Human Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2024

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

The clerk has advised me that we have quorum. It being 11 o'clock, I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 140 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. All witnesses have completed a sound test.

I would like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before you participate. You have the option to participate in the official language of your choice. In the room, make sure you're on the proper translation channel to have the language of your choice. For those appearing virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your Surface to choose the language you wish to participate in. If there's an interruption in translation service, please raise your hand to get my attention. We will suspend while it is being corrected.

Again, please direct all questions through the chair and wait until I recognize you before you participate.

This morning I welcome Madame Vien back to committee.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 25, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-378, an act amending the Canada Labour Code.

We have with us this morning two departmental witnesses. From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Mr. Muhammad Ali, director, strategic policy, analysis and workplace information directorate, labour program; and Ms. Danijela Hong, director general, workplace directorate, labour program.

The officials will not be giving an opening statement. We will be going directly to our standard line of questioning to the witnesses until the committee members exhaust any questions they may have for them.

You look like you have a question, Ms. Gray.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, this is just a housekeeping question before we start the meeting.

We've almost completed Ms. Chabot's study on seasonal workers and one part of the motion hasn't been fulfilled yet. That's to invite the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages. It's actually part of the motion. That minister hasn't come and spoken yet on that study.

I'm wondering if we could do as we've done with other studies and keep the study open until the minister comes to speak on this. That's just so that the analysts don't move forward and we can schedule the minister to be here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, you are correct, Ms. Gray. The motion that was adopted was for the minister to be the last witness to appear. That is being worked on. As you know, there was a change. The invitation has been extended. We're setting up the time. The study motion cannot conclude until the final witness appears, which is the minister, as you correctly pointed out

Madame Chabot.

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

I want to thank Mrs. Gray for pointing that out.

I completely agree. The motion did indeed provide that we would spend some time with the minister. Now it will be the acting minister. Since we have to report to the House on this study, I assume the analysts can still begin drafting the report based on what has been said thus far, even if they have to make some changes afterwards.

I am trying to understand what is meant by “suspend”. We cannot actually complete the study without that last hour with the minister. In Quebec, we often say that you can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Amazingly, at times people can do that.

Thank you, Madame Chabot. You are correct that the study does not conclude. As soon as I have direction on that, I'll advise the committee. I hope to have some clarification on that by Tuesday.

With that, if there's nothing further, we will move on.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, colleagues. Thank you for welcoming me once again this morning.

Every time Bill C‑378 get through another stage, I am so pleased because the goal is to make workplaces safer, to stop harassment and violence in the workplace and to ensure employees can exercise their rights. That means former employees, because the bill pertains to them.

Let me begin with a quick reminder. This bill will give former employees more time to lodge a complaint. Since 2021, as a result of the changes made to the Canada Labour Code in 2018 by Bill C‑65, former employees have three months to file a complaint. Three months is better than nothing, but it is hardly any time at all. I think we can all do more to give them more time. The benchmark I used, perhaps selfishly, is the bill I introduced myself when I was Quebec's labour minister, Bill 176 from 2018, which overhauled labour standards in Quebec.

Now we can see that it was a wise choice to allow current and former employees—no distinction is made between the two in Quebec—two years because it has produced results. It has allowed former employees in particular enough time for recourse.

Mr. Ali and Ms. Hong, thank you for being here today and spending some time with us. We will need your input, even though the bill has the unanimous support of all the political parties. That demonstrates how concerned we are with the safety of current and former employees and giving them better working conditions.

Ms. Hong, I would like you to give us an overview of workplaces in the public service and those in the private sector that are federally regulated. In reading the report by your department entitled “Annual Report 2022: Taking action against harassment and violence in workplaces under Canadian federal jurisdiction”, we note that there has been an increase in incidents undermining workplace safety, unfortunately. I am referring to incidents of violence and harassment. Those are also reported in the public service, and in fact I believe the trend is especially strong there.

[Danijela Hong, Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you very much.

I would just like to note that you are correct: We have provided two annual reports thus far on the current status of the employer reporting from the perspective of harassment and violence in the workplace.

As you noted, in our 2022 annual report, there is an observation particularly on the increase of the actual occurrences that are reported and the investigation of those in the workplace. We have observed a 26% increase since 2021, but what I want to mention is that an increase in reporting occurrences may be attributed to a variety of factors.

Particularly, employees in federally regulated workplaces, whether they be private or public federally regulated workplaces, are becoming more aware of their protections and their rights. As a result, they are reporting these instances more often and more frequently.

There is definitely a continued effort to prevent workplace harassment and violence and to support employees in all federally regulated sectors, both public and private.

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

Under Bill C‑65, from 2018, companies and organizations are required to produce a policy.

In your opinion, Ms. Hong, would BIll C‑378 provide a new tool to mobilize and further raise the awareness of managers and company executives in order to make workplaces safer?

[Danijela Hong]

Thank you.

I will start by saying that Bill C-65, which was the original bill that introduced the changes to harassment and violence prevention that we currently have in place, significantly strengthened what we had in the past. It had a significant number of requirements for employers, managers and others in the workplace, from the perspective of the prevention of harassment and violence. Some of those elements included the development of a policy that engages the employer, workplace committees and employees, as well as the requirement of mandatory training for all, whether that be managers, supervisors or workers.

That bill introduced a significant number of changes, which are currently in place. I will say that, since 2021, the system has been significantly more robust than it was in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is that everything, Mrs. Vien?

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

I'm sorry, I thought my speaking time was up.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You had 30 seconds.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If Mrs. Vien would like to ask another question, that's fine with me.

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

That's very kind, thank you, but I can wait.

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

Okay.

Thank you very much for being here today.

I can say—and the proponent of this bill knows this—that I'm quite supportive of the bill. I think it's a very reasonable measure. Our side supports it as well.

There will be a couple of questions from me. Then, if there's time remaining, I'll pass it to Mr. Long.

First of all, how does this bill compare with those in other G7 countries—or other democracies, if we want to be more broad—regarding this move towards the two-year threshold? Where are other comparable countries on an issue like this?

[Muhammad Ali, Director, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development]

I would say that the way the Canada Labour Code works with respect to, for example, U.S. federal or state labour laws, or those of other G7 countries.... It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. That is one thing for us to consider.

A general comment would be this: Given that we already have Bill C-65, which is a very robust framework in this regard, we can safely say that Canada has a very strong framework to prevent and otherwise manage incidents of harassment and workplace violence.

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

Thank you.

Under Bill C-65, what is the threshold, then? What is the time period in which a former public servant can make a complaint?

[Muhammad Ali]

Right now, it can be reported by a former employee up to three months after the occurrence. Then there is one year for the employer to figure out whether they can resolve it through informal discussions or the conciliation process, or whether there's an investigation process. There are multiple ways for the employer to resolve it. One year is given for that. After that one year, the employee can again take another three months to make a formal complaint if they have not been satisfied by the employer.

In total, I would say that it's 18 months under the current law.

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

As you say, it's 18 months compared with 24 months. With great respect, I think the bill our colleague put forward would, from the vantage point of a former civil servant, allow for more time, and therefore, on the face of it, seem more just.

You're nodding your head. Would you agree?

[Muhammad Ali]

In addition to those 18 months I mentioned, there is another element to Bill C-65.

If we reach the stage of 18 months after the complaint was lodged, and the employee is not satisfied, they can then take the matter to Labour Canada's labour program. There is a head of compliance and enforcement who can grant additional time, depending on the circumstances. For example, there was discussion that three months is not sufficient time. Some victims could be going through a medical or psychological situation, and they have to take more time to recover from that. If they can prove they are facing that type of situation, they can mention that to the labour program's head of compliance and enforcement. There is a provision to give them an extension, and there is no limit to that.

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

However, the private member's bill that we are studying here would not prevent any of that from also happening, so it's not opposed to what you just described.

[Muhammad Ali]

That's true.

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

I have a final question. I suppose this does happen with any bill, whether it's initiated by the government or a private member. Are there unintended consequences you've identified here that you think the committee should reflect upon? It is not uncommon with any piece of legislation, but I find, in particular with private members' bills, that there could be an unintended consequence. I haven't seen that. I've reflected on it a bit, but it would be good to hear from you on this, or from Ms. Hong.

[Muhammad Ali]

I'll start, and then I'll ask my colleague....

There are a few things. Number one is that, as we increase the time in the law, the message will then be heard by employers, and not only the public service: All the federally regulated employers who will be impacted because of this will have to adjust their HR regime in order to do more record-keeping, but also prepare for additional investigative work. There is that requirement, so there will be some incremental costs attached to that. We have not done proper calculations on that. We plan to do that as a result of the five-year mandatory review, which will be done on Bill C-65, starting in January 2026, so we'll have a more wholesome idea about those impacts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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