Human Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2024

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the two departmental officials for taking the time to answer our questions.

Once again, I want to commend the bill's sponsor. I think everyone around the table agrees that allowing former employees 24 months will strengthen the objectives or scope of the measures established in October 2018 under Bill C‑65, which is still quite recent in the history of the Canada Labour Code. It will increase the time employees are allowed to file a complaint.

If I understood the answer given before, which I think is important, there are already mechanisms allowing for deadlines to be extended, but only if the employee provides evidence. The burden of proof therefore rests with the person requesting a deadline extension. The time allowed is three months, by default. In some cases, however, a person does not even realize they are being harassed. In many cases when a person is having problems, receives a medical diagnosis or receives treatment, they are told to rest. I think that is really important.

I have a broader question. I expect you are to some extent involved in overseeing the application of this framework. In Quebec, the labour standards act is the equivalent to this framework. One of our witnesses, who was from Quebec, thought what we are doing is a step forward, but that more could be done with regard to corrective measures, restorative measures and employee support, for instance.

While the timeframe is being extended, is the current framework sufficient? Could the act be strengthened in other ways by enhancing restorative measures for victims? Have you ever recommended to the minister that the Canada Labour Code be strengthened with regard to health and safety?

[Danijela Hong]

What I would like to mention is that as part of Bill C-65, there was, throughout the study process, a requirement added for a five-year legislative review of all of the provisions that currently exist under part II of the Canada Labour Code, as well as under the regulation. A five-year review is almost there, and we are currently in the preparatory phases of that review. We will be looking at the successes of the current regime, as well as any opportunities for its improvement. I would say that is absolutely where we are headed in the coming years.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Is there a mechanism for consulting employees and employers as part of the five-year review?

[Danijela Hong]

As mentioned, we are currently planning for the review, but absolutely, as part of all of our reviews, we consult with our stakeholders. That is through tripartite engagement. We do engage with employers and employees, and we actually engage with them on a regular basis through our advisory committees. They currently have an opportunity to provide this feedback, but we will have a more formal process for that at the five-year review stage.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

I have absolutely no doubt that the bill will get through the committee stage.

I suppose if the timeframe is extended from three months to two years, fewer complaints will be rejected because of deadlines. Are there any specific statistics about rejected complaints, those that were not allowed because the deadline had passed? Do you think this change will result in any improvements?

[Danijela Hong]

I can provide you with some of the statistics that we have from the perspective of your question. I can say that we have, since January 2021, received six complaints from individuals that were outside of the three-month period. Six complaints were received. In the majority of those cases, individuals did not proceed to seek any extension. It was a total of six, and in one case, an individual requested an extension of time but was not able to demonstrate that they met the requirements of the legislation in order for that extension to be granted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madam Chabot and committee members, I see the light. The bells may be ringing. Do we continue until we figure it out? We have 30 minutes. What is the wish of the committee?

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

I would like to go to the House for the vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Do you want to do that right at this moment?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madam Zarrillo has said that she wants to depart.

With that, I will have to suspend the meeting until the conclusion of the vote.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The meeting is suspended until the conclusion of the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee has now resumed.

We've resumed with the agenda from the first hour. We were about to proceed to Madam Zarrillo for her six minutes of questioning.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the ability to go back to the House for my vote.

We were discussing a very important piece of business, women's reproductive rights. Unfortunately, the Conservatives decided to try to adjourn that debate and to stop the debate on women's reproductive rights. Of course, as a woman and a supporter of women and people of diverse genders, I definitely wanted to be there to stand on guard against the regressive Conservatives' push-back on women's reproductive rights.

We have here some testimony that was received from Nicholas Thompson in regard to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

There is a point of order.

Specifically go to the order you're referencing, Ms. Gray.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With reference to adjectives that are defamatory to people, I don't think they are appropriate.

Also, just to put it on the record, in fact, today is a Conservative opposition day in the House, and that was—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Okay, thank you. That's debate, Ms. Gray.

Madam Zarrillo, you have the floor.

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

Thank you so much.

Nicholas Thompson brought testimony to this committee about the lack of justice and accountability. We know that Nicholas Thompson is leading a human rights complaint against the federal government right now in regard to harassment.

There were three recommendations, three areas that this witness referenced when he came to our committee: disciplinary action, restorative outcomes and supports for employees. I'm interested to know how these can be placed or if these have been discussed internally.

On disciplinary action, Nicholas Thompson brought up that “investigations that confirm harassment or violence should automatically trigger a referral to a disciplinary body.” I'm interested in your opinion on that.

The second one is on restorative outcomes. “The process should include provisions for financial compensation, public acknowledgement of wrongdoing or apologies, which it doesn't provide at the moment.” I'm interested in your thoughts and opinions about having that included.

On supports for employees, to strengthen support for marginalized workers, “Specific programs should be developed to address the unique barriers faced by Black, indigenous and racialized employees.” It goes on to say in the recommendation to include “culturally relevant training, outreach and tailored assistance to ensure equitable access to the complaint process.”

This is just around justice and accountability. Perhaps you can share your thoughts on those three potential inclusions.

[Danijela Hong]

I will just mention a couple of elements, as I've already indicated.

I want to mention, from the perspective of support for employees—maybe I will start there—that part of this regime that was introduced in 2021 as part of Bill C-65 was supports for employees. One of the elements was really focused on support.

As part of the process, employers are required to provide information to all employees on what supports are available to them in the workplace or other supports that may be available. The regime is about prevention: prevent, respond, support. That element currently exists in the provision.

From the perspective of disciplinary actions, I would like to mention that this element was discussed as part of the introduction to Bill C-65. The decision at the time was that discipline can be outlined in the harassment and violence prevention policy.

Those are the elements. The employer is obligated to develop a policy in the workplace with respect to harassment and violence prevention. An element of discipline can be outlined in that policy.

Those are some of the elements that I wanted to raise. I think my colleague will add another element.

[Muhammad Ali]

Thank you, Ms. Hong.

I can also add, especially about the discipline angle, that the employer has a policy about prevention of harassment and violence. They would have those measures covered in that. Suppose there is an occurrence and there's a complaint process that is being pursued. As a result of that, there is an investigation happening, and whatever comes out of that, it becomes the employer's responsibility.

Suppose it is established that this violence or harassment has happened, it becomes incumbent on the employer to take necessary actions according to their policy. If there is a discipline angle captured over there, they enforce that in parallel.

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

Is there an external body? The witness was saying.... If it's been ensured that this is what it is, can it go off to an external body?

[Muhammad Ali]

We have the Canadian Human Rights Commission route. They can also go to the police. It's in the law. We also have a labour program. If they are not satisfied, they can come to the labour program, complain and go through that. Multiple avenues are available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo. That concludes your six minutes.

I've had a discussion with the committee members, and there is agreement. I'll seek your opinion as well, Madam Zarrillo, on whether we will proceed at this stage to clause-by-clause.

Do we have consensus in the committee to proceed to clause-by-clause, Madam Zarrillo and Madame Chabot?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.