Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill , an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.
Today the committee will hear from federally regulated private sector unions. Given the size of the group today, we've broken it into two different panels. In the first panel, coming to us from the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Marie Clarke-Walker, secretary-treasurer, and Tara Peel, national representative. From the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, we have Carl Girouard, national union representative, grievances. From the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have Patricia Harewood, legal officer, and Andrea Peart, health and safety officer.
Welcome, all of you, and thank you for being here today. We know that we've had quite the quick turnaround on this committee, so we really appreciate you making time to be here to help us make sure that this bill is as good as it possibly can be.
We're going to start with the Canadian Labour Congress.
The next seven minutes are yours.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
On behalf of the over three million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, we thank you for affording us the opportunity to present our views on this bill.
The Canadian Labour Congress brings together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations, as well as over 100 district labour councils, whose members work in virtually all sectors in the Canadian economy in all occupations and in all parts of Canada.
The CLC supports the intention of this bill. Recognizing sexual violence and sexual harassment as workplace hazards and applying a health and safety approach will make workplaces safer. Moving sexual harassment into part II of the code will provide protection for more workers than are currently covered by part III.
We applaud extending health and safety protections to workers on Parliament Hill through the proposed amendments to PESRA.
We do have concerns, however, with parts of this bill. We are concerned that the legislation does not include a definition of “sexual harassment” or “violence”. We're also concerned about the proposal to limit the role of workplace health and safety committees. We must ensure that there are enough health and safety officers in the federal sector, that they reflect the diversity of the country, and that they receive appropriate training.
With respect to definitions, we are concerned that this bill does not include a definition of “violence” or “harassment”, including “sexual harassment”. While the narrative of the bill has been about sexual harassment, the legislation does not make the distinction between sexual harassment and all other forms of harassment and violence. It does not reflect that harassment and violence can be a single incident or a pattern of behaviour, and that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. We support a broad definition that captures the full scope of harassment and violence.
With respect to the role of the committees, violence at work is a health and safety issue. Applying a health and safety approach to sexual harassment and sexual violence can help make Canadian workplaces safer. The most proven tool in the health and safety tool box is an effective health and safety committee. Limiting the role of committees, the way this bill does, will also limit its benefits and will have a negative, unintended consequence.
In Canada health and safety law requires consultation and participation by health and safety committees. Prohibiting committees from receiving complaints and participating in investigations as appropriate undermines the foundation and will result in less safe workplaces in the federal sector. Section 127 of the code provides the process for resolving all health and safety complaints. After reporting an issue to a supervisor, the employee along with the supervisor shall try to resolve the complaint between themselves. After that, the employee or the supervisor may refer an unresolved complaint to a chairperson of the committee, to be investigated jointly. The word “may” is deliberate; a worker can choose not to refer their complaint to the committee.
The proposed changes will leave workers with limited options if they feel that their complaint is not being addressed. If the only recourse is to file a complaint with a federal inspector, workers may feel pressured to be loyal or to avoid embarrassing their employer, or they may feel uncertain about engaging in this external compliance process. Being able to refer an unresolved complaint to their workplace committee, if they choose to, is important to workers experiencing harassment or violence.
Violence and harassment are not experienced in the same way by all workers. Other forms of discriminatory harassment intersect with gender-based and sexual harassment and make some workers more vulnerable as well. Ensuring workers' confidence that their privacy will be protected is a very important factor to encourage reporting. We are recommending some amendments to build confidence in those privacy protections.
Another barrier to reporting is the fear of reprisals. We know that people fear that reporting will be a career killer. The changes in this bill will put some workers at risk of discipline from their employer for talking to their health and safety committee. Removing the option for a worker to refer their complaint to their workplace committee will leave vulnerable workers without a trusted source of help.
These concerns are amplified, because the bill is silent on a reporting process when the accused is the employer. We know that the intention is to address this through regulation, but it remains a gap.
The code also includes mechanisms for health and safety committees to participate in investigations as they deem appropriate. The code does not require health and safety committees to lead all investigations. It is common for investigations to be conducted by a competent person, as outlined in part XX of the regulations. Health and safety committees have a role to play in identifying the competent person and ensuring that they are qualified and impartial to the satisfaction of the complainant. They have a role to play in determining the essential component of an investigation. In some cases it is appropriate for the committee to conduct the investigation itself.
There has also been a persistent decline in the number of health and safety officers in the federal sector over the last decade. We must ensure that a sufficient number of officers is hired and that the officers receive appropriate training. The inspectorate must reflect a diversity of workers in Canada with respect to gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, indigenous and racialized communities, and persons with disabilities. The recruitment strategy should reflect this.
I want to thank you for listening, and I welcome any questions you may have.
I would like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation today.
My name is Carl Girouard and I have been a Canada Post employee since 1991. I was a letter carrier from 1991 to 2006. I then started to work full-time for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. I am a national union representative for grievances. I have been taking care of grievances for more than 10 years. Since 2011, I have also been a member of the National Health and Safety Committee, the steering committee, and I have been the union co-chair since 2015.
I must tell you that we have gone through various periods at Canada Post. There are many cases of harassment and violence in the workplace. In my experience, in the 1990s and early 2000s, it was possible to talk to supervisors, and common sense still had a place in those discussions. Right now, our members feel that they are no longer treated as human beings, but that they are seen more as numbers, figures, money.
At Canada Post, violence and harassment take different forms. In some cases, it is violence from the public, from disgruntled customers. There is also violence or harassment between employees. At any rate, I want to talk about the harassment that I call systemic, the harassment generated by Canada Post's system and procedures.
Take, for example, the management of absences and, above all, the management of overtime. At the outset, those two principles may seem laudable, but the way they are applied takes away from their legitimacy.
We strongly believe that Canada Post provides financial incentives to supervisors to reduce costs, absenteeism and overtime. This is what drives them to harass and intimidate our members in the workplace. That is why Mr. Trudeau was asked a question about it in Winnipeg; it is a real problem.
The collective agreement specifies that the measurement of work is based on averages. An average, by definition, implies that 50% of people can be faster and the other 50% can be slower. Yet everyone is required to get the same results, the same average, in terms of time. I will explain why this average itself is problematic.
The guide for supervisors managing overtime includes grids and tools to determine whether problems come from somewhere other than the workers, such as the measurement of work or the route. The disciplinary measures imposed on our members show that those tools are not always used. Canada Post does not take into account the experience, the particular problems that may occur on certain days or any exceptional circumstances. It asks our members to justify the time they claim minute by minute.
So evaluation is problematic. It is important to understand that the evaluation of a letter carrier's daily workload is based on what has happened in the last 12 months. Then there is an enforcement process that lasts six months. As a result, when new routes are implemented in a post office, some time has already passed.
In its own communications, Canada Post says that the volume of packages delivered in 2017 has increased by 22% over the previous year. We see that the curve is going up and we quickly understand why the data are no longer appropriate. According to our analysis, the quantity of packages delivered daily by letter carriers has increased by 70% since 2011; it's still not a long time.
Our members work overtime in good faith, in order to complete their work or to provide good service to the public. It has nothing to do with cases of fraud. I can tell you that, in terms of time worked, if there are cases of fraud, Canada Post takes action and fires the people involved. Our members deserve to be thanked, not bullied and harassed in their places of work.
Canada Post keeps a list of employees who work the most overtime in Canada. I can tell you that, when their name is on the list, they become a target.
In the last 10 years, since 2008, 2,875 grievances involving cases of harassment and bullying by Canada Post supervisors have been referred to adjudication.
We have an employee assistance program, which allows them to get support, to access psychologists, among other things, and to talk to people. In 2016 and 2017, two-thirds of the requests from the CUPW letter carrier group were related to work-related issues, stress situations or social isolation. Some people were even at risk of suicide.
So the situation at Canada Post is alarming. I wanted to take the time to explain it to you.
I will be pleased to answer your questions about Bill in the discussions that will follow.
Thank you.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada appreciates the opportunity to express our views and provide input into Bill . PSAC recognizes that employees who are women, racially visible, and/or living with disabilities face harassment, discrimination, and violence more frequently. Women in particular are almost four times more likely to face workplace sexual harassment in Canada than men. The statistics are even more troubling for indigenous, racialized, and disabled women. As a result, our recommendations to improve Bill C-65 have an intersectional and gender equity lens.
We applaud the government's intention to improve harassment procedures, protect complainant confidentiality, and—after 25 years— finally extend basic health and safety protections to the staff of the House of Commons, Senate, library, and Parliament as a whole.
While much of this bill is positive, we have recommendations for amendments.
First, the complainant must be provided with a copy of the competent person's report. Transparency is critical for complainants to have faith in the process. However, under the current process, following a part XX violence investigation by a competent person, the complainant does not receive a copy of the competent person's report. In fact, the complainant doesn't receive anything. The complainant must receive a copy of the competent person's report, including recommendations, in order to ensure transparency and procedural fairness.
Our next two recommendations pertain to the regulatory aspect, but are crucially important.
A role for human rights bodies must be included in the selection of a competent person to investigate harassment in the workplace. It is PSAC's experience that many competent persons lack the necessary human rights expertise required to properly investigate harassment on a prohibited ground such as sexual harassment or racial harassment. However, other bodies such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, and certain labour board arbitrators already have significant expertise in dealing with human rights complaints and grievances, including sexual harassment and sexual violence. Therefore, it is critical that any regulations provide a role for expert bodies such as the commission to provide or recommend competent persons, and potentially assist in the resolution of complaints.
Next, the regulatory process under part XX must not bar or delay our members' quick and easy access to human rights complaints or grievances, which may offer greater expertise, procedural fairness guarantees, and remedies for complainants. These rights-based mechanisms include the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act, and those in collective agreements to address harassment and violence.
More details on those two recommendations are included in our written submission.
Our next recommendation is to reinstate the health and safety committees' role in both receiving complaints and making informed recommendations by ensuring policy committees receive a copy of the competent person's report. Under the proposed changes, the health and safety committee, and therefore the union, would be excluded from the processes described in the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, part XX. Receiving complaints is an important function of the workplace health and safety committee. Section 127.1 of the Canada Labour Code provides a process for resolving health and safety related complaints. After reporting an issue to a supervisor, the code provides a mechanism for moving complaints through the internal responsibility system for all health and safety complaints, including violence. However, under the proposed change, workers would no longer be able to bring an issue related to violence or harassment to a health and safety committee for help.
PSAC recommends that the committee's function on receiving complaints relating to an occurrence of harassment and violence be reinstated. We believe this section can be strengthened by establishing that the employee or the supervisor may refer an unresolved complaint to a chairperson of a workplace health and safety committee or to the health and safety representative to be investigated jointly, where consent is provided by the complainant and privacy and human rights are respected.
In addition to receiving complaints, committees are required to investigate hazards. Under existing law, workplace health and safety committees are required to investigate any hazard in the workplace that may lead to injury, including mental injury. However, under the proposed legislation, the jointly administered health and safety committees are explicitly blocked from participating in any activity relating to an occurrence of violence or harassment. We believe this to be a grave error. Instead, we believe that health and safety representatives shall, where appropriate and when requested by the complainant, participate in an investigation relating to an occurrence of harassment or violence in the workplace.
Finally, committees make recommendations for improvement. Workplace health and safety policy committees are an important source of recommendations for improvements. In addition, committees participate in the selection of a competent person, as well as participate in the establishment of essential elements of the competent person's report.
At the very least, we recommend amending the bill to ensure the co-chairs of policy committees receive a copy of the competent person's report, with the complainant's consent, and provided that the privacy and human rights of the parties are respected.
Our final recommendation is to hire and retain a sufficient number of health and safety officers and establish a substantive training system that includes training on privacy rights, human rights, sexual harassment, and domestic violence against women.
Our submission documents the frankly massive decline in the number of health and safety officers since 2005. We also have major concerns regarding the minimal amount of training required for federal health and safety officers compared to provincial-territorial requirements. As an example, the current training for federal health and safety officers is one tenth of the training required in Ontario.
As this bill commits to establish new specialized health and safety officers, it is crucial that the training program be substantive and robust and that it include special training on equity, sexual harassment, and domestic violence against women. There must be a commitment to hiring not only a diverse group of special inspectors from equity groups but also those with expertise in investigating and analyzing harassment on the prohibited grounds of sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity, etc. It's also important to hire some special inspectors who speak indigenous languages. Any legislation aiming to improve workplace safety must take into account the specific ways that members of equity-seeking groups, such as racialized and indigenous women, experience harassment and violence and how their particular needs might be addressed in a complaints-and-reporting process.
Thank you. We'll be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Of course, we are very concerned that Bill prohibits the participation of health and safety committees in the investigation process, and prevents them from receiving information. We fully understand the need for confidentiality in order to encourage workers to report problems, but we think it needs to be balanced with the need for unions to properly represent their members and receive at least some of the information, to enable them to contribute to the change of culture in the workplace.
We play an important role and we want to ensure that investigations are conducted fairly, equitably and, above all, impartially. I want to reiterate the importance of the competent investigator principle described in Part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, entitled “Violence Prevention in the Work Place”: this person has the experience and the skills required to do the job, but they must also be seen as being impartial by both parties, which is very important. It is important to ensure that employers do not conduct their own investigations. This can be problematic in many cases, especially when it comes to sexual harassment and things like that. It is imperative that the person conducting the investigation be impartial.
We have recently found that competent investigators had circulated their reports in health and safety, human resources and labour relations services before making their findings public; those reports had therefore been amended. That's not impartiality.
Confidentiality should exist to protect the victim, not to allow the abuser to hide or to circumvent the bargaining agent or the health and safety committees. This argument is used against us in the workplace, which is very problematic for us.
We are also concerned about the interaction of clauses in the collective agreement with the provisions of Bill . We have an obligation to represent our members. This may include providing support to those who want to complain, or representing someone who is part of the investigative process, as Part XX of the regulations allows. We must also represent people who have been disciplined. There is ample case law on the obligation of unions to represent their members, as well as on the right of unions to have information. If there are no clarifications on this, we wonder what position we are going to be in and what kind of legal debate that will cause.
The bill should also provide more detail on the investigation process. In particular, will the results of the minister's investigation be made public? Can we access it during the grievance process, for example? This concerns us.
We are also concerned about the definitions. We think this is a fundamental aspect that should be reflected in the bill. I have heard arguments that it is easier to change the definitions in a regulation than in a law, and I agree. The important thing is to have clear and precise definitions. Would it be sufficient to include them in the regulations? Possibly. However, if that is really the intent, why not include clear and precise definitions in the bill so that we know exactly what is intended?
:
My understanding is that this bill doesn't necessarily change a lot of things. The only thing it changes is that they don't have the ability to go to the joint committee that has been appointed or elected to deal with those particular situations.
You may very well be correct in terms of people preferring to speak to somebody at arm's length; however, that arm's-length person can still be part of a joint health and safety committee, right? I don't think the way the bill is written now will change the numbers of people coming forward. People are afraid to come forward when dealing with situations that are hurtful.
Whether it's discrimination or harassment, they're afraid. They're afraid of reprisals, so until we do something that shows them, first of all, that the people around them can be trusted, and that we really have their best interests at heart, it's going to continue. If we continue along this particular line with no joint committee, I think it will get even worse. Fewer people will come forward because they will not see anyone there who they trust.
The other piece of it is that maybe we also need to do a lot more training around human rights issues for the joint committees. That was mentioned in my colleague's intervention as well. I think that will go a long way to ensure that more people come forward because, at times, the very best of us, even though we know the legislation and even though we know the law, when we are traumatized in that way, we tend to stay back. If we're going to put forward a bill, we need to make sure that the bill is extremely strong and looks at all sides of the issue.
:
My understanding of the bill is that in legislation, every time it reads “participate in an investigation”, the code would be amended to say, “unless it is related to a complaint of harassment or violence”. That is not to say that committees are always or even in most cases the right people to lead the investigation, and that's not required now under the code. For “competent person”, in many cases, having that be an impartial, qualified third party who understands the legislation is important. When you talk about “participate”, that's a broad term.
It's making sure that they have the ability to look at the criteria for who that competent person should be and what skills they need to have, and what the essential components of a competent person's investigation are. We have all heard of terrible investigations where we get to the end of the process and that investigator has not spoken to the right people, not asked the right questions. Having the committee's input at that stage, in terms of participation, will be important so that we don't end up, at the end of the process, whereby the committee has had no input into that and they're given these very limited workplace recommendations to review without being able to impact the process.
Unless I'm misreading the bill, specifically excluding committees by saying they shall not participate doesn't allow the nuance that you need, I think, to be able to say that in a certain case the committee doesn't have the expertise, doesn't have the right skills, and isn't the right body to be leading the investigation. That's currently allowed. I would say the challenge is that, by completely excluding the committee, it doesn't allow you that nuance as you get into it down the road.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees welcomes this opportunity to comment on Bill and present our recommendations to this committee for consideration.
CUPE is Canada's largest union, representing 650,000 members across Canada. We have federally regulated workers in communications, energy and transportation such as airlines, light rail and ports.
I represent the Airline Division of CUPE with over 12,000 unionized flight attendants.
[English]
I know the work environments of CUPE members expose them to numerous work-related hazards, most of which are well regulated. However, in spite of the demands of their work environment, which we strive to handle, workers should never be exposed to violence in the workplace whether in the form of verbal threats, harassment, physical violence, or sexual aggression and violence.
The close working environment, the occupational power hierarchy, and the spectrum of violence create a complex multi-dimensional issue, which will require close attention to ensure a process is developed that will respect principles of justice, human rights, equality, and privacy in the application of our health and safety laws.
CUPE strongly supports the government's renewed efforts on violence prevention, especially the often overlooked sexually related violence, and would like to echo the positive aspects of this bill as have been expressed by our colleague.
However, as was hinted at earlier, different types of violence will require different solutions, and while aspects of Bill provide positive steps towards facilitating safe and accountable workplaces and the prevention of violence, CUPE strongly believes that some of the proposed changes will have the opposite effect in the workplace.
Limiting the role of health and safety committees will, in the view of CUPE, lead to a chilling effect on reporting and increase the opportunity for all workplace violence, including systemic harassment, sexual violence, and assaults, to remain unaddressed.
As a case in point, sexual harassment and assaults on women within the airline industry are common experiences for our members. Heavy-handed management tactics, flawed policies, and flight crew power dynamics cause our flight attendants to be very hesitant to report. Frequently, members will come to us for help but wish to remain anonymous. In our experience, it's not only the shame of being a victim that keeps them from coming forward; it's the fear of reprisals. Even after we explain how we can help protect them, they are reluctant to go through the process for fear of experiencing victim shaming and blaming, having to face their aggressor, and potentially losing their job as a result of a poorly conducted investigation. They have no faith in the system's ability to protect them from traumatization and further abuses. In fact CUPE members have, in the past, reported incidents to the union but have prevented the union from moving forward for fear that they will lose their job or that their eligibility for promotion would be reduced.
Ensuring that workers do not experience reprisals from their employer when they report violence, allowing them access to their health and safety committees if they want it, and building in support and transparency for complainants are crucial factors in reducing barriers to reporting.
The role of health and safety committees is therefore, in the view of CUPE, essential for incidents of sexually based harassment and violence.
Thank you.
:
We've heard the words of all the parties and have spoken with the dedicated staff of the labour program. I truly believe that everyone here wants to reduce violence. However, Bill proposes changes to the internal complaint resolution process that ensure that incidents of harassment and violence will not be brought to the joint health and safety committees for investigation or resolution.
Additionally, by changing sections under 134, 135, and 136, the bill reduces the investigative duties of committees and representatives. This is a departure from the rest of Canada, where health and safety law is defined by a concept known as the “internal responsibility system”, under which employers lead with the participation and consultation of health and safety committees.
CUPE has always contended that when violence, regardless of the type, happens in the workplace, the health and safety committee should be involved at an appropriate level so that they are able to determine the systemic breakdowns that allowed the violence to occur. For all hazards, health and safety has practised in Canada jointly with employers and workers through the internal responsibility system; for violence it should be no different. If the changes to the ICRP and the duties of the committee under Bill take effect, workplace harassment and violence will be handled solely by the employer.
As Marie-Hélène has stated, our flight attendants frequently deal with harassment, but we know, and we also hear in the news, about flight attendants being attacked while working on the airplane. We also know the potential for violence to all of our border guards, postal workers, armoured truck drivers, and many in the federal service. Why would we change the law to stop the committee from investigating these incidents? Who is better positioned than the people on the committee who actually operate these flights to help make the skies safe? In the case of sexually based violence and harassment, why would we remove the one legal route that could provide a trusted non-managerial source to help victims and survivors?
The has stated that the goal is to prevent violence, to respond when violence occurs, and to provide support to survivors. It is CUPE's position that one of the best vehicles to accomplish all these goals is the existing health and safety committee structure. We implore the committee to recommend amending Bill to allow health and safety committees to do their job around all forms of violence.
We look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the committee for having us before it.
My name is Phil Benson. I'm a lobbyist for Teamsters Canada. With me is brother Cody Woodcock.
Teamsters Canada supports Bill and endorses the Canadian Labour Congress submission.
Today we will not discuss the bill in our presentation, though in the question-and answer-period, we look forward to discussing issues such as the difference between legislation and regulations, and the role of unions in the workplace. Instead, we are seeking an addition to the bill to make mental health awareness and support mandatory in workplaces.
We propose language for the bill—which you have—as well as suggestions for regulatory change, and a standard.
To be clear, we are not legislative drafters. Teamsters Canada welcomes any language the committee deems appropriate to reach the goal of making it mandatory.
:
I am Cody Woodcock, a proud Teamsters member, who comes from the rail industry out of Red Deer, Alberta. I currently serve as the Teamsters Canada youth committee president. I am honoured to speak on behalf of 120,000 Teamsters members across Canada, and for all Canadians battling mental illness.
In 2015, the Teamsters Canada youth committee embarked on a social media campaign called “Make it Mandatory” in order to convince government to take action on this issue. The campaign began in response to the Edmonton Hub Mall shooting in 2012, where an individual turned on his co-workers, shooting four and killing three of them. Our committee member was a co-worker at G4S at the time.
It was realized that not only was the shooter in need of help for his mental illness in the workplace, but also something needed to be done for the victims left in the aftermath of this tragedy. Teamsters Canada is concerned that workers and their employers do not receive all the assistance they need in the workplace to stop the stigma and to prevent, accommodate, and support individuals in the workplace who suffer from mental illness.
The youth committee created a seven-part web series that has been viewed over two million times. I encourage all of you to take the time to view these videos at makeitmandatory.ca. We are fortunate in our videos to have Prime Minister , , , , Steven Fletcher, and express their support for taking action on mental health in the workplace. The cause has support from all political parties, as the illness affects people from all walks of life. We have gained support by meeting with over 50 MPs here on the Hill, as well as back home in our own ridings.
We have been supported by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, the United Way, Military Minds Inc, Respect Group, and the Canadian Mental Health Association, as they, too, see the need for action.
In the rail industry, sadly the reality of my job is that crossing fatalities and accidents occur far to often. My co-workers and I must come to terms with having a hand in another person's death. Everyone deals with this tragedy in different ways, but often feel they don't have the supports in the workplace to navigate through these issues. The result can see individuals turning to different vices to temporarily numb the pain or they are forced to leave the industry as they struggle with mental health.
Our goal now is to propose an amendment to start the conversation on how to include a mental health initiative in Bill . The bill seeks to prevent incidents of harassment and violence in the workplace, and to protect employees from these behaviours. We would like to see it go further to protect workers by ensuring everyone has access to support in their workplaces.
The stigma is still very present, and the government must force a discussion about mental health in the workplace. We need all parties to acknowledge mental illness as a disease, as it is no different from any other illness that causes physical damage. By adding the definition of “health” to section 122 to state that health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being would make it that mental health would be formally considered in existing rules, and would be better protected in the workplace.
Thank you.
:
I'm a little more agnostic than my colleagues. Whether it's defined in the regulations or the act, it doesn't matter as much to me; it's the process that matters to me.
We used to have a regulatory development process that was tripartite, where labour, business, and government would sit in a room and hash out what the appropriate words should be in our regulations. This is how part XX came to be. It was a multi-year project. It probably took longer than it needed to, but we ended up with an excellent regulation. That's gone now. Under the previous government, that went away. I guess it was trying to streamline the process, or whatever. Under the current process I would have to say it's probably better to bring it into the act itself.
As for what the definition should be, I was watching the minister speak to the panel the other day and she had some very wise words, saying that we have to be broad in our definitions, that 10 or 15 years ago we wouldn't have considered cyber-bullying. I thought that was an excellent point she raised.
Sometimes the simplest definitions are the best. We define harassment as any vexatious behaviour that an average person ought to have known is wrong. That's a fairly basic definition; maybe it's simple enough. That's just off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I didn't bring my definition book with me, but we do have specific definitions that will be going into our full submission.
:
As somebody who has kicked this around a bit, I think there's a big difference between legislation and regulations. Over the past three decades that I've been doing this, more and more people are saying that they'll deal with it in regulations. Fact: what you say here, what your intention is here, and what the minister says in the House mean nothing. This has to be contained in the four corners of the act.
That's why we want a definition of mental health in the section where you talk about definitions. If it is not there in the regulatory process it will not exist.
As for talking about the regulatory process and leaving it to them, there are several issues with that. First of all, we have the consultations: Gazette, part I, and Gazette, part II. We also have bureaucratic agendas. We have a great deal of people who can influence it, and your legislation isn't bound by the one-in, one-out rule. The one-in, one-out rule says that if you want to bring something in, you have to take something out. For example, you can have protective clothes, but we're taking your gloves; by the way, that's not quite a real one, but the gloves part is.... If you want prevention on the job site, if you want to be preventive, I'd urge you to put the definitions in the act so they will be dealt with.
Otherwise, I'm very sad to say that it will not appear in the regulations. Intentions are not worth a pitcher of warm spit in the regulatory world.
:
The joint committee is what is most important to us.
Our workplace is very complex. It covers the entire world: hotels, planes, transport. It is mostly the youngest employees who are the most vulnerable in all those contexts.
It is important that members receive support from the union and that they know that the union is as active as the employer.
It's very complex on the employer side too. It has the contracts and business ties with hotels. Sometimes, people can suffer various types of abuse. Passengers, as customers, must also be protected. There is also a power struggle between the crew members and the pilot who is in command, and sometimes for good reasons, for very good reasons. That said, investigations often end up being outside our area of jurisdiction. If it affects the pilots, another service takes care of it. It can also come from the client or the hotel. At that point, we have no follow-up. The victim we support cannot therefore be assured that the investigative work is done properly.
:
Thank you very much, Madame Trudel, and a big shout-out to Sheri Benson for helping us in a lot of her work.
When we viewed it, there were many different ways to take it. This definition is actually quite soft. In other words, it doesn't put out a lot of details. That's left for regulations and standards. Our position is quite clear, as I stated to the other member, that if the definition is not there, if it is not included in the act, then we'll not be able to address the issue.
You already have what we thought would fit into section 122, that health is “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being”, but any other language that you want to come up with would be great. I guess in the regulatory world, we would also add an amendment to the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, adding the three words “and mental health” to subsection 19.1(1). As well, the Canadian standards association already has a wonderful standard for psychological health and safety in the workplace. We thought that would be a great addition too.
Basically, if we do not have a definition like this in the act, it simply will not be dealt with in regulation or in any other way that we could find. If you listen to brother Woodcock on the tragedy of what has occurred, the stigma of mental health is extremely bad. It's stuck with us. I think on this issue you have to look at the support we had, and not just from politicians. The people who spoke on this included Brian Burke, who lost a son, and Sheldon Kennedy, who was a victim of abuse. We had a seven-part series that had leaders in the community, leaders across the country, and not just in politics. Gaining the support of all of those politicians and also all of those organizations says clearly that this is something that people want to see done.
If we don't have this in the act, it simply will not occur. We urge your support for somebody to bring an amendment or a similar amendment. We'll welcome anything that makes it mandatory.
:
In terms of health, when victims or survivors experience harassment or violence in the workplace, the mental, psychological health takes a hit. I understand why you want to see amendments on that. We will work towards that. Thank you for your explanations.
I would now like to turn to Mrs. Major and Mr. Winters.
Since I am a member of Parliament, I fly regularly. In addition, I want to emphasize the excellent work of your flight attendants. I have needed them on a number of occasions. We are lucky to have them. We have excellent service.
A lot of images came to mind when you talked about flight attendants—they are mostly women. When they are inside the plane, they are often alone with a majority male crew. As you said, their work requires them to travel regularly and they often have to sleep in hotels.
I would like to reiterate the importance of including an amendment so that the health and safety committee can process the complaints, but also receive copies of the reports. We have talked about this a lot in the last couple of meetings. I would like your opinion on that.
:
Copies of reports are one way for us to know that follow-up is done. It's a way for us to be constantly aware. We do not need to have inside information, just to know that something has happened, that we are doing it and that it is doing the right thing. This reassures all the parties.
The joint committee is very important. I will talk about Air Canada. This company does a lot of the work in silos: there are the customers, and then there's Air Canada's business image to protect. There are different situations, and things do not always need to be handled in the same way, for various reasons. If it's between colleagues, it's almost easier. It may sound ridiculous, but it's easier. It becomes more complex when other people are involved. That's when members need to know that someone who works for the company is there to defend their interests.
As the union, we can work for our members, guide and protect them. However, if we are not aware of what is being done, we cannot reassure them.
We do not need to have all the privileged information. We have our representative on the joint committee. He will not disclose the information that he is not supposed to disclose. However, he can confirm that the complaints are being followed up and that what needs to be done is being done. That's what's important. Knowing that we are receiving the reports reassures us that the information is there and that things are being done.
:
I guess this could go back to another answer from before on what we could improve.
Within the legislation itself, under section 126 of the act, we all have a duty to report hazards in the workplace, but these reports aren't often treated through the internal complaint resolution process.
If a member comes to me and says we're having this.... Well there was one hotel that this one company flew to quite a bit, and it was this one hotel that was causing the problems. We had five or six reports from this one hotel, but we didn't make them individually file. We went to the company and said, “Look, we have five reports in hand. We have to do something about this. We have to get out of this hotel. This is a problem place.”
Changing the law so that somebody else—someone within the union or another worker—can bring forward that complaint, so the person who has been assaulted or harassed or who has been the victim doesn't have to be the person to come forward, would be tremendously helpful and make sure it gets captured under the ICRP.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to be joining you at committee today.
I'm going to start with Mr. Benson and the Teamsters. I did meet with the youth group. You should be very proud of the work that they do. They presented very professionally. It was very, very good.
You mentioned a couple of things about having the definitions in the law and how important it is, because none of the conversations we have here, nothing we say in the debates in the House of Commons, will be material when there are lawyers interpreting what the law actually says. To my understanding, at least one definition is being removed from the Labour Code.
Can you explain how important it is to have definitions written directly into the law, the benefits to doing so, and then maybe your thoughts on that if they're not put into this law through an amendment in the future, the value of the bill going forward without the definitions expressly written out?
I'll make a side note on this. The Quebec HR association has a “psychological harassment” definition that they use. I make the statement that you trust accountants with your money, so why wouldn't you trust your HR or OHS—occupational health and safety—to qualified personnel in an employer/employee environment? You have people on both sides who are qualified to do the job, who understand what the law says, understand what regulations say, and they have a code of conduct that they personally have to adhere to.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
:
Thank you for mentioning you met with the youth group. We are immensely proud of them, and a lot of people on the committee are moving up in the teamster ranks. I'm sure in a few years they will be serving our teamster members well: they're great leaders. Thank you for taking the time and meeting them.
When you draft legislation, people talk about their intention to fix it in regulation. If it is not within the four corners of the act it doesn't exist, and the regulatory process itself is influenced by all sorts of stuff, as I talked about earlier. The reason you need definitions is anything you want to deal with you have to not leave it to that catch-all clause that says the minister can do whatever he or she wishes. It doesn't catch it because if it's not in the act the minister can't do it.
From my experience with other bills, transport and all sorts of them where clearly the intention of Parliament was X, Y, and Z, I thought that's what the legislation said, but it's proven wrong in the regulatory world. Clearly that's not what the regulators thought. It certainly wasn't why some of the people came to the table. It is critical if you intend to do something that you have it in the law. Do not say it will be fixed in regulations, and do not say it will be dealt with in regulations. For example, one of the amendments we're talking about on suggestions in regulations is to just add three words “and mental health” to the occupational, health, and safety of the workplace committee's work. You can't add it if it's not in the act.
This is the last chance we're going to have to do this because opening up an act like part II of the code doesn't happen every day. Other than in the private member's bill, which will probably never see the light of day, this is the last chance you have to fix it, not just the mental health issue, but all issues.
As to the question about whether or not you should not agree with the bill, I think that's a choice you have to make as an individual. I agree with other people that there's a lot of really good stuff in the bill. In general, we support the principle. We'd rather see you make it better. I would urge you to bring amendments to the bill, my friends on any side. If you intend to do it, make sure the bill says it specifically. I urge that, and I haven't done it for so long on the other side. You'll be very surprised that what you thought you put on a piece of paper because you intended to, doesn't end up in regulation.
I want to begin with a statement on why are we here today. We're here today because whatever was in place has fundamentally failed too many people. We've heard compelling evidence given by individuals on how the system failed in the best of organizations. That's why our government is here today. Our government felt strongly that status quo was no longer acceptable.
We introduced a piece of legislation to bring the issue of harassment, sexual harassment and physical harassment, to an open forum to discuss it, debate it, and to bring in legislation that would put a process in place to begin to reduce that, because we heard some alarming numbers. It was about 20% of the public service. We heard that within the RCMP, when it became more open, the number went from 400 to 4,000 issues. I want your comment on that.
I sense, from a number of organizations, that there was a lot of push to protect the status quo. The status quo has not worked. I, as a member of this committee, will not support the status quo. I support this piece of legislation. We are here to hear testimony on how we can improve it, but I fully support our government's approach and the minister's approach in moving on this legislation.
I would simply ask you to comment briefly, because there has been some issue of whether we should support the legislation or not support the legislation. Well, I'm very proud to be supporting the legislation. Can we make some improvements? I suspect we can, but at least we have arrived at this state today.
Thank you.
:
We only have about a minute and 10 seconds left, so I think we'll shut it down.
I want to thank all of you for being here today. Given the speed at which this legislation is moving through this House, you can see we are taking this incredibly seriously. We still have a lot of work to do to make sure this is the best piece of legislation that we can put forward, and I appreciate that you clearly have helped us today and given us some stuff to think about. Thank you very much.
To the committee, we will be adjourning this morning's meeting. We will be coming back at noon, sharp, so we have about an hour break. There will be lunch provided at noon, and we'll be finishing up our day this afternoon with the next panels.
Thank you again, and thank you to all those at the back. I appreciate your help today.
The meeting is adjourned.