Human Resources Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

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

Good morning, committee members.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 138 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House of Commons rules.

All witnesses have completed the required sound verification tests. I would like to remind those in the room and appearing virtually that you have the option of choosing to participate in today's meeting in the official language of your choice. In the room, interpretation services are available by using the headset. Please choose the language you want to participate in before the meeting begins. For those appearing virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your Surface tablet and choose the official language you wish to participate in. If there is a breakdown in interpretation services, please get my attention by raising your hand. I will suspend while it is being corrected.

I would also like to remind members, for the benefit of the interpretation services, to please check all of their devices to make sure that the alarms are turned off. It can cause damage to the interpreters when alarms or buzzers go off. As well, please avoid touching the microphone boom, as it does cause popping in the sound system, which is harmful to the interpreters.

Please wait until I recognize you. If you need to reach me, simply raise your hand and I will recognize you by name. For those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon.

We have a couple of additions to the committee. We welcome back Madame Vien, and we have Mr. Cormier and Mr. Mendicino appearing virtually.

With that, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 25, 2024, the committee in the first hour will resume its study of Bill C-378, an act amending the Canada Labour Code.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

Mr. Nicholas Thompson, president and chief executive officer of Black Class Action Secretariat, is appearing in the room.

Welcome, Mr. Thompson.

Appearing virtually is Monsieur Yann Morin, criminologist, Groupe d’aide et d’information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec.

Each of you has up to five minutes.

We'll begin with you, Mr. Thompson. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Nicholas Marcus Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Black Class Action Secretariat]

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee.

My name is Nicholas Marcus Thompson, and I am the president and CEO of the Black Class Action Secretariat, a non-profit organization committed to dismantling systemic barriers within our public services. I also lead the Coalition Against Workplace Discrimination, which unites unions, human rights groups and civil society actors to address workplace inequities across Canada.

My expertise is further informed by my experience as the former president of the Union of Taxation Employees, where I applied the Canada Labour Code to advocate for federal workers in workplace safety and addressing harassment and discrimination.

Thanks again for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-378.

I want to begin by saying that my organization and I support the proposed amendments to the bill to extend the period from three months to two years. While the proposed extension is necessary, focusing solely on this change leaves the complaints process largely ineffective, and I'll explain why, in our view, that is so. Even with an extended time frame, the current framework fails to deliver justice or accountability for victims.

The complaints process focuses on workplace restoration rather than justice for victims. Investigations culminate in recommendations but impose no consequences on individuals responsible for harassment or violence.

There is also limited value for former employees. For former employees, an extended time frame does little to address the lack of meaningful outcomes. Even when complaints are upheld, there are no provisions for compensation, apologies or any form of redress. I could imagine, as a former employee, participating in a process that has no benefit to me at that stage when I've already left the workplace.

Without mechanisms to hold individuals accountable or address the root cause of harassment and violence, systemic discrimination persists, particularly affecting Black, indigenous and racialized workers.

To make the extended time frame meaningful, it must be accompanied by structural changes that address the fundamental flaws in the complaints process.

I propose the following reforms.

First, introduce a referral mechanism for disciplinary action. Investigations that confirm harassment or violence should automatically trigger a referral to a disciplinary body. Employers should be required to impose corrective measures, including retraining or other disciplinary actions to ensure accountability.

Second, provide restorative outcomes for victims. The process should include provisions for financial compensation, public acknowledgement of wrongdoing or apologies, which it doesn't provide at the moment. These measures would reinforce the seriousness of workplace harassment and violence and provide meaningful redress for victims.

Finally, strengthen support for marginalized workers. Specific programs should be developed to address the unique barriers faced by Black, indigenous and racialized employees. This includes culturally relevant training, outreach and tailored assistance to ensure equitable access to the complaint process.

In closing, the proposed extension to two years under Bill C-378 is an important step forward, but it does not address the systemic barriers that make the complaints process ineffective. Without accountability for wrongdoers, restorative outcomes for victims and tailored support for marginalized groups, the process will continue to fail those it is intended to serve.

I urge the committee to not only support this bill but to also take this opportunity to implement broader reforms to the Canada Labour Code to create a framework that delivers justice, accountability and equity in workplaces across Canada.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Morin, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Yann Morin, Criminologist, Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement au travail de la province de Québec]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

Thank you for inviting me to speak today and for taking the time to discuss a topic as important as workplace harassment.

My name is Yann Morin. I work for the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec, as known as GAIHST. I hold a master's degree in criminology. I've been working for GAIHST as a criminologist for almost 10 years now.

GAIHST was founded in 1980 to raise awareness about sexual harassment in the workplace. In 2024, GAIHST's mission is to help people who are experiencing or who have experienced sexual, psychological or discriminatory harassment in the workplace. We try to give power back to the people who contact us by providing information and support throughout their personal or legal processes.

We operate mainly in and around Montreal, but our services are available to anyone in Quebec. Our expertise lies primarily in non‑unionized environments within small and medium‑sized businesses in Quebec. However, we also support unionized workers in large companies.

Our services basically consist of providing assistance, a listening ear, legal information and technical support to people experiencing workplace harassment. In some cases, we also provide support and representation during legal proceedings. Lastly, we continue to provide public education and awareness services.

Today, I hope to pass on our expertise based on our first‑hand experience with these people.

In 2018, we had the opportunity to share our opinion on a similar issue, at the request of the Quebec government. At that time, GAIHST proposed to extend the deadline for filing a complaint for psychological harassment from 90 days to at least six months.

Since then, in light of the two‑year extension of the deadline for filing a complaint, we've reconsidered our point of view. This change clearly showed that victims need a longer time frame to take action. In our experience over the past few years, a two‑year time frame seems to align much more closely with victims' needs.

This need stems from the far‑reaching impact of these acts for individuals. We continue to find that most of our clients are on sick leave as a result of the incidents reported and that the end of employment will occur close to or during the sick leave. Given the impact on their health, these people need more time to feel ready to start the process of filing a complaint or any other process.

The people who come to our organization will generally receive a diagnosis of post‑traumatic stress disorder, major depression or adjustment disorder. For example, the National Institute of Mental Health provides a good summary of the reality of people who develop post‑traumatic stress disorder. The symptoms generally appear within three months of the incidents. While some people may recover within six months of the onset of symptoms, a number of people may need a year or more to recover. Regardless of the medical diagnosis, these people can rarely take action in such short time frames.

In terms of our experience with the two‑year deadline for filing a complaint, we find that not many people who contact us have trouble starting the complaint process within this time frame. In recent years, we've only rarely needed to explain to a victim that their deadline for filing a complaint had passed. A number of people who contact us manage to file their complaint within a year or two of the harassment.

However, the deadline for filing a work‑related injury claim is six months from the onset of the illness in cases of non‑sexual violence. We continue to maintain that it should also be two years. We regularly need to inform people that their six‑month deadline has passed when they contact us for the first time. This also ties in with a recent study conducted by Rachel Cox. She had access to statistics from the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec, or CNESST, concerning claims involving sexual violence. Ms. Cox also discovered that the most common reason for rejection was a late claim.

As a result, we support this proposal to extend the deadline for taking steps to address workplace harassment to at least two years. The goal is to improve access to recourse for these individuals, who suffer enormous consequences for their health, their professional lives and their personal lives.

I remain open to discussing issues concerning complaints, as my colleague said. Quebec has legal proceedings that aren't available in Canada. I also believe that this could be quite beneficial for victims.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Morin.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being available today to answer parliamentarians' questions about the important Bill C‑378.

I think that this bill is important. Of course, I'm the sponsor. I'm sponsoring it because I wanted to align the measures with the work done in Quebec, when I was the Quebec labour minister, in order to improve the federal measures here.

Mr. Morin, you referred to these measures. In 2018, you went through the same process when we held public consultations on this bill, and you agreed with this measure.

Contrary to the popular belief that politicians lack vision, at that time, you made a recommendation to proceed by proposing to extend the deadline for filing a psychological harassment complaint from three to six months. In the end, we agreed on two years. This shows just how open‑minded we were in Quebec at the time.

When I look at former federally regulated employees, the current dynamic is somewhat similar. They have only three months to file a complaint, whereas the current employees don't have any deadline. That's better than in Quebec. That's what I told this committee last week.

Mr. Morin, you obviously agree with the two‑year deadline. Everyone understands this, and we're pleased.

Could you provide a list of possible forms of workplace harassment or violence so that everyone can understand what we're talking about here?

[Yann Morin]

Thank you for your question. It is very broad.

Harassment does indeed include a wide range of events and behaviours.

In my presentation, I talked about psychological harassment, which can include screaming, insults, belittling or sidelining someone.

For example, we have seen cases of individuals working in an office tower, and their psychological harassment started when they were moved from the 33rd floor to the basement, beside the water heater.

So the definition of psychological harassment can be very broad. It can go as far as criminal acts: physical violence, punching, assault and threats of various kinds.

Sexual harassment is also part of the broader category of harassment. It can include repeated unwanted invitations, comments or jokes with sexual undertones. Those behaviours can in turn lead to sexual assault in the workplace.

As to discrimination, I think my colleague who is here with us can tell you more about that. Systemic discrimination is also definitely a form of harassment. It can range from microaggressions to much more serious and repeated incidents. The effects can be very serious and varied, according to what the person experienced.

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

Thank you, Mr. Morin.

Let's talk then about the major effects that you also mentioned in your presentation.

You clearly referred to that when you talked about depression and post-traumatic stress.

In essence, what problems do people experience after being the target of that kind of harassment or violence in the workplace?

[Yann Morin]

It varies from person to person.

I will give you an overview of what we see most of the time.

I did of course mention the most common problems. There are often symptoms related to those problems. There are obviously a lot of psychological effects. People who experience symptoms of depression experience a loss of interest, have trouble getting up in the morning and trouble looking after themselves. People might also have trouble preparing meals for themselves and with their personal hygiene. They get to that point. Some people are even unable to go out of their home.

Post-traumatic stress includes a range of issues for victims: They may find it hard to think about the events again and to return to places that remind them of the events. People have nightmares and trouble sleeping. They might also relive an event. There is also the issue of anxiety, which is very prominent, loss of self-esteem, doubting their professional abilities, their ability to go back to work or hold a job.

There can also be various physical effects of what people experienced. They can have physical symptoms such as stomach aches, headaches, loss of energy and difficulty functioning.

In view of all these symptoms, people might have to go on disability leave, which affects them financially since it makes it harder for them to support themselves.

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

This obviously has consequences for marital, family and financial life.

I feel like my time is running out. But I'd like to say a word about the consequences. We don't always think about it, but there are consequences for companies too.

The CNESST has studied this issue. We're talking about loss of productivity, loss of interest and commitment on the part of staff members, reduced quality of services, risk of error, absenteeism and staff turnover.

Do you agree?

We often think that the consequences are limited to the individuals who are victims, but companies are affected too, aren't they?

[Yann Morin]

I completely agree. There are a lot of consequences for companies, whether they're Quebecois or Canadian, and you've just identified them very well.

When you experience harassment, you find it hard to do your work. You question yourself. You don't know exactly what you're doing anymore. So there's this diminishment.

At the same time, when you stop working due to illness, there's an increase in absenteeism. The employer has to find replacements.

Moreover, in the majority of cases, people don't return to their jobs after stopping work due to illness. Employers have to hire new people and train them.

So there are indeed all these extra costs for companies as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Vien.

Mr. Coteau.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I want to first talk about workplace restoration versus justice that you mentioned.

What is the difference between the two? Can you explain that a little bit more for the committee?

[Nicholas Marcus Thompson]

Sure. Thank you.

The intent, and the way the legislation is written, focuses not on blaming anyone or holding anyone accountable. What it seeks to do is find out what went wrong and to provide recommendations to restore the workplace. It's very broad. No one is held accountable and it's not a deterrent to change behaviour.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Give me an example of that—an extreme example, if possible.

[Nicholas Marcus Thompson]

Sure.

I participated in a process where a third party investigator came in, found that there was wrongdoing and found there was workplace violence that a senior leader had perpetrated against a worker. The issue had involved sending an email in the workplace. The recommendation was very broad training to all employees about email etiquette and about privacy.

There was nothing toward addressing that issue with that employee. It was just very broad for everyone.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I know you can't speak of specifics, but in a case where someone is threatening someone in the workplace, you're saying that there actually is not a process in place to hold that person accountable.

[Nicholas Marcus Thompson]

There isn't through the Canada Labour Code.

The employer may look at activating a procedure through its code of conduct or its directive on discipline. However, through the Canada Labour Code or its regulations or under part II, it does not mandate any type of referral mechanisms. There isn't that.

If the employer chooses to look at it through this process and not through any other.... It's optional for the employer to determine which process. If an employee files a complaint through this process, then it means to say they will go through that. You can't hold anyone accountable through this process, legally.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I want to just thank you for the advocacy and the work you've been doing throughout your history of work. I think it's important to improve systems in general.

I know you've done a lot of work around racialized Black and indigenous communities. You mentioned that it impacts communities differently. I think there were some special measures put in place to really address these issues that impact different communities differently. I think it was the third recommendation.

Can you go into detail about what that would look like?

[Nicholas Marcus Thompson]

Sure. The data clearly shows us, and the experience of workers clearly identifies to us, that different groups face different barriers in the workplace. For example, fear of retaliation would be heightened for certain groups. My third recommendation would be to have specialized programs to support these types of marginalized groups through the complaint process.

Firstly, these processes are very bureaucratic. When you look at these processes, it's almost like you're David and the process is Goliath. It's a very challenging process to go through. There's the length of time, and the employer oftentimes doesn't provide you with all the information. They know the full back end of how the process works and they're only showing you a little piece. You're not fully aware of it.

For all workers, I think that creates barriers, but when you are in any of these racialized, indigenous or Black groups, you're already facing additional barriers within the workplace. To make the process more accessible, there could be programs to support employees in these groups to navigate these processes.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

You're probably familiar with this, but when these issues came forward back in maybe 2016—a group of mostly women came forward with allegations of harassment within the system—the Ontario government did put in special measures. One of them—because of that complaint process you were talking about and the challenge of actually going through it—was to make a provision. The secretary of cabinet made a decision that complaints would have to go directly to him for that special category. The system itself wasn't allowing people to flow in the right way to get to where they needed to be. They felt there were too many barriers in place.

Is it with regard to that type of accommodation that you're looking for different ways to put in some alternative measures to address those issues?

[Nicholas Marcus Thompson]

Sure. These issues are over decades, over a long period of time, and oftentimes the solutions are temporary. These recommendations ought to be institutionalized within the processes. Over a period of time, it should make it better and better with amendments like these that are brought forward, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.