Bill C-65 (Historical)

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

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to strengthen the existing framework for the prevention of harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in the work place.
Part 2 amends Part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act with respect to the application of Part II of the Canada Labour Code to parliamentary employers and employees, without limiting in any way the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Commons and their members.
Part 3 amends a transitional provision in the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

Canada Labour Code

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, to press the member across, it was an absolutely legitimate question. She implied there was no appeal process. Clearly, there is an appeal process. Would she like to correct the record?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I still contend that the process being put forward by the minister in Bill C-65 by which a staff member within this place would bring forward a concern or a complaint, does not protect that staff member to bring his or her concern forward and know that it will be heard. That process needs to be put in the hands of a third party, arm's-length individual, who is non-partisan in nature.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member showed what a great chair of the Status of Women Committee she would have made in her thoughtful remarks. I do not think it is partisan at all for the member, in supporting a piece of government legislation, to demonstrate that she has read the detail of the bill and has presented thoughtful, original criticisms and suggestions for how to improve it.

Does the member think, in light of the response to her comments, that the government is willing to hear constructive amendments at committee? I hope it will take our support, our good faith, and our desire to be constructive in the tone it should be received and work with us to make the bill as good as possible.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and for being able to see through some of the mudslinging that is actually happening from my colleagues across the aisle.

At the end of the day, I stood in this place and said that this is a discussion that needs to be had. I am standing on this side of the House in support of the government's initiative.

My only concern is this. Right now, when a staff member who works for a member of Parliament brings forward a concern or a complaint, an allegation, it will be going to the minister. I do not believe that serves our staff members the way it should. In addition to that, it is up to the minister, who is a Liberal minister, to determine whether or not the allegation is true or false.

I cannot help but believe that there is potential for that minister to engage in gamesmanship, in terms of perhaps showing favouritism to Liberal members but then going hard after a Conservative member or an NDP member or a Green Party member or a Bloc member.

What I am saying is simple. The individual who oversees this appeals process needs to be a third-party, non-partisan, neutral individual, full stop.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating an important bill at a very seminal moment. The #MeToo movement, inviting women to bring light to instances of previously undiscussed sexual harassment and assault, until this weekend, had not had such a powerful impact on Canadian politics. This is certainly a difficult subject to discuss as parliamentarians because the victims and alleged perpetrators are, in many cases, people we know. We are leaders and policy-makers who are also personally close to these issues.

In that light, as we reflect on the events of the weekend, I want to commend and express my admiration for all the people in the Ontario PC Party who took a strong stand against this behaviour, even when it was not in their political or personal interest to do so. It is easy to call out this behaviour across the aisle, but women came forward to express concerns about the leader of their own party, and others in the party stood with them. In other places, we have seen political parties close ranks around their candidate, even in the face of credible and repeated allegations of such wrongdoing. The human instinct to be loyal to the tribe, even in the face of higher principle, is very strong, but Ontario PCs did not dismiss or obfuscate; they responded.

I also want to commend the women who have come forward to speak about the alleged behaviour of the former minister of sport and persons with disabilities, one of whom has received repeated death threats, including a note shoved under her door. This is something we should take very seriously, and I hope that the member for Calgary Centre will take the opportunity to condemn these threats.

In these types of cases, legitimate and important discussions are happening about the presumption of innocence and the need for due process. The presumption of innocence is central in criminal law, but I would also submit that people have to make judgments about their political leaders and their suitability for leadership all the time in the absence of absolute certainty: Is such and such a person a good leader, a good fiscal manager, able to confront a particular sort of foreign policy crisis? These sorts of questions are fundamental to determinations about whether a person is suitable for leadership, and yet they have to be made in the absence of anything like proof. The same is true for judgments about a person's conduct or character. Voters and political parties must make judgments about a person's character despite the absence of certainty. There may be some unfairness to that, but that is an unavoidable reality.

Some have wondered, then, if any man in a position of power and authority is now suddenly vulnerable to being felled by unproven accusations. Throughout legal history, there is no doubt that there have been cases where individuals have been falsely accused of bad behaviour. What is called for in the social discourse around these issues is the use of reasonable judgment, not presumption either way, and it is reasonable to decide, even in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the allegations are strong enough, such that a person is ill-suited to high office. It may also be reasonable to decide that a person has engaged in conduct unbecoming of a leader, even if that conduct has not crossed the line of criminality.

Recognizing that, men in positions of leadership should be clear in conducting their lives in ways that are completely above reproach. It is not good enough to play within the presumed line of criminal law while still behaving in a way that is exploitative and objectifies others. Such a pattern of behaviour may protect one from criminal prosecution, but it may also lead to justly deserved reputational damage. Men's behaviour toward women ought to be guided by more than just a set of lines and rules, but rather, by an ethos that affirms the full and equal dignity and personhood of every person. This is the alternative to objectification.

Objectification treats persons as objects for use instead of as persons. It sees people as means, as opposed to ends. Immanuel Kant formulated this ethos in the formula of humanity. He said, “So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” Kant acknowledges that people can be helpful in the facilitation of the realization of some other end, but argues that it must never be lost, in the course of an interaction with another person, that the person is also an end, not merely a means.

In my view, one of the weaknesses of Kant's philosophy is that it presumes, but does fully engage with, its own spiritual heritage. It is difficult now, outside of the umbrella of that spiritual heritage, to justify this principle in terms that are broadly accepted. We are a society now too deeply influenced by materialism, by the idea that all that is and all that matters is the material. Materialism is not compatible with a doctrine like Kant's, which says that people ought to be treated as ends, not merely as means.

Certainly the grave problem of exploitative behaviour that we are confronting in this debate can be traced back to a philosophical core, which is the deviation from Kant's formula of humanity. People have been treated by men in powerful positions as mere means to their own gratification as opposed to ends in themselves with their own intrinsic worth and value. Women are now standing up against this, demanding to be recognized for who they are: persons, not tools.

We should note that there is a great deal of this treating people as means as opposed to ends in politics in general. It is when staff members are used for their work but not valued as people; it is when relationships are cultivated on a purely transactional basis; it is when communities of support are cultivated for the votes they bring, but not out of genuine respect for their perspective, experience, and values.

I do not want to conflate these issues with the one that we are confronting today, but simply to make the point that there is a continuity of a personhood-affirming ethos, and there is also a continuity of an objectifying ethos. People are whole and integrated beings. When people objectify in one aspect of their life, it stands to reason that they are also more likely to objectify people in other aspects of their life.

There was a time not that long ago when certain behaviours would be dismissed as part of a politician's private life. Much of what was once considered people's private lives was actually the way they were using their position to take advantage of others. However in any event, so-called private acts by leaders, which involve the objectification of others, do have relevance for the common good because these acts are a reflection of character.

I believe strongly—and this belief has been reinforced by these events—that character should be the principal qualification for public office. I would encourage members of all parties at all levels to think seriously about the character of the candidates and leaders whom they choose. Past allegations of inappropriate behaviour will obviously be considered, but markers of bad character and in particular the willingness to treat people as objects must also be considered.

Although I do not have the time to fully explore this aspect of the discussion, it is important to also look further at how exploitative patterns of behaviour are learned. We have a crisis of sexual harassment and violence. We also have a generation of young men whose early exposure to sexuality has been through violent pornography.

Why, while talking about the importance of ending sexual violence, do we tolerate the existence of violence-depicting pornography, which is available to minors? These images do not respond to pre-existing desires; they shape desires, and they shape ideas about what is normal and acceptable. They aim to associate, in the minds of impressionable young people, objectification and violence with arousal and they imply that things are okay, which they are not.

This was well established in testimony heard by the health committee in response to Motion No. 47, a motion asking the committee to study the impact of violent and degrading sexually explicit material on public health.

We support this legislation, and I also believe it is time for the government to act on the dangerous perception-torqueing material that associates violence with sex in the minds of boys and young men, as ably laid out by expert testimony during Motion No. 47 hearings.

I want to conclude this speech by sharing from the public Facebook post of a friend and former colleague. It is easy, as a man, to be quite innocently obtuse to the reality of sexual harassment that most women face. Women speaking out like this has helped me to be aware of the problem and to commit to being part of the solution. My friend wrote on Thursday:

Almost 10 years ago, when I was a 21 and a new grad excited to start in politics, a politician sexually assaulted me at a political conference. I was naïve and I didn’t know what to do, so I asked someone within my political party for advice. They told me that I was the one in the wrong, that I was probably coming onto him and clearly that was the case because when I told him no he stopped.

I spent almost 10 years blaming myself for this, questioning what I could do to prevent it from happening again. I could never find the answers, but I kept looking nonetheless. It’s only been in this last year that I truly realized that it was not my fault and I wish I had kept looking for advice until I found someone that believed me.

I honestly did not believe that I had been sexually assaulted for many years, because someone told me I hadn't been—even though in my heart I knew that it was true.

So I would implore everyone to believe the stories, believe the survivors and understand that it’s not an easy story to share.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the discussion, debate, and dialogue that has been taking place on this important piece of legislation. It is encouraging when parties on all sides of the House come to agreement.

When I look at the overall framework of the legislation, there are three words that come to mind: prevent, respond, support. We think of preventing incidents of harassment and violence, we respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur, and with regard to support, we support victims, survivors, and employers.

Could the member provide some thoughts on those three words?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the bill has good aims and is, generally speaking, a bill that moves in the right direction, one that we are proud to support in the official opposition, for the reasons I talked about.

Also, it is legitimate and important to look at the details of the legislation. I know we are going to have more of an opportunity to do that at committee. Some initial thoughts on that were ably laid out by my colleague from Lethbridge. It is important to dig into those details and see how we can make this the strongest possible piece of legislation.

The member is absolutely on the right track in terms of recognizing those core elements and emphasizing the right intention of this legislation moving forward.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of people mentioned today the need for proper training, not only for management but for people who are working within government, or in any agency. One segment the member did mention briefly in his statement was the fact that there is so much information, on computers and places like that, that lead people in the wrong direction. Perhaps he could explain that or simplify it a little more.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I thank my colleague, the member for Yellowhead for that excellent question and for his consistent and excellent service in this place.

The member is quite right that we are living in an age where there is so much information out there. More and more, there is awareness and education around the importance of consent and the importance of recognizing equal human dignity. However, there is more misinformation, or media in different forms, that gives wrong impressions about these same questions.

I spoke about the prevalence of violent pornography and the fact that children, young boys as well as girls, are accessing this material and it is shaping their perceptions about what normal and healthy sexual relationships look like. We have on the one hand increasing information about the importance of consent, but on the other hand we have increasing misinformation, and that misinformation is something people are accessing at a very young age. It is leading them to associate the feelings of arousal with seeing very violent images.

This is a very real and significant problem. I would encourage members, as we move forward in these areas where we all agree on improving the mechanisms for reporting and addressing harassment, that we also think about this question of socialization, of how young boys in particular can come to think that things are acceptable that are not acceptable as a result of the media they are consuming.

I know it is a difficult issue. It raises questions about how we would engage with the Internet. It raises questions about, perhaps, civil liberties, but when we are talking about children it is a different matter. Children really have no idea the effect this material has on them when they consume it initially. Maybe they start out very young, simply curious about what this whole thing is all about, but it shapes their perceptions about what is normal and acceptable, and it has significant social consequences.

The issues raised by Motion No. 47, but also recognized by a recent status of women committee report, are issues we should have the courage to confront in this Parliament.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Centre.

It is a great pleasure to join the debate today. It is not every day we get to stand and speak on a bill that we are quite certain will receive unanimous approval to move forward to committee.

I have been here most of the day and listened to some very well-informed, very impassioned speeches on this legislation, led first by our minister. I thought she did an outstanding job with the introduction of this legislation. The member for Calgary Nose Hill gave a very impassioned statement. The member for Oakville North—Burlington shared with the House and with Canadians her own personal experiences with this particular issue and the issue of sexual harassment when she worked here on the Hill. The member for Jonquière made a very powerful statement. It has been a pretty special day here in the chamber.

I was disappointed with the comments from the member for Lethbridge, who said that this is not partisan but then tried to make it partisan. It is not that often that we have the opportunity to stand in unison on a particular issue, and for the member to try to imply that there are shortcomings in the legislation being sent to committee, which are just not there, was unfortunate.

The point the member for Lethbridge tried to make was that this was all going to fall back on the minister. She said that it falls on a Liberal minister, and if it was one of her colleagues who was in fact accused, the minister could dismiss it and sweep it under the rug. That is absolutely not factual.

This legislation would empower each and every one of us as a member of Parliament, who will be deemed an employer, with the responsibility of having in place a plan and a policy within our office, making sure there is a training component to it, so that all employees understand the process to follow should an incident arise.

We believe the Board of Internal Economy, which has representation from all parties, will be able to come together. They will look at this, so that as employers we can pool those resources and have best practices in order to make sure that we get this right.

Once that process is in place and once each of our offices, and we as employers, have that in place and we go through the training, if an incident does arise, there will be a process the employee can then follow. There is a list of independent arbiters, trusted persons, who can be drawn upon, and which would have to be agreed to by the employee, to find a way to deal with the particular issue or incident.

There will be an entire process that is mapped out to, hopefully, find a resolution that absolutely respects and protects the victim, and that gets to the truth of the matter. It is then and only then, after that process is followed, with the advice from the independent overseer of the process, once that resolution is found, then, if there is a problem with the process, the victim can go to the minister. The minister does not have to deal with it. The minister can turn that over to the deputy minister. However, that is only on the process. They would only weigh in on the process.

If they are not prepared to accept that decision, they can go to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board and it can render a decision. If they are not totally pleased with that outcome, they can refer it to the Speaker, and the Speaker can take it under advisement.

There is a process in place. However, it is important that when we have this debate and move forward in dealing with the reality and the great challenge we are faced with, we try to come forward with the very best process we can. With this proposed legislation, our government is taking a firm stand and strong action against harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence in the workplace.

My honourable colleagues I know will surely agree that this behaviour is not acceptable nor tolerable, and it needs to stop. These experiences are all too common, and they take place in workplaces of all types. An Abacus Data study on harassment and sexual violence in the workplace found that just over 10% of Canadians believe that sexual harassment is really quite common in their workplace. Another 44% said that while it is not frequent, it does happen.

The social media campaigns we have all talked about have gained so much traction over the past few months, and the headlines splashed across papers in this country week after week serve to back up the statistics I just shared. The issue is systemic, rooted in an imbalance of power that is steeped in our culture. It is everywhere around us. It is in the media, entertainment, academia, business, and politics. Most of us have followed the stories on what is taking place on both sides of the border in sport and how we have had perpetrators take advantage of that power imbalance in the realm of sport. With story after story, we are hearing accounts about inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, shedding a very public eye on an issue that for too long was only discussed in whispers and rumours.

The fact is that these social media campaigns, these movements, are more than just a hashtag. They are a catalyst for a much-needed cultural shift, which is good news. Perhaps it is the only good news in an otherwise bleak picture. Women and others are coming forward and saying enough is enough. This is an important first step, but what happens next?

Employers have a responsibility to ensure that their workplaces are free from harassment and sexual violence, and employees need to know that if something does happen, they can report it without fear of reprisal or fear of being shamed. They need to know that there will be some kind of resolution. The bottom line is that people need to feel safe at work.

On the subject of keeping workers safe and healthy, I would like to note that we are also strengthening compliance and enforcement mechanisms under the Canada Labour Code, as announced in budget 2017. The use of monetary penalties and the authority to publicly name violators are just some of the changes announced to increase workplace health and safety and better protect workers' rights.

To get back to the subject at hand, I am not suggesting that harassment and violence exist in every workplace or that there are not employers out there who are genuinely committed to protecting the well-being of their employees. In fact, there are many companies who have led on this. I am suggesting that it is in everyone's best interest to tackle this problem head on. It is about doing what is right for people, and it also has an impact on the economy.

Members might think that today's debate is overstating the issue and may be drawing too many conclusions, but what happens when someone experiences harassment or sexual violence at work? Eighty per cent of people do not report it. There is a victim left behind. I hate to put it so bluntly, but if they have already reported the incident or incidents and nothing has been done to resolve the situation, there are two choices left, practically speaking. They can either put up and shut up, or leave. These are not the right choices.

By working together in this House, I look forward to sending this legislation to committee.

The minister has said clearly that she is willing to look at amendments coming forward. I would hope that what comes out of that committee report will be something we can all support and certainly do a better job here on the Hill.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his fine speech.

Today, I rise not as a Conservative MP, but as a woman. Members have said that they want this to be a non-partisan bill, and I hope it will stay that way, because what we are debating today is important. It is also important to change people's attitudes. As a woman and as a victim, I have a bit of a problem, and I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

Are we not putting the victim at risk by forcing them to first speak to their employer, who may also be the perpetrator?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is committed to contributing to the development of this process so that we do get it right.

As an employer, a member will be responsible for putting together the policy and will be responsible for making sure that the training is in place. I would think that the pooled resources through the Board of Internal Economy will be able to get best practices. People will be on hand to whom staffers will be able to go. If the member of Parliament is the perpetrator, the individual will not have to go to that member. An independent person will be in place to whom the staffer can go.

We have to respect the victim and make sure a process is in place that does not further victimize the staffer. I am sure the process that is finally agreed upon will not include going to the employer first.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his comments reaffirming for those of us in the House that, once the bill gets to committee, the conversation will be open and collaborative. My comments come from that place.

I heard the minister talking about there not being a clear definition in the legislation, and the advantage of that is that, as we move forward in our understanding of the legislation, we would not limit how people would be protected. I understand that. I can see the point there. However, I also want to put forward the power of having a definition in legislation so that, as things change, whether in society or within Parliament itself, we will not have a definition that starts to go backward and forward.

For me, it is important that part of the work of the committee be looking at a definition and that definition be included in the legislation.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of putting the definitions in the regulation is to give it flexibility. When we see how society has evolved and changed over the last number of years and we look at electronic media and other sources, we see there is a benefit to having it in the regulations, in that it would make it more nimble, more flexible, and more adaptive.

We do not know what is down the road. We do not know what we would have to respond to. The thinking is that, in legislation, the definition would almost be too restrictive, and in regulation, it would have additional adaptability.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Essex, International Trade; the hon. member for Abbotsford, Taxation; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Public Services and Procurement.