Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this issue. First and foremost I want to congratulate the member opposite on the intent of her bill. The bill's intent and objectives are right, but from the government's perspective, we believe they can be handled in another way.
Concerns about violence in the workplace have been growing for some time, not just in Canada's public service, the group the bill focuses on, but throughout society in general. As a result of this increasing violence, the government and other stakeholders have increasingly focused attention on the question of workplace violence, both physical and psychological. Over the past decade, a good deal of work has been done to gain a better understanding of the potential for violence in the workplace and how to recognize and prevent it.
For example, in 2001 in Montreal, Canada's minister of labour jointly hosted with her counterpart in the Government of Quebec an international conference on workplace violence. It was an excellent conference. It was held under the auspices of the NAFTA agreement on labour. Delegates came from Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
Presenters from diverse backgrounds spoke about workplace violence in their areas. The speakers came from the public and private sectors. They represented both employers and employees and they included experts from several jurisdictions, including Quebec.
Psychological violence, the subject of Bill C-451, was one of the key issues discussed. We learned a lot from that conference. For example, we learned that there is a linkage between psychological and physical workplace violence.
One expert, Mr. Di Martino, a consultant based in France and author of the International Labour Organization's report “Violence at Work”, spoke about psychological violence. He noted that its impact can be as bad or even worse than physical violence. He identified a need to focus on the long-lasting negative consequences that psychological violence can have in our workplace.
He also said that issues of physical and psychological violence should not be looked at separately. He pointed out that while focusing on psychological violence is important, we should not lose perspective of the link that exists between psychological and physical violence. Mr. Di Martino said, “Any act of physical violence impacts enormously on psychological well-being, and any act of psychological violence has a physical effect on people. They cannot be separated”.
This is wise advice. It says to me that we should not be separating workplace psychological harassment for special legislative attention as Bill C-451 does. Like Mr. Di Martino, I believe we would need to work at both psychological and physical violence as being linked in the workplace. I would argue therefore that any legislation we bring forward in this area should consider that linkage.
Part II of the Canada Labour Code gives us the ability to do that. That part of the code deals with workplace health and safety. Clearly, the issue of workplace violence, whether physical or psychological, is an issue of health and safety. I would suggest we could address the legitimate concerns of the member opposite in the context of part II of the Canada Labour Code, the part that focuses on health and safety in the workplace rather than part III as the bill proposes.
Before I continue, I must clarify that part III of the Canada Labour Code does not apply to the Public Service of Canada. As such, amendments under this part of the code would not be relevant to the target group of the bill.
The federal public service is instead governed in this area by a Treasury Board policy on prevention and resolution of workplace harassment. However, part II of the code already applies to Canada's public service, the target of the member's interest, and it already provides for regulations on workplace violence.
A few years ago, part II of the code was the subject of an extensive review that included a broad range of stakeholders in the federal jurisdiction. This was the most comprehensive review of the legislation that had ever taken place. It included representatives of employees, unions and employers in the federal jurisdiction, as well as from the federal public service and Treasury Board Secretariat.
Among other issues, the review looked at the issue of workplace violence. Among other amendments, the new law included a provision to require employees to take prescribed steps that would “prevent and protect against violence in the workplace”.
Those prescribed steps were to be developed in the form of regulations. Those regulations are now being developed by a tripartite working group of individuals representing employers and employees in the federal jurisdiction, as well as government officials.
This background leads me to make two points. First, the work to develop these regulations is being done by a representative group of employers and employees in the federal jurisdiction, the same stakeholders who will be governed by the regulations. Second, they are doing this work under part II of the code.
That in turn leads me to make two other observations. One, the proposed regulations will result from a consultative process that includes the stakeholders themselves. Hopefully there will be broad acceptance of those regulations. Two, it appears these key stakeholders themselves see workplace violence as a health and safety issue, one that should be dealt with under part II of the code and not under part III as Bill C-451 proposes.
There are two conclusions. One, the government is on the right track in its approach to address the issue of workplace violence, including both physical and psychological harassment under part II of the code. Two, instead of looking for new ways to deal with workplace harassment such as Bill C-451 proposes, we should be looking to the forthcoming regulations of the tripartite working group.
In other words, I do not see the need for the bill at this time. The intent and the need to address it is right but it can be addressed by other means, as we are moving forward to do.
It is also important to keep in mind that members of Canada's public sector are already protected from discrimination or harassment by the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as by the Treasury Board policy to prevent and protect members of the public service from workplace harassment.
The Canadian Human Rights Act already protects all employees under federal jurisdiction, including the public service of Canada. There is a longstanding public service policy against harassment that was introduced over 20 years ago and was updated in 2001.
Can we do more? Of course we can. We can always do more. I look forward to the regulations from the tripartite working group to see what more can be done. Can we also do more for workers outside the public sector? Indeed we can and working through part II of the code is the way to do that.
When I look at what the government is already doing to address issues of workplace violence, including the issue of psychological harassment raised in Bill C-451, I am convinced the government is on the right track.
I do not see the need for this legislation at this point. I do not agree with the approach presented in Bill C-451 and therefore, I cannot support it at this time.