill C‑378 makes it easier for former employees to file complaints.

The bill does not contain any changes for current employees.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

We know there is a lot of Conservative leadership for workers, and a couple of pieces of legislation through colleagues. We have Bill C-228, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985. That was through our colleague MP Gladu. We have Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to the deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons through our colleague MP Lewis. We have Bill C-409, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding hours of work of flight attendants. That's through our colleague MP Rood. Then we have Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with regard to adoptive and intended parents. That's through our colleague here in the room, MP Falk.

Your legislation is another piece of legislation to help workers and make a difference for them.

I'm wondering if you can speak to your legislation and what impact harassment and violence in the workplace can have on individuals?

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

Mrs. Gray, individuals can suffer a great deal of harm, quite frankly.

This can take the form of physical and psychological problems, such as anxiety, difficulty adjusting and periods of depression, or alcohol and substance abuse problems. Some people suffer career setbacks, up to and including job loss, and that's where this bill would be particularly effective. Sometimes, people are forced to leave their job for psychological reasons, for example because of a situation at the office that was becoming unbearable. However, when that's the case, we fall into the second category of people who had—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Vien.

Mr. Long, you have the floor for six minutes.

Go ahead.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleagues.

MP Vien, thank you very much for doing this and for your initiative. I can certainly speak to my private member's motion on record suspensions, M-161, and MP Falk's bill, which I believe was Bill C-318.

We're all very proud of our private member's bills and, obviously, put them forth with a lot of passion.

Can you share with the committee the process you've gone through so far in the consultation? I recognize that you were previously a minister with the Quebec government. What years, MP Vien, were you a minister?

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

I headed four departments, the last being the Department of Labour, between 2016 and 2018, so over a period of little more than two years. I even knew your colleague Mr. Coteau, who was Ontario's Minister of Tourism at the time, when I held the same position in Quebec.

To answer the first part of your question, I would say that Quebec's experience can teach us a lot, obviously. We spoke to stakeholders, including unions, but surprisingly, not all of them wanted to make their stance on this bill public, which, it must be said, is very good for workers. Meetings were held with unions, human resources experts and victims groups, who gave us their point of view.

Ms. Viau from the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement au travail de la province de Québec will probably appear before you. She has very concrete, almost clinical experience, having worked with employees who've encountered problems with the prescribed time frames.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you for that.

I would like to read a quote, in which you said:

A three-month time limit seems too short for such difficult experiences. Employees who were harassed may not always realize it right away. The road is a long one between experiencing harassment, realizing what happened, living through the accompanying trauma, and deciding to file a complaint. The trauma can surface long after the incident and even long after the termination of employment.

MP Vien, you're proposing to go from three months to two years. Am I correct? Okay.

Why not one year? Why not three years? How did you come to decide on two years?

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

I've got nothing to hide. It's very simple, I relied on my own experience as a minister in Quebec City.

We have to be reasonable. This bill is good for employees, but we also have the employers to think of. This change to the Canada Labour Code would have an impact on businesses, even though they are supposed to implement the policy set out in the legislation resulting from Bill C‑65. They need to provide a workplace that is violence and harassment‑free, which is great.

You asked me why I wanted to change the statute of limitations to two years, and it's because Quebec's experience has been positive and conclusive. At the time, stakeholders were very enthusiastic about the idea of having up to two years to file a complaint. Based on what I've heard so far, the two‑year time frame is considered reasonable. In addition, very few people are deprived of their rights for having exceeded the two‑year period.

That's not currently the case with employees that fall under the Canada Labour Code. Three months is okay. It's true that it's better than nothing. However, at some point, a person may realize that what they have been gone through makes them a victim of violence or harassment. By the time the person realizes that, the deadline has already passed.

What I'm saying is so patently true that Parliament has already provided a process or mechanism to offer an extension to those persons to give them more time. Parliament was already of the opinion that the three‑month period might not be enough.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Vien, thank you for your bill. Not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois will support it, first because it makes it possible to align existing Quebec legislation with the Canada Labour Code. We are also concerned that three months is clearly not enough time for a former employee of an organization falling under federal jurisdiction to file a complaint for workplace harassment or violence. Sometimes it can take years to recover from serious harassment.

When you were the minister responsible for labour, you amended the Act respecting Labour Standards to make a very similar change to what you're proposing in Bill C‑378, which is to give a former employee two years to file a complaint following harassment or violence in the workplace.

I'm getting to my question. You mentioned something earlier. I would like to know if you have any figures or testimony, in short, more information on the Quebec experience, which stretches back for a few years now.

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

Thank you for your question.

The answer is yes.

I'm going to come back to your question more specifically, but what's unfortunate is that I've had a lot of trouble compiling information because employers currently don't have to document the cases of former employees who benefit from the three‑month deadline, for example. Obviously, some former employees haven't had any problems. I'm talking about employees who did have issues.

In the regulations that set out what is expected of employers, it does not say that they must compile any information. I had trouble getting answers, for example, about the number of people who had not been able to lodge a complaint because they had missed the three‑month deadline. No one keeps statistics on that. No statistics are forwarded to the government, because companies are not required to provide them. Again, if we wanted to do something useful, this bill could recommend that the government force companies to document cases.

If I may, I would like to quote Cindy Viau, executive director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement de la province de Québec. She said:

In addition, at the provincial level, we note from our experience that very few people who contact us find it difficult to initiate the complaint process within the two years set out in the Act respecting labour standards. Since the time limit was changed in 2018, we have only on very rare occasions had to explain to a victim that they had missed their deadline to file a complaint.

I can provide no better evidence than the testimony of an organization that works with victims and says that the two‑year time frame I set is fair. It ticks a lot of boxes, as the expression goes, because it is reasonable and provides enough time for employees to file complaints.

Ms. Viau is much more critical towards the current three‑month period, however. She tells us that a lot of employees do indeed have trouble filing complaints within that time frame, and it is almost always because of the trauma they have experienced.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you very much for that explanation and that testimony. However, given what you just said about what we can learn from the Quebec experience, wouldn't you have liked your bill to include the requirement to collect data on former employees?

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

Actually, when we consulted the documents and reports of the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, the CNESST, we found that there was no such data, to our great surprise. Maybe the data is stored somewhere and we weren't able to access it. That said, if it were possible for legislators in Quebec City to ask employers to provide more fulsome data on former employees, that would be useful.

Since we're going through the process now, it would be advisable to—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Why not do it here now, since Bill C‑378 is being studied?

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

We could. This is something I realized later in the process, when I worked on this bill, i.e., that there was very little documentation on cases where the three‑month deadline had been exceeded.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I would like to ask you a question, even though I know you partially answered it in response to my colleague.

In France, the statute of limitations has been set at six years since 2017. When you were the minister responsible for labour in Quebec, you increased the statute of limitations to two years. Now you're again proposing two years.

Why didn't you aim for an even longer period, knowing that two years is still a short time for some people? As I said at the outset, it can take years to recover from serious harassment. Why not take inspiration from even more generous provisions for employees and former employees? Why only two years?

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

You say “only two years”, but that's still quite a bit more than what is extended elsewhere in Canada, which, frankly, is quite close to what is done in Quebec, culturally speaking.

The Quebec example has been conclusive. I think we need a measured approach. I'm not saying we have to go slowly, but we have to get society as a whole behind the change we want to make to the statute of limitations. I did look at what was being done in other countries, mostly G7 countries, that are—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné.

Madam Zarrillo, go ahead for six minutes, please.