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.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Bill C-65 mandated that harassment investigations must take place in a timely manner. Delaying an investigation until such time as an NDA is signed is a flagrant contravention of that law.

Do you find this practice acceptable?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I don't think we want to hear from authorities. I think Canadians want to hear from you that you will take responsibility for the use of this company, which is still allowed to be used across government. This is just completely unacceptable.

I will give you some more information, Minister. Perhaps you'll have a better response for Canadians to this.

GC Strategies reached out to the CBSA to create a relationship to sell Botler AI's technology and help it fulfill its obligations under Bill C-65. Let's make the connection. GC Strategies, which was used with the ArriveCAN app, is also being used within this contract. Instead of directly paying GC Strategies, the company it was in communication with, the CBSA decided to pay Dalian and Coradix to pay GC Strategies to pay Botler through an existing contract. This contract was valued at $21.2 million, and was informatics professional services.... It was also used, Minister, for ArriveCAN.

Does this contracting process concern you at all? If it does, what are you doing about it right now for Canadians?

This should be very concerning for you. This has seized meeting upon meeting of the government operations committee.

Please share with Canadians what actions you are taking right now—today—to ensure that we never have another RCMP investigation into this level of potential fraud with the government ever again.

Thank you, Minister.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Did the CBSA president task you or Mr. MacDonald or anyone else with filling the CBSA's need in response to Bill C-65? What was the president's initiative?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay.

Did the CBSA president task you, MacDonald or anyone else with filling the CBSA's need in response to Bill C-65? What was the president's initiative on this?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Well, Mr. MacDonald says he had never heard of Botler until November 19, 2019, when he was approached with an unsolicited proposal. However, we know from recorded conversations that Mr. Firth had been communicating with Botler long before that, telling them it was MacDonald who had discovered Botler and wanted their software to solve CBSA's Bill C-65 needs.

When were you aware that Mr. Firth was communicating with Botler on MacDonald's behalf? Were you aware at the time or after the fact?

[Cameron MacDonald]

Mr. Chair, I don't believe Mr. Firth said that, and I think you can check his transcripts. I think Mr. Firth said that he reached out to Botler after speaking to a number of CIOs around town. He had talked to me, and he had understood that Bill C-65 was important. At the time, there were news clips that CBSA had undergone a whole bunch of sexual harassment claims, and that's why I told him that it was one of my priorities.

I want to bring to your attention, since everybody is talking about facts—

[Cameron MacDonald]

I believe Mr. Firth was meeting with multiple departments. Bill C-65 was coming down across the entire government.

I received an unsolicited proposal. My understanding is that they went to nine different departments and did the same thing.

I couldn't tell you.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Can you tell me how GC Strategies knew about...? Well, I assume they followed Bill C-65.

How would they know to put a proposal to you for the AI application?

[Cameron MacDonald, Former Director General, Business Application Services Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the parliamentary committee.

I have submitted the text of my opening remarks, but I'm going to add some words today because of some events last night.

There has been a concerted effort to portray Mr. Utano and me as corrupt. The narrative is compelling, but it's based on untrue allegations. The falsehoods and innuendos have been plastered in the national press. Senior CBSA officials have distanced themselves from us.

Our careers have been put on hold. Our lives have been disrupted.

Last night, I received an email from a Ms. Simmons, someone I do not know. It said that she hoped I would go to jail, and that among other things, I was corrupt, greedy and a sorry excuse for a human being. She hopes I am ashamed and that I will seek redemption.

These are all based on falsehoods. There was no cozy relationship, no conspiracy and no fraud involving Mr. Utano or me.

I'm grateful to have the opportunity to finally present the truth, address the extraordinary allegations that have been raised by Botler AI, and show through facts that you have been misled.

I will begin by providing you with some background on the ArriveCAN application.

During COVID, a serious need arose for a national mobile application to enable Canadians to re-enter the country. CBSA's contracting authority, the finance branch, authorized the sole-source, and PSPC negotiated the terms and authored the final contract. Our innovation team was given fewer than five days to pursue options. Six companies were evaluated. GC Strategies and Deloitte were the only vendors willing and able to satisfy the requirements in the narrow time frame.

I was not involved in the GC Strategies vetting. Two options were presented to my superior, then vice-president and chief information officer, Minh Doan. Minh Doan specifically rejected Deloitte as an option. Deloitte had, in fact, been my preference. As a result of the direction given to proceed by Mr. Doan, GC Strategies was recommended to the contracting authority. I was the director general of innovation. The decision was never mine to make.

For 12 months, until May 2021, I led the team responsible for the development and expansion of the ArriveCAN application.

During my participation, all task authorizations provided to GC Strategies were met, on time and on budget.

Prior to my departure, I provided a costing for ArriveCAN. It was $6.3 million. This was shared with my colleagues and supervisor.

Botler AI's allegations against me are unfounded.

Most complaints are opinions. Under the slightest scrutiny at this committee, they began to collapse. They told this committee they believed their chatbot would make them $26 million a year. Their disappointment has turned into a campaign of baseless accusations against Mr. Utano and me.

The facts are these: In 2019, Dalian Enterprises competed fairly for a general services IT contract. On November 19, 2019, I received an unsolicited, jointly branded GCS and Botler proposal for Bill C-65. The HR department was the client and decision-maker for the work with Botler. A feasibility study was asked for by CBSA that had six parts. There was never a pilot in scope. My VP instructed me directly to help them deliver an executive-appropriate presentation. I advised my VP that CBSA would use an existing contract. The proper contracting processes were followed. PSPC has validated this.

I have had an unblemished reputation in the public service for 23 years. I have competed openly for every single promotion I have ever received, starting from an entry-level position as a student. My actions have always been guided by a commitment to the public interest. The allegations that have been painted are incomplete and inaccurate—a misleading narrative.

The reality, along with the accountability of the leadership of CBSA.... The result is that my reputation and the careers of good public servants are being shattered.

I thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to share the facts openly and honestly.

[Kristian Firth]

We had subsequent meetings with labour relations at Correctional Service Canada and other ones, so we would go there and Miss Dutt would ask specific questions. The whole time on their website [Inaudible—Editor], they were completely compliant with Bill C-65, so we knew that the solution could do that, and there were subsequent meetings we had in other government departments with labour personnel to identify if it would fit within there.

I do remember several meetings, whether it was Correctional Service Canada or Shared Services Canada, with labour relations people, and that's how we identified that it would be suitable.

[Kristian Firth, Partner, GC Strategies]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon.

I am grateful to finally have the opportunity to correct the mistakes, omissions and falsehoods that have been voiced at and by this committee, and in the newspapers, over the past number of weeks.

The first one is with respect to my summons. I readily accepted the committee's invitation to appear, as I did last year, when I was the first to show up and testified for over two hours. I told the committee that because of parenting responsibilities this week, I could be available for one hour, but the committee preferred the two hours I'd be available the following week. I was portrayed as a reluctant witness who was playing hard to get. This is actually far from the truth.

Without this opportunity to appear here today, GC Strategies would continue to be bound to the confidentiality agreement with Botler that was conveniently presented to me for signature right before it started feeding the media with information. It wasn't out of choice that GC Strategies remained silent after learning of the numerous allegations made by Botler, especially being on the other side with contradicting information.

I welcome the opportunity to again explain my business and the contracting processes for government departments that have existed for several decades. The system has outsourced many contracting functions to the private sector. I was not around when this practice was established, but presumably the belief was that a competitive private sector could operate better than an increased bureaucracy.

The system provides that only qualified private sector vendors can bid on and receive government contracts. Becoming a qualified private sector vendor is not easy or quick. Many checks for security and reliability are required. GC Strategies has been a qualified vendor since 2015. There are between 600-700 such qualified vendors in Canada, competing on a daily basis to provide services to government departments and agencies.

These vendors range from very large companies that do work in-house to smaller vendors, such as ours, that put teams together on a case-by-case basis. This competitive system forces qualified vendors to continually deliver quality services at competitive rates, or they would simply not be able to secure work.

Because we rely on teams on a case-by-case basis, it is imperative that we cultivate relationships with service providers and advance their interests. However, we also need to maintain connections with departments to understand their needs and understand where the market is heading.

That is my business, and I'm proud of it, as I'm sure all other vendors in Canada are proud of theirs. You may not like the system that is in place. You might think the government can do the job better itself. You may not respect our work, and that is your right.

I, like all people running a business, make mistakes. We try to learn from our mistakes, but, in all honesty, we'll likely make more. GC Strategies made a mistake by sending the wrong version of the resumé, which ended up being submitted to the Government of Canada for the task authorization; however, this regrettable mistake was not intentional, and it in no way determined the awarding of the contract.

In short, the CBSA had pre-qualified the owners of Botler to do the work, as they were the only two resources with knowledge of their software. Botler was approved before any resumé was submitted or a task authorization created. This is all relevant to the specific events surrounding Botler.

Botler was a client I recruited because I thought it could fill an important need for the government's compliance with Bill C-65. I thought its specific product would be useful for many departments. I spent the better part of two years working with Botler and introducing it to various departments. The CBSA was one of them, but there were many more. I was even working with Botler to get it qualified as a vendor, so it could fulfill contracts directly, eliminating the need for vendors like GC Strategies.

The Botler pilot was delivery based, so Botler would get paid only when it delivered. It delivered the first two deliverables and was then paid everything it was owed. At no time did GC Strategies ever receive money for those deliverables that we did not immediately pass on to Botler.

Botler stopped delivering what was required of it, and the CBSA terminated the contract. I was asked to gather from Botler all new work that was done prior to termination and submit that to the CBSA for a review and payment. Nearly two months passed. At that point, Botler submitted the remaining four deliverables, along with an invoice. The deliverables were then submitted to the CBSA, and they were not approved. The documents were unreadable, and once a version came through that could be evaluated, the CBSA determined the work to be substandard, and it refused to pay.

That leads us here today.

Let me be clear. The Botler pilot project was in no way connected to ArriveCAN. GC Strategies made no money whatsoever after working with Botler for two years, including the pilot. GC Strategies, Dalian and Coradix each had their own individual contracts to complete work on ArriveCAN. At no point did GC Strategies work with or act as a subcontractor on Dalian or Coradix's contract for ArriveCAN. All work done for the ArriveCAN app by GC Strategies was done using our own contract.

Thank you.

International Trade

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the fine constituents of Calgary Midnapore, especially on such an important issue that truly affects their tax dollars.

I want members to take a moment and imagine a Lifetime movie that includes the elements of identity theft, forged resumes, contractual theft, fraudulent contracting and collusion. Members do not have to imagine this Lifetime movie, because it actually exists. It is the ordeal behind ArriveCAN.

ArriveCAN was created for $54 million. Experts have said that the app could have been created with simply $200,000 over a weekend. Instead, $54 million was spent on the app. Of that $54 million, $11.2 million went to a company called GCStrategies, and $4.3 million went to two companies called Coradix and DALIAN. I will add that these companies have actually received $80.3 million from the federal government over a significant period of time. It is very concerning that these companies would receive these large amounts of funding for the $54-million app.

Originally, this was an issue brought to the government operations committee last spring. I will say that the government tried to dismiss it. It tried to write it off as “nothing to see here”, and our objective at that time was just to try to get value for money for Canadians. As we have found out, it has become so much more than that. It has become a search for the truth. This was broken by The Globe and Mail's Bill Curry, when he broke the story of the RCMP's investigating this CBSA contract. The fact that GCStrategies, the group central to the creation of ArriveCAN, is the central player in the scandal leads to a lot of concerns.

The company at the centre of this is a small company called Botler. It originally did some work for the Justice Department. It was eventually reached out to by GCStrategies, the company at the centre of the ArriveCAN scandal, to do a pilot for Bill C-65, relative to sexual misconduct.

According to Curry's article:

The developers said they were first approached by GCStrategies's managing partner, Kristian Firth, via LinkedIn in late 2019. Mr. Firth said he was reaching out on behalf of his ‘client,’ who he later said was the CBSA's then-director, Cameron MacDonald.

[They said] they were shocked to discover that after interacting with GCStrategies and Mr. MacDonald for months, the funding for their software was approved through an agency contract with another company—Dalian—without their knowledge. They said they had never heard of Dalian at that time and never worked with any Dalian employees.

They said they later discovered that Coradix had submitted forms to the agency about their work experience without their knowledge or permission. For instance, [one of the employees] said a two-month summer internship at Deloitte on her résumé was inflated in an invoicing points form to say she had 51 months of experience working for [an] accounting firm. Years of experience is used in federal contracting to determine whether a contractor qualifies for [those positions]. It is also used to calculate per diem rates.

The story starts there, but it does not end there. GCStrategies' Mr. Firth also told these two employees of this company that:

...he could act as a broker to secure a contract with the agency. He also promised he could open doors for them to land contracts with other departments or have [their] software approved to use across the entire public service, which would be a substantial contract. He explained that he would do this for a fee that is contingent on successfully landing government contracts.

This company went on to record conversations with Mr. Firth. Those recorded conversations show Mr. MacDonald directed Botler in February 2020 to “‘please work with [Mr. Firth]’ and ‘let [Mr. Firth] work his magic.’”

“The conversations also reveal that Mr. Firth described Mr. MacDonald, in November, 2019, as a friend and said, 'I've been with him his whole career in government.' Mr. Firth referred to various senior public servants as friends.”

“They said they were asked by Mr. Firth to start working on the project even though they had yet to...sign a contract.” We get into the fraudulent contracting piece here. “For months, [the two employees] said they were repeatedly denied answers when they asked Mr. Firth for a contract so their legal team could review it.”

When called to appear last year before [the government operations committee] to answer questions related to ArriveCan, [the topic of discussion today], Mr. Firth said his company had invoiced $44-million in federal contract work with more than 20 different departments over the past two years. He said his company has no stand-alone office and just two employees—himself and Darren Anthony. Neither of them perform IT work themselves. Instead, they hire subcontractors to do the work in exchange for a fee of between 15 per cent and 30 per cent of the contract values.

“You asked me for advice on the key question of 'why GC Strategies' [since the government to determine why they had chosen GC Strategies] but I also think we are all grappling with 'who selected GC Strategies,'” he wrote...

“Mr. MacDonald's e-mail comments on suggested answers for the executives. The draft answers appeared aimed at convincing MPs that no single person was responsible for selecting the company.” Yet we know someone selected GC Strategies.

Mr. MacDonald “set up meetings for Botler with the Canada Revenue Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Global Affairs, Shared Services Canada, Transport Canada, Treasury Board and others in an effort to have the software approved as a government-wide project to all public servants.”

This is the crux of the concern for myself and my Conservative colleagues. When we are talking about ArriveCAN, it is a $54-million app, which, experts say, they could have done for $200,000. Here we have the company that received $11 million trying to arrange contracts across all of these other government departments.

“During this outreach, Mr. Firth introduced them to another consultant named Vaughn Brennan, who Mr. Firth said had extensive government connections in Ottawa. Mr. Brennan recommended that they send and e-mail to [the Deputy Prime Minister] from Mr. Dutt's e-mail account.”

In addition to the breadth of this fraud, we are concerned about the level at which individuals were complicit and informed.

“The contract for Botler to provide its services was not a direct contract between Botler and the border services agency. In fact, Botler's company name was not mentioned at all, nor was GC Strategies. Instead, the agency relied on a contract with Dalian and Coradix.”

“In a separate subcontracting document between Dalian and GC Strategies, which is not a direct contract with the government, GC Strategies is listed as a subcontractor to Dalian...along with an independent contractor named Patrick van Abbema—are listed as consultants.”

Unannounced to you as Coradix/Dalian were brought in as a pass through and they demanded 15% for doing so, CBSA were pissed at the overall pricing and threatened to pull the contract,” Mr. Firth wrote in an e-mail. “Your cost, plus 15% for me and 20% for Coradix etc, it rose to close to $500k. I was not prepared to slow the process down and stop our first client from purchasing so I removed myself from the equation completely and gave them a 15% discount.

“By September, 2021, Ms. Dutt and Mr. Morv [of Botler] had had enough and filed a formal misconduct complaint via the Sept. 27, 2021, e-mail to Mr. Utano and another agency official they had been dealing with.”

I will add this initial complaint was ignored, so they had to go on and do an additional complaint as well.

“They learned that the original contract through which their services were obtained was through an existing contract for IT services.”

“Like with ArriveCan, the border agency had turned to a general standing offer contract for IT services and added a specific request...”

“Through their research, [they] found that Dalian was submitting invoices and receiving payments...”

To summarize, in the words of Ms. Dutt:

This is about something that affects every single Canadian, every single taxpayer dollar that is taken from ... hardworking Canadians who are already struggling financially, that is given and spent through contractors through improper means. And I think that Canadians have a right to know what’s going on with their hard-earned money.

That—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay.

What work did Dalian complete in the building of the program to help the CBSA fulfill its obligations under Bill C-65?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's a no. Thank you.

Can you provide the contracts you signed with GC Strategies for the programs set by the CBSA to fulfill their obligations under Bill C-65, otherwise known as the Botler project?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay.

Were you hired by the CBSA in order to help them fulfill their obligations under Bill C-65?

[Ritika Dutt]

Yes and no. Essentially, when we were contacted, we were contacted for a Government of Canada project, and the pilot for the CBSA was a means to the final end, which was the enterprise rollout. It was always the goal of the CBSA to be the pathfinder that rolled out the solution for Bill C-65 to the entire government.

Our standard price was $60 per user per year. GC Strategies said that he would add a 20% markup but, in fact, added a 30% markup to that suggested price. That brings it to $78.

The CBSA would then use their own procurement vehicles. I believe they said they wanted to put out an ACAN, the reason being that they could add an infinite amount of funds to that ACAN so that they would then be able to sell that markup, whatever they would add on top of $78—

[Ritika Dutt]

It was supposed to be used by the entire government for Bill C-65. That's why the CBSA wanted to be the one.... It said it was the pathfinder. It wanted to get the credit for it.

Everybody we spoke with...it was for the same implementation of that same solution that was being identified as a pathfinder by the CBSA.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Sure. That would be very helpful.

You mentioned that this piece you were working on was to be used as a pilot and, perhaps, implemented across other departments as a technical solution for Bill C-65. Were any other departments indicated to you, where it might potentially be used if it went well at the CBSA?

[Ritika Dutt]

Yes. I'd like to clarify that there was no contract, but CBSA approached us for a solution that would help individuals who have faced harassment, including sexual harassment, in the workplace. It was in compliance with Bill C-65.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. I know this is a very challenging conversation for all of you. This study is going to have an impact, not just for those who are coming to talk to us but really for us as well.

I used to chair this committee, and I also chaired HUMA during Bill C-65, which was the study on violence and harassment in the workforce that was done back in 2018. It's important for us to hear these stories. It's important for us to understand the challenges that still exist. I again sincerely thank all of you for being here and sharing with us.

My questions today are going to be for Ms. Laverdure. I want to thank you, as well as everyone here, for their service. I believe you've been advocating for the recognition of the rights of gay veterans and 2SLGBTQIA+ groups. I also want to thank you for your involvement with and support for these groups. I think it's really important, as a government, that we be significantly more inclusive, specifically within the CAF.

I have a lot of familiarity with the defence advisory groups, and I know there's a lot of work being done on bases across Canada. However, I specifically want to focus on the new Minister of Veterans Affairs, who said to this committee that inclusion and diversity are one of her main priorities. I would like to ask you what the main issues that women veterans and specifically those who are part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community are facing when they transition into civilian life.

[Ritika Dutt, Chief Executive Officer, Botler]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for inviting Botler to testify before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which is known as the mighty committee.

I thought you'd like that.

Botler is a Canadian public safety company focused on misconduct and legal violation detection using artificial intelligence. We believe the law is a public good, and our vision is to empower citizens with equal access to the legal system, in laypersons' terms. Our mission is to fight misconduct one incident at a time.

Botler's original technology was in the form of a chatbot. Today, Botler's technology is built upon GPT-4 and ChatGPT, which I believe you're familiar with.

Any individual who has faced or witnessed misconduct can visit our website at botler.com and get an impartial assessment from our AI for free. Botler educates the user on laws and legal concepts that are specifically applicable to their respective situation in order to empower them to take the next steps to enforce their rights.

In 2017, before AI was the mainstream staple that it is today, Botler was the first company in the world to apply AI to the detection of sexual misconduct, which was inspired by my own harrowing, traumatic experience with a workplace stalker. Our story was covered extensively by national and international media alike, including but not limited to The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC and Vice, to name a few, totalling over three billion press impressions.

Botler's work did not go unnoticed by the Government of Canada. In 2018, I was invited by then-minister Navdeep Bains to address the G7 on Botler's innovative work and discuss our approach toward AI and the law. I used the opportunity with the G7 ministers to present Botler's manifesto for a future in which we could provide our AI to every single person so that they would have equal access to the justice system.

In 2019, Botler won a competitive RFP with the legal aid directorate of the Department of Justice Canada. Through this initiative, we became the first regulated AI in the world to provide legal violation detections directly to citizens. In recognition of this momentous achievement, in 2020, I was recognized on the Forbes “30 Under 30” law and policy list. I was the only Canadian on the list.

As two international students who came here with big ambitions, Amir and I have dedicated ourselves to building Botler into a venture that can truly impact our fellow citizens' lives for the better and that can make Canada proud.

While Justice Canada's legal aid directorate were giving us a seat at the table and Botler was going from strength to strength, there was another faction within the Government of Canada that was also noticing us, but for completely different reasons. This small but powerful faction, spearheaded by the Canada Border Services Agency, had identified the perfect rationalization, incentive and opportunity in Botler. If you're familiar with it, you may recognize these three as the components of the triangle of fraud.

With the Auditor General's fall 2019 report on the culture of deeply entrenched workplace harassment at the CBSA, countless sexual harassment cases at the agency and the impending implementation of Bill C-65 to prevent harassment in federal workplaces, the CBSA had identified the perfect rationalization to kill three birds with one stone.

With over 300,000 federal public servants covered by Bill C-65 and Botler's existing technology as the only solution on the market that was available to provide full compliance with the bill, the CBSA had the perfect incentive to sell Botler's enterprise licences to the entire Government of Canada, using its own procurement vehicles, which would—quote—allow them to add infinite amount of funds to the price, to be executed through their usual suspects.

My personal profile as a female immigrant entrepreneur who refused to be a victim of sexual misconduct and transformed crippling trauma into something that attracted extensive goodwill from Justice Canada, the public and media alike provided the perfect opportunity for an optics operation that could funnel tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. We later learned that this was executed through a set-aside for indigenous business contracts, which is yet another example of monetization and theft using the trauma of marginalized communities.

To seal the deal at the Privy Council, this faction used me and our sacred citizens' initiative with the Department of Justice as its false flag operation. However, it had one fatal flaw in its grand scheme. Botler was there on a mission, which was to prevent, detect and combat misconduct—and that's exactly what we did. We started submitting reports against this very faction.

In response, instead of protecting Canadian taxpayers and their hard-earned dollars, the government machine, including the CBSA, PSPC, TBS and other individuals, including legal services, mobilized to bury our reports and to attempt to obstruct justice—and all in Canada’s name.

In December 2022, during the same time that President O'Gorman said they were debating whether to send our reports to the RCMP, my emails were hacked and every record of an email that Kristian Firth had sent to me was mysteriously deleted.

We watched and waited patiently for someone to do the right thing and act on our reports. Instead, we were heartbroken as they lied. They lied to us. They lied to you at OGGO. They lied to Parliament, and they lied to Canadian taxpayers.

Sitting here today, I can assure you of one thing: Systemic government corruption existed before Botler. This systemic government corruption tried to manifest itself through Botler. Now, because of Botler, systemic government corruption will be annihilated.

Thank you so much.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

We brought into force Bill C-65 so employees now can expect better time frames for resolution. There's the confidentiality of all parties involved. There's protection for employees victimized by third parties and others. I think the most important thing—and what I do appreciate about Bill C-65—is that we now have the legal obligation for employers to sit down with their employees and talk about sexual harassment.

The other part that I'd like to talk about actually gets back to the questions we were talking about with child care. The closer you can arrive at solutions on the ground, the better. The less that distant government is involved in arriving at these solutions, the better. What we're doing with Bill C-65 is saying that each workplace sit down with their employees and their employer and come up with a sexual harassment policy that's going to work. We've given, as I've said, some parameters on time frames, on confidentiality, on protection for employees who may be victimized by a third party. Other than that, the less the government is involved, and the more that employers and employees can arrive at these solutions themselves so that they're specific to their workplace, the better.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

On convention 190 from the International Labour Organization, which we just ratified in Geneva, I think what's interesting about C190 is that it actually is inspired by BillC-65, which of course came into effect here in this country on the issue of sexual harassment.

For anybody who doubts Canada's leadership in the world when it comes to field of labour, my chest swelled, my shoulders were back and my head was held high in Geneva when we were reminded by the International Labour Organization that they took inspiration for C190 from Bill C-65. Bill C-65 would be the more relevant legislation, obviously, in this country. It will create a safer workplace that will protect those who are suffering from threats of or acts of sexual harassment.

We came down very forcibly, particularly after we saw threats and actions against nurses and support workers during COVID. I am the son of a nurse, very proudly so, and we won't tolerate that. We simply won't.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Yes, the very first area we began looking at in direct response to the Bastarache report was the establishment of an external review process for complaints of harassment resolution. We've been working very closely with the RCMP in the development of the ICHR. That's a $32-million investment, and $8 million ongoing, in the establishment of new external processes and an independent determination of these measures. It was, I think, the most critical area that needed to be addressed.

We also had to come into compliance with Bill C-65 and the Canada Labour Code. We have placed a priority upon that, but there's ongoing work, as the commissioner outlined.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks also to the committee members for the opportunity to come before you today and to speak on these very important matters.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to begin my remarks by expressing my sincere and deepest sympathies following the revelation of the 215 children's remains found in an unmarked grave at a residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia. These children were taken from their parents, forced to attend a residential school and never returned to their families. The tragic legacy of residential schools and the Government of Canada's role could not be more profoundly illustrated than through the discovery of the children's graves.

In addition, I want to acknowledge the clear and unavoidable RCMP role in that tragedy. I also acknowledge the role of the government in which we all serve. Over the past two years—and even today—I have spent considerable time discussing with Commissioner Lucki the RCMP's work towards reconciliation. The commissioner has assured me that the RCMP will offer its full support as we seek to learn more about the events in Kamloops. It will provide assistance as required in communities right across Canada.

As Canada mourns with the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc first nation and all indigenous people, I think it's very clear that we must continue to strive to improve upon the services provided to indigenous people and communities across Canada. Thank you for allowing me to speak to that issue.

I am here today in response to the committee's study on issues surrounding Justice Bastarache’s report on gender- and sexual orientation-based harassment and discrimination in the RCMP.

The Bastarache report highlights far too many cases of workplace harassment and sexual misconduct that have deeply affected women and the LGBTQ2S+ members within the RCMP. Notwithstanding the many that were reported, we know it is likely that many went unreported.

Let me also state unequivocally that all Canadians deserve to feel safe from harassment and violence. That is why our government has explicitly mandated the commissioner of the RCMP to protect all employees of our organization, civilian and sworn, from this type of harassment and violence. After all, the women and members of the LGBTQ2S+ community who experienced this harassment had to consider how it would affect their careers, their chances of promotion and even their personal safety if they reported it.

I spoke with the commissioner as soon as the report was released. I emphasized that these unacceptable patterns of behaviour must end and a comprehensive plan must be implemented to address the report’s findings and recommendations.

I have also reached out and spoken at some length with Justice Bastarache to inform him of my commitment to support the commissioner in bringing about the necessary changes as well as in overseeing the reform of the RCMP, which will be guided by his recommendations.

Today I am very encouraged to report that implementation of many of the recommendations in the final report is well under way. I know that Commissioner Lucki will speak in greater detail on that progress and on forward priorities to address crucial issues of equality. However, if I may, I would like to highlight a few key points.

First of all, a new independent centre for harassment resolution will begin operating later this month to help ensure impartiality and consistency in decision-making and disciplinary action. Prior to 2019, cases of sexual harassment tended to be handled entirely internally within the RCMP. This approach did not enable survivors to feel heard or believed, nor did it give rise to the belief that offenders would be held accountable.

With the establishment of the ICHR, through external investigators, we seek to increase trust, address concerns of retribution and bias, and ensure that appropriate discipline is taken—up to and including termination of offenders. It will also work to address gaps, including consistency of decision-making and timeliness of investigations. It will also address the lack, in many cases, of well-trained investigators, follow-up, early intervention tools and informal conflict management.

The ICHR will align with the new Canada Labour Code workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations under Bill C-65. Unfortunately, measures alone cannot be applied after the fact. We also need to invest heavily in preventing harassment from happening in the first place.

To that end, a GBA+ review is being performed on the training curriculum. This is in addition to a review of the paramilitary aspects of training at Depot. This is in an effort to affect a cultural change in attitude towards workplace harassment and violence within the organization, beginning at the very start of a member’s career.

To prevent retaliation or recurrence, managers and supervisors are being provided with the necessary tools and resources to perform workplace restoration activities. To promote greater accountability, these will be tracked in the conflict resolution plan as part of the overall case resolution process.

The RCMP must effectively identify, correct and eliminate misconduct in their ranks. As the commissioner will shortly explain, the RCMP will launch an external review of their conduct and disciplinary processes. The commissioner and I have not been satisfied to this point with the pace of change that is expected in a modern law enforcement body. Canadians expect that the worst behaviour in the RCMP will result in serious disciplinary action on a consistent basis. As minister, that is my expectation as well.

I'm also happy to report that the RCMP has launched a comprehensive equity, diversity and inclusion strategy to address systemic barriers for diverse groups. This will work to establish transparent and accountable practices; stronger education, awareness and training regimes; and the foundations for culture change within the RCMP. I also know that Commissioner Lucki will describe how the RCMP is modernizing the recruitment and onboarding processes, including introducing new tools to assess character and detect bias.

We have a duty, all of us, to do the necessary work to prevent harassment and discrimination from ever occurring again. Women and members of the LGBTQ2S community must feel safe in coming forward to report all forms of harassment. They must know that they will be heard, believed and supported. These difficult calls must be met with a transparent investigation, with tangible consequences for those responsible, while actively supporting survivors who have the courage to speak out.

We know that we have to work hard to change the culture that persists not only in the RCMP but throughout all policing and paramilitary organizations. The commissioner shares my conviction that the culture must evolve and it must change. I will support her throughout to address root causes and modernize the training as we work to prevent the unacceptable incidents of behaviour outlined in the Bastarache report from ever occurring again.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to an opportunity to answer the questions of committee members.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's nice to be here to participate in this committee meeting. I'm here as a substitute, of course, for Mr. Baker, and I expect that if Mr. Baker was here you'd have a much more eloquent intervention with someone as knowledgeable as he is. I do bring a bit of an outsider's perspective to the specific topic at hand and some experience in terms of matters of procedure. There are a few things that kind of sink in after 10 years in this place.

I know that Mr. Bezan is quite preoccupied with making sure that we're speaking to the amendment and to the motion and that the bounds of relevance be kept fairly tight, so I'm actually going to start with the amendment that has been proposed.

The amendment indicates that the scope of the study will likely lead to new facts, and in the second subparagraph, it indicates that the committee believes that a report is urgently needed to put an end to the culture that has existed within the Canadian Armed Forces. It then calls for the presentation of an interim report, which will allow for some action to be taken as the more fulsome report is delivered.

The first thing that strikes me on this is the inconsistency, quite frankly, between the amendment and the main motion. The amendment talks about urgency, but the main motion is to prolong the witness list. I would think that if we adopt the amendment and adopt the theory that this is urgent, we wouldn't be extending the witness list four months into a report.

I guess the other thing that I would offer is, again, based on 10 years of experience in parliamentary committees. It has been my experience that at the outset of a study, witnesses are suggested by each of the parties. They're prioritized, and they are then ranked in a manner that is consistent with the parties' standings in the House or in the committee. This is, I think, a tradition that goes across all 22 standing committees of Parliament. It's one that I've certainly seen, observed and respected on the committees I've served on over the years, including the one that I chair now, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities.

There's good logic behind this. If the witnesses can be identified and prioritized at the outset, a work plan can be developed. As they say, you plan the work and then you work the plan. When you're four months into a study and there are additional witnesses demanded who presumably didn't go through that original process, once again it's hard to understand that there is a true appreciation for the urgency of the issue when it continues in this fashion.

The amendment talks about and talks to the culture. Certainly, in recent months, Canadians have heard the heart-wrenching accounts of Canadian Armed Forces members and civilian colleagues who have been the subjects of behaviours and treatment experiences that are completely unacceptable. Also, as the amendment points out, their accounts have been ignored for far too long. For instance, the opposition knew of rumours against General Vance in 2015 but still appointed him.

They appointed him when there was an active Canadian Forces national investigation service investigation into him and appointed him to the most senior position within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current leader of the official opposition says he passed along sexual misconduct rumours about General Vance in 2015 and claimed those were looked into. I think that begs the question: How is it possible that General Vance was appointed at the same time and the investigation was suddenly dropped?

There's no question that what members have endured is wrong. The Canadian Armed Forces is entrusted to keep Canadians safe both at home and abroad. The organization owes survivors more. Every Canadian Armed Forces member makes enormous personal sacrifices to protect Canadians, and regardless of rank or gender identity, they have an undeniable right to serve in safety. The urgency of this issue, the urgency of the need for culture change, is identified in the amendment, and properly so.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have to live up to this expectation. The minister has always followed the processes put in place. We've heard that repeatedly. He has always followed the processes put in place when allegations were brought to his attention. This is something he has always done and that he will continue to do.

Our government is taking important steps. Unlike the allegation that nothing has been done, that no steps have been taken, to build on the points made by my friend from the Yukon, we're taking important steps to address systemic misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and to bring about the culture change that is referenced in the amendment and the culture change that is needed in the organization. The need to change the military's culture is born of the reality that the lived experiences of many defence team members are completely out of line with the values professed by the organization. These are values of integrity, inclusion and accountability. That needs to change, and we, as a government, are committed to bringing about this change.

If we want that change to be significant, meaningful and to last, then we need to reflect honestly on what's been happening. Where we find failings and fault, we must accept responsibility.

Like in the case of the current leader of the official opposition, by the opposition's logic, should he be fired for hearing a rumour of misconduct against General Vance? As we know, just days after the former government appointed General Vance, the investigation was closed. According to the access to information request, the commanding officer said he was under “pressure”. Who do they think applied that pressure?

Where we're able to learn lessons, we must seize the opportunity to build a better organization. Where members of the defence team share their accounts and experiences, we must listen and listen carefully. This also brings me to the main motion and the inconsistency with the urgency of the need to have a culture change.

The main motion calls for the presentation of a report without a request for a response from government. Is this seriously a motion that respects the urgency or that respects the need to ensure there are no further victims when there is no response requested from government, or is it something else?

The end goal should be simple. Where we hope to get to is to ensure that every member of the defence team is valued and respected. Defence culture and professional conduct must reflect the core values and ethical principles our military aspires to uphold as a national institution. That's what Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, recruits, public servants and Canadians expect and deserve of the organization.

Recently, the Minister of National Defence announced the creation of a new organization to lead us there. We heard Mr. Bagnell refer to this. Among other initiatives, the Department of National Defence appointed Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan as the Department of National Defence new chief of professional conduct and culture.

It's hard to imagine a better person to lead this important initiative. Under her leadership, the professional conduct and culture organization will unify, integrate and coordinate all of the policies, programs and activities that address systemic misconduct and support culture change within the forces. This new organization will include a new assistant deputy minister, who will directly support her. The team will bring together members from all ranks and classifications, reflecting the diversity that Canadians expect.

Make no mistake: This is not a generic prepackaged solution to a long-standing problem. Before any future steps are taken, those working to bring about change will actively listen to the accounts of people affected—people at every rank, people at every level and people in every installation across all regions of the country.

Members of the professional conduct and culture organization will honour each person's experiences, respect each persons's individuality and will neither judge nor assume. They will listen, so that people's lived experiences guide the road to eliminating discrimination, biases, harmful stereotypes and systemic barriers.

As so many members of the defence team have already shared their experiences and recommendations, we don't need to wait before implementing a number of much-needed changes. Lieutenant-General Carignan will take a number of steps to bring about that change now.

To start, they'll wrap up Operation Honour. Much has already been said about drawing this initiative to a close, but it bears repeating.

Lieutenant-General Carignan and her team will review all of the research conducted under Operation Honour, so that its findings can inform renewed culture change efforts. This new team will develop mechanisms to implement the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations under Bill C-65, which was also mentioned by Mr. Bagnell, and will support the ongoing efforts to bring the remaining provisions of Bill C-77 into force. That will include bringing the declaration of victims rights into the National Defence Act.

The next order of business will be for the team to establish a framework that will help achieve a number of longer-term goals. They will realign responsibilities, policies and programs that address elements of systemic misconduct across National Defence and the forces. They will also simplify and enhance misconduct reporting mechanisms, including for people outside of the chain of command. They will give greater agency to and strengthen support mechanisms for those who have experienced misconduct. They will enhance tracking mechanisms from initial reports of misconduct to case closures, and they'll integrate additional data points, such as intersectionality, reprisals, member satisfaction and retention. Finally, they will lead institutional efforts to develop a professional conduct and culture framework that tackles all types of harmful behaviour, biases and systemic barriers.

Much work to build healthy, safe and inclusive workplaces is already being done within the department. Many organizations are focused on developing programs and policies that move us in the right direction. Among them, there's the GBA+, the integrated conflict and complaint management program, the anti-racism secretariat, the Canadian Armed Forces diversity strategy, Canada's anti-racism strategy and Canada's national action plan for women, peace and security. The professional conduct and culture team will work with the people leading each of those efforts to further their good work, and they will make the most of ongoing consultations, conversations, external and independent reviews and analysis to inform the way ahead.

The professional conduct and culture organization is being established with the clear understanding that previous culture change efforts have fallen far short of what was needed, and this, of course, is acknowledged in the amendment that is the subject of this discussion today.

As Lieutenant-General Carignan has said, those efforts were fractured, which resulted in segmented efforts and piecemeal changes. With the standing up of this new organization, the defence team is taking a fundamentally different approach. As Lieutenant-General Carignan also said, the new approach will be a more holistic and coherent way to address the complex challenges faced by the Canadian Armed Forces.

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge Canada's good fortune at having such a decorated leader as Lieutenant-General Carignan leading this vital initiative. With 30 years of military experience, she has served in operations around the world and most recently took on a tremendous leadership role as the commander of the NATO mission in Iraq from November 2019 to November 2020. She's been invested as a Commander of the Order of Military Merit and is a recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal, earned as a result of her exceptional commitment to our Canadian Armed Forces, its missions and our country.

Reading her professional biography is an exercise in humility. In addition to an exceptional work ethic, she brings a profound understanding of military best practices to this role, and she has already shown herself to be a truly gifted leader.

I would like to reiterate our deepest concern for the well-being of every member of the defence team. The standing up of the professional conduct and culture organization is a testament to our government's genuine commitment to the defence team. We have shown that we are dedicated to creating a lasting culture change across the defence team. We will do just that, and I trust that these remarks were of some value to these deliberations.

Thank you for the time, Madam Chair.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

—related to this motion.

To give credit where credit is due on the things we've done, to supplement the employee assistance program, the WHVP centre of expertise is establishing additional assistance for employees affected by harassment or workplace violence.

While CAF is not subject to the Canada Labour Code, CAF is working on a harassment prevention modernization initiative to further align and integrate accountability and prevention components of the WHVP with the CAF system.

Stage one of the CAF harassment prevention modernization initiative is nearing completion, including through the issuance by the VCDS of an initiating directive, development of tools and supporting documents for the relevant DAOD on harassment prevention and the establishment of a governance structure and working group.

In stage two, the focus is on a CAF harassment prevention, a vision statement and the development of additional tools, guides, consultation and options. Analysis is being finalized. This work will take into consideration and align with the work of Bill C‑65, Bill C‑77, negotiations on policy measures and class actions [Technical difficulty—Editor] and the evolution of the chief of the professional conduct and culture organization.

I will now go on to military sexual trauma. Also, in relation to Mr. Bezan's last comment, I wonder why he won't change his motion to bring forward the real witnesses to the serious problems that have now arisen since the motion was designed, which have been brought forward by the press along with this serious potential cover-up related to the investigations during the time of the appointment of General Vance.

On military sexual trauma, MST, we've constantly heard from stakeholders and those affected by sexual misconduct that they want sexual trauma connected with military service to be acknowledged and recognized as such, and that they want to be supported accordingly. Along with Veterans Affairs Canada, the SMRC and external stakeholders, we're working on developing a definition of sexual trauma connected with military service. This work is being done in full consultation with survivor groups as well as with members of the SMRC external advisory council and others. While it is not a critical term, we acknowledge that the injury is associated with sexual trauma connected to military service. We are working with VAC to ensure that there continues to be policy alignment between the two departments particularly in the delivery of supports and benefits to those affected.

I want to talk about peer support now. This committee has heard from witnesses that our focus should be on the survivors and on helping them. They've asked for peer support. Work is under way. I hope we have recommendations. When we get to the main motion, I will go a lot into the recommendations, because the motion allows for a cut-off on debate on those recommendations.

As announced, DND, CAF and Veterans Affairs Canada are working on developing a professionally co-facilitated peer support program. This is another initiative that is a high priority for stakeholders, as we heard from witnesses. This is funded through budget 2021.

Because of our present situation and the direction of the world, we need to do more things online. SMRC, the CAF transition group and VAC are working to adapt an existing online peer support mobile application that was developed for Canadian Public Safety personnel. The process of adaptation, modification and implementation of the app is expected to take several months. Of course, this is very important because our military are stationed around the world.

There's also support for individual people, which CAF and DND have worked so hard on. Our government, as I've said, is not done. We have a lot more to do. As I've said at every meeting, that's what we should be working on, recommendations on those procedures. Some progress has been made. As we know, we need a lot more.

We're going to continue to consult with the experts, some of whom we had before our committee, and those who have been affected by sexual misconduct.

I want to highlight some of the measures that are already in place and accessible to the DND and CAF members. The SMRC, as I mentioned earlier, offers members confidential support 24-7 and anywhere in the world. I'm happy to say that budget 2021 has increased support for that. We heard from a number of witnesses how that wasn't the be-all and end-all, but it was certainly providing helpful services. It operates outside the military chain of command. Reporting directly to the deputy minister, it allows affected persons to access support in a confidential manner.

SMRC offers many programs and services to help affected members. One of them is the response and support coordination program, which helps CAF members navigate systems from the moment they make contact with SMRC until they decide they no longer require support. At every step of the way, SMRC personnel accompany those affected by sexual violence, providing whatever support may be necessary.

CAF members seeking information about the reporting process can contact the SMRC to explore their options while remaining anonymous. Civilian members of the defence team can also access support through SMRC, as well as the employee assistance program. Though SMRC is an important tool, we haven't got this right yet. That's why the defence team is in the midst of a top-to-bottom change of its institutional culture.

This is the right thing to do. It is not just a moral imperative. It is also vital to the success of the Canadian Armed Forces now and into the future. We've heard that time and time again. I think every committee member knows this a critical problem that we have to deal with to come up with solutions. A number of things are being done already, but obviously much needs to be done.

It was great to hear the acting chief of defence staff—I think it was yesterday or the day before—so open to hearing outside expertise to make sure this is done right. The culture change that's been so hard to do.... I mean, this isn't new. It's been there for decades upon decades. It's not easy to change quickly. Just making paper changes is not enough. That's why we have all these initiatives and why we should be discussing the complexity of that culture change and how we do it.

That's why the Madam Arbour announcement will be helpful. Culture change is mentioned right in the amendment to this motion, which is why this is an important discussion as well.

The initial independent external comprehensive review led by the former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour is very important. Obviously, all the recommendations from the previous Deschamps report haven't been implemented. Much more needs to be done, but Madam Arbour will provide the road map and a suggested way to actually achieve the things that Madam Deschamps said needed to be done. It will look into harassment and sexual misconduct in both DND and CAF and will examine the policies, procedures, programs, practices and culture within National Defence and make recommendations for improvement. From that, we'll learn what did not work from all these things that I'm talking about today of the processes that are in place. We can build on what did work, see what did not work and why it did not work.

It's been noted and, as I said in previous meetings, a number of things are very puzzling. There were a number of good things in place. Why were they not working? Why did they still lead to the hundreds of cases that Mr. Garrison and I referred to in previous meetings.

It's noted in the terms of reference that Madam Arbour will be delivering a “work plan within 30 days to the effective date of” her contract.

I just wanted to mention that one other thing about the peer support program is that budget 2021 also includes funding to enhance other support services including access to free independent legal advice that will help enable CAF members to access support without making a formal complaint.

Another step forward, once again to give credit where credit is due for things that are being done and have to be acknowledged, it has been announced that Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan will begin a new role as the chief of professional conduct and culture, which will unify, integrate and coordinate all policies, programs and activities that currently address systemic misconduct across culture change.

She's moved quickly in her new role and is actively working on building a core team around her. She's already begun to turn her attention to key issues including developing an outreach and consultation plan to continue hearing from defence team members, veterans and stakeholders, and mapping resources and reporting processes to get a clearer sense of what currently exists to inform future efforts to streamline.

Another step is that in addition to these steps, our government is following through on its commitment to consult with victims of service offences, which will inform the development of the regulations needed to implement the declaration of victim rights from Bill C‑77.

The Department of National Defence has engaged directly with victims groups and will soon be launching an online questionnaire to collect anonymous feedback from DND employees and CAF members. Certainly we've heard from victims from both of those groups, and it will be really good to get that anonymous feedback for which they will have no fear of retribution or reprisal. That, we have heard, is one of the top three things on which this committee should be coming up with recommendations to help the minister, a minister who is open to making major changes at this critical time when we could actually make improvements.

Our government has heard from the victims groups who have generously devoted their time and energy to sharing lived experiences and feedback with us and also with committees. We have heard them and we are taking action. This is what the survivors and experts who have testified at this committee and the committee on the status of women have been advocating for.

There are some other sources available to CAF members to access counselling, advice and other support services, and this may be one of the things that the report of Madam Arbour comes up with. Members aren't aware of all of these supports and maybe that's one reason they haven't been as effective as they should be. There are the CAF medical centres, military chaplains, the CF members assistance program, military family resource centres and family information centre.

There are also complaint management centres. These are another avenue for members to bring forward concerns or incidents through one of the 16 complaint management centres located across the country under the integrated conflict and complaint management program. This service combines harassment, grievance and alternative dispute resolution approaches in a streamlined fashion, and they report tracking and resolved complaints of inappropriate behaviour like sexual harassment. If the nature of the sexual misconduct requires involvement of the military police and justice system, there are supports for CAF members during this process as well.

Another support is the sexual offence response teams. The military police have established six sexual offence response teams trained to handle sexual misconduct cases appropriately and with empathy. These teams are sensitive to survivors and help them connect with other resources and support systems they need. I'm certainly looking forward to survivors and complainants getting much better treatment than some of the witnesses we heard from did and hopefully these new centres and the training will have far more appropriate support and training for survivors.

In addition, the director of military prosecutions has established a sexual misconduct action response team made up of specially trained prosecutors. Their role again is to make sure survivors are treated with compassion and understanding and that they receive information and the support they need through the military justice proceedings.

Supporting survivors of sexual misconduct is essential, and that's why steps have been taken to ensure support is available and is provided from the moment a person seeks advice or counsel through to investigation and prosecution. Along with the future changes, these steps will help to build a safe and inclusive workplace where all people are supported and treated with respect.

We're creating a defence workplace where everyone is treated with dignity and respect, and we hope all our colleagues will join us in this effort. We'll build the right system, so that when an incident occurs, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence have access to a process that is sensitive, fair and compassionate.

CAF and DND are listening. They're learning. They're taking action to create an environment where sexual misconduct is never minimized, excused or ignored. We owe it to the men and women in uniform—as I think all committee members have said—to all members of the defence team and to Canadians to get this right, and we'll continue working hard to do just that on top of all these initiatives.

There has also been Bill C‑65, with new regulations on preventing harassment and violence in the workplace. Harassment and violence in the workplace in any form, of course, will not be tolerated. Amendments to the Canada Labour Code contained in the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations came into effect on January 1, 2021, and will expand the existing prevention-of-violence framework known as Bill C‑65.

These amendments will strengthen the provisions of the Canada Labour Code by putting in place one comprehensive approach that takes all forms of harassment and violence into consideration. This will help departments to better prevent this and to respond to and provide support to those affected by harassment and violence in the federal public service. This new regulation will affect all DND public service employees and the Canadian Armed Forces members who supervise them. The coordination and implementation of this new regulation is assigned to the ADM of civilian human resources as the functional authority for the health and well-being of the public service employees within the department. Committee members have heard about harassment or sexual misconduct related to those employees—not just CAF members.

In short, this means that, along with all Government of Canada departments and agencies, our obligations with respect to harassment and violence in the workplace will increase. While we'll see more details in the coming weeks, some examples of what we will do under this new legislation include ensuring that a resolution process is in place and that issues are resolved in a timely and transparent manner; identifying the risk factors that contribute to harassment and violence in the workplace and developing and implementing preventive measures to mitigate these risks; and developing harassment and violence training and ensuring that all parties in the workplace, including employers, participate in this training.

In parallel, the VCDS has been tasked with addressing potential changes to the CAF policies and programs. For now, DAOD 5012‑0, “Harassment Prevention and Resolution”, and the harassment prevention and resolution instructions, accessible only on the National Defence network, will continue to apply to the CAF. Early in the new year, a working group will be be stood up to conduct—that's this year—a holistic review of the CAF harassment framework in order to modernize and align it, where possible, with the Canadian Labour Code. The working group will also be tasked with looking at opportunities to streamline and align existing interrelated mechanisms and programs, so that, as much as possible, the employees at DND and the CAF members will have very similar treatment and help.

Existing programs, preventive measures and support will remain in place to keep our defence team free as much as possible from physical and psychological harm. However, when harassment or violence does occur, we must work together to identify it, root it out and take action to prevent reoccurence. With this new legislation, Bill C‑65 will help to strengthen all our efforts on all fronts.

The other bill that we brought in—again, to be fair, things have been done and have been moving forward—is Bill C‑77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act—the declaration of victims rights.

The summary of the bill states:

This enactment amends provisions of the National Defence Act governing the military justice system.

It adds a new Division, entitled “Declaration of Victims Rights”, to the Code of Service Discipline, that specifies that victims of service offences have a right to information, protection, participation and restitution in respect of service offences. It adds or amends several definitions, including “victim” and “military justice system participant”, and specifies who may act on a victim's behalf for the purposes of that Division.

I know that the Conservatives are very sensitive and supportive of victims rights.

It continues:

It amends Part III of that Act to, among other things:

(a) specify the purpose of the Code of Service Discipline and the fundamental purpose of imposing sanctions at summary hearings;

(b) protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses in proceedings [which involve] certain sexual offences;

(c) specify factors that a military judge is to take into consideration when determining whether to make an exclusion order;

(d) make testimonial aids more accessible to [the] vulnerable witnesses;

(e) allow witnesses to testify using a pseudonym in appropriate cases;

We've all heard about potential retribution.

It continues:

(f) on application, make publication bans for victims under the age of 18 mandatory; (g) in certain circumstances, require a military judge to inquire of the prosecutor if reasonable steps have been taken to inform the victims of any plea agreement entered into by the accused and the prosecutor; (h) provide that the acknowledgement of the harm done to the victims and to the community is a sentencing objective; (i) provide for different ways of presenting victim impact statements; (j) allow for military impact statements and community impact [assessments] to be considered for all service offences; (k) provide, as a principle of sentencing, that particular attention should be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders;

As you know, there are provisions in the Criminal Code for that as well.

It continues:

(l) provide for the creation, in regulations, of service infractions that can be dealt with by summary hearing;

That's so more cases can go forward—

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would agree. I would implore that we stop this waste of time by debating motion after motion and witness after witness, which is unnecessary and is delaying the study. I implore Mr. Bezan to remove the motion, which, as he probably knows, has a number of problems with it. It doesn't bring forward the witnesses we need if we want to go further into the who, how, where and when, which I'll go into in great depth when we get to the main motion.

For the exact reason that people expect a report to come out, stop doing motions that recall witnesses who have been here for hours and who have nothing to add to the debate. Stop calling a witness whose potential testimony has already been dealt with and then a motion that wouldn't allow us to put a stop to looking at each recommendation, debating them and coming out with a serious report.

We had an anonymous email and no one knew what was in it because the person wanted their privacy, and they were allowed their privacy. It's incredible that, instead of dealing with the major problems to help the people in the military, Mr. Bezan would keep calling witnesses related to that email and not all the great testimony we've had from experts and victims.

If you want to go back.... I don't. I want to get on to dealing with those serious issues, but if you want to go back to the who, why and where, and then, as Mr. Garrison said, the serious issues related to the appointment of General Vance, as Mr. Garrison said, when people should have acted and failed to act.... There were potential investigations, one, apparently, there was pressure to stop on the day General Vance was appointed, and another one, a quote from someone.... The vice-chief of the defence staff said it was a mystery who investigated, seeing as it didn't occur.

Those are the serious questions that people want to go back to. I don't want to go back to that. I want to get on to the issues of helping the people in the military. As Mr. Barsalou-Duval said, why are members acting the way they are by bringing witness after witness, trying to recall witnesses and extending on this one email that's already been fully investigated as far as it could go, because the person didn't want to let any of the details forward.

We only have so much time in government. As everyone knows who's been in government, there are a huge number of federal departments, agencies and things that have to be dealt with, so there are rare points in time when you can get to the item that you want to make progress on. I think this is one of those points in time when we have a minister who's supportive of dealing with this, and all the committee members are supportive of dealing with sexual misconduct in the military. That's what we should be dealing with.

I could, in the future, if need be, explain or outline all the times and the quotes from the minister over the last several months as to how he says over and over again that much more needs to be done and that there's no tolerance.

Unfortunately, it's also been said in this debate that nothing has been done, or that nothing of consequence has been done. In fairness to the members of CAF and DND, they have been working hard to try to address this serious issue.

I think we have to dispose of that misinformation because some things have been done. There has to be a lot more, obviously, as Mr. Garrison outlined, and I've outlined in a number of committees the hundreds of complaints that have occurred. Much more needs to be done, but it's also not fair to suggest that nothing's been done. I'm going to go through some of those things, to give credit where credit's due.

The government has announced an external review, the creation of the chief of professional conduct and culture position, as well as initiatives around peer support, the extension of the SMRCs' reach across Canada and work on implementation of Bill C-77.

DND and CAF also released a joint CDS-DM initiating directive, which has provided our defence team members, veterans, observers and all Canadians much-needed clarity on DND and CAF's vision for Lieutenant-General Carignan's position and what she'll be empowered to do. Going forward, one of General Carignan's first areas of focus is developing a plan for engagement and consultation, including targeted focus groups in coordination with our colleagues in public affairs, to ensure that we keep up the momentum on listening.

In the budget that we're now debating in the House, $232.2 million over five years has been set aside, plus $33.5 million per year ongoing to address sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the military and to support survivors. These funds will be used for gender-based violence prevention, fully funded at $33.9 million over two years; internal support to victims, including access to legal advice; expanding the contribution program to support community-based sexual assault service providers; and a peer support pilot, online and in-person. I'll speak to that a bit later.

There are additional conduct items that are fully funded at $33 million over two years to support $15 million for increased investment in the SMRC—which I'll talk about later as well—$15 million for external oversight and $3 million for external assistance with training.

Then there are investments from existing reference levels of $158.5 million, and this includes the implementation of Bill C-65 and the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations, which I'll talk a bit about later; support for development of character assessment and training; additional support to enhance the military justice system; personnel support to base commanders; development of the departmental litigation oversight capability, which we've talked about a lot in this committee; and upgrading data management and tracking into a single system, which we've talked about having as a recommendation.

Additionally, DND and CAF are going to respond to the government with suggestions related to the CAF child care program and the clinical occupation and deployment health needs of women in uniform.

I also said I was going to get back to the work, and the deputy minister mentioned that a lot had to be done, but she also mentioned that there were good things being done. She mentioned the advancing initiatives related to the SMRC; the gender-based violence national action plan initiatives; the regional expansion of SMRC services, including a response and support coordination program; the expansion of support services to include service to DND public service employees and veterans; and the increasing need for virtual training options and targeted prevention training. The staffing of positions for that is also under way. I'll get back SMRC a little bit later and also the next time that I get to speak.

C-65's implementation is under way, which is another item of progress, so it's not fair to say that nothing has been done or accomplished.

In the departmental approach, there's work on the implementation of the workplace harassment and violence prevention, WHVP, legislation, which continues to progress. Direction and guidance on the WHVP workplace assessment is to be released by August 2021. A service-level agreement to provide access to WHVP training for CAF members is being finalized. Training will be available online by June 2021.

Mandatory training for public service employees is progressing well. As of March 31 this year, 40% of employees and 13% of members—

Opposition Motion—Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in the Military

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sat in on the testimony we had when we were studying Bill C-65, and no one who testified said that politicians should get involved in allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. We heard that there needed to be independent investigations into those charges, and if it was independent, people might have some confidence to come forward. Even then, they were still fearful.

Now, Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan, who has just been appointed as chief of professional conduct and culture, will be looking to implement Bill C-65.

I am not saying that one is better than the other, but I am saying that we need to improve the process. I find it really disturbing for the Conservatives to stand in this House and accuse the Liberal government of not following the proper process, when it is exactly the same process that they followed.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the member of Parliament for Oakville North—Burlington, whom I have the privilege of working alongside on so many issues, including in committee on public safety.

Once again, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today to address the House on a subject that concerns all of us: the well-being of the members of our Canadian Armed Forces and those who support them.

In recent months, Canadians have heard the heart-wrenching accounts of Canadian Armed Forces members and civilian colleagues who have been subjected to behaviours, treatment and experiences that are completely unacceptable. For far too long, their accounts have been ignored.

For instance, opposition members knew of the rumours against General Vance in 2015, yet still appointed him. They appointed him while there was an active Canadian Forces national investigation service investigation into him, and appointed him to the most senior position within the Canadian Armed Forces. The current leader of the official opposition said that he passed along sexual misconduct rumours about General Vance in 2015, claiming those were looked into. I ask my fellow Conservative members, how is this possible, if General Vance was appointed at the same time and the investigation was suddenly dropped?

What our members have endured is wrong. The Canadian Armed Forces is entrusted to keep Canadians safe at home and abroad. The organization owes survivors more. Every Canadian Armed Forces member makes enormous personal sacrifices to protect Canadians and, regardless of rank or gender identity, has an undeniable right to serve in safety. We must and we will live up to that expectation.

The Minister of National Defence has always followed the processes that were put in place when allegations were brought to his attention. This is something he has said publicly, in this House, and it is something he will continue to do. However, as members have no doubt heard from my hon. colleagues, our government is taking important steps to address systemic misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces to bring about cultural change within the organization.

The need to change the military's culture is born of the reality that the lived experiences of many defence team members are completely out of line with the values professed within the organization and by the organization, which are values of integrity, inclusion and accountability. That needs to change, and we are committed to bringing about that change.

If we want that change to be significant, if we want it to be meaningful and if we want it to last, then we need to reflect honestly on what has been happening. Where we find failings and fault, we must accept responsibility. Where we are able to learn lessons, we must seize the opportunity to build a better organization. Where members of the defence team share their accounts and experiences, we must listen and we must listen very carefully.

The end goal is simple. It is to ensure that every member of the defence team, every member of the Canadian Armed Forces is valued and respected. Defence culture and professional conduct must reflect the core values and ethical principles our military aspires to uphold as a national institution, which is what Canadian Armed Forces members, veterans, recruits, public servants and Canadians deserve and expect of the organization.

It is clear that the measures we have taken already since forming government have not gone far enough and have not moved fast enough. This is why we announced last week that Madame Arbour will conduct an independent review into the Canadian Armed Forces, including the creation of an external reporting system that is independent from the chain of command and meets the needs of those impacted by sexual misconduct and violence. It is also why, in budget 2021, we committed over $236 million to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces, including expanding the reach of the sexual misconduct response centre and providing online and in-person peer-to-peer support. All options to create a safer future for women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces are going to be considered to change the culture of toxic masculinity that exists in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Last Thursday, the Minister of National Defence announced the creation of a new organization to lead us there. Among the many other initiatives I just talked about, the Department of National Defence appointed Lieutenant-General Jennie Carignan as DND's new chief of professional conduct and culture. Under her leadership, the professional conduct and culture organization will unify, integrate and coordinate all of the policies, programs and activities that address systemic misconduct and support culture change within the forces. The organization will include a new assistant deputy minister who will directly support Lieutenant-General Carignan. The team will bring together members from all ranks and classifications, reflecting the diversity that Canadians expect. Make no mistake. This is not a generic prepackaged solution to a long-standing problem. Before any future steps are taken, those working to bring about change will actively listen to the accounts of people affected, people at every rank, every level and across all regions of this country.

As so many members of the defence team have already shared experiences and recommendations, we do not have to wait before implementing a number of much-needed changes. Lieutenant-General Carignan and her team will take a number of steps to bring about change right away. To start, they will wrap up Operation Honour. Much has already been said about drawing this initiative to a close, but it bears repeating. Lieutenant-General Carignan and her team will review all of the research conducted under Operation Honour so its findings can inform renewed culture change efforts.

This new team will also develop mechanisms to implement the workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations of Bill C-65. It will also support ongoing efforts to bring the remaining provisions of Bill C-77 into force. This includes introducing the declaration of victims rights into the National Defence Act.

The next order of business will be to form a team to establish a framework that will help achieve a number of longer-term goals. It will realign responsibilities, policies and programs that address elements of systemic misconduct across National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. It will also simplify and enhance misconduct reporting mechanisms, including for people outside of the chain of command. It will give greater agency to, and strengthen support mechanisms for, those who have experienced misconduct. It will enhance tracking mechanisms, from initial reports of the misconduct to case closures. It will also integrate additional data points, such as intersectionality, reprisals, member satisfaction and retention. Finally, it will lead institutional efforts to develop a professional conduct and culture framework that tackles all types of harmful behaviour, biases and systemic barriers.

So much work has already been done within the department to build healthy, safe and inclusive workplaces. So many organizations are focused on developing programs and policies to move us in the right direction, whether it is the gender-based analysis plus, the integrated conflict and complaint management program, the anti-racism secretariat, the Canadian Armed Forces diversity strategy, Canada's anti-racism strategy or Canada's national action plan on women, peace and security.

The professional conduct and culture organization is being established with the clear understanding that previous culture change efforts have fallen short of what was needed. With the standing up of this new organization, the defence team is taking a fundamentally different approach, an approach that will be more holistic and coherent in addressing the complex challenges faced by the Canadian Armed Forces.

In closing, I would like to reiterate our deepest concern for the well-being of every member of the Canadian defence team. The standing up of the professional conduct and culture organization is a testament to our genuine commitment to protect members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Our government has shown that we are dedicated and committed to creating a lasting culture change across the defence team. That is the goal, and we will do just that.

[Kin Choi, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources, Civilian, Department of National Defence]

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for the invitation to participate in this discussion in my capacity as the assistant deputy minister of civilian human resources for the Department of National Defence.

I have been a member of the public service for over 29 years, having held a number of positions in a variety of departments. The national defence team is a large, complex organization that includes public servants and military members and that extends across Canada and abroad. The team has 18 different collective agreements that encompass approximately 70 occupational groups, including administrative support, technical trades, defence research and scientists. Most of these groups are represented by the 10 different unions with which we work.

In my role as the assistant deputy minister of civilian human resources, I'm largely responsible for four core functions: compensation, healthy workplace, diversity and inclusion and labour relations, which affect approximately 26,000 public service employees.

My team oversees a number of areas relating to people management, including staffing, learning and development, classification and organizational design, labour relations and compensation. As well, we are responsible for developing and implementing plans, policies and programs to recruit, develop and retain diverse individuals to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces are supported at home and abroad. In all aspects of our work we are committed to upholding the defence team's values of ethics, integrity and the well-being of our employees.

Though important steps have been taken to address the overall health and well-being of the defence team, clearly we have much work to do to effect enduring change. It is imperative that we continue to pursue this change in order to rebuild an environment of trust, respect and accountability reflective of the Canadians we serve. We will listen to all perspectives and make informed decisions to ensure that our core values lead to this meaningful change.

Finally, in my capacity as head of human resources for our public service employees, I take my responsibilities as functional authority for workplace harassment, discrimination and implementation of Bill C-65 very seriously to ensure fairness and due process, regardless of rank or position.

I acknowledge that there may be questions related to ongoing complaints; however, I will be unable to address the specific nature of these cases, as they are addressed through the independent process and recourse mechanism currently available to complainants.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[LCol (Ret'd) Bernie Boland]

Thank you very much for that particular question. Certainly, for me, I have been persistent. There is no doubt, from my perspective, that one of the basic approaches of the government is to ignore when they get something.

You identified that I raised a complaint based upon Bill C-65. I'm fundamentally waiting for the Minister of Labour to acknowledge receipt of my correspondence. She hasn't, so I am pursuing that.

As my co-panellists have said, there has to be an independent and autonomous opportunity for anybody who has the need to or requirement to make a complaint to advocate for it and to approach it in a suitable legal adversarial fashion, so that you can confront and address the individual who has perpetrated misconduct—harassment, human rights violations, racism and particularly sexual misconduct—and to address those, and those you are dealing with, in a system of accountability.

All three of those things are being denied to me. I'm capable of advocating. I've been denied that right to do it. I'm prepared to confront my respondent. I'm being denied that. There is no accountability for that. It needs to be separate and independent.

Thank you.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's lovely to be back here. Of course, it would be better if we had a different topic that was not so difficult to hear.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being on this call today, for joining us and for sharing their stories and their insight. It's a very important conversation. I'm glad I get the chance to hear some of this testimony.

I'd like to start with retired Lieutenant-Colonel Boland, if I may, and ask a series of questions.

Mr. Boland, you note in your testimony that you took several approaches to try to seek justice. That included submitting to the Federal Court of Canada an application for a judicial review of DND's grievance dismissal. You gave notice to the registrar of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to be a party to the tribunal hearing. You filed a complaint with the Minister of Labour on DND's breach of your Bill C-65 rights.

We are told that there are processes and policies in place. However, the people involved in upholding these processes are not following them. What oversight measures would you recommend so that these processes are indeed followed?

[Lieutenant-Colonel, Retired) Bernie Boland (As an Individual]

Madam Chair, thank you.

I'm Bernie Boland, retired lieutenant-colonel, who served honourably in the Canadian Armed Forces for over 30 years. For the past 12 years, I was an engineer in the public service. I retired in December 2020.

At the March 23, 2021, committee hearing, Minister Sajjan stated, “I take any allegation, regardless of rank or position, very seriously”, “We are committed to addressing all allegations, no matter the rank and no matter the position”, and “Sexual misconduct, harassment and inappropriate behaviour are not acceptable. We must call them out for what they are: an abuse of power.”

My testimony will present a concrete example of the difference between what DND practises and what it purports in addressing misconduct.

My case is comprehensively documented. The committee clerk has over 30 documents that chronicle the systemic and aberrant manner that senior executives who are commissioned to stamp out misconduct do not.

In the pursuit of justice, I followed the prescribed process. The defence officials assigned to assure that justice prevails robbed me of my right to advocate and denied me the opportunity to confront the offender in a balanced and equal justice for all, adversarial-based legal system.

In 2016, I reported wrongdoing and misconduct when an employee I had the privilege of supervising requested that I report the harassment and human rights violations perpetrated upon her by a senior engineering manager. I reported it. He was promoted. We faced reprisal and retaliation.

Her case is now at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal awaiting adjudication on discrimination and deferential treatment due to age, gender, ethnicity and being a Muslim.

Once I reported the misconduct, I became an organizational threat. In retaliation, and to exonerate those responsible and culpable for the misconduct and human rights violations I reported, DND, in a formal departmental submission to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, secretly made me the scapegoat for the misconduct. I was made aware of DND's surreptitious actions by the woman harassed.

DND secretly making me a scapegoat was reprehensible, and I vehemently protested. On January 13, 2021, I formally submitted a complaint to Mr. Sajjan against the deputy minister, Jody Thomas, for condoning, as proper departmental conduct, DND's secret scapegoating of me.

Minister Sajjan's chief of staff acknowledged receipt of my complaint and assured me that it would be handled according to the applicable law. Jody Thomas is a Governor in Council appointee. No one from the Privy Council contacted me.

To ensure that my complaint against Jody Thomas did not drop off the radar, or more correctly wasn't institutionally ignored, I sent a February 7, 2021, registered letter containing my complaint against the deputy minister to Prime Minister Trudeau, with info copies to Katie Telford and the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart. The letter's subject is “Defence Leadership Corrupts the Harassment Resolution Process to Protect the Harasser”.

No one from the PMO or Privy Council contacted me. However, Minister Sajjan's seriousness and commitment to addressing all allegations, regardless of rank or position, against the deputy minister, a Governor in Council appointee, was summarily and arbitrarily dismissed without investigation by Mr. Kin Choi, a subordinate of the deputy minister.

Though assured that the applicable law would be followed, Mr. Choi's expedient exculpation of his boss, Jody Thomas, broke the law. Specifically, Mr. Choi violated Bill C-65's workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations. Mr. Choi is responsible for the coordination and implementation of Bill C-65 in DND. He is also DND's functional authority for harassment prevention and resolution. Mr. Choi's conduct is rife with conflict of interest and bias.

After Mr. Troy Crosby, assistant deputy minister, materiel, deemed that DND secretly making me a scapegoat to the CHRC was proper conduct, I formally complained to Minister Sajjan, because the deputy minister did not take timely action on my complaint against her subordinate, Mr. Crosby.

Mr. Choi, a peer of Mr. Crosby's, summarily and arbitrarily dismissed, without investigating, these allegations. Mr. Choi also summarily and arbitrarily dismissed my grievance against Mr. Crosby for Mr. Crosby's failure to follow procedural fairness. The director general who made the submission to the CHRC secretly making me the scapegoat reports directly to Mr. Choi.

Notwithstanding the above, the most sinister aspect of this departmental behaviour, which must not be overlooked, is that DND overtly sanctions a covert program of secretly making scapegoats to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to exonerate those responsible and culpable for harassment and human rights violations. This is appalling. It must end immediately. The CHRC and the human rights tribunal must be made aware of it.

There is a cultural problem in the defence department, but there is institutional reluctance to distinguish between the approximate and ultimate cause of this problem. From my perspective, the ultimate cause is a breakdown and failure in leadership to act in an ethical, morally appropriate, determined and deliberate manner to arrest and eliminate misconduct. Instead, they too often conduct it and condone it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I can't agree with you more.

Prior to this Parliament, I was the chair of the human resources committee, and we oversaw Bill C-65, which was on violence and harassment in the workforce. I can assure you, I'm very aware of the trepidation and challenges of coming forward, so are all of the members of this committee. A big thank you, sir, for the work that you do.

I will wrap up here by simply reminding everyone that on the 19th, we will not be having a meeting. Our next meeting will be April 21, which will be hearing from witnesses on the study of support services and veteran caregivers and families. It's our last meeting on that study.

Scot.

[Lieutenant-Colonel, Retired) Bernie Boland (As an Individual]

Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I'm Bernie Boland, a retired lieutenant-colonel who served honourably in the Canadian Armed Forces for over 30 years. For the past 12 years, I was an engineer in the public service. I retired on December 30, 2020.

I'm testifying because DND has demonstrated an inability to act in an independent judicial fashion that honours due process, defends procedural fairness and respects the rule of law.

In 2016 I reported wrongdoing and misconduct when an employee I had the privilege of supervising requested that I report her harassment and human rights violations by a senior engineering manager. As compelled by oath and the code of values and ethics, I reported it. Her case is now at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal awaiting adjudication on discrimination and deferential treatment due to age, gender, ethnicity and being a Muslim.

Once I reported, everything in the workplace changed. I faced reprisal and retaliation. I was silenced, denied due process and had my procedural fairness rights withheld. To date, external to DND, I have submitted to the Federal Court of Canada an application for judicial review of DND's grievance dismissal, given notice to the registrar of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to be a party to a tribunal hearing, and filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour on DND's breach of my Bill C-65 rights. Internal to DND, I have submitted formal complaints and grievances, all to no avail.

I also provided to the deputy minister detailed analysis of the lack of due process, procedural fairness violations, conflict of interest and decision-maker bias. Additionally, I provided to both the DM and Minister Sajjan independent analysis—the Lowry report—from a retired RCMP fraud investigator that confirmed and corroborated decision-maker bias, conflict of interest, denial of due process and violations of procedural fairness. It was ignored. However, because I reported the harassment and human rights violations of the employee I supervised, DND secretly, in a formal departmental submission to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, made me the scapegoat to exonerate those responsible and culpable. This DND submission was made without my knowledge and with no opportunity to defend myself. It was condemnation without any representation.

Once I became aware of DND's secret scapegoating submission, I formally complained because the director general, workplace management, secretly made me the scapegoat; Troy Crosby, assistant deputy minister, materiel, determined that it was proper conduct for the DG to secretly make me the scapegoat; and Jody Thomas, the DM, condoned DND's secret scapegoating of me as proper departmental conduct. Without any investigation, DND dismissed my complaints.

I also submitted a grievance and a request for an independent ethical review on the myriad conflicts of interest, bias, denial of process and withholding of procedural fairness rights. DND summarily dismissed these.

DND's justification, as stated by assistant deputy minister of human resources, civilian, Mr. Choi, is the following: “Mr. Boland speaks to not having an opportunity to defend himself. It is to note that it is the parties to the CHRC complaint (the DND and the complainant to the CHRC) who are entitled to procedural fairness rights. The DND, as the respondent to the CHRC complaint has no responsibility to gather information from all potential witnesses: this is the responsibility of the CHRC appointed investigator. The conduct is therefore not considered improper. ...the complaint pertains to a single matter and does not meet the threshold for a severe incident. It will not be investigated.

He goes on to say that “the complaint pertains to a single matter and does not meet the threshold for a severe incident” and it will not be investigated. The CHRC submission is a protected document: “Mr. Boland does not have access rights to the submission and therefore Mr. Hooey could not have reasonably known that it would cause offence or harm, nor can it be considered ‘directed at’ Mr. Boland.”

Mr. Choi's justification makes it unequivocally clear to me that DND will not act in a procedurally fair fashion. DND takes no responsibility to ensure that human rights are fulsomely and truthfully addressed in DND by DND. DND considers it proper to secretly make those who dutifully report misconduct the scapegoat for the misconduct they report.

Despite its zero tolerance policy, DND will unilaterally and arbitrarily dismiss misconduct to excuse its obligation to investigate it.

DND believes institutional secrecy absolves its wrongdoing.

Since 2016, in my effort to be heard, have due process applied and be treated in a procedurally fair fashion, I have formally engaged many, including the Prime Minister; Minister Sajjan; my member of Parliament, Pierre Poilievre; the Minister of Labour; and the ombudsman.

Despite these efforts, DND refuses to honour its commitments, and render due process and respect for the rule of law.

On January 1, 2021, Bill C-65 and workplace harassment and violence prevention regulations came into force. The deputy minister assigned Mr. Choi coordination and implementation responsibilities. Mr. Choi violated my rights, enshrined in this legislation, by denying my right to an investigation.

On March 3, 2021, on the advice of my legal counsel, I requested the Minister of Labour to restore my rights and remedy this breach. I have yet to receive any acknowledgement from the Minister of Labour.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

Thank you for that question.

The independent centre for harassment resolution is there to, first of all, be compliant with Bill C-65, which came into play in January. It's also to provide a transparent and trusted system where people who want to bring harassment complaints can do so in a safe and non-retaliatory manner, as per Justice Bastarache's recommendations in that report.

It will be externalized. It will be outside of the chain of command as far as the investigators go, who will actually make the finding of harassment or not. That will be done externally, so it will increase the trust amongst our employees in that regard.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Lieutenant-General Eyre and Lieutenant-General Allen once again for joining us today.

Yes, Mr. Eyre, I was referring to Bill C-65. I know that you're looking at workplace harassment and Bill C-77, which amends the National Defence Act and makes related changes. I gather that work will be done once the bills have been implemented. If you want to add anything, you can do so.

When I was talking about an external oversight committee, I was referring to a recommendation in Marie Deschamps' report, which dates back to 2015 and which recommended the creation of an independent body to handle reports of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.

According to a March 9, 2021, article in the Globe and Mail, the Government of Canada was looking at creating an independent body to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct, racism and discrimination. The article talked about current cases of sexual misconduct that affected various communities, including indigenous and LGBTQ+ communities, along with racialized women.

What structure is currently in place to handle reports of sexual misconduct and what's the reporting relationship between this structure and the Canadian Armed Forces?

[LGen Wayne D. Eyre]

Madam Chair, I think we're talking about Bill C-65 and Bill C-77. I can tell you right now that we're putting much effort into their implementation within the Canadian Armed Forces and DND in terms of victims' rights, workplace harassment and violence.... That all plays a part in the wider efforts to change our culture.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Okay.

You also spoke about Bill C-65 and Bill C-77 and the implementation of certain measures.

Can you reiterate what you feel is most important in this area?

[LGen Wayne D. Eyre]

We have to learn why previous approaches did not work, learn from that and incorporate those lessons into our plan going forward.

As we go forward, I see us moving forward on two streams. The first stream is that any external review that looks at our organization we have to embrace and fully support with the realization that we don't have all the answers. Then we have to look at and embrace any recommendations that come out of that, including, if necessary, an independent reporting chain to give all our members the confidence—or to restore the confidence—that their allegations will be properly looked into.

Second, and of more urgency, are the internal actions we need to take. I have talked about listening and learning. Ensuring that victim support is in place is an immediate priority. We have to respect due process for the ongoing investigations.

With regard to Op Honour in particular, I believe—and I have heard from many—that perhaps this operation has culminated and that we need to harvest what has worked from there, learn from what hasn't, and go forward with a deliberate change plan, a deliberate plan that includes not only members of the Canadian Armed Forces but also our public servant colleagues as well.

We need to align our internal organizations, because we have disparate pockets that are focused on this problem, and perhaps better alignment is required amongst the different organizations.

We have to continue to implement the provisions of Bill C-65 and then Bill C-77 and, along with that, the restorative engagement that comes with the final settlement.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

This work is extremely important. You don't fix it with one piece of legislation. You fix it with a holistic approach. This committee knows that more than any other in terms of women.

Look what we have done for supporting women in the workforce. There's pay transparency to tighten the wage gap for the four groups, women being one of the groups included. There's skills training, making significant investments so that if I want to be a welder or I want to be a framer, I'll be given that opportunity. I've sat around tables with women who have had these opportunities opened to them because of the investments this government has made. I can tell you that they have gotten a second lease on life. They are over the moon. They are able to fulfill their dreams.

There's Bill C-65, the Employment Equity Act review, the commitments to child care—

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

With respect to women, let me say this. It's not only this piece of legislation and the cost. You talk about the cost. What is the cost of inaction? What is the cost of doing nothing? Our children and our grandchildren will have to bear that, and the economy loses out. This is why our government has moved forward on so many measures: pay transparency, skills training, Bill C-65, an Employment Equity Act review, child care—

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

There are measures we're doing through pay equity that are going to have women compensated equally to men. There is pay transparency, so that the gaps that exist will be corrected. Bill C-65 was introduced to prevent violence and harassment in the workforce because we want to ensure that people are comfortable at work and they're not being targeted in any way and not feeling safe. Mental health is a part of occupational health and safety.

All these measures we are taking are going to make the workforce fairer, and we think and we hope more open and transparent. Those are some of the measures we are taking.

Is there more work to do? Absolutely, and I look forward to working with you as we take on those measures.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

I will turn to my officials to get clarification with respect to the actual number and what is going to what program. Gary, I'll refer to you in a minute for that.

With respect to employment equity, it's my strong opinion that everybody deserves a fair chance to succeed.

With respect to women in the workforce and with COVID-19, I think we saw some advances prior, but there's no question there's more work to be done with respect to the promotion of women. The initiatives the federal government has taken, like the passing of Bill C-65 to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace, the proactive pay equity legislation that I just spoke about, pay transparency, the commitment with respect to child care, and the $5 billion that Minister Ng has talked about with the women entrepreneurship program, are all going to help encourage women to be in the workforce.

I agree with you 100% in saying that we all benefit when we increase women in the workforce.

Labour

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, workplace harassment and violence are completely unacceptable. That is why we introduced and passed Bill C-65 to protect employees from harassment and violence in federal workplaces, including Parliament Hill. With regulations now in force, this legislation will come into force on January 1, 2021.

By instituting new processes and protections under the Labour Code, the regulations will support all workers, including the ones mentioned by the hon. member, to ensure that our workplaces are more healthy and more safe.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

We have to get our own house in order, first. Some provinces and territories are way ahead of the federal government with their efforts in advancing gender equality.

When we took the patchwork of policies that existed federally and put them all into one plan with Bill C-65, we said we would bring into force this law within two years of royal assent. This is the year that it will be brought into force. This committee as well as all of Parliament has an opportunity to monitor its progress.

It's important for us to have our own house in order before we join efforts with others, because that often becomes a barrier to partnerships. If you haven't stepped up to the plate like others have, they're less likely to want to join the initiative.

I can assure you that this is a priority for our government. As I said before, we cannot afford for women to be unsafe in the workplace. We cannot afford to lose a single drop of talent.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

That number, one in two, sent shock waves across the country. One in two women experiences harassment or gender-based violence at work here in Canada. In the last Parliament, the House of Commons, unanimously passed Bill C-65. That was a significant step. The international community applauded Canada for its leadership in putting forward the first plan of its kind to address and prevent gender-based and all forms of harassment in the workplace. That initiative is now being implemented. It includes training, awareness and accountability measures, and there's an opportunity with this Parliament to review its progress.

As for relationships with our federal, provincial and territorial partners, the first FPT meeting that occurred following the 2019 election was the status of women gathering. We have really positive relationships with our provincial and territorial counterparts. For the first time in the 37th or 38th year of this gathering, we came up with a three-year strategic plan based on a common set of priorities and indicators to measure our progress. All forms of gender-based violence is our number one priority with this initiative.

[Anne Kelly]

My understanding is that Bill C-65 will require employers, certainly in workplaces, to respond to reports of harassment and violence, and to give employees the choice of an informal resolution process or a neutral third party investigation, which will result in a recommendation. If the employee opts for the investigation, then the employer is obligated to implement the recommendations from the investigator.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I understand the families were quite pleased with that.

I have only a minute left.

Commissioner Kelly, I was going to ask you something else, but there have been a number of questions here about the conditions for people who are working in our prisons, and you've provided quite fulsome answers. Something you didn't touch on is that in the last Parliament we brought in Bill C-65, which means that employees in our institutions do not necessarily have to report if they are experiencing harassment and abuse. It allows them to go outside their direct superior, which was certainly the issue at Edmonton Max. I won't get into that because you won't have time to answer.

Will Bill C-65 help to solve some of the issues that were there before?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 21, 2019:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday, provided that, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division in relation to any government order requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2019, or at any time on Friday, June 21, 2019, shall be deferred;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(h) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(i) when one or several deferred recorded divisions occur on a bill at report stage, a motion, “That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass”, may be made in the same sitting;

(j) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m., except by a Minister of the Crown;

(k) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.;

(l) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, (i) all remaining motions to concur in the Votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the question deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (ii) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker will be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage;

(m) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 31st sitting day after the interruption; and

(n) Members not seeking re-election to the 43rd Parliament may be permitted to make statements, on Tuesday, June 4, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members’ Business for not more than three hours, and that, for the duration of the statements, (i) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, (ii) after three hours or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall return to Government Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30, which allows for the extension of the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30. This motion would allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment. There is a clear and recent precedent for this extension of hours to give the House more time to do its important work. It occurred last year at this time and also the year before that. As well, in the previous Parliament, the hours of the House were extended in June 2014.

Four years ago, our government came forward with an ambitious mandate that promised real change. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government has introduced legislation that has improved the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. However, we have more work to do.

So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 82 government bills, and 65 of those have received royal assent. The facts are clear. This Parliament has been productive. We have a strong record of accomplishment. It is a long list, so I will cite just a few of our accomplishments.

Bill C-2 made good on our promise to lower taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. There are nine million Canadians who have benefited from this middle-class tax cut. This tax cut has been good for Canadians and their families. It has been good for the economy and good for Canada, and its results have been better than advertised. On our side, we are proud of this legislation. We have always said that we were on the side of hard-working, middle-class Canadians, and this legislation is proof of exactly that.

As well, thanks to our budgetary legislation, low-income families with children are better off today. We introduced the biggest social policy innovation in more than a generation through the creation of the tax-free Canada child benefit. The CCB puts cash into the pockets of nine out of 10 families and has lifted nearly 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

Early in this Parliament, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada, we passed medical assistance in dying legislation, which carefully balanced the rights of those seeking medical assistance in dying while ensuring protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

Also of note, we repealed the previous government's law that allowed citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. We also restored the rights of Canadians abroad to vote in Canadian elections.

We added gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, passing Bill C-65 has helped make workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from harassment and sexual violence.

We promised to give the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer the powers, resources and independence to properly do its job. We delivered on that commitment through legislation, and the PBO now rigorously examines the country's finances in an independent and non-partisan manner.

Through Bill C-45, we ended the failed approach to cannabis by legalizing it and strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis, as part of our plan to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the pockets of organized crime. Along with that, Bill C-46 has strengthened laws to deter and punish people who drive while impaired, both from alcohol and/or drugs.

These are just some examples of the work we have accomplished on behalf of Canadians.

We are now heading into the final weeks of this session of Parliament, and there is more work to do. Four years ago, Canadians sent us here with a responsibility to work hard on their behalf, to discuss important matters of public policy, to debate legislation and to vote on that legislation.

The motion to allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House is timely, and clearly it is necessary. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make even more progress.

Passage of this motion would give all members exactly what they often ask for: more time for debate. I know every member wants to deliver for their communities and this motion will help with exactly that. We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks and we have the opportunity to add time to get more done.

I would like to highlight a few of the bills that our government will seek to advance.

I will start with Bill C-97, which would implement budget 2017. This budget implementation act is about making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy. That means helping more Canadians find an affordable home, and get training so that they have the skills necessary to obtain good, well-paying jobs. It is also about making it easier for seniors to retire with confidence.

Another important bill is Bill C-92, which would affirm and recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. The bill would require all providers of indigenous child and family services to adhere to certain principles, namely the best interests of the child, family unity and cultural continuity. This co-drafted legislation would transfer the jurisdiction of child and family services delivery to indigenous communities. This is historic legislation that is long overdue.

We have another important opportunity for us as parliamentarians, which is to pass Bill C-93, the act that deals with pardons as they relate to simple possession of cannabis. As I mentioned, last year we upheld our commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. It is time to give people who were convicted of simple possession a straightforward way to clear their names. We know it is mostly young people from the poorest of communities who have been targeted and hence are being left behind. This bill would create an expedited pardon process, with no application fee or waiting period, for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Canadians who have held criminal records in the past for simple possession of cannabis should be able to meaningfully participate in their communities, get good and stable jobs and become the contributing members of our society that they endeavour to be.

Meanwhile, there is another important bill before the House that we believe needs progress. Bill C-88 is an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This legislation only impacts the Northwest Territories, and its territorial government is asking us to act. This legislation protects Canada's natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous people and supports a strong natural resources sector. This bill will move the country ahead with a process that promotes reconciliation with indigenous peoples and creates certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.

Earlier this month, our government introduced Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. This bill would create civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would provide citizens with an independent review body to address complaints about the CBSA, just as they now have complaint mechanisms in place for the RCMP. Let me remind members that it was our government that brought forward Bill C-22 that established the national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians, which has tabled its first annual report to Parliament. We are committed to ensuring that our country's border services are worthy of the trust of Canadians, and Bill C-98 is a significant step towards strengthening that accountability.

We have taken a new approach. We, as a government, have consulted with Canadians when it comes to our legislation. We have seen committees call witnesses and suggest amendments that often times improve legislation, and we, as a government, have accepted those changes. We were able to accomplish this work because we gave the committees more resources and we encouraged Liberal members to do their work.

Likewise, currently there are two bills that have returned to the House with amendments from the Senate. I look forward to members turning their attention to these bills as well. One of those bills is Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Our goal is to make accessibility both a reality and a priority across federal jurisdictions so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can participate and be included in society as contributing members. Bill C-81 would help us to reach that goal by taking a proactive approach to getting ahead of systemic discrimination. The purpose of this bill is to make Canada barrier free, starting in areas under federal jurisdiction. This bill, if passed by Parliament, will represent the most significant legislation for the rights of persons with disabilities in over 30 years, and for once it will focus on their abilities.

The other bill we have received from the Senate is Bill C-58, which would make the first significant reforms to the Access to Information Act since it was enacted in 1982. With this bill, our government is raising the bar on openness and transparency by revitalizing access to information. The bill would give more power to the Information Commissioner and would provide for proactive disclosure of information.

There are also a number of other bills before the Senate. We have respect for the upper chamber. It is becoming less partisan thanks to the changes our Prime Minister has made to the appointment process, and we respect the work that senators do in reviewing legislation as a complementary chamber.

Already the Senate has proposed amendments to many bills, and the House has in many instances agreed with many of those changes. As we look toward the final few weeks, it is wise to give the House greater flexibility, and that is exactly why supporting this motion makes sense. This extension motion will help to provide the House with the time it needs to consider these matters.

There are now just 20 days left in the parliamentary calendar before the summer adjournment, and I would like to thank all MPs and their teams for their contributions to the House over the past four years. Members in the House have advanced legislation that has had a greater impact for the betterment of Canadians. That is why over 800,000 Canadians are better off today than they were three years ago when we took office.

We saw that with the lowering of the small business tax rate to 9%, small businesses have been able to grow through innovation and trade. We see that Canadians have created over one million jobs, the majority of which are full-time, good-paying jobs that Canadians deserve. These are jobs that were created by Canadians for Canadians.

That is why I would also like to stress that while it is necessary for us to have honest and vibrant deliberations on the motion, Canadians are looking for us all to work collaboratively and constructively in their best interests. That is exactly why extending the hours will provide the opportunity for more members to be part of the debates that represent the voices of their constituents in this place, so that we continue to advance good legislation that benefits even more Canadians.

It has been great to do the work that we have been doing, but we look forward to doing even more.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister for Women and Gender Equality]

Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair.

Boozhoo. Aaniin.

As-salaam alaikum. Ramadan kareem to my Muslim colleagues in this space and beyond.

We are on traditional territory that the Algonquin peoples have called home for generations upon generations.

This is my first time meeting with you in this room. I'm thankful to be here to speak with you about the main estimates and how they're going to allow Women and Gender Equality to better implement the mandate that it has been given.

As you know, the focus of our government on advancing gender equality is based on two premises. One, it's the right thing to do. It's the fair thing to do. Two, it's also the smart thing to do. It's the economically advantageous thing to do. When women succeed, everyone benefits.

That pillar, our gender equality pillar, has been a big driver for economic growth for us since we formed government. This plan that we've put together is working: one million jobs, the lowest poverty rate on record and the lowest unemployment rate we've had in over four decades. We have lifted out of poverty 300,000 children who are not going to bed hungry anymore. Also, we've been able to sign three trade agreements. This is all a sign that our plan is working.

I want to thank the members of this committee for your important work. When you collaborated and you worked together, you had tremendous results. As the minister responsible for this file, I tell the stories, especially around gender-based violence, of how you came together and how you made a world of difference for a lot of people. You've eased a lot of suffering, for example, with the conversations you had with Facebook around revenge porn.

When women have choices, when they have a voice, opportunity and the right skills, when they have safety, and when they have role models and social safety nets, they move mountains. Every single one of us knows women in our lives—and those women are around this table as well—who are able to do big things because of those choices, opportunities and means.

Our government has worked to apply an intersectional gendered lens throughout everything we do and every decision in cabinet. Now it's the law to apply that lens to budgets. More and more, we're seeing committees do a really good job of that. There are still some inconsistencies around the application of GBA+, but we intend to make sure that we get better.

I do want to thank my parliamentary secretary, Terry Duguid, who has been working very hard with other parliamentary secretaries to make sure that the GBA+ is something that committees apply as well.

The Canada child benefit is giving more money to single moms and helping them make ends meet. The lower taxes for the middle class and the raised taxes for the 1%, along with lower taxes for small businesses, mean that Canadians have more money in their pockets. For seniors, especially for women—I know you've done a study on this—the guaranteed income supplement and the fact that we brought the eligibility age back to 65 is lifting tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty, many of whom are women.

There's the national housing strategy, with over $50 billion now over 10 years to stabilize the housing market in communities across the country. In Peterborough, my own community, the rental vacancy rate is 1.1%. We know that women are the first to lose housing and the last to get housing.

We know that housing is a social determinant of health, but it's also a determinant of gender-based violence. To have a carveout in the gender-based violence strategy—about a third—designed specifically for women-led families is a solution that's going to make a world of difference. There are 7,000 shelter units either being renovated or built anew. That's going to mean that she has a place to turn to when she works up the courage to leave an awful situation.

If we're applying an intersectional gendered lens, talking about feminist governments and working to ensure that we bring others along with us, it's because there has been a women's movement, an equality-seeking movement, that existed long before any of us got here. It will be here long after we're gone. The sustainability of that movement is my number one priority; we know, and results show, that the most effective way to advance gender equality is by investing in them.

For the first time ever, they've received funding over five years, capacity-building funding, with over $50 million as part of the gender-based violence strategy. The point here is that they don't always have to look inward, applying for grants one year at a time. They can have some predictability and stability with five-year grants that go beyond an election cycle.

We also know there are barriers for those women who choose to enter STEM fields, or trades. We're working to remove them. We know that only 16% of Canadian entrepreneurs' businesses are majority-owned by women—16%. Surely we can do better than that in Canada. We have a strategy to double that number by 2025.

We know that care work is most often a big responsibility for women. What if that responsibility and privilege were shared with the second parent, often the father? We have new shared parental leave that allows for just that. Child care is very much in line with that. Our investment in child care means there will be at least 40,000 new child care spaces. Importantly, there are spaces, through a distinctions-based approach, for indigenous children. We have a new child care framework for indigenous kids—Métis, Inuit and first nations. That's been a smart collaboration between our governments in a nation-to-nation way.

Over half the boil water advisories have been lifted, and we know there's a direct link between women and water. We know that in indigenous cultures and in many others women are the keepers of the water. Water is sacred; water is life. To have lifted half the advisories and be on track to lift the rest of them by 2021—in the next two years—is a big step forward. What that means for those communities, too, is that they suddenly become open for economic development. It's hard to invest if there's no clean drinking water in a community, but we're changing that.

Evidence matters. Data matters, so bringing back the census, and the ability of scientists to do what they need to do.... For example, the shelter survey results from a couple of weeks ago indicated where the gaps and opportunities are. Also, the fact that Stats Canada has a centre for diversity and inclusion statistics, a one-stop shop for all the data we're working on, to create better intersectional, gendered lenses, is really important. That's something that stays long after we're gone. Data and evidence anchor the progress we have made.

The billions we are providing to support education, infrastructure, skills, housing and leadership in indigenous communities mean that we are in this era of reconciliation and that we will not be turning back. Communities have more opportunities to self-determine the paths they want to take.

These accomplishments are significant, and many of them have been happening ahead of schedule—for example, the indexation of the Canada child benefit, not once, but twice, and the lifting of people out of poverty. We are ahead of schedule, with one million jobs. Who would have thought, when we formed a government in a recession, that we'd be talking about a million jobs and three trade agreements three years later? This is happening because our government isn't alone, but is working with our partners to do this.

We know that for all the progress that's been made, more work remains, and we're committed to that work. There are some institutional challenges that we're working to address. The fact that GBA+ is now in law for gender budgeting is an important way that we're addressing some systemic barriers.

Indeed, we are taking that diversity lens to the appointments that the federal government makes, and we have instituted a new appointment process. Thousands have been appointed to really important roles in federally regulated jurisdictions. Now, 47% of those who sit around those important tables, and who make decisions, whether it's port authorities, VIA rail or other important agencies and bodies, are women. The Senate of Canada is also at parity right now, at a time when on corporate boards in Canada, only one in five seats is filled by a woman. Again, surely we can do better in Canada.

We have a gender results framework that provinces and territories have agreed to use with us—a common set of indicators to measure our progress. We have proactive pay equity legislation, Bill C-65 and Bill C-51.

Of course, come June 3, the inquiry on missing and murdered indigenous women wraps up its work.

I wanted to give you an overview. Thank you again for all the ways you've been a part of this work.

Madam Chair, I'm happy to take any questions colleagues may have.

Government Priorities

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been unequivocal in our support for labour, and we are happy to celebrate that this May Day.

There is no question that since forming government, we passed Bill C-4 to eliminate the unfair Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 that Harper passed. We amended the Canada Labour Code to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements and implement different leaves. We strengthened occupational health and safety standards. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment and violence.

We will continually stand up for labour and stand up for workers across Canada.

National Defence Act

[Yvonne Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-77 and the important changes to the National Defence Act that our government is proposing.

Bill C-77 proposes changes to the act that we feel modernize it and are long overdue. At the heart of these changes are our people and those in service to Canada.

This is the most important piece, as I see it. I come from a family of people who have had long-term service in the Canadian military. I am extremely proud not just of them and the work they have done but of all those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

My sister is now a veteran of the military and continues to work with the Department of National Defence. I also have three other family members in service for this country. I have come to understand the tremendous sacrifices they and their families have made for our country each and every day.

We owe all the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces a lot. We owe them our deep gratitude for their service to our country.

We also owe them fairness, openness and transparency within that service. This includes a military justice system that ensures that victims receive the support they need and deserve, a system that promotes a culture of leadership, respect and honour.

Canadian Armed Forces members are held to a higher standard of conduct, as we all know. Whether they are stationed in Canada or deployed around the world, we ask a lot of them each and every day. We have a responsibility to ensure that the rules that guide their conduct are transparent, equitable and fair.

Much of what is within Bill C-77 is an extension of the work our government is already doing to ensure a more victim-centred approach to justice; to build on Bill C-65, our government's legislation against workplace harassment; to strengthen truth and reconciliation with indigenous people; and to change military culture, through Operation Honour, in order to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces provides a respectful workplace of choice for every Canadian.

I would like to take a moment to expand on the importance of Operation Honour. As many members in the room know, Operation Honour aims to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have zero tolerance for sexual misconduct of any kind in our Canadian Armed Forces and in any entity within the country.

Through Operation Honour, we have introduced a new victim response centre that provides better training for the Canadian Armed Forces personnel and an easier reporting system.

I would also like to acknowledge the important work of the Sexual Misconduct Resource Centre, which recently released its annual report. We thank the centre for continuing to support Canadian Armed Forces members affected by sexual misconduct.

I am also pleased to note that the SMRC is looking at providing caseworkers to victims of inappropriate sexual behaviour to ensure they have continuous support from when they first report an incident to when their case concludes.

The work of the Sexual Misconduct Resource Centre has been exceptional. I know that victims are being well supported as a result of its efforts.

Its origins come from former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps, who recommended it in her 2015 report. As a government, we acted to put in place a sexual misconduct response centre to provide support to those affected by inappropriate sexual behaviour.

We have extended the hours so that staff at the centre are there to listen and provide support to members of the Canadian Armed Forces calling in 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no matter where they are in the world. Last October's annual report of the centre demonstrates the important work that they have done and continue to do to enhance victim support for members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I would now like to turn to the legislation at hand and to highlight how Bill C-77 will give victims a voice and change our National Defence Act in four important ways.

First, like the civilian criminal justice system, it will enshrine important rights for victims. Second, it will seek harsher penalties for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate toward gender identity or expression. Third, it will ensure that the specific circumstances of indigenous offenders are taken into account in the sentencing process. Fourth, it will reform the manner in which the chain of command administers summary trials.

Bill C-77 proposes the inclusion of a declaration of victims rights in the National Defence Act. The declaration mirrors the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which strengthens and guides how we support victims in the civilian criminal justice system.

Specifically, the bill would legislate four new victim rights within the military justice system. They are the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to restitution.

In order to ensure that victims would be able to exercise these rights, they would be entitled to the support of a victim liaison officer, should they require it. These liaison officers will be able to explain how service offences are charged, dealt with and tried under the code of service discipline. They will help victims access information to which they are entitled, and they will remain available to assist the victim throughout their interaction with the military justice system. This would ensure that victims understand each stage of the process and how they can engage meaningfully throughout the process. The support that the victim liaison officer would offer will be comprehensive. It will be fair and it will always be offered in the spirit of preserving victims' dignity.

Bill C-77 also specifically addresses issues of gender-based prejudice and hatred in military service offences and infractions. The bill proposes harsher sentences and sanctions for service offences and infractions that are motivated by bias, prejudice or hate toward gender expression or identity.

Our men and women in uniform, and those who work and live alongside them, must feel welcomed and respected at all times. The Canadian Armed Forces has zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind. This amendment will better align the military justice system with that principle.

On that note, through programs such as the positive space initiative, the defence team has been working hard to help create inclusive work environments for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. I commend them for their work on this initiative, which provides training to ambassadors in support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirited community members who work with us every day.

The next change that I would like to focus on is how we propose to update the military justice system to better reflect the realities of historic injustices inflicted upon indigenous peoples.

In the civilian criminal justice system, the Criminal Code mandates that judges must carefully consider circumstances during sentencing. Specifically, for all offenders they must consider all available sanctions. This principle is to be applied with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders.

This particular bill is one that I am proud to support. As a member who represents a region with a military base and every day sees those who serve in uniform, I really believe that this legislation is helping to modernize and bring more transparency to the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-77, along with the minister of labour's legislation, Bill C-65, would build on the government's commitment to creating workplaces free from harassment and discrimination within the federal sphere. Let there be no doubt that inappropriate behaviour of that nature is inexcusable, and we encourage members of the Canadian Forces to raise it with their supervisors or through the mechanisms that have been put in place.

When we talk about the military, and I reference boot camps, team building is really important. When we would go out and do an exercise, it would not be complete until the last person had completed that particular exercise. For example, if we were going for a jog, it might be the person at the front who would go to the back to encourage the person at the back to continue. That person would help motivate that particular individual.

When people first start in the military, there is a great deal of discussion about being there for their teammates. Having said that, there is unacceptable behaviour. When people are witnessing unacceptable behaviour, there is an obligation to report it, because we want all work environments to be harassment free.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today in support of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I want to first acknowledge the hard work that has gone into shaping this bill, including the study undertaken by members of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

I am pleased to say that due to the care and dedication to improving our military justice system by our Canadian Armed Forces members, the final bill enjoys support from all parties.

This bill was drafted with the same care for our people in mind, because as I have said before, our people are at the heart of everything we do. They make extraordinary sacrifices every single day in service to our country, and we hold them to a high standard of conduct in all they do, whether at home or abroad. They deserve a military justice system that promotes discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Through Bill C-77, we are bringing important changes to our current framework that will allow us to provide this type of support to anyone going through the military justice system.

Many members are already familiar with the proposed changes and the improvements they would make to enshrine victims rights in the system; reform the summary trial process to ensure that minor breaches of military discipline were dealt with in a non-penal, non-criminal process; seek harsher punishments for service offences and harsher sanctions for service infractions motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression; and ensure that the specific circumstances of indigenous offenders were considered when imposing a sentence.

The changes we are proposing are long overdue and necessary. We recognize that we need to continually improve our military justice system. These changes align with the mandate given to me by our Prime Minister to make the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces workplaces free from harassment and discrimination, and they follow closely our government's action outside the Canadian Armed Forces to make sure that Canada is a safe and welcoming place for all Canadians and people living in Canada.

This legislation would build on our government's commitment to the values of fairness and equality. These values are also key tenets of Bill C-65, which makes workplaces in the federal sphere and in Parliament free from harassment and discrimination. This received royal assent last October.

Bill C-77 would help Canadians prevent incidents of harassment, enable them to respond to events that do occur, and most importantly, support victims, survivors and employers.

Our government is also making strides to ensure fairness and equality for LGBTQ2 Canadians. Since our Prime Minister's formal apology to the LGBTQ2 Canadians for decades of institutional discrimination and harassment, we have taken steps to compensate those affected. Administration of a settlement agreement between the Government of Canada and current and former members of our Canadian Armed Forces is under way.

This past fall we announced a new Canada pride citation that each member of the class will be eligible to receive. This citation is an acknowledgement of historical injustices experienced by LGBTQ2 federal public servants, RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces members to commemorate their resilience, bravery and sacrifice.

Finally, this legislation would continue our government's efforts to strengthen fairness and equality for indigenous peoples living in Canada as we work with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to implement its calls to action to repair and renew this important relationship.

We should all be proud to be part of a government working to ensure fairness and equality for all Canadians. It is work that goes a long way toward making Canada a country where everyone is treated equally. It is the same dedication to fairness and equality that motivated the creation of this legislation and that continues to motivate us as we work to finalize and enshrine these amendments in law.

I would now like to talk about our proposed changes to the National Defence Act and our hopes for how they would improve our current military justice system.

One of the most important changes would be the addition of a declaration of victims rights in the National Defence Act, which would improve support for victims. This declaration would mirror the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights found in the civilian criminal justice system. It would strengthen how the Canadian Armed Forces supports victims across the military justice system. It would enshrine rights for victims of service offences and enhance the support provided to victims as they navigate the court martial process.

Through Bill C-77, we would be legislating for victims rights, which include the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to restitution. Through these expanded rights, victims would be able to access all information to which they were entitled. They would be entitled to security and privacy at all times in the military justice system. They would have the right to present a victim impact statement and to share their views about decisions that affect their rights. They would also be able to ask a court martial to consider ordering restitution for damages or losses when that value could be calculated. In addition, to ensure that victims were able to exercise these rights, they would be entitled to the support of the victims declaration of victims rights to enhance the kind of support we could offer victims through the military justice system.

These would be important changes, and I am proud to be bringing them to the House today.

The second set of changes we are proposing concerns how the military justice system handles minor breaches of military discipline. We are proposing reforms to the current summary trial process, which would create a new process called “summary hearings”. These summary hearings would make the system more efficient and would treat minor breaches of military discipline in a fair and timely manner. The new process would be non-penal and non-criminal.

Through these proposed changes, a new category of minor breaches of military discipline, called “service infractions”, would be created. These service infractions would not trigger a criminal record. This change would allow the Canadian Armed Forces to handle minor breaches of military discipline in a fair, simpler and faster manner, which is extremely important. It would demonstrate trust and confidence in our military leaders, who could address minor breaches of discipline at the base, wing or unit level, and it would help maintain operational readiness and preserve morale across the Canadian Armed Forces.

Through Bill C-77, we would also work to address the issue of gender-based prejudice and hatred in the Canadian Armed Forces. The bill would work similarly to the Criminal Code. It proposes harsher sentences for service offences and harsher sanctions for service infractions motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender expression or identity.

The Canadian Armed Forces has zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind, and we are committed to eliminating these types of biases in all our military ranks. We have a responsibility to make sure that all Canadian Armed Forces members feel welcome and accepted. We know that we have not alway supported our LGBTQ2 members as well as they have deserved. This amendment reflects this commitment and would help the forces continue to make progress in promoting inclusivity.

We have made a significant amendment to mirror the Criminal Code provision relating to the sentencing of indigenous offenders. For indigenous people found guilty of service offences, the personal history and circumstances of indigenous offenders would be considered during sentencing. All available punishments deemed appropriate given the harm done would be considered, with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders. This sentencing principle also acknowledges historic wrongs that still negatively affect indigenous peoples living in Canada today.

As our Prime Minister has said on many occasions, no relationship is more important to our government and to Canada than the one we have with indigenous people.

Indigenous women and men play an important role in the Canadian Armed Forces. There are nearly 2,500 indigenous members in the regular and reserve forces, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are well supported throughout their entire military careers.

These proposed changes to the National Defence Act are key to supporting our women and men in uniform. Canadian Armed Forces members need and deserve a military justice system that is transparent, fair and equitable, and a military justice system that helps keep the Canadian Armed Forces fair and inclusive for all Canadians and people living in Canada.

Our people are at the heart of everything we do. They are the reason we work hard to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces is welcoming and inclusive for all of our members, including women. The reason we introduced Operation Honour was to eliminate sexual misconduct from the Canadian Armed Forces and to change military culture to ensure it is a respectful workplace of choice for all people living in Canada.

The support provided to Canadian Armed Forces members through initiatives like these cannot be overstated. Through Bill C-77, we are making sure that military justice reflects Canadian values, eliminates discrimination and ensures victims have a voice throughout the legal process.

The members of the Standing Committee on National Defence heard from a variety of witnesses in order to get a full picture of how the passing of the bill would affect our members, including the judge advocate general of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Barreau du Québec and senior military leadership, as well as former members of the forces and their families.

Again, I want to thank all those who worked hard to move the bill forward. Their hard work has led to several amendments, some of which have been incorporated and will make the bill stronger.

I also want to specifically recognize the important conversations surrounding mental health and self-harm that came up during the recent study at the Standing Committee on National Defence. During its study of the bill, members of the committee raised concerns about a provision in the National Defence Act that makes it a service offence for military members to wilfully injure themselves with the intent to render themselves unfit for service.

We take the well-being of our women and men in uniform very seriously. That is why we are investing $17.5 million in a centre of excellence focused on the prevention, assessment and treatment of PTSD and related mental health conditions for military members and veterans. That is why we have over 400 full-time mental health workers and we intend to hire more. That is why we included the total health and wellness strategy in our defence policy. That is why we launched the joint suicide prevention strategy with Veterans Affairs last year.

Our government recognizes that military service places unique demands on our brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. As such, I have invited the committee to undertake a study on mental health and self-harm in the Canadian Armed Forces, which will allow us to thoughtfully and thoroughly consider these issues. I look forward to working with committee members to develop a better understanding of these issues and to come up with solutions that will benefit all of our women and men in uniform.

It is a pleasure to see this proposed legislation progress to third reading and to stand in the House today in support of all members of our Canadian Armed Forces. They deserve a military justice system that maintains discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian Armed Forces while respecting our Canadian values. They deserve a military justice system that provides fair and equal treatment, regardless of race, orientation or gender.

A lot of discussion has occurred and hopefully we can quickly pass the bill. Once again, I want to thank all members for their input into the bill.

Canada Labour Code

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak in this new House of Commons. As the NDP's labour critic, I am always pleased to talk about workers. Today, I will be speaking to Bill C-420, which was introduced by the member for Mirabel.

In any discussion on the Canada Labour Code, we cannot forget to talk about the health and safety of federally regulated workers, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. However, one important aspect has been ignored, and since I returned to the House of Commons, I have been quite worried and upset. No one is talking about protecting good jobs.

Bill C-420 talks about health and safety, but this aspect is part of protecting good jobs. There are federal employees in my riding of Jonquière. We have been home to a taxation data centre since 1983. More than 1,000 workers provide good service to all Canadians. In fact, there is even a taxation services office in Chicoutimi. These are good jobs, and the Bloc Québécois needs to remember that.

I have not seen anything about protecting these good jobs over the past few days in the House of Commons or on social media. This aspect does not seem to be taken into consideration. This is important to a region like mine, to Jonquière. One thousand jobs represents 1,000 families. This is the equivalent of thousands of jobs in Montreal, for example.

Let us return to Bill C-420, which is comprised of three bills introduced by the NDP in this parliamentary session. First, there is Bill C-234, which I introduced and deals with the issue of scabs. There is always a double standard in negotiations. I do not like to say this but, unfortunately, the parties are not on an equal footing in negotiations. I will speak about this more later on in my speech.

The second part of the bill is based on Bill C-345 , introduced by my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code for pregnant or nursing employees. The third part reflects a bill that was introduced by Thomas Mulcair, but which unfortunately was never debated in the House of Commons. It called for the application to Quebec companies of the provisions in the Official Languages Act with regard to Quebec's particular linguistic characteristics. I will get back to this point in a few moments.

Let us come back to the first part of the bill on anti-strikebreaker legislation. It is time to reform the Canada Labour Code to have it reflect the reality of new technologies, automation, and telework. Why not take the opportunity to include these bills in the modernization of the Canada Labour Code, but also to protect workers during negotiations?

In November, special legislation was imposed on postal workers. Both parties cannot negotiate as equals if the company is able to hire replacement workers every time. The Canada Labour Code does not include any standard prohibiting the use of strikebreakers. It is time to remedy that problem. Labour legislation in both Quebec and British Columbia includes standards on this, so could we not include some in the Canada Labour Code? There is a lot of talk about consultation, but it is important to consult the employers, the government and workers on a set of standards. These are people who wake up every morning and perform miracles across the board.

Why not take care of them and amend the Canada Labour Code?

I could go on and on about this. However, the bill is divided into three parts, and I really want to talk about protections for pregnant or nursing workers.

I was working as a letter carrier when I was pregnant, and there were no protections. I had to work with my mail bag on my back and climb several stories. That was part of my job. However, pregnant women who do high-risk work need measures to lighten their workload, to keep them and their unborn babies safe. It can be really hard. It is normal to have a valid medical certificate. It is also normal for the doctor and employer to work together to come up with ways to ensure the safety of mother and baby. However, the Canada Labour Code does not allow for that.

I think there is room for improvement, like Quebec's preventive withdrawal. The Minister of Labour should make sure that mothers who wish to nurse and return to work are able to do so, as is the case in Quebec. Of course, working conditions must be taken into account to ensure that women are safe and able to nurse.

There is a real push to make it easier for women to access the workforce. Women should never be penalized for deciding to have children. Unfortunately, that is often what happens.

A number of similar bills have been introduced in the House of Commons. When my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue introduced hers, it was summarily rejected. Now we have an opportunity to make amendments, and I hope that, this time, the government will show some consideration for pregnant and nursing women and vote in favour of Bill C-420. At this point, the Canada Labour Code is in dire need of an update.

I would like to spend the rest of my time talking about the part that deals with language of work in Quebec.

Quebec has two different language of work regimes. Each applies to different categories of organizations and workers. One is the Official Languages Act, which governs all federal institutions, that is, all Government of Canada and parliamentary institutions. The other is Quebec's Charter of the French Language, the Quebec charter, which applies to all provincially regulated workplaces. Quebec has about 135,000 federally regulated employees in roughly 760 private organizations.

Often certain companies will send documents in English only. Of course, some employees in Quebec businesses speak English. However, it is not right that they are receiving the documents in English only. Quebec workers speak French and their language is French, so they should be receiving the information in French and being served in French. We need to pay special attention to that. I believe that the Canada Labour Code could include requirements and protect francophone workers in Quebec who fall under federal jurisdiction.

As I mentioned several times, the Canada Labour Code is due for a major reform. There have been some bills, including Bill C-65, that have made amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-420 makes further amendments. I hope that the government will consider a comprehensive reform and modernization of the Canada Labour Code.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-86, budget implementation act, 2018, no. 2, more specifically to modernizing federal labour standards as well as the wage earner protection program.

The Government of Canada has a mandate to modernize labour standards and adapt them to today's reality. Bill C-86 is the first step in making this modernization a reality.

I want to begin by providing a bit of context. Part III of the Canada Labour Code establishes basic working conditions in the federally-regulated private sector, such as working hours, minimum wage, statutory leave, annual leave, and various other types of leave.

They would also create a level playing field for employers by requiring all of them to meet these minimum entitlements. Many employers already go above and beyond what is in the code, but for some workers, these standards are the only protections they have.

Unfortunately, these things have remained largely unchanged since the 1960s when most Canadians had steady jobs with regular nine to five hours.

Today, many Canadians are struggling to support their families in part-time, temporary and low-wage jobs. They may work several jobs to make ends meet, face unpredictable hours and lack benefits and access to certain entitlements.

The government understands that the nature of work is changing. That is why we held extensive consultations that highlighted the need for updated federal labour standards. That is what we are doing with budget implementation act no. 2.

Our consultations made it clear that there were a number of complex issues related to federal labour standards and the changing nature of work that required more in-depth review and discussions. A modern set of federal labour standards would better protect our workers and help set the stage for good-quality jobs.

A group of experts, soon to be announced, will be looking at these issues.

Let us talk about some of the changes being introduced through Bill C-86:

Subdivision A of Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,

(a) provide five days of paid leave for victims of family violence, a personal leave of five days with three paid days, an unpaid leave for court or jury duty and a fourth week of annual vacation with pay for employees who have completed at least 10 consecutive years of employment;

(b) eliminate minimum length of service requirements for leaves and general holiday pay and reduce the length of service requirement for three weeks of vacation with pay;

(c) prohibit differences in rate of wages based on the employment status of employees;

Many Canadians are victims of domestic violence. It takes so much courage and determination to make that decision to leave a violent situation. These individuals experience extreme stress and vulnerability. Sometimes, they just cannot go to work for a number of days, and the trouble is, they do not know what type of leave they can use to justify their absence.

This five-day period of leave will help more Canadians get out of violent situations without the risk of losing their job.

By introducing equal treatment protections, these amendments would also ensure that employees in precarious work are paid and treated fairly, and have access to the same entitlements as their full-time counterparts. As well, they would ensure that employees receive sufficient notice and compensation when their jobs are terminated, to help protect their financial security. However, change of this magnitude does not happen overnight.

That is why up to approximately $51 million over five years starting in 2019-20, and up to about $12 million ongoing will be allocated to support the implementation and enforcement of the labour standards amendments, including education and awareness, training and increased resources for proactive enforcement and timely resolution of complaints.

In addition to these changes to the code, we are also enhancing the wage earner protection program to provide more support for Canadians during difficult times when their employer is insolvent and they are owed wages. The wage earner protection program is a Government of Canada program that provides financial support for workers who are owed eligible wages when their employer files for bankruptcy or becomes subject to receivership. In short, the WEPP is there to help workers when they need it the most.

Budget 2018 announced that the government would propose legislative amendments to increase the maximum payments under the WEPP and make eligibility more equitable. As such, our government is proposing to increase the maximum payment under the WEPP from an amount equal to four weeks of maximum insurable employment insurance earnings to an amount equal to seven weeks. For 2018, this would amount to an increase of up to $3,000.

I think the members of the House would agree that this increased support is a welcome change for Canadian workers, and I am glad to say that the increase in the maximum payment would come into force on royal assent and would apply in respect of bankruptcies or receiverships that occurred on or after February 27, 2018.

Changes would also be made to program eligibility more equitable so that workers who are owed wages, vacation, severance, or termination pay when their employer files for bankruptcy or enters receivership are better supported during a difficult time.

The changes proposed today are part of our plan to modernize federal labour standards as part of Bill C-86. We are also introducing historic proactive pay equity legislation. This legislation would ensure that women and men in federally regulated industries receive equal pay for work of equal value.

We have already introduced in the Canada Labour Code the right to request flexible work arrangements, new leaves and new protections for unpaid interns. More recently, we passed Bill C-65, which addresses workplace harassment and violence. We are bringing in change that Canadians have been asking for.

We spent nearly a year consulting with Canadians, stakeholders and experts to get their perspectives on what a robust and modern set of federal leader standards should look now. Now we are taking action. We are ushering in modern and robust standards that will benefit both workers and employers.

With modern labour standards that support good-quality jobs, employees can thrive and achieve a better balance between the demands of their personal lives and the operational requirements of their jobs, which can lead to a greater sense of well-being. By the same token, they can help employers recruit and retain employees, which can lead to an increase in productivity. Employees who come to work feeling supported by their employers are able to do their best work and to innovate, which can create a better working environment and lead to long-term gains for employers.

It is a win-win for everyone.

I request the support of the House to get rid of these 1960s-era provisions that are well past their best before date. We must update our labour standards to reflect the equality and quality of Canadian jobs across the country.

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will complete my response to the member about the very compelling story she told about a particular worker who had been injured, had returned to work and who felt harassed to do more than her return-to-work plan indicated she was capable of doing.

I will point out that Bill C-65 was passed thanks to all, very supportive, members of the House, who agreed that workplaces should be free of harassment and violence. All workers will now be protected by the new legislation this government has introduced. In fact, now when people are harassed, regardless of the workplace in which they find themselves, if they are in a federally regulated workplace, they will have measures to protect them and support them as they move through processes for which they may not have had support previously.

In terms of the—

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the member opposite realizes that we have a high degree of respect for organized labour and, in fact, such a degree of respect that the first piece of legislation we introduced and passed was Bill C-4, which restored the rights of organized labour to collectively bargain and organize. It repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, two very harmful pieces of legislation that the Conservatives had rammed through the House in an effort to diminish the ability of organized labour to grow its movement, to work, as the member pointed out, on ensuring that there is decent work for people all across the country.

We also ratified ILO Convention 98, which guarantees the right to organize and collectively bargain. We have introduced legislation that we worked on with unions which unions have been calling for, for decades. These are things like pay equity, federally regulated proactive pay equity, something that unions have been calling for, including the union involved in this dispute, flexible work arrangements, and protection of federally regulated workers from violence or harassment in the workplace. In this respect, I would refer to Bill C-65, which recently passed. We have introduced updates to the Canada Labour Code to modernize it and protect the most vulnerable in the workplace, again in partnership with organized labour. The list goes on in terms of the work we have done in partnership with unions, because we recognize the important role they play in establishing a standard that often protects the most vulnerable and people who are not unionized in this country.

I will also speak to the second part of the member's question. The member asked what we have done to ensure we could work with the parties to help them arrive at a collective agreement. From my perspective, we have done everything we can to support the parties to get there themselves. For example, over a year ago, both parties agreed to work with a mediator, so we appointed the federal mediation service early on in their talks to help them have productive talks and work through some of the substantial issues that both the union and the corporation were facing. The mediators worked with the parties for well over a year. When those talks broke down, they asked—

An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services

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

Mr. Speaker, some people have started their speeches by saying they are pleased to join in the debate. Make no mistake that it is difficult. The NDP likes to characterize it as something less than that, but members should be assured that this is an action this government has not undertaken lightly. This has been quite some time in the making.

Since coming to government after the October 2015 election, Canadians have seen, and certainly organized labour has seen, that we go about our business quite differently than the previous Conservative government did. We take a different approach to how we work with organized labour. Having been here during that 10-year period, it was nothing short of an attack on organized labour. From the outset, it was obvious that Stephen Harper had organized labour in his crosshairs and was willing to do what he had to do in order to throw a wrench into organized labour in this country.

We saw egregious bills like Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, bills which were purposeful in trying to handcuff unions in this country from being successful and from giving them any opportunity to grow and represent Canadian workers. It is unfortunate, because when we look at organized labour, we can certainly say that nobody has helped grow the middle class more than union leadership in this country, which fights for fair wages, fair benefit packages, overtime benefits and health and safety issues. It has been organized labour that has led those fights over the years. We, as Canadians, enjoy many of the benefits of those efforts.

When we became government, one of our first pieces of legislation was Bill C-4, which was legislation that led to overturning the egregious bills I just referenced, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We were trying to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations. We were trying to restore a tripartite approach to developing labour laws in this country, where we have workers, employers and the government sitting down and crafting labour laws that protect us all and benefit us all.

We saw that thrown out of balance. We saw the attempt to change the Canada Labour Code through backdoor initiatives. Rather than using a tripartite approach, we saw it being changed by private members' legislation. We saw how much benefit it brought the Conservatives in the last election. Any organized labour, any rank and file member, in this country knew two numbers. They knew the number 377 and they knew the number 525, because both those bills were earmarked for organized labour.

We strengthened occupational health and safety standards in this country, because we believe every worker in this country has the right to arrive home safe to be with their families. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment and violence. I try to give credit where credit is due, and I must say that both the Conservatives and the NDP were very helpful and supportive of this legislation. We have good legislation, one which has been a long time in the making and a long time coming, but certainly both opposition parties were supportive of it.

We ratified ILO Convention 98 to ensure the rights to organize and to enter into collective bargaining. That convention had been advocated for for over 40 years, and it was our minister who was able to get that ratified at the ILO, something which we are very proud of as a government.

In budget implementation act No. 2, we brought forward legislation that will modernize labour standards to reflect today's workplaces. This is something from which many in organized labour will not benefit as it is for the many unorganized workspaces where shop floors are not unionized. It is for people in precarious work who are trying to knit together two or three part-time jobs in order to make a living and pay the bills. These are the most vulnerable workers in this country.

The modernization of labour standards in this country is going to be of help to all of these workers. This helps make sure that contracts are not flipped and that benefits are not lost when contracts are changed so that if there is a seniority list and certain people have worked for the company for seven years, they are able to maintain the benefits they worked for and earned over seven years and not lose those benefits in any way. We are very pleased to be able to move forward on that.

We have introduced pay equity legislation to ensure fairness. This makes sure that people and women in this country get equal pay for fair and equal work. We have also doubled the benefits in the wage earner protection program.

These are all positive initiatives we have embarked on and undertaken in this government.

The banning of the domestic use and the import and export of asbestos is very important. This is something that the CLC, Unifor, Canada's Building Trades Unions and many others in organized labour have been fighting to get for years. We are working with organized labour and employers as well, taking a tripartite approach to making sure we get right the banning and abolition of asbestos.

We as a government are committed to free, collective bargaining, and we believe that a negotiated agreement is always the best solution in any industrial dispute. That is why we refrained for so long before we got involved in this particular dispute.

This dispute has gone on for a year. We were engaged right from the start, appointing a mediator to let both sides share their grievances and find a way to come to some kind of agreement. A mediator was involved for a year. As the strike vote was taken and as the rotating strike began five weeks ago, we even appointed a second mediator and then a special mediator.

These mediators were selected from a list. We provided a list, and both sides were able to weigh in on who the mediator should be so as to build trust in the mediation process and in the mediator himself. The mediator was agreed upon.

The minister was very clear yesterday. She has worked tirelessly, as has her staff and the department. They have done everything possible to assist the parties to reach an end to this dispute. Despite their efforts, CUPW and Canada Post just have not been able to get to an agreement. Therefore, it is with great reluctance that we have been left with no other option but to introduce back-to-work legislation to get our postal service back functioning at full capacity.

It is important to understand that we knew as the process evolved that it was probably going to land here because both sides were very entrenched on a couple of different aspects of the negotiation. It is important that Canadians and Canadian businesses who rely on Canada Post and its crucial infrastructure are able to do their business. We know that 70% of online purchases are delivered by Canada Post. We know that Canadians rely on it as a service and that it is critical to many Canadian businesses.

In my own riding I have a small company called Galloping Cows, an exceptional company owned by Ron and Joanne Schmidt. They make pepper jellies and chutneys. They are very busy at this time of the year. We have many people from my riding and Atlantic Canada whose children have moved away and are living elsewhere, some in Fort McMurray. Thus, the packages to Fort McMurray from Port Hood are always a big part of the business that Galloping Cows does each year, which, certainly from Remembrance Day to Christmas, could make or break this young business. They have really felt the impact. It is not just that orders have not been sent, but also the fear of those who have sent parcels already. That is a big part of it, the threat of not getting the parcels to people in time for Christmas.

Throughout these negotiations, the Government of Canada has been proactive and tireless in its attempts to have the parties reach an agreement. The minister has discussed this at length. Federal conciliation officers and mediators have been assisting the parties throughout their negotiations. We know that there have been a lot of side conversations with people. Beyond the actual negotiators, many people have wanted this to be resolved and have offered their input to try to find resolution to this. We appreciate their efforts.

However, when bargaining reached an impasse, we appointed a special mediator to bring a fresh set of eyes to the table. It is always of benefit when we can take some issues and look at them with a little bit of a different perspective.

The negotiations stalled again, so we offered voluntary arbitration. That was our suggestion. However, our government's offer of voluntary arbitration was declined. Thus, we have tried pretty much every club in the bag.

We also appointed a special mediator this week, in the hope of getting a deal. We have strongly encouraged the parties to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion. We believe that a negotiated agreement is always the best solution.

No member of our government wants to be dealing with back-to-work legislation, but there is no end in sight and that is why we find ourselves in this situation. Canadians are feeling the effects of this dispute and it would be irresponsible for us not to act in the interests of all Canadians.

As I said initially, I can contrast our government's approach to organized labour to that of past Conservative governments. We can also look at the back-to-work legislation by the Conservatives in 2011. We know that after two weeks of rotating strikes, former prime minister Harper imposed back-to-work legislation on Canada Post and the postal workers of CUPW. It was interesting because we know that the minister at the time appointed an arbitrator herself, which is a little different from what we have done. We have appointed a mediator-arbitrator where mediation will be first and foremost.

That mediation I know was mentioned by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He wanted me to remind him of the guiding principles, because he had talked about the health and safety issues.

I will quote subclause 11(3) of the legislation, which states:

In rendering a decision or selecting a final offer under paragraph (1)(b), the mediator-arbitrator is to be guided by the need

(a) to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected;

(b) to ensure that the employees receive equal pay for work of equal value;

Those are the guiding principles, which are vastly different from the guiding principles of the legislation put forward by the Conservatives back in 2011. We know they worked against unions. We know that its legislation was very heavily weighted against unions.

That is certainly not the case with this legislation. We have proven to be a party that supports unions and workers, and that believes in the collective bargaining process. This is a last resort and not something that our government takes lightly.

When a strike or lockout impacts only the two parties involved, the government will help when asked and will not intervene. However, when it affects Canadians and Canadian businesses and all available avenues have been exhausted, the government has a responsibility to intervene. That is why we are bringing forward this legislation to require Canada Post workers to return to work.

In closing, Canadians need to know that the government has done and continues to do everything in its power to help the parties. In any industrial dispute, we are willing to help the parties resolve their differences without a work stoppage. A work stoppage helps no one, neither the workers and their lost wages, nor the communities and others impacted by the postal services that businesses use.

This legislation is no Harper-era legislation. We are not forcing specific conditions on the union. We just need to get to an agreement. If we had any hope at this point that the differences between CUPW and Canada Post were close to a resolution, we would not be tabling this legislation. However, after five weeks of rotating strikes, we are forced to say that it is time to act. The government has been working with CUPW and Canada Post for the last year and has done everything possible to prevent this dispute. Let us get back to work, get the postal service functioning at maximum efficiency and get the parties to a deal.

Canada Post

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

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague talks about progressive governments, I think he wants me to share with him just what we have done for labour.

We have repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We have amended the Canada Labour Code and given federally regulated employees the right to flexible work. We have strengthened occupational health and safety standards and passed Bill C-65. We have ratified the ILO. We have banned asbestos, both domestic and the international trade of asbestos.

I think that is pretty progressive.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the question from the member opposite. It allows me to reiterate the work we have done in partnership with organized labour to strengthen workplaces and to provide decent work in this country for the most vulnerable workers.

There is no question that our government has made huge strides to actually protect workers in Canadian workplaces. He is right. Since forming government, we have repealed extremely harmful legislation that made it much harder for unions to organize and collectively bargain. We amended the Canada Labour Code to provide additional rights to flexibility for workers and to implement different leaves. We strengthened occupational and health and safety standards for workers so that they would have safe workplaces, something unions have fought for for a very long time. We passed Bill C-65 to protect workers from harassment, sexual violence and violence of all kinds. We ratified ILO Convention 98, which protects the right of workers to collectively organize and bargain.

In Bill C-86, we would modernize labour standards, which would, again, provide basic standards for the most vulnerable, and dignified work in workplaces that oftentimes vulnerable workers struggle in. We are introducing pay equity legislation, which would provide for mandatory assessments of work in federally regulated workplaces and make sure that women receive pay for work of equal value. We have almost doubled the benefits through the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, something unions have talked consistently about needing for those vulnerable workers. Finally, and I do not think it is a small thing, we have taken steps to ban asbestos in our workplaces, something organized labour again has fought for.

We have worked closely with organized labour. We will continue to work closely with organized labour. I am proud of the record of this government.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member opposite wants to talk about the work we have been doing with labour and the support for workers in our country, because in fact there is no question that our government has taken the well-being of workers very seriously.

First, we repealed Bill C-525 and C-377. We passed Bill C-4, which restored fair and balanced labour relations in the country. It made it easier for organized labour to recruit new members and grow their movements. We amended the Canada Labour Code to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements and implement different leaves. We strengthened occupational health and safety standards. We passed Bill C-65, which provides federally regulated employees with protection against workplace violence. We ratified ILO convention 98 to ensure the right to organize and to collective bargaining.

Through Bill C-86, we are modernizing labour standards, largely informed by the conversations we have had with organized labour about the most vulnerable workers in our workplaces and the protections they need in a modern Canada Labour Code.

We introduced pay equity legislation. Again, it was appealed for by labour for many years before we formed government. We worked with them to make sure we could listen to those concerns and address something that is fundamentally a right: equal pay for work of equal value. We have almost doubled the benefits from the wage earner protection program.

I could go on. Our government profoundly believes in the rights of workers, especially the most vulnerable workers in our workplaces, and we have worked very well with organized labour to make sure we get those details right.

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the legislation is to support both parties in reaching an amicable decision, which is better for them both. That is why we made amendments to the law, so it enables both sides to reach an agreement.

We want to use the legislation in the best way, which we have already framed. With our repeal of Bills C-525 and C-377, we amended the Canada Labour Code to make better changes, to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements and the implementation of different leaves. We strengthened the occupational health and safety standards and passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment.

These changes to the regulations were considered at the time the parties were brought to the negotiating table. They were given all the opportunities.

[Kamal Khera]

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, I have received many calls, including during our constituency week. I have met with many postal workers. I have also met with businesses, individuals and constituents who have been impacted by the strike. As members know, our government has always supported union workers. There is no question that our government has made huge strides with organized labour and Canadian workers.

Since forming government, we have repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 to restore fair and balanced labour relations. We amended the Canada Labour Code to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements, and have implemented different leaves. We strengthened occupational health and safety standards. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment and violence. In Bill C-86, we are modernizing labour standards to reflect today's workplaces. We are introducing pay equity legislation to ensure fairness. We are almost doubling the benefits of the wage earner protection program.

We have always had the back of labour unions. We have always stood with them. We will continue to stand beside them and support them.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague on the other side that since forming government, we have been pretty busy. I am proud to have worked personally on repealing Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 to restore fair and balanced labour relations. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from harassment and workplace violence. In Bill C-86, we are modernizing labour standards to reflect today's workplace. We are introducing pay equity legislation to ensure fairness.

It is quite clear that the Liberals cherish the relationship that we have with our labour organizations. It is important we continue to work with them to find better ways to execute what needs to happen.

In this case, as a government, there has to be a time where action has to happen. We are still hopeful that before this legislation is posted, they can come to a conclusion.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that error.

As I said, we have worked really hard to restore fairness and balance to the labour landscape in Canada. One of the first pieces of legislation we introduced was Bill C-4, which repealed two private members' bills that were intentionally meant to undermine the rights of unions in the country. One bill imposed excessive reporting requirements on unions. The second bill made it harder for workers to unionize. This was important to us. We understand that organized labour support these good middle-class jobs that we talk about so often in this place.

In fact, we have taken other action, prompted by the union movement. We introduced modern labour standards as recently as last month. These are going to work in direct opposition to other Conservative governments that are repealing the rights of workers. We introduced pay equity to ensure women would have an opportunity to receive equal pay for work of equal value. We were successful in passing and receiving royal assent on Bill C-65, legislation on which we worked closely with organized labour, to ensure people were free from harassment and sexual violence in the workplace.

We will continue to work with organized labour to ensure that workers across the country can work for companies and organizations in which they are respected and have decent work.

We have not intervened early because we believe in the collective bargaining process. We have worked with the parties during this labour disruption to assist them in getting a deal with every tool we have. However, we also have a responsibility to all Canadians and to the businesses that drive our economy. When the consequences of a work stoppage become so great that they begin to result in serious or lasting harm, we must act. When a strike or lockout affects thousands, or even millions of people, the government must intervene.

The Canada Labour Code gives the parties in a dispute the right to a strike or lockout and back-to-work legislation should be used as a last resort. We will continue to support the parties through every means possible. As I have said, we still believe a deal is possible.

Canadians can be assured that our government has done everything in its power to help the two parties reach an agreement. We believe in the collective bargaining process. We believe in fair and balanced labour relations. We will continue our work with organized labour to support decent work and middle-class jobs in the country.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

The amendment states:

Officers and employees must be provided with appropriate training in matters related to accessibility.

I think this is a recurring theme. Even when this committee studied Bill C-65, we saw the importance of training. It's part of that education component. We should amend this clause so that all officers and employees receive training on accessibility. Even though it seems redundant, and a cliché, even, it's important to make sure we don't make any presumptions or assumptions that people have all the education they need. It's about being able to provide that extra top-up.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 33 agreed to)

Royal Assent

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

October 25th, 2018

The Honourable

The Speaker of the House of Commons

Ottawa

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Ms. Assunta Di Lorenzo, Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 25th day of October, 2018, at 3:51 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Marie-Geneviève Mounier

Associate Secretary to the Governor General

The bills assented to on Thursday, October 25, 2018, were Bill C-65, 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 and Bill C-79, an act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Davenport, Lib.]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for being here. I'm glad that we finally have Bill C-77 on the table.

I was very much impacted—and I'm sure many across this country were—by the Deschamps report that talked about the rampant sexual abuse within the Canadian Armed Forces. I know that we have Operation Honour in place. I know that we have Bill C-65. I know that this bill will also be part of helping to address some of the findings in that report.

Could you outline to me how Bill C-77 will help female victims of sexual assault? What improvements in here actually help female victims of sexual assault?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I can assure you there is no conspiracy here.

Members of the Standing Committee on National Defence, distinguished colleagues, it's great to be here alongside the Judge Advocate General to discuss Bill C-77 and the important changes we are proposing to the National Defence Act. I look forward to answering your questions at the end of my remarks, as always.

As you know, Bill C-77 proposed a number of changes in the National Defence Act and at the heart of these changes it's about our people, the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who make the great sacrifices every single day in service to our great country. This includes the military justice system that ensures that victims receive the support they need and deserve and a system that promotes a culture of leadership, respect and honour.

The Canadian Armed Forces members are held to a high standard of conduct and they're expected to uphold and reflect Canadian values in everything that they do. Whether stationed in Canada or deployed around the world, we ask a lot of them every single day, so we have a responsibility to ensure that the rules that guide their conduct are transparent, equitable and fair. These rules must reflect the current times and must be aligned with the Canadian values and those of the Canada civilian criminal justice system.

Much of what is within Bill C-77 is an extension of work that our government is already doing to ensure that a more victim-centred approach to justice; to build on Bill C-65, our government's legislative against workplace harassment; to strengthen truth and reconciliation with indigenous peoples; and to change military culture through Operation Honour in order to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces is a respectful workplace of choice for every Canadian.

I'd like to take a moment to expand on the importance of Operation Honour. As many of you know in this room, Operation Honour aims to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Both I and the chief of defence staff have been very clear that we have a zero tolerance for sexual misconduct of any kind in our Canadian Armed Forces.

Through Operation Honour, we have introduced a new victim response centre, better training for the Canadian Armed Forces personnel, and easier reporting. I would also like to note that the Canadian Armed Forces Provost Marshal recently released the result of a comprehensive review of previously unfounded sexual assault cases. Of the 179 cases examined, 23 cases have been reopened and identified for further investigation, and we commend the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the Provost Marshal for their work in ensuring victims are heard.

I would also like to acknowledge the important work of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, which recently released its annual report. We thank the SMRC for continuing to support Canadian Armed Forces members affected by sexual misconduct. I am also pleased to note that the SMRC is looking at providing case workers to victims of inappropriate sexual behaviour to ensure they have continuous support from when they first report an incident to when their case concludes.

The work of the SMRC has been exceptional, and I know that the victims are being well supported as a result of their efforts.

I would now like to turn to the legislation at hand and highlight Bill C-77 , which will give victims a voice and change our National Defence Act in four important ways.

First, like the civilian criminal justice system, it will enshrine important rights for victims.

Second, it will seek harsher penalties for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.

Third, it will ensure that the specific circumstances of indigenous offenders are taken into account in the sentencing process.

Fourth, it will reform the manner in which the chain of command administers summary trials.

Bill C-77 proposes the inclusion of the declaration of victims rights in the National Defence Act. This declaration mirrors the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which strengthens and guides how we support victims in the civilian criminal justice system.

Specifically, the bill would legislate four new victims' rights within the military justice system. They are: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation, and the right to restitution.

In order to ensure victims are able to exercise these rights, they will be entitled to the support of a victim liaison officer, should they request it. These liaison officers will be able to explain how service offences are charged, dealt with, and tried under the Code of Service Discipline.

They liaison officers will help victims access information to which they are entitled, and they will remain available to assist victims throughout their interaction with the military justice system. This ensures victims understand each stage of the process and how they can engage meaningfully throughout. The support they offer will be comprehensive and fair, and it will always be offered in the spirit of preserving victims' dignity.

Bill C-77 also specifically addresses issues of gender-based prejudice and hatred in military service offences and infractions. The bill proposes harsher sentences and sanctions for service offences and infractions motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the gender expression of identity. Our women and men in uniform, and those who work and live alongside them, must feel welcomed and respected at all times. The Canadian Armed Forces has zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind. This amendment will better align the military justice system with that principle.

On that note, the defence team has been working hard, through programs like the positive spaces initiative, to help create inclusive work environments for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. I commend them for their work on this initiative, which provides training to ambassadors in support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirited community members who work with us every day.

The next change I would like to focus on is how we propose updating the military justice system to better reflect the realities of historic injustices inflicted upon indigenous peoples. In the civilian criminal justice system, the Criminal Code mandates that judges must carefully consider circumstances during sentencing. Specifically, for all offenders, they must consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable under the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community. This principle is to be applied with particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous offenders. It is our shared responsibility to repair and renew our relationship with indigenous peoples. As our Prime Minister has said on many occasions, no relationship is more important to our government, and to Canada, than the one we have with indigenous peoples.

By incorporating these considerations into sentencing, this legislation will ensure that our Canadian Armed Forces and our government continue on the right path forward. This is one of the elements that distinguishes Bill C-77 from similar legislation introduced by the previous government in the dying days of the 41st Parliament. I believe this addition strengthens this bill, and I'm proud to have it included here. To that end, I trust that I can count on everyone's support to get this legislation passed in a timely manner.

The last significant area of change brought about by this legislation relates to the summary trial process. The JAG can speak to these changes in greater detail, but I want to quickly address the changes and their effects, as well. To date, minor breaches of military discipline have been handled through summary trials. Our proposed legislation would implement a non-penal, non-criminal summary hearing process to replace the summary trial system. This change would ensure that minor breaches of military discipline are dealt with efficiently, while maintaining the fairness of the overall system.

An example of a service infraction that could be caught up by these changes would be something like being absent without leave, or AWOL for short. It is these types of offences that we are looking to address with this legislation. It also demonstrates trust and confidence in military leaders who can address minor breaches of discipline at their level.

Taken together, these changes proposed through our new legislation are important in modernizing the military justice system and maintaining its responsiveness toward breaches of military discipline.

Our Prime Minister gave me a mandate to establish and maintain a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. Our defence policy—strong, secure, engaged—emphasizes the importance of looking after our women and men in uniform and ensuring that victims are supported through the military justice system. That is why I'm extremely proud to be speaking to Bill C-77 today. Not only will Bill C-77 ensure that our Canadian Armed Forces members are protected by a military justice system that keeps pace with Canadian concepts of justice, but it will make sure victims are supported and heard.

I look forward to the committee providing a full review analysis of this legislation, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much.

Canada Labour Code

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is clear that all parties are going to support Bill C-65. It is an important step forward. However, the communication that goes around Bill C-65 is also important when we are sending a message to Canadians that we are taking a leadership role. When it comes to addressing harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, it is also important that we tell Canadians that there is a level playing field, that every single Canadian, no matter who they are, whether a cabinet minister, a prime minister, or a supervisor in a workplace, will be treated the same as everyone else.

However, what we have right now appears to be “Do as I say, not as I do”. The Liberals are not practising what they preach. I would like my colleague to talk about how important it is that we tell Canadians that no matter who they are, they will be treated equally when it comes to sexual harassment in the workplace.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today to speak to the motion by the government in response to the Senate's amendments to Bill C-65.

I am pleased to see that the government took a judicious view of the amendments, accepting those that strengthened the bill in combatting harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, while respectfully declining those that would have caused the bill to be imbalanced or that could be better dealt with through regulations. The government's thoughtful review of the amendments proposed by the other place have ensured that I will be supporting its response.

Recently, I spoke out here in the chamber against violence in our political discourse, stating that it had no place in Canadian society. I feel just as strongly about violence and harassment in our workplaces. They have no place in Canadian society or within Parliament. We have been working in recent years to move toward addressing these issues with the gravity they deserve.

The Conservative Party has a long and proud tradition of standing up for the rights of victims of crime. Our previous Conservative government passed the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, ensuring that the most vulnerable Canadians could still receive justice. I am happy to see that Bill C-65 follows along that same path set by the previous government, proposing legislation that seeks to prevent incidents of harassment and violence and ensure additional protections for parliamentary staff.

In some ways, this proposed act would continue the work that I and other members of Parliament undertook in the previous parliament through the all-party subcommittee on a code of conduct for members. In that subcommittee, we struggled with the balance between parliamentary privilege and responsibility, between holding to account and respecting privacy, and between the rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused. Due to my time on that subcommittee, I understand the complexity of these questions.

For most workplaces, these issues are difficult enough. Clearly, Parliament is far from a typical workplace. Our workplace is unique. As such, it can be ripe for abuse, and for far too long, victims of harassment and violence have felt that they had no recourse. The bill before us seeks to rectify this problem and would provide legal recourse and protection to MPs' staff as well as to other victims.

Recent events have made it clear that a rigorous process needs to be in place to ensure that all are treated equally. Our democratic system of laws demands that justice be blindly executed and that all face consequences for their actions, whether that person be the pauper or the prince. Is this currently the case? If I may make an observation about the party across the floor, it does not appear to be.

I fear that the Liberal Party has become the party of virtue signalling. The Liberals will readily say the right words, or more often, the words that sound nice in theory but fail in reality. Their actions do not match their platitudes. They are willing to create a rule and to then apply it unequally, as the need may be. At times, they have gone so far as to ignore their own rules, as was a recent case with the Prime Minister. In that case, there was one set of rules for the members of his caucus when it came to accusations of harassment and another for him. That is far from fair, far from feminist and far from just.

I know that I am not alone in wanting better from those in power. It is for this reason that I welcome the clarity Bill C-65 would bring to this process. No one, no matter who they are, should ever escape the consequences of their actions because of the title they bear.

Bill C-65 would ensure that every victim would be given due process and that the rights of the accused would be protected. Canadians want a fair process free from interference, free of innuendo and blind to power. I am happy to see that all parties worked together to ensure that this would be the case by amending the bill in committee.

Prior to the amendments, as my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, pointed out in her remarks at second reading, the bill granted a great deal of power to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. Those powers included the ability to choose when and if to begin an investigation.

We could see that this was an issue. Not only must investigations be free from political interference, they must be free from the appearance of political interference. Canadians must be completely confident that justice is served to all, or our justice system, as a whole, loses legitimacy.

Other powers originally granted to the minister included the power to subpoena personal and professional material in the offices of any member of Parliament under investigation. This could have included confidential political documents regarding internal party policy discussions. It is not hard to see how these powers could be misused.

We can all agree that allegations of harassment are sensitive and require the confidence of all participants in the process. Both accuser and accused must believe that the highest priority of the investigation is to find the truth.

The placement of so much power over an investigation in the hands of a political operative weakened the bill greatly. The victim's voice would be drowned out in political debates. I am pleased to see that the committee worked together to address this very serious concern. The power would no longer be in the hands of the minister but would be in the hands of the deputy minister, a non-partisan civil servant. I believe that this change would ensure the integrity of not only the investigation process but of our political process as well.

The bill would apply not only to Parliament Hill but to all federally regulated workplaces. I am pleased to see that the government accepted an amendment from the other place that would ensure that the person to whom complaints would be made would be required to have proper training, knowledge and experience in dealing with harassment. The amendment would give additional strength to the enforcement of the bill, as every federal employee would have an expert to turn to when faced with violence or harassment.

Much of the conversation around this act has focused on the after-effects of harassment and violence, or the allegations thereof. However, I am also pleased to see that an amendment was accepted during the committee stage to add mandatory sexual harassment training. The enactment of this training moves beyond reactive responses to harassment and instead seeks to prevent harassment from taking place in the first place.

I would once again like to congratulate my colleagues in this place and the other place for all the work they have done to ensure that Bill C-65 would be able to combat workplace violence and harassment effectively. I will be supporting the government's response to the amendments, and I look forward to seeing this bill become law.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has come to this debate in a very respectful way, asking all parties great questions. Whether in the private sector or when I was a coach for a long period of time, we go through harassment training. I believe it should be mandatory. I believe that Bill C-65 has it in there.

I want to touch on one thing. If people are in the private sector, Bill C-65 does nothing for them. It is for government and only 8% of Canadians are employed by the federal sector. If this were truly going to be a historic piece of legislation, it could have been expanded. The government was hoping that the private sector was going to adopt this. If we truly want to be leaders within our country on this subject, we could have put a little more meat to the bill. However, I applaud those who sat around the table, the committee that worked tirelessly and all parties that came up with this piece of legislation. I look forward to seeing what the Senate comes back with.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I have said many times, every recognized party in the House has stated their willingness to study Bill C-65 in a non-partisan way. In committee, our three parties worked very hard and very seriously for many hours and we heard from witnesses.

We spent a lot of time talking about training in the workplace, in businesses. Even here in the House of Commons, every member was required to undergo training on harassment, sexual harassment, and bullying.

How does my colleague see Bill C-65 and what could we have done to require businesses to provide training? How could we have helped them have a structure that allows them to have the information they need, but also requires them to provide this training?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House any time I get a chance. I have listened to this debate for the full amount of time. The amazing thing about the House is that we can, at times, make jabs at those across the way. We are all here to support and represent those who elected us, but at times there are divides on certain issues. I think we all can agree that the time is up, that things need to change, that we need to be united as we move forward and that there is no place for harassment or violence in the workplace.

There is spirited debate all the time. We are not always going to agree on everything, but in listening to debates, we learn valuable things from other colleagues across political lines. I have to say that this debate has been interesting and illuminating at times. I am not a lawyer and have not had a chance to sit in the committee while this work was being done. I am a father of three amazing girls aged 30, 30 and 28, and my son is 24.

We should be doing everything in our power for victims of violence and harassment. I am going to repeat what the parliamentary secretary mentioned at one point yesterday during the debate, that we should always be looking through the lens of the victim, and that is really important. In how we comport ourselves in our everyday service to Canadians, we should be looking through the lens of the grassroots, those who elected us.

I am going to focus my time on where I see some failures. The Conservative Party and caucus are supporting this bill as it stands. In reading the notes, there was some great work done at committee. At committee is probably where we do some of our best work. It is an opportunity for us to work with our colleagues across the way out of the limelight, out of the glare of question period. We do great work in committee at times, and by all appearances, it looks like Bill C-65 is the culmination of some great work.

My hon. colleague from Jonquière mentioned mental health being left out. She put an amendment forward about it, for whatever reason. I do not know the reason. Again, I cannot talk about the background to that, because I was not part of the committee. However, every member of the House and the people watching know that I am a tireless champion of mental health. Whether it is first responders, veterans, military, victims of violence or first nation communities, we must do everything as Canadians and as leaders within this beautiful country of ours to make sure that those who come forward are believed so they have the confidence that when they do come forward with an allegation of sexual harassment, sexual assault or violence in the workplace, they will to be believed. We have to build an environment where it is conducive for them to come forward, to be believed, and therefore not to be revictimized time and time again throughout the process. Today that is what I want to talk about.

I am a new member of Parliament and I want to bring the House back to the early days of this session of Parliament when something called “elbowgate”. occurred. I was way down on the far end of the House as a new member of Parliament. It was an interesting situation. I saw the Prime Minister walk across the aisle, angrily shouting swear words, barking orders and then physically grabbing someone, the Conservative whip at the time, who has since, unfortunately, passed away.

A melee took place after that. I was shocked. Days after that, parliamentarians were asked what we thought his intent was. I started to talk about mens rea yesterday, which in a court of law is translated as a guilty mind. Can it be proven beyond a doubt that the perpetrator of that crime had a guilty mind, that he intended to commit that crime?

In my speech the next day following that event, I offered up how that incident impacted me. I said that it was like asking the guy who got caught shoplifting whether he intended to do it. Everybody is sorry when he or she gets caught. I used an example about my brother who was killed in a drinking and driving accident. I said that the person who would get behind the wheel after having a few drinks probably did not intend to hurt, maim or kill somebody when he or she did that, but how would we know?

As a new member of Parliament, I received some interesting comments, such as I was comparing “elbowgate” to drinking and driving, which was not what I was suggesting. I was merely asking how I would know what the Prime Minister intended when he walked across the way. How was I to know what was in his mind. How was I to know if he truly intended to elbow a colleague. We received an apology that day. I do not know whether it was sincere or not, but I took him at his word.

I also brought up yesterday what happened in the previous Parliament, when the prime minister at the time called another member of Parliament a derogatory term. He stood and offered an apology.

Through the summer, we heard allegations of groping. Whether it was eight months, eight days, 18 days or 18 years ago, we can all agree it happened. The Prime Minister had a bunch of different stories along the way. Unbelievably, he offered this, that everyone knew that during certain circumstances men and women would experience such circumstances differently. That was not an admission of guilt. If anything, it was a denial. That is what I am talking about today, that was another re-victimization of the victim.

It is no different than the #MeToo movement. When those who have been brought forth, the ones who perpetrated the incidents against the women who bravely came forward, they stand before the courts, before the public and say that they thought it was consensual. I have a problem with that.

As leaders, we must always comport ourselves to a higher standard. Law does not apply willy-nilly to others and those who are in cabinet or those with the highest power can say that it does apply to them.

This is not an attack. Our hon. colleagues are going to say whatever they want to say, but I offer this. Our Prime Minister, who says he is a feminist, missed an incredible opportunity to stand and apologize, and it would have been done.

Bill C-65 is good legislation. We support the bill. However, we have seen it before, where the Liberals put legislation forward to cover up other transgressions within their cabinet. They tell us this that is what they will do now, but they never apologize for what they did before. Somebody else is always to blame.

This has been a great debate. I have learned many new things from all my colleagues, and I say that with true respect. We can be held to a higher account and I trust that through Bill C-65 all of us will be held to a higher account, regardless of the position.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in committee, a representative from Teamsters told us that we needed to take mental health into account in Bill C-65 and in the Canada Labour Code. The amendment that I proposed related to that request, but it was rejected.

I already asked a question about this in the House, but I would like to know whether my colleague thinks it is important to talk about mental health and to take it into consideration in the Canada Labour Code.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the amendments that were proposed concerning the definition of harassment and violence in Bill C-65, whether in committee or by the Senate. I myself presented amendments in that regard before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, but they were rejected.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the Liberals' definition and about the fact that they rejected all the Conservative and NDP amendments. Does he think that the definition presented in Bill C-65 is ambiguous or restrictive?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my very hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, in northern B.C.

As usual, I want to say hello to the people of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching us live on CPAC. I know that many of them do watch us, because they tell me so when I go door to door. They tell me that they watched me the week before. I want to say hello to all of them.

Today's debate is a very important one, since we are talking about harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Some may be surprised to hear me say this, and I am no expert, but it seems to me that the Canada Labour Code does not apply to employees who work in MPs' offices on Parliament Hill. This means that the code would not apply to me or my employees. This is rather surprising, in 2018.

I want to quickly touch on last week, which I spent in my riding. You will see why. I hosted two economic round tables. The first round table was for the Beauport business network, which I created a year and a half ago. There are some 50 business owners in this network, who get together once a month to talk about business-related issues and priorities in the riding. On Friday morning, I also held a round table called “Conservatives are listening to Quebecers”. This round table was attended by social, community and business stakeholders, among others.

Yesterday I asked the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour a question. After all, we are talking about workplaces here, with Bill C-65. I asked her if she was aware that we are in a crisis at the moment, especially in Quebec City, but all over Canada, because of the labour shortage. She made a mockery of it, saying that it was proof that the government has created so many jobs in Canada that businesses can no longer find workers. While that may be true from an objective, Socratic and rational standpoint, she is ignoring a real crisis situation that we are in.

I want to say one last thing before I get to the bill. At the two round tables I hosted, every time I visit businesses in my riding, in all my discussions with constituents and in all the correspondence I receive every day, to which I reply in writing every time, people mention the labour shortage. Some businesses have had to shut down in Beauport—Limoilou and others are scaling back operations, so I think it is very sad and upsetting that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour would make a mockery of my question. The people of Quebec City were not happy to see that on Twitter and Facebook.

Today we are talking about an important bill, the act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1. It is clear that Conservatives, New Democrats, Liberals and all Canadians in general support the Liberal government's recently introduced bill. That is certainly not something I say every day, but when it is true, it must be acknowledged. With this important bill, even employees on Parliament Hill will benefit from guidelines and protection to keep them safe from sexual harassment, psychological harassment and every kind of discriminatory behaviour in the workplace.

I can say that this affects us all. It could also affect our family, a cousin, a brother or sister and, in my case, it affects my children. My daughter Victoria is four years old and my son Winston is a year and a half. My daughter started kindergarten a few months ago. It is the first time she has attended school. We definitely do not want her to experience discrimination or harassment. It will inevitably happen because good and evil are part of life, and harassment and discrimination will always exist. That is why it is important to have laws that govern, try to control, eliminate or at least reduce this as much as possible in our society.

I would like to tell you that I have directly experienced discrimination and psychological harassment, but not sexual harassment, thank God. When I was in grade six, I moved from New Brunswick to Quebec. I can see my colleague laughing because he knows that I grew up in New Brunswick. I am from Quebec, but I grew up in New Brunswick. I moved to Quebec when I was in grade six. Children can be very brutal because they lack empathy and an understanding of the context in which they find themselves.

Kids are often oblivious to the harm they inflict on others. I got beaten up at recess every day for a year, so this is a subject I am not unfamiliar with. In my case, the situation made me stronger. Unfortunately, in other cases, it has ruined lives. What we want to avoid is situations where harassment and discrimination destroy lives. It is terrible to see a life completely destroyed after such an incident.

I want to reiterate that, setting politics aside and speaking from a human perspective, all members and all Canadians should support this bill. However, that does not mean there is no need to propose certain amendments, which I will discuss shortly.

The bill is meant to strengthen the workplace safety framework on Parliament Hill. When I think of all the young Canadians who work on the Hill, it makes me even more motivated to support this bill. The people working on the Hill are often young Canadians in their twenties who are full of hope, ambition and energy. They love politics, and they love Canada. They are proud to work for a minister, the Prime Minister, a shadow cabinet member or an MP. These young people arrive in Parliament full of energy and enthusiasm.

There is no denying that, throughout our country's history, members and ministers have behaved inappropriately or committed inappropriate acts, including sexual harassment, psychological harassment and discrimination.

Many of the young victims were surely brilliant, highly motivated and ambitious individuals. Perhaps they were even future Liberal, Conservative or NDP prime ministers, although unfortunately for them, that will never happen now. These were young people who were here for the right reasons, who were not cynical. A lot of young people in Canada are saying they have no use for politics, and that is unfortunate. Those young people should read books on Canadian history to understand what we are doing here today. Some young people have had the courage to get over their cynicism and come to this place, only to become victims of sexual or psychological harassment or discrimination. Careers have been destroyed in some cases, along with their hope and love for Canada. I find that appalling and very upsetting.

This bill sets out to fill a legal void. I would like to remind everyone that Parliament Hill was the only place where Canada Labour Code provisions on harassment and discrimination did not apply. There was a legal void, and it is important to acknowledge that that void played a part in destroying young Canadians who came here full of energy to help build a strong and thriving country on both national and international stages. Everyone wants a workplace that contributes to their quality of life, one where safety is important. Employees perform better in such workplaces.

Most of the Conservatives' amendments were accepted. We successfully introduced an amendment to prevent political interference during harassment investigations. The Conservatives played an active role in bringing the bill to this stage. We successfully introduced an amendment to ensure strict timelines for investigations into incidents of harassment. We proposed mandatory sexual harassment training, training that all MPs received. We proposed a mandatory review of the bill after five years because it needs to be reviewed at regular intervals, as my colleague said.

In closing, since this is Small Business Week, I want to say three cheers for business people. I thank the people of Beauport—Limoilou for the work they do every day. I think they are wonderful, and I look forward to seeing them when I go door to door.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have talked a lot about Bill C-65 in the House over the past two days. This bill amends the Canada Labour Code in order to reduce violence, intimidation and sexual harassment.

We have talked a lot about this, but I would like to hear what my colleague thinks. What does he think about the fact that, despite the many amendments I proposed, the government did not want to keep the joint health and safety committees? The government did not want to give those who file a complaint the option of submitting it to a joint workplace health and safety committee. We heard the argument that it would undermine the confidentiality of the person filing the complaint, but actually the opposite is true. The members of these committees have a certain expertise in the organization and they know how to work with people.

I would like to know why the government rejected the amendments and why it took away the right of joint workplace health and safety committees to receive and investigate complaints.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-65. The main goal of the legislation is to ensure that all employees of federal jurisdiction, including those in federal workplaces and in federally regulated industries, are treated fairly and protected from harmful behaviours such as harassment and sexual violence.

On this side of the House, we are fully supportive of the changes that have been made in the bill.

The past year has been defined by many powerful stories, spearheaded by survivors and their families. Movements such as #MeToo, Time's Up, as well as the global women's marches have shone a light on the ongoing challenges faced by victims and survivors, as well as the harsh realities that continue to hold us back.

Bill C-65, introduced last November by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, represents the historic step this government is taking to prevent and address the issues of gender-based violence, particularly in federal workplaces.

Bill C-65 is built on the pillars of prevention, response and support. It will ensure that employers take steps to protect employees from these unacceptable behaviours, to respond to them when they occur and to offer support to those affected.

Sexual harassment and violence in the workplace is sadly nothing new. We know that legislation alone will not solve this problem. No one action will bring an end to gender-based violence. We must continue to do what we can. It will take a collective whole-of-government approach, alongside employers, employees, colleagues, family members and friends to move the needle forward.

To support our approach, in budget 2018, our government announced it would be providing $34.9 million over five years to support training and education, provide resources, such as an outreach hub accessible through an 800 number, and to support enforcement. Addressing gender inequality and gender-based violence has been a central theme to this government since day one.

Bill C-65 is historic and supports the first-ever gender-based violence strategy, which was launched by the Minister of Status of Women in 2017. Since the launch of “It's Time: Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence”, Status of Women Canada and federal partners have been working to find ways to take action on prevention, provide support for those affected and make changes to the justice system so it is responsive to the needs of women who experience harassment and violence.

In budget 2018, we expanded the gender-based violence program, with $29 million over five years, so more organizations, such as rape crisis centres, could help more high-risk women facing violence. This program supports the testing and implementation of practices that will help the gender-based violence sector do more for indigenous women and their communities and underserved populations, such as women living with a disability, non-status, refugee or immigrant women, LGBTQ2, gender non-conforming people and ethnocultural women.

It includes preventing dating violence and equipping health professionals to provide appropriate care to victims with an additional $31 million over five years; $5 million to enhance the development of preventative bullying and cyberbullying initiatives; enhancing support by $19.3 million over five years for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre to increase the investigative capacity of the RCMP; providing $2 million over five years to support sexual assault centres in close proximity to Canadian bases so members of the Canadian Armed Forces have access to a full spectrum of supports to address gender-based violence; an additional $14.5 million over five years to address human trafficking by establishing a national human trafficking hotline, including an online portal and a referral mechanism to social services and law enforcement; and up to $5.5 million over five years, starting in 2018-19, to work with stakeholders, including the provinces and territories, toward developing a harmonized national framework to ensure consistent, comprehensive and sustainable approaches in addressing gender-based violence at post-secondary institutions across the country.

In June 2018, the Minister of Status of Women marked the first anniversary of the strategy. Concrete steps forward this past year included: 7,000 new or repaired shelter beds for survivors of family violence; 2,225 sexual assault case files classified as unfounded were reviewed by the RCMP; over $4 million in funding to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet and additional funding to establish a survivors' network; $20 million to support projects to address gaps in supports for gender-based violence survivors and their families; and the launch of the first ongoing national survey on gender-based violence in Canada.

In conclusion, the actions speak clearly and loudly. Our government is committed to preventing and addressing violence against women and girls. We are doing just that. I would like to encourage everyone in the House to continue the work that we have started. By working together, we can eradicate violence in all its forms and achieve peaceful, safe lives for everyone in Canada and around the world. In that worthwhile struggle, I wish members courage, wisdom and perseverance.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, violence is unacceptable. According to Abacus Data, one in ten Canadians says that sexual harassment is common in their workplace.

That is not okay. It is not okay for employees to go to work with a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach. It is not okay for employees to be afraid to go to work.

This situation has gone on for far too long. That is why Bill C-65 is a major step forward toward ensuring safe, healthy workplaces for all. With this bill, we will ensure that victims get justice and swift resolution and that they can count on a system that works.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my opposition colleague's support for Bill C-65.

Harassment and violence are too often part of workplace culture in Canada. The scary part is that too few of these incidents are reported, and measures taken to put a stop to these behaviours in the workplace are often ineffective.

Our government is taking the necessary steps to address the problem of harassment and violence, to intervene quickly and effectively when incidents occur, and to support victims, survivors and employees. Bill C-65 is a progressive and revolutionary bill that Canadians can be proud of.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cambridge for sharing his time with me so I could speak on this important subject.

I am pleased to be speaking on the Senate's proposed amendments to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

I want to start by thanking the members of the Senate for the effort they put into their study of Bill C-65. I especially want to thank them for the amendments they proposed, which we are debating today in the House. The government appreciates the work they did to strengthen this bill.

Getting back to the amendments to Bill C-65 proposed by the other place, one of them is intended to guarantee that the person designated by the employer to receive complaints regarding harassment and violence has the necessary knowledge, training and experience to deal with such situations. The amendment in question also highlights the need for the designated person to know the legislation applicable to each case. Our government recognizes the importance of ensuring that everyone in a workplace receives sufficient training. The bill enhances that aspect because it requires employers to ensure that all of their employees receive and undergo training in the prevention of harassment and violence.

Training for everyone is absolutely fundamental, not just to provide the necessary tools to respond effectively to a situation of harassment or violence, but also to bring about the cultural change needed to eliminate and eradicate this kind of behaviour. For these reasons, we support the proposed amendment, which explicitly requires the designated person to be qualified to receive complaints.

There are, however, other amendments that our government does not support. For example, the proposed amendment to clause 3 of Bill C-65 specifies that employers must ensure that the workplace is free from harassment and violence. While this is certainly in line with the intent of Bill C-65, it would, in practice, undermine the process at the heart of the code: the internal resolution system that gives those in the workplace the opportunity to quickly resolve the issue before escalating it to outside parties.

Workplace parties, including the employer, the employee or employees, must try to resolve the situation internally first, including undertaking an investigation if unable to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction. It is only in instances where the process has not been followed that a complaint would be made to the labour program, which would then trigger an investigation. This process recognizes that the workplace parties are the ones best positioned to identify, address, mitigate and prevent occupational health and safety hazards in their own workplace.

However, with this proposed amendment, the labour program could be required to investigate every incident relating to harassment and violence, regardless of the outcomes of internal workplace resolution processes. This would not only undermine the objective of the provisions, it would significantly increase costs for everyone involved. Furthermore, requiring the labour program to investigate every incident of workplace harassment and violence would divert resources from other health and safety investigations, ultimately delaying the resolution of all incidents. Resolving these incidents in a timely manner is paramount.

During our consultations prior to tabling Bill C-65 and in previous debates and committee meetings in the chamber, we heard time and time again that a lengthy resolution process is a major deterrent to those who might otherwise come forward. Individuals who experience workplace harassment or violence need effective and timely resolution. The last thing we want to do is deter individuals from coming forward when they experience an incident of harassment or violence in the workplace.

It takes an enormous amount of courage to do so and those individuals need to feel confident that their complaints will be dealt with as efficiently as possible. Members of the other chamber also proposed the addition of a line to specify that a copy of the investigation report must be provided to the employee and the employer. Let me assure everyone that this would be the case. It would be abundantly clear through the regulations that all parties involved would be informed of the status of the investigation. Unfortunately, where this was inserted in the bill as per the proposed amendment, it would not apply to complaints of harassment and violence. It would apply to all investigations undertaken by workplace committees of occupational health and safety violations except harassment and violence.

The line directly preceding the line that would be inserted states, “The employee or the supervisor may refer an unresolved complaint, other than a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment and violence, to a chairperson of the work place committee or to the health and safety representative to be investigated jointly.” Complaints related to an occurrence of harassment and violence are specifically excluded here because if unresolved, they would be referred to a competent person. However, let me reiterate that this is a valid concern and it would be fully addressed in the regulations associated with Bill C-65. It would clearly stipulate that all reports from investigations would be shared with both the employee and the employer.

There is no doubt that this bill deals with some sensitive issues. Victims of harassment and violence deserve justice, they deserve a timely resolution, and they deserve to know that a good system is in place if needed. All of this is the basis for Bill C-65.

I assure the House that our government has carefully studied this legislative framework to ensure that the provisions are reasonably clear and effective. All Canadians deserve a workplace free from harassment and violence and in which inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour is not tolerated. Employees who have been victims of harassment and violence have suffered for too long and have had to deal with a limited system that did not work.

We listened to what Canadians had to say, and our action will bring about a change in culture that will have a positive effect on all workplaces and also on our society. We are keeping the promise we made to always stand with those who have been affected by these life-changing experiences.

I urge the House to support Bill C-65 so that we can set the standard and create a model of which we can all be proud.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. I am not sure there was a question there, but I will take this opportunity to agree that this was a team effort.

I think that on the issue around what comes next, a lot of that is going to be dealt with, of course, in regulations. This is not something that is going to go away. I do not believe that we are done by simply passing Bill C-65. I think this is going to be a continuous project or issue that we are going to be dealing with well into the future.

We will have to evolve. We will have to make changes and we will have to develop the legislation over the years to deal with the times that we are faced with and the challenges that we are faced with.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.

I am honoured to stand and speak to Bill C-65. Our government ran on a commitment to take action on workplace harassment and violence, and I am very proud of where we are here today.

Members of the House, from all parties, have worked together to create a strong piece of legislation, one that will address harassment and violence for the hundreds of thousands of employees who work in the federally regulated industries, and closer to home, one that will provide political staff here in the chamber, in the other chamber and in our constituency offices with the same health and safety protections under the Canadian Labour Code as all other workers in this country.

All of us here in the House, no matter our political allegiance, have a unique opportunity. Today we can join forces and take a stand together. We can send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and violence is unacceptable and will not be tolerated any longer. Together we can support Bill C-65 so that it can become law and we can effect real change. Together we can help make a real difference in the lives of Canadian workers in federally regulated workplaces, including all of our staff right here on Parliament Hill.

It is true that this piece of legislation would apply only to federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces. However, we believe that through it, we will be leading by example. We believe that the bill will inspire other governments, businesses, employers and organizations across the country to follow in our footsteps. Indeed, with this new legislation, Canada is being seen as an international leader in addressing workplace harassment and violence.

We believe that we are not the only ones who strongly refuse to tolerate these toxic, destructive behaviours any longer. Harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in the workplace and in our society at large is nothing new. However, over the past few years, it has been top of mind. In fact, over the past few years, social media lit up with campaigns such as #MeToo, #AfterMeToo, and Time's Up. These hashtags became movements and these movements showed just how pervasive and extensive this problem is.

These movements are the result of people. They are the result of brave women and men who thought it was important to show the world how common harassment and sexual violence are in our lives. They found the courage and strength to speak up, and now it is our turn to take action.

Our government ran on a commitment to take action on workplace harassment and violence, and I am sure my colleagues agree that action in this area is long overdue. I am sure they also agree that it affects us all. That is what we are doing here today: taking action.

The new approach we are proposing aims to drive a culture change in federal workplaces. This new approach aims to prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring, to have an effective response when they do occur, and to have support for those affected.

I want to acknowledge the work accomplished by the members in the House and the other place in their careful study of the bill. I also want to acknowledge the generosity of the many witnesses who informed that study, which resulted in important amendments. Amendments were made as the bill passed through this chamber, and several more were proposed by the other chamber. As a result, Bill C-65 is now stronger than ever.

Today I will give an example of how this tremendous work made our proposed legislation so strong.

As we know, members of the other chamber studied the bill carefully, and they proposed a number of amendments. One of the amendments our government is in support of concerns the terminology used in the bill. The members proposed a revision of certain terminology, terminology that they felt could have an adverse effect on the very people we are trying to protect if left unchanged.

Currently, the words “trivial”, “frivolous” and “vexatious” are used to describe the basis upon which a complaint to the labour program could be dismissed. While these terms are generally understood in law and appear throughout the Canada Labour Code, they are, as a member of the other place so rightly pointed out, rooted in prejudice. Our government understands the power of language and we fully support the replacement of these terms with the more neutral term, “abuse of process”.

This is just an example. Our government agrees with a number of other amendments proposed by the other chamber. For example, we agree with explicitly stating that nothing in Bill C-65 takes away from an individual's rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act. We agree with the proposal that anyone designated by the employer to receive complaints related to occurrences of harassment and violence has the appropriate knowledge, training and experience. We agree to the amendment to require data in the annual report on incidents of violence and harassment to be categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Such amendments would strengthen Bill C-65.

At this point, I would be remiss if I did not mention the work also accomplished by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disability, also known as HUMA. It is a privilege of mine to chair that committee. The HUMA committee also proposed some significant amendments, which were made to Bill C-65. These amendments include adding a clear definition of harassment and violence in the Canada Labour Code, including a specific reference to preventing occurrences of harassment and violence in the purpose clause of part II of the code; allowing former employees to come forward with complaints related to occurrences of harassment and violence; a provision allowing employees to complain to someone other than the supervisor if they prefer; an annual report on harassment and violence in all federally regulated workplaces; as well as giving the deputy minister powers normally given to the minister to avoid the possibility of any perceived conflict of interest when political actors are involved.

The work accomplished by members in this House, and in the other, will help us send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and violence is unacceptable and it will not be tolerated any longer. Each and every one of us here in this House can help us send a strong message. I urge everyone here today to help move this bill forward by casting a vote that will help end workplace violence and harassment in Canada.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-65, an important bill dealing with harassment in the federal workplace. It is important to understand that this bill did not come out when it did by pure coincidence. For context, I will recount some of the incidents that happened around the time the bill came out.

All members of the House will, I am sure, remember that the #MeToo movement touched a wide segment of society around the world last autumn. Then in January, just before the House sat, we had a number of revelations within Canadian political circles as well. One of them affected the Liberal government. Allegations about misconduct, about a decade ago, by the hon. member for Calgary Centre were made known. At that time he was the minister of sport and persons with disabilities. However, that did not continue because he was asked to leave the cabinet, and a secret investigation was launched later.

I do not cite these facts to be disrespectful or rude toward the hon. member. This is important context that will help to explain the Prime Minister's many quotable statements during this narrow window of time. For example, as news of the former minister's past actions were being reported, the Prime Minister, then at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, said:

We must each have a well-understood, established process in place to file allegations of workplace harassment. And when we receive those complaints, we must take them seriously.

As women speak up, it is our responsibility to listen, and more importantly, to believe.

Those were the Prime Minister's words. That is quite clearly the government's policy as well.

It is not just the words in the Prime Minister's speech that matter, but establishing a complaints process, including in our own offices on Parliament Hill, that is very much at the heart of Bill C-65.

Upon his return to Canada, the Prime Minister said days later to the the CBC, “The standard applies to everyone. There is no context in which someone doesn’t have responsibility for things they’ve done in the past.” Therefore, it is quite clear. As I mentioned earlier, a wave of revelations and probing questions were sweeping Parliament Hill that week. That is why it is not at all surprising that the CBC would, in that same interview with the Prime Minister, quiz him about his own past. When asked, the Prime Minister answered, “I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well”.

Therefore, the Prime Minister laid down the law about sexual harassment and misconduct allegations when he stated that we should always: one, believe complainants; two, hear out retrospective complaints, without time limit; three, apply one standard to all; and four, do not worry, just know that he is squeaky clean, apparently.

With respect to this final point, it turns out that there were previous allegations of impropriety made against the Prime Minister that surfaced. Late this spring, copies of the Creston Valley Advance from August 2000 surfaced. An editorial, penned by a reporter on staff, informed readers, “I’m sorry. If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward.” Those were the words spoken to an Advance reporter by the son of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau on August 4. He, the now prime minister, was in Creston to celebrate the Kokanee Summit festival, put on by Columbia Brewery. He apologized a day late for inappropriately handling the reporter while she was on assignment not only for the Advance, but also for the National Post and Vancouver Sun.

The editorial went on to say:

shouldn't the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? ...Didn't he learn, through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn't in the handbook of proper etiquette regardless of who she is, what her business is, or where they are?

“Groping” is her word not mine.

Applying the edict from the Prime Minister, I assume we are to believe her story that she was groped by the Prime Minister, disregard the date no matter how far back the complaint went, and apply the same standard that applies to the hon. members for Nunavut, Calgary Centre, and Calgary Skyview, which was removal from cabinet and/or the Liberal caucus. Is that not right?

Members will remember that things did not quite tum out as one would have expected based on the Prime Minister's own rules. Part of the problem was that the Canadian media paid virtually no attention to the groping allegations about the Prime Minister. If only they had given just a fraction of their coverage to this issue here in Canada as they did to the Kavanaugh story in the United States. However, that is wishful thinking.

Despite that, back in July, the Prime Minister went on record defending his groping by saying, “I had a good day; I don't remember any negative interactions that day at all.”

He said, “...I am confident—that I did not act inappropriately.... But part of this awakening that we're having as a society...is that it's not just one side of the story that matters”, and, “That the same interactions could be experienced very differently from one person to the next.”

The Prime Minister went on to say, “often a man experiences an interaction as being benign or not inappropriate and a woman, particularly in a professional context, can experience it differently and we have to respect that and reflect on it.”

To boil this all down, a simple phrase sums up the Prime Minister's words and deeds: Do as I say and not as I do. That catchphrase seems to describe a lot of what we see from the Liberal government. I am afraid it is playing itself out yet again in the area of sexual misconduct.

The Prime Minister, when he took the stage in Davos, said that having an established policy was crucial. His own government's legislation, which we are debating today, will entrench this expectation in federal labour law. However, we do not know what policies apply to the Prime Minister himself.

Earlier this autumn, I put some written questions on the Order Paper to get answers. Here is what I asked:

(a) what is the procedure when there is an accusation against the Prime Minister, including, (i) who decides if a complaint has merit and warrants an investigation; (ii) who conducts the investigation; (iii) does the individual conducting the investigation have the ability to recommend sanctions; (iv) are the recommended sanctions binding; (v) what is the policy regarding whether or not the reports and findings are released to the public; (vi) what mechanism, if any, exists for the temporary suspension of certain duties of the Prime Minister pending the outcome of an investigation; and (b) does the procedure...apply to incidents which occurred prior to the individual becoming Prime Minister?

Those are valid questions. Canadians deserve to know, this Parliament deserves to know, how the Prime Minister will be held accountable if there are past allegations of sexual misconduct. I have not had an answer back yet.

I would have thought that for something so near and dear to the Prime Minister's heart, the government would actually have had this already prepared and would have given me an answer immediately. Again, that was wishful thinking.

However, there is a deadline for a response to my question, so we should know, come mid-November, just what procedures are in place for Canada's Prime Minister. Maybe the government will even comply with what it expects of other Canadians in Bill C-65. This assumes, naturally, that the government actually answers the question, assuming that there is actually a policy, and assuming, of course, that Bill C-65 is not simply another case of Liberal's saying "do as I say and not as I do."

In closing, Canada's Conservatives support this legislation, as combatting harassment is a pressing need in all sectors of society, including in the Parliament of Canada. We believe that all forms of harassment, sexual violence and discrimination are unacceptable. That is why at committee, among other things, we, as Conservatives, successfully introduced an amendment to prevent political interference in political offices during harassment investigations.

We also successfully introduced amendments to ensure strict timelines for investigations into incidents of harassment to ensure that investigations are carried out in a timely manner.

I think we can all agree in this place that government policy needs to focus on supporting victims of harassment. This legislation is a positive step in that direction. We look forward to answers from the Prime Minister's Office in regard to the policies that are in place should there be allegations against the Prime Minister himself.

We support Bill C-65. We do want more answers. We expect more answers.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1. We all know harassment is serious, and it is a pressing matter that faces Canadian society today. It is good that this Parliament is debating legislation that would seek to address harassment in this very workplace and workplaces across Canada.

Harassment is a very volatile offence, because it is not subject to whether the offender intends to harass or not. Irrespective of the intent, the mens rea of the harassment, the act still harms the victim. This is why we must put a special emphasis on protecting victims' rights when implementing legislation aimed at stopping harassment. That is a Conservative principle, and it is a principle the Liberal government promised it would uphold.

It is wonderful that we are enjoying a political system where every party seems to understand the gravity of harassment, but statements must lead to thoughtful action. Harassment is an evolving issue, and any legislation regarding harassment needs to recognize this. As parliamentarians, it is vital we understand that protecting people from harassment requires a continual effort, and that harassment comes in many forms. Unfortunately, no two cases are exactly the same and there are always new cases emerging every day.

In addressing harassment, all people who feel they have been harassed simply deserve the right to be heard. As an example, we have to bring into this conversation the fact that our Prime Minister was alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment. Even though he was accused, he claimed that he had a different perspective from that of the accuser. This gave him the explanation he needed to protect himself.

I believe it is possible and even plausible for two individuals to have two completely different perspectives on an occasion, but it does not mean one person's perspective is not real. Canadians, women and I myself were very disappointed in our Prime Minister for not being up front from the very beginning when this behaviour came to light.

The young reporter took immediate action in putting her experience on record with her colleague and in writing an article. In light of that fact, it was disappointing that our Prime Minister did not lead by example for others in his response. He truly should have apologized.

The Prime Minister is the head of our country. He is the leader who insists he is the ultimate feminist. When one makes a mistake, it is important to admit that mistake, to deal with it appropriately and to take every decisive action possible to apologize. We have to take note that how he has treated his own circumstances is very different from how he treated members in this House who were simply accused and immediately faced repercussions.

In this particular case, Ms. Knight chose not to pursue the matter any further, which is her right. However, due process should be afforded in every case out of respect for the accuser and the accused. We cannot rush to conclusions or opinions on matters that are so delicate. We cannot dismiss claims without a fair and honest investigation, nor can we be so quick to convict someone of a claim. We are living in an age where the court of public opinion is quick to convict and does not often provide fair or accurate assessments of harassment claims.

That is why I am grateful that this Parliament is looking to enact legislation on workplace harassment and violence. We should be a true example to the rest of Canada, to the people we represent, and certainly to our own families and children about what our priorities are and what we want them to be for all Canadians.

We need to ensure that there is a transparent process, which respects the privacy of the victim, to assess harassment allegations. All people, irrespective of gender, have a right not to be harassed at their place of work, period.

Madam Speaker, we know that even you, as Chair of this House, take very seriously the responsibility to ensure that the employees of the House of Commons do not have to face harassment. To everyone's chagrin, we still know that it is a reality here on Parliament Hill. Every parliamentarian in this House is an employer to staff, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure a harassment-free workplace. Each one of us, within our own offices, must do everything we can to make it a place where it is a pleasure to come to work and there is no sense of apprehension or fear.

As Canada's leaders, we must set the standard in ensuring that our employees have protection from harassment, and I believe that Bill C-65 is a step in the right direction. However, in formulating this bill, I think the government dropped the ball in adequately consulting stakeholders on the matter. The National Association of Women and the Law and the Native Women's Association of Canada both said that they were not consulted during the drafting of the bill. Both organizations represent important demographics in Canada, and I believe that they could have contributed greatly in making this bill even better.

I would implore the government to remember to consult with key stakeholders, as there is safety in a multitude of counsellors, and Bill C-65 is all about making sure that workers are safe. When we say that we are going to consult, we need to be willing to consult people who agree with our perspective and with those who do not agree with our perspective but have things to offer that we have not thought about. In that case, I think that may be what happened here.

I will be supporting this bill, as combatting harassment is a pressing need in Parliament. It would set us on the path to safer workspaces in Canada. Sexual misconduct and sexual harassment have no place in Canadian society, especially within our political system, or actually anywhere.

Quite honestly, I feel that there is a lot more we need to do as a government to deal with sexual harassment beyond creating a legislative environment for rules and regulations within this place. We should be setting an example in a lot of the policies that are coming forward from various committees, such as the status of women committee, where we put the value of women far higher than I believe it is being placed today.

The bipartisan teamwork on the HUMA committee between the Conservatives and the Liberals proved that Bill C-65, if passed, would have a meaningful impact.

The Conservatives successfully introduced an amendment to prevent political interference in political offices during harassment investigations. Considering the sensitive nature of harassment claims, it is important that harassment investigations are not undermined by the perception of political interference or by actual interference. This was done by amending the law to have powers transferred from the Minister of Labour to the deputy minister, a non-partisan civil servant, in investigations involving the offices of members of Parliament. This would preserve the integrity of the investigation process. I am proud of that amendment that came forward from us.

The amendment to ensure strict timelines for investigations into incidents of harassment to ensure that investigations are carried out in a timely manner would also add to the integrity of the process.

The introduction of mandatory sexual harassment training is an essential part of this bill.

The preservation of the integrity of the process and the prevention of vexatious complaints would be ensured by requiring that such complaints were made within a prescribed time. I feel that this is a good move, and I am so pleased to see it in here, because we have to bring a balance to how we deal with these issues. We cannot afford to have public opinion determining what is right and wrong. It has to be the rule of law that ultimately succeeds, or we will find ourselves in chaos.

Bill C-65 would ensure that a mandatory review of the bill would occur every five years.

Bill C-65 would implement a fair and impartial process to ensure that the appropriate consequences would be applied to the offender.

I invite all members of this House to join me in support of Bill C-65 so that better protections from harassment for all Canadians are in place.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we heard some concerns about privacy today and I wonder if the member could comment on how Bill C-65 addresses those issues of privacy, how it would protect the anonymity of complainants in small workplaces or here on Parliament Hill.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his speech.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[Translation]

I am very proud to be here today.

As leaders at all levels of society, as leaders in all organizations, as leaders in our communities, we have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure a harassment- and violence-free workplace. Too many women and men suffer harassment and violence in the workplace, and no one should be exempt.

I am also extremely proud to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-65, which amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, to eradicate harassment and violence from federally regulated workplaces, including the federal public service and parliamentary workplaces.

Bill C-65 draws on existing Canada Labour Code provisions pertaining to violence and sexual harassment to design a comprehensive approach that covers all forms of violence and harassment, from bullying and teasing to sexual harassment and physical violence.

This bill also applies to all health and safety protections, including measures relating to harassment and violence in parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons, and to political staff working on Parliament Hill.

There are currently two separate regimes in place to deal with issues of violence and sexual harassment under the Canada Labour Code. They each have their own requirements and mechanisms for settling disputes, which creates an imbalance in how these matters are dealt with.

The current regimes do not apply to the same workplaces. Current sexual harassment rules only apply in the federally regulated private sector and most Crown corporations, whereas rules pertaining to violence also apply to the federal public service. Neither framework applies to parliamentary employees.

Bill C-65 would create a single, integrated regime to protect all federally regulated employees against harassment and violence in the workplace. As part of the Government of Canada's strategy to combat gender-based violence, the bill proposes a new framework that will prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring, respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur and support victims of harassment and violence while also protecting their privacy. Protecting victims' privacy is extremely important.

More specifically, Bill C-65 would amend the Canada Labour Code to expand the existing violence prevention requirements in part II of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with occupational health and safety; ensure that employers take preventive action and protect employees from harassment and violence at work; and repeal the existing sexual harassment provisions in part III of the code, which deals with labour standards, to create a single integrated regime to protect federally regulated employees under part II of the code.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to require employers, through the regulatory framework and the corresponding regulations, to prevent harassment and violence. This includes ensuring that employees receive training, or even that they take the initiative themselves, and working with employees to develop a harassment and violence prevention policy.

The bill would also require employers to respond to incidents of harassment and violence, within a specified time frame; resolve the complaint and, if a resolution is not possible, designate a competent person to conduct investigations; inform the complainant and, in accordance with privacy measures, update the workplace committee on the investigation; implement the recommendations resulting from the investigation; and record and report all incidents of harassment and violence.

The bill would require employers to support employees who are victims of harassment and violence, as well as protect their privacy, which includes providing assistance and giving access to the workplace committees.

The bill will repeal the sections of the Canada Labour Code that permit exemptions to the establishment of a workplace committee, and will only allow exemptions when there is already a committee with the same health and safety responsibilities. It will broaden the scope of part II of the code to include staff of ministers' offices, who are also known as exempt staff.

The amendments to the Parliamentary Employment Staff Relations Act are extremely important. Bill C-65 would enact part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, which incorporates by reference part II of the code. The act applies 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.

More specifically, Bill C-65 would amend the act in order to incorporate by reference the provisions concerning workplace health and safety found in part II of the code with certain changes. First, the Deputy Minister of Labour will exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the minister when a member of the Senate or House of Commons is involved. Furthermore, the application of all directions and any appeals of these directions will be undertaken when they are tabled in the House of Commons or the Senate, or both. Appeals of these directions will be referred to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

The bill would amend the act to ensure the protection of parliamentary privileges by stating that all powers, privileges and immunities conferred or imposed may be exercised as long as they do not interfere, directly or indirectly, with the business of the House of Commons or the Senate.

Bill C-65 would require annual reporting and a five-year review, which is also appreciated. More specifically, the bill's proposed amendments will require: the Minister of Labour to prepare and publish an annual report that contains statistical data relating to harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, including parliamentary workplaces; that the harassment and violence provisions introduced in the Canada Labour Code and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act by Bill C-65 be reviewed five years after coming into force and every five years after that and that the responsible minister prepare and table reports on these reviews in every House of Parliament; and that the federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board submit an annual report on its activities under part III of the PESRA and part II of the code as it applies to parliamentary workplaces and that the responsible minister table the report in each of the House of Parliament.

There are 10 Senate amendments of which four will be accepted by the government, one is to be amended and five rejected.

The amendments that are to be accepted will strengthen the legislation to prevent workplace violence or harassment. They are: amendment 3, which will provide greater certainty to those who experience workplace violence and harassment by explicitly stating that nothing in this part shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the rights provided for under the Canadian Human Rights Act; amendment 5(b), which replaces the term “trivial, frivolous, or vexatious” with the term “abuse of process” so as to eliminate negative associations regarding coming forward with complaint; amendment 6 so that the annual report prepared by the minister regarding incidents of workplace harassment and violence includes information that is categorized according to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act; and amendment 7(a), which will provide greater certainty to those coming forward with complaints, including complaints outside of harassment and violence, that Bill C-65 would not limit one's ability to take a case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Amendment 4 is to be accepted with amendments. The suggestion from the Senate is to add two paragraphs to clause 3 of the bill. We are rejecting these two amendments and renaming them. The addition of these names aligns with the intent of Bill C-65 regarding the training of designated persons to whom complaints can be made.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendment 1. Replacing the word “means” with “includes” would result in a lack of clarity for both employers and employees.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendment 2. In focusing on harassment and violence, it would create an imbalance relative to all of the other occupational health and safety measures under part II of the Canada Labour Code.

We propose that the paragraph from amendment 4 be deleted because the addition of the proposed paragraph would mean that a single incident of harassment and violence in a workplace would be considered a violation of the Canada Labour Code on the part of the employer, which would undermine the framework for addressing harassment and violence that Bill C-65 seeks to establish.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to get to the bottom of why Bill C-65 was introduced. Research shows that harassment and violence in Canadian workplaces is persistent, and often incidents go underground, because people fear retaliation. Bill C-65 seeks to create an environment and culture that would make victims feel safe coming forward. It is extremely important for employees to come forward without fear of retaliation.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that we ensure that victims feel supported when they come forward. Bill C-65 would ensure that victims are provided with adequate assistance and that workplace committees were put in place to help support victims.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-65 is trying to create a single, integrated regime that would protect federally regulated employees from harassment and violence in the workplace. We are trying to create a level playing field so that harassment and violence is reduced in the workplace, regardless of whether the employee is parliamentary staff, exempt staff, an employee of a Crown corporation or part of the federal public service.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Winnipeg Centre.

I am pleased to provide some perspective on some of the amendments proposed as part of the other chamber's consideration of Bill C-65.

The issue of workplace harassment and violence is complex. The measures required to eradicate these behaviours must take many factors into consideration. For example, women tell us that they do not come forward because they feel that it is not worth the risk or it is embarrassing. Many fear potential consequences. Perhaps most disappointing is that many simply do not believe that coming forward will make a difference.

Reporting an incident requires courage. Women fear reprisals or even losing their jobs, and the stigma associated with being a victim can make it extremely difficult to report an incident. It is clear that if people know that they can come forward without fear of being identified, it will reduce their hesitation around speaking out.

One of the key elements of this proposed legislation is support for affected employees. Privacy is integral to that support. We believe that the success of Bill C-65 is closely linked to ensuring the privacy of those involved in incidents of harassment and violence. It is with this perspective that we considered some of the other chamber's proposed amendments.

The other chamber put forward two amendments that proposed that the minister's annual report and the annual report prepared by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board contain statistical data related to harassment and violence, categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Information categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the CHRA would include information such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability and others.

Our government supports the amendment being proposed with respect to including this information in the minister's annual report. However, we do not support the amendment to the section that would apply to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board's annual report. I will explain.

The first amendment proposed relates to the annual report the Minister of Labour would publish each year providing data on incidents of harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, including parliamentary workplaces. The proposed amendment would require that the data collected from employers for the annual report by the Minister of Labour include information on whether the incident could be considered a prohibited ground of discrimination. This would provide very useful information on the nature of these incidents so that together, we could work to prevent their occurrence.

However, we also recognize that collecting this data would represent certain risks to colleagues. Perhaps the most pressing would be the risk to the privacy of the individuals providing the information. This is particularly true for smaller organizations with fewer employees, where the risk of being identified is very real. To mitigate this risk, the provision of this information would be entirely voluntary. It would be up to the employees to decide whether they felt comfortable disclosing any details about themselves that could potentially identify them down the road. We feel that this is the best approach.

We felt it was important to support acceptance of the amendment to include the data in the minister's annual report because we believe that this risk would be effectively mitigated, and because the potential benefits are significant.

The data that would be collected could be used to determine whether Bill C-65 is doing the job it is supposed to do, particularly for those who are most vulnerable to incidents of workplace harassment and violence. This data, which would cover incidents in both federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces, could be used to make adjustments if there is evidence that this is not the case.

Our government is committed to making evidence-based policy decisions. The more data we have to work with in the future, the better our ability to do just that. However, as I mentioned, we do not support the other place's proposed amendment to require that the statistical data in the board's annual report include information that is categorized on the same grounds. While we support the intention of the amendment, we do not think it would be feasible. The report that is produced by the board captures only appeals made in relation to part II of the code. Only a smaller subset of those appeals would apply to harassment and violence. These appeals would not relate to investigations of the incidents themselves, but whether or not the process to deal with the incident under the code has been followed.

Given that the report would cover only the appeals that the board hears, and these appeals would relate to the process followed, the dataset would be far too small to report according to prohibited grounds of discrimination without revealing the identities of the individuals involved. I think we would all agree that breaching privacy and in any way discouraging individuals from coming forward is the last thing we want to do.

Let me be clear. This report by the board would only capture appeals, it would not capture the total number of incidents of harassment and violence occurring in parliamentary workplaces. Those incidents would be captured in the previously mentioned minister's report.

We know that these behaviours are not exclusive to our workplaces. However, with the rise of movements such as # MeToo and # TimesUp, we are understanding where we need to act and how we need to enable people to come forward. This legislation would help to create a culture where certain behaviours are simply not tolerated.

This is what Bill C-65 would help accomplish: a profound change in culture, a culture where people work in a safe workplace, one that is free from harassment or violence. For this to happen, people need the option of reporting reprehensible behaviour without fear of retaliation. Bill C-65 would help ensure that is the case.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-65, legislation that I also had the opportunity to study as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons of Disabilities.

Throughout the study of this bill, there has been common, all-party agreement that this legislation is needed. This legislation is necessary today and it was needed yesterday. It is an unfortunate reality that sexual misconduct is pervasive in our society. This includes many workplace cultures, including our own and those that are addressed in this legislation.

The recent #MeToo movement has shone a light on this reality in a societal context, but the prevalence of this issue is not new and is much broader. For far too long, individuals, and more often women, who have been victims of sexual harassment or violence have chosen not to come forward. Some may have chosen not to report their experiences because they fear shame or even humiliation. Others may fear the repercussions of coming forward. Others may have come to this decision for other various reasons. Regardless of the reasons, the common denominator is that victims of sexual misconduct have weighed the options of reporting their experience or keeping it private and, sadly, many have found it safer or preferable not to report or share their experiences. It is not a healthy state of affairs when incidences of sexual harassment and violence are swept under the rug. When that is the norm, something is broken.

It is positive that many victims of harassment are finding the courage to come forward and to share their stories. In fact, some courageously came to committee, at HUMA, to share their stories with us as we studied the legislation. It is paramount that the response to individuals coming forward is not to leave them exposed to additional trauma or additional hurt. We need to change our culture so they feel protected and supported. A part of that change is ensuring that when someone comes forward with allegations, there is a fair system in place to address the allegations.

The existing mechanisms to deal with workplace violence and sexual harassment are insufficient and do not even cover the employees of Parliament. This legislation takes steps to regulate and create a process to address sexual harassment and violence for federally regulated workers and federal workers, including those in our own place of work here in Parliament. This is particularly important as Parliament employees are not covered by existing regulations, and we all know our workplace is not immune. In fact, there is reason to suggest that our unique work environment actually aggravates a culture of sexual misconduct and violence. When victims do not feel safe to bring complaints forward, this can create an environment where harmful and abusive behaviours of a sexual and violent nature can be normalized, minimized and ignored.

As we have studied this legislation, it has been stated repeatedly by members of all parties that sexual harassment and violence have no place in Canadian society and certainly no place in our workplace. We have repeatedly heard that we need to believe victims and to support them. It is not enough just to express it, we must practise what we are preaching. That is why the Prime Minister's hypocritical response to an allegation against him was so very disappointing. He, himself, has emphasized the importance of believing victims and he has said repeatedly that he has no tolerance for sexual misconduct. However, this past summer, when an allegation resurfaced that the Prime Minister groped a young reporter in British Columbia in 2000, that was not his response. He did not live up to his own standards.

When this story resurfaced, the Prime Minister said that he could not recall any negative interactions that day. By saying what he did, he minimized the past conduct and the experience of the individual who made the allegation.

He later dug in his heels and said, “I do not feel that I acted inappropriately in any way, but I respect the fact that someone else might have experienced that differently.” I am certain we can all agree that an individual who experienced sexual harassment or violence would indeed have a different experience.

We need to ensure that we remove the ability of a person to hide between power and prestige. We need to ensure that government is focused on supporting victims. We need to work toward safer workplaces in Canada. We need to ensure that legislation does not just have the right intent, but that there are actual teeth in the legislation. We worked hard at committee to do this.

Our Conservative team successfully introduced an amendment that transferred powers from the Minister of Labour to the deputy minister in investigations of harassment involving political offices. This amendment will prevent political interference or even the perception of it in any harassment investigations in the offices of members of Parliament.

We also successfully introduced amendments to ensure strict timelines for investigations. This amendment is so important for our goal of supporting victims. To know that if someone reports an allegation, it will be investigated and dealt with in an appropriate timeline will give victims more confidence to come forward and share their experiences.

We also introduced and supported mandatory sexual harassment training. This measure will help prevent incidents of sexual misconduct, which of course is a much better reality.

As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Training will also allow individuals to know their rights and responsibilities. Through training, we can take steps toward a change in our culture. I was very pleased that this amendment was passed at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We also introduced and supported a mandatory review of the legislation after five years. This will allow Parliament to assess if the legislation is meeting its intent.

I am proud of the work that was accomplished at committee. The legislation that passed through the chamber was a better bill. It ensured a more fair process that would be impartial and ensure consequences for sexual harassers. I am pleased the other chamber also studied this legislation, with the intent of providing a fairer system with better recourse for victims of sexual harassment and violence.

I support the government's response to the amendments proposed by the other chamber because it will make this legislation stronger and better. It will offer greater clarity and give victims greater confidence in the mechanism and systems that are being created through the legislation.

Bill C-65 is important and timely legislation. Combatting sexual misconduct is a pressing need and this bill moves us in that direction. Its passage and the subsequent creation of regulations will be positive steps. It will provide better mechanisms for those working on Parliament Hill, in the federal workforce and in federally regulated workplaces. It will give better tools and resources to those working in those related workforces. It takes steps toward changing our work culture and it can contribute to a broader cultural shift.

That said, it is important that we all recognize that a process to address sexual misconduct alone will not change our culture. I sincerely hope that in addition to supporting this legislation every member in the House also acknowledges his or her role and responsibility to be a positive change in our workplace culture and in the broader context.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As my colleagues know, and as I said in my preamble, we have to set an example for the rest of the country. Our legislation must not be inferior to provincial legislation, which provides for a three-year limitation period. Our legislation calls for a one-year limitation period. That is why I am asking that the limitation period be changed to three years, so that we can lead the way on this type of legislation. This is a first. It has never been done before. It is likely that 10, 15 or 20 years ago, no one would have thought that this could have such a significant impact on victims of abuse.

Today I am voting in favour of Bill C-65 and hoping that the government understands that parliamentarians do not have to be partisan and that we must become leaders on this type of bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-65. I will be sharing my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the #MeToo movement. Obviously, we still have a long way to go before we can say mission accomplished and that women are adequately protected, represented, heard, respected and defended in their workplaces and elsewhere. I say “women”, but of course I also mean the LGBTQ+ community and anyone who is harassed. In an ideal world, no one would be harassed in the workplace.

Bill C-65 applies specifically to federal workplaces. Despite the underlying good intentions of Bill C-65, which seeks to ensure that all federally regulated workplaces, including Parliament Hill, are free of harassment and sexual violence, it still has some important weak spots that will be detrimental to victims of workplace harassment.

Canada's Conservatives believe that all forms of harassment, sexual violence and discrimination are unacceptable, that all employees deserve respect and that these employees must feel safe at work. We also believe that it should be easier to report. Reporting a perpetrator is the first step in helping a harassment victim move forward and heal from a traumatic event that too often scars victims for life.

I obviously support this bill, but it is my duty to ensure that it achieves its objectives. Unfortunately, Bill C-65 does not work in favour of victims reporting harassment in the workplace. The bill is actually quite restrictive in this sense. Bill C-65 stipulates that victims must report harassment or violence in the workplace within one year after the abuse. It is inconceivable that the time frame set by the Liberal government is shorter than that of the provinces' for the same type of abuse, which is three years.

First and foremost, the government should be a national role model and set the example in protecting and respecting victims of harassment and violence in the workplace. It should not trail behind. It is completely unacceptable and inhumane to set a one-year time frame for filing a complaint, and this simply contributes to revictimizing a person after a traumatic event.

Many advocates for victims of harassment, health professionals and victims themselves have proven many times that one single year is too short a period to decide to report, and more often than not, this deadline adds to the victims' stress. Victims of harassment are usually in subordinate positions to their abusers.

Everyone in the House knows that our employees' positions are not protected, that they can be relieved of their duties on the spot, without cause or notice. That alone makes it extremely difficult for an employee to file a complaint. For one thing, to complain is to automatically risk one's job, and for another, such employees are already vulnerable on top of being traumatized by assault.

Bill C-65 gives victims one year to file a complaint, but that limitation actually discourages them from filing a complaint. One thing we know from years' worth of victims' accounts of workplace harassment and violence is that they continue to feel vulnerable during that first year after the assault. They may suffer from major health problems. It is often difficult for them to cope with what happened and confront their aggressor, to ask for and get the help they need to function from day to day so as to keep their jobs and not compromise their career prospects, and to fulfill their professional and personal obligations.

We have all heard victims of harassment tell their stories. I know some victims. Having heard their stories, how can we do anything but speak out against the one-year limitation period that makes the reporting process harder for them? Failing to speak out against it would exacerbate the problem. I absolutely cannot turn a blind eye to this.

Consequently, there must be a reasonable time frame for filing a harassment complaint, so that victims are completely protected by Bill C-65. This is not about passing a bill to ease our conscience and to say that Parliament now has a bill that protects its employees against all forms of harassment and violence in the workplace. This is about doing things right the first time, and above all, it is about not making an already trying situation even worse for victims. It is about considering victims, their well-being and their needs first before passing a bill that could obviously do them more harm than good in some respects. This bill needs to be more than symbolic. It needs to have positive effects for victims.

Since this bill also affects former employees of the House, a limitation period of at least three years to file a complaint is the minimum period that is acceptable to victims. That should also be the minimum period for filing a complaint for those who are still employees of the House.

What is more, in order to facilitate the reporting process, respect the well-being of the victim and protect the victim's job, we need to avoid imposing a limitation period on victims while they are still employees. That is a necessary change because Bill C-65 also includes the possibility of having to participate in mediation but does not contain any legislative measures to ensure that the complainant's job is protected. That is yet another thing that puts further unnecessary stress on victims.

Despite all of the movements and measures encouraging victims of harassment to report their abusers, speaking out is still a tough decision. It is our responsibility to facilitate that process as much as possible.

I will vote in favour of this bill, but I hope that the one-year limitation period will be increased. A three-year period would give victims some breathing room and alleviate unnecessary stress.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the fact that the Conservatives will be voting in support of Bill C-65. We understand how important this legislation is to send a message to Canadians that we are playing a leadership role when it comes to addressing harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.

I do want to commend again the committee and all the parties involved for accepting amendments from the different parties. I think that is what makes this legislation that much stronger.

The member talked about the amendment from the Senate that is going to ensure there are opportunities to amend this bill in the future. If a government can amend this bill in the future, our future government may do that.

An amendment brought forward by the Conservative Party puts a sunset clause on this bill which allows it to be reviewed after five years. I think that is an important component of this legislation as well. We do not know what could happen in the future in terms of cyberbullying and technology and those types of things.

I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of that clause in the legislation and why it is is important that we have an opportunity to review Bill C-65 in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and contribute to this debate today.

We are having a fairly productive debate on the legislation. The fact that it is being supported by all parties in the House is good news. It is good news that has been reported. The editorial in the Hill Times identified and applauded all members for coming together. It said “MPs from all sides of the House are getting behind this landmark legislation” and that “should be applauded.” Of course, the Hill Times is the de facto authority on what should and should not happen on the Hill, so I thank the Hill Times for that.

I have some prepared comments, but first I want to ensure this is not a silver bullet. It has been referred to as landmark legislation. I think we can agree that it has been proven necessary and it is a tremendous step forward, but so much more has to be done.

Just recently, I was able to meet with Canada building trades and we talked about women in the workforce. We talked about under-represented groups in the workforce, indigenous Canadians, women, young Canadians, persons with disabilities, and how today's workforce could better reflect today's society. We talked at great length about recruiting those groups to the building trades, but it goes beyond that.

As a party and a government, we have done some very positive things and have put programs out there that encourage those under-represented groups to engage and get the training and support they need as they develop the skills to become important and contributing members of the workforce.

However, it is important as well not only to recruit, but to retain those workers. When people invest in themselves to take that training, when a company invests in them to provide that training to have good, skilled and productive workers, then it is important that the culture around those workers is a positive and enabling culture that allows those workers to grow, prosper and be more productive. Therefore, it is not just the recruitment, but the retention of those workers is paramount. The building trades themselves have tried some very novel and progressive measures, but we still see only 4% women in those trades.

I had the opportunity to work in Fort McMurray for 10 years. For the first couple of years, I worked with LiUNA in the Great Canadian Oil Sands, now Suncor. It was an opportunity to see a part of the world that has been such a great asset to our country. The oil sands have really been a nation builder. When I think back to those days, sitting around the lunchroom table or on the shop floor, there was not a whole lot of diversity. I do not know if the culture would have been one that would have promoted or helped to nurture any type of diversity.

We are faced with a great predicament. Youth unemployment rates in the country are at a 40-year low right now. More young people are working and unemployment rates are at record lows.

This presents a whole new problem, which is where we get our workforce and how we grow our workforce. How do we make sure that those under-represented groups have the opportunity that has been denied to many, for many years? Giving them that opportunity is positive for the individual. It is positive for the company. It is positive for the Canadian economy.

We have to do what we can to make sure they are given the opportunity, that they have the skills they need to perform the job, and that the culture they work in is positive and supportive. This proposed piece of legislation takes us on a path toward helping to find that place where everybody on that shop floor or in that office space stands as an equal, is respected and is treated with dignity.

The witness list for the committee was pretty impressive. I was at most of the meetings, and one of the things I was most taken by was the testimony from those who had experienced sexual harassment and sexual assault. Their testimony was given to the committee. It was absolutely confidential. It was very compelling, moving and disturbing.

Every member around that table from all parties paid notice to this. Hopefully, those horrible situations that those witnesses shared with us will be of benefit to other Canadians as we go forward.

To get to my prepared comments, I am pleased to be among those rising today to speak to Bill C-65. As some of my hon. colleagues have mentioned, our government believes that the bill we have put before the House today is an exceptionally strong piece of proposed legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of thousands of Canadians working in federally regulated workplaces and right here in our own workplace on Parliament Hill. We also firmly believe that this proposed legislation will make a difference in the lives of many who hear our government's message of support and who feel encouraged by our refusal to tolerate these toxic, destructive behaviours any longer.

It takes a great deal of courage to come forward. We can all agree that the #MeToo and Time's Up movements have helped reduce some of the stigma associated with being a victim. We have made progress over the course of the last year, since workplace harassment and violence came into the spotlight and more people started to speak about their experiences and to speak out against these behaviours. However, there is still much work to be done.

The reality is that many individuals still fear coming forward. Some fear reprisal at work or even losing their job. Some fear embarrassment. Others fear they will not be taken seriously, or that they will be blamed. Many individuals fear all of these things, and when they weigh the risks against the benefits when deciding whether or not to come forward, they decide that it simply is not worth it, because they believe that in the end it will not make any difference anyway. That is unfortunate.

Unfortunately, history has proven that these fears are completely founded. This is why we need Bill C-65. I believe this proposed legislation is exactly what is required to help put these fears to rest once and for all, and to empower those who feel powerless in the wake of the reprehensible transgressions of others that we can no longer afford to tolerate.

It is a strong piece of legislation that has been made stronger over the course of the last year, since it was first tabled. The dedication of the members in the House and the others who contributed their careful study of the bill, as well as the generosity of the many witnesses who informed that study, have resulted in important amendments. Amendments were made as the bill passed through the chamber, and several more were proposed as it passed through the Senate.

As detailed by several of my hon. colleagues, our government supports a number of these amendments. The amendments we are accepting help us to strike a balance between what different stakeholders told us at committee. We need a strong bill that can reflect real cultural change, that provides employees with the protections and support they need, and that provides clear direction to employers on what they are required to do.

However, as mentioned, we do not support all the amendments. While all of the other chamber's proposed amendments stem from laudable goals and are certainly noble in their principle, we believe that some would be ineffective in practice, particularly those amendments that could compromise the clarity of the bill's intent. The need for such clarity was emphasized by various stakeholders, including employers and employees' representatives, time and again during the committee meetings.

I hope the Senate will consider our reasoning and understand our rationale. I truly believe that we have done our best in our role as parliamentarians to make this the strongest bill possible. We are now at a point where we must make a decision that will move the bill forward, bringing us one step closer to royal assent and ultimately implementation of this important legislation.

We need the bill in place as soon as possible. This is why I urge all in this chamber to vote in favour of the message our government intends to send back to the Senate. We cannot afford to wait any longer for the bill to be in place, and the reality is that implementation will take time. Anyone who has been in this chamber for any length of time can certainly appreciate that. Beyond the practical challenge of putting into place the regulations and completing the necessary outreach and education, it takes time to effect the kind of lasting cultural change we hope to accomplish with Bill C-65.

On another practical note, I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the bill could be amended down the road if it becomes clear that adjustments are necessary. In fact, one of the amendments our government is proposing to accept would facilitate such a course of action.

I am referring to the Senate's proposed amendment to have the minister's annual report contain statistical data related to harassment and violence categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Information that is categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under CHRA includes such information as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability and others.

The collection of this information, provided voluntarily to avoid encroaching on the privacy of those affected, will enable us to identify with greater certainty whether or not Bill C-65 is fulfilling its intended purpose. This will particularly affect individuals who generally experience higher levels of workplace harassment and violence, such as those who identify as members of the LGBTQ2 community. Any members who were in the chamber earlier today, when my colleague from Edmonton Centre gave his speech, will remember that it was pretty enlightening.

We find that certain groups and individuals continue to experience higher levels of harassment and violence. We could look at ways to better protect them in the future. What we need right now is better protections for employees in federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces and we need those protections in place as soon as possible.

With these points in mind, I once again urge everyone here today to help move this bill forward by voting in favour of the message to be sent to the other chamber. Canadians are counting on us to do this. I ask all to consider that as we go forward with the vote on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague voiced concern about whether resources would follow this legislation. I will put on the record for clarification that in budget 2018, our government announced it was providing $35 million over five years, starting in 2018-19, with $7.4 million per year ongoing to support Bill C-65. That money would be used to develop training programs for labour program inspectors; create an awareness campaign; provide educational materials, tools and workplace priorities; hire additional labour program investigators; put in place an outreach hub accessible through a 1-800 number; and support regulatory development and enforcement activities. I want to ensure he understands that those would be available.

Beyond that, what came out in much of the testimony was the importance of changing our culture. One piece of legislation will not do that. I would ask the member if he sees a shift and different approach throughout workplace culture happening and evolving.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from North Island—Powell River for her excellent speech. She gave a really good speech and delivered it with passion. She also gave many examples of what she and her constituents experience.

It is extremely important to point out that the context for this speech is Bill C-65. The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code with respect to harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

Bill C-65 is a very important bill. As my colleague mentioned, the member for Jonquière worked very hard on this bill in committee. She proposed 17 amendments and three of them were accepted. This means that not only were the amendments warranted, but she managed to persuade our Liberal and Conservative colleagues of their merit. Naturally, that is very important.

For the record, the NDP has always fought to give workers better protection.

This bill sets out a clear, standardized procedure to help workers and employers address allegations of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. Strict rules will be put in place to protect the privacy of victims of harassment or violence, which is good news. The bill will harmonize separate labour standards related to sexual harassment and violence. The two existing standards will be amalgamated to create a single standard.

Part 1 of the bill amends the Canada Labour Code to include sexual harassment and sexual violence. Some of my colleagues pointed out that psychological harassment could have been included as well. This bill covers harassment in general, but it does not get into a lot of detail about psychological harassment. That would have been an improvement to the bill. 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. Basically, it deals with labour relations in Parliament.

Violence and sexual, physical, psychological or emotional harassment in the workplace are neither tolerable nor acceptable. That is why it is extremely important to advance this bill. However, it is important to point out that the bill does have a small flaw that must be corrected: it excludes joint health and safety committees from the investigation process, to the dismay of unions. The joint health and safety committees should continue to operate.

It is vital that they continue participating in the investigative process, as was previously the case. There are three types of joint committees that can be set up depending on the size of the business. It could be a health and safety policy committee, a local health and safety committee, or a committee with just one health and safety representative. These committees are being excluded from specific aspects of the investigative process. Under Bill C-65, the committees would no longer be able to conduct investigations of harassment or violence, or to receive complaints. The unions criticized the change because this worked in the past. We could improve the bill by keeping the unions involved.

There are a number of reasons why unions absolutely want to continue to participate in the investigative process. First, they have the expertise. They have extensive experience on joint committees that investigate harassment and violence. Therefore, it is deplorable that they are being sidelined.

Second is that the joint committees allow for an extreme diversity of investigators that is not found anywhere else. They make it possible to achieve the ideal representation, whether we are talking about sexual, ethnic or other minorities.

These committees exist. They have expertise and experience. They are legitimate and recognized. That is why unions are disappointed that these committees are being excluded from some stages of the investigation process.

Bill C-65 is essentially a procedural bill that establishes an investigative process. It is therefore very important. We know that low-income workers and those in precarious jobs, as well as racialized and queer women, are more likely to be harassed or experience violence at work. Once the bill is passed, it will apply to all federally regulated workplaces. That is good news.

However, some questions remain unanswered, so let us hope that the Liberal government answers those questions quickly. For example, will the bill be accompanied by the necessary human resources and training? When a bill is passed, the government must be sure that it can be implemented. In this case, that will take staff and training.

Will unionized workers have the right to union representation throughout the complaint resolution process? Many people are concerned about that. They need to have all the necessary information.

I am very proud of the work of the hon. member for Jonquière, who proposed 17 amendments in committee, three of which were passed. This shows that the NDP does an excellent job. Allow me to digress. Yesterday evening, I was very proud of the work of the NDP in getting a motion adopted to hold an emergency debate on the alarming IPCC report. In light of the report, the government cannot just go to Paris and say that Canada is back and then settle for keeping the Conservatives' same terrible targets. These targets do not enable us to do our fair share of the work to hold global warming at 1.5 degrees, as required.

It is also necessary to make investments in the right places. We have to stop the subsidies to the oil and gas industries, which account for nearly $2 billion in spending. Instead, we could invest that money in energy transition. To make matters worse, the government bought an old pipeline. That is terrible. It shows that the government is not serious about this. That is why I am proud that the NDP requested this emergency debate and the request was granted. Last night's debate, which lasted several hours, gave us the opportunity to stress the importance of acting quickly to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

In closing, we will support Bill C-65, which seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code. We are pleased with the improvements that were made. Some questions remain unanswered, but the work in committee helped clarify many things. Again, I congratulate the hon. member for Jonquière, who proposed 17 amendments, three of which were adopted.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the amazing member for Drummond.

I am happy to be here to speak to Bill C-65 and the amendments that the Senate has sent our way. Just as a reminder to those folks back home, this is an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act. I want to take this opportunity as well to recognize and appreciate the member for Jonquière from our caucus who worked so hard on this and presented many important amendments.

This is a serious topic that we are talking about today: safety from violence and harassment in the workplace. We have heard too many stories that are shocking and upsetting for us to hear, and it really speaks to a culture in our country and in our workplaces that it is important that the federal government take some leadership on. I am happy to see some of those steps happening.

This past week that we spent in the ridings, I had a constituent come to me and share with me a rather horrific story of sexual abuse for some of her family members. She talked to me about the reality that, with the #MeToo movement and some of the movements that we are seeing, we have to make space to hear from women and children some of the most horrific and painful things. She talked to me about the role that she sees in all levels of government to create an environment of safety so that people feel they can come forward, and really ask the questions of ourselves, of our functions, of our legislation and of the places we work and what things are putting barriers, closing doors and not creating safe environments for people to come forward. Therefore, it is important that when we are in this place we have this conversation and we continue to look at those doors and make sure we are opening them so that people feel safe.

The Senate has sent us back some amendments, and it is important that we look at them closely. One of the concerns I have is that this bill would end the ability of local health and safety committees and representatives to continue to participate in the investigation process. It is important that we protect people who come forward and that we create a safe environment for them to come forward. One of the things that is so important about having the health and safety people participate in these activities is they are the folks who are looking at what we can do better in the workplace. They are the people who will put together and present ideas of different types of training. They are really the ones who will support moving forward to change the culture of the workplace. Therefore, it is unfortunate that one of the amendments is not really directing this to move forward. That is too bad.

When it comes to the case of this bill, health and safety committees set up the process and identify the training needs. That is important because we need to know what people need to learn more about. In this place, we have all had to take some more training to understand more functionally what harassment looks like and what violence looks like. That is a great step in the right direction. This encourages us all to be accountable in this place, in the role that we hold as members of Parliament, in the work that we do and the staff that we work with. It is important that we create an environment of support, one that is safe and where we can open up those opportunities for people to come forward when they have experiences that are not very good and are very hard to share. It remains a concern for me that these committees cannot be involved and they cannot come in and support some of the work with controlling some of those gaps.

It is important that we review some statistics. The Abacus Data publication on sexual harassment of women shows that it is widespread in the workplace. Some of the publication's stats are that 53% of Canadian women have experienced unwanted sexual pressure and just under 50% of Canadian women have experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace; that number explodes to 64% of women in the workplace between the ages of 30 and 44. Seventy-seven per cent of the women surveyed and 63% of the men surveyed said that individuals who engaged in harassment in the workplace often do not face consequences.

As we sit in this place and talk about this legislation, we have to remember that when people are brave and come forward, they are not getting the support that they deserve. They do not see the people who engage in that harassment actually being held to account. I want to make sure that all of us in the House recognize that people who do not come forward are often brave in their own way. They have seen it happen again and again where they do not get the support they desperately need to move forward and the people who are engaged in that process are not held to account.

It is important that we remember that according to the “What We Heard” report, 60% of respondents experienced some form of harassment in the workplace. Nearly half of those people experienced harassment by a person with authority over them. It can be very scary for an individual to come forward when a person in authority is doing this type of activity to him or her. The victim often has to support his or her family and has to think of the consequences of any action taken. At the federal level, it is important that we take this into consideration and that we make sure the policy is strong enough so that people feel safe to come forward.

We also read in this report that racialized women, queer women, those with lower wage positions and precariously employed people are the most likely to be harassed in the workplace. This is really about vulnerability. This is about looking at that vulnerability and how to address some of these issues. I think of my own experience with constituents from the LGBTQ2 community who talk to me about how hard it is in some workplaces in the riding that I represent to come out and be public about who they are. At the federal level we need to ensure that people feel included and that they are not in an unsafe environment.

I am the NDP seniors critic. How many seniors are going into care facilities where they experience homophobia again and often go back in the closet? We have to set a tone. We have to encourage people from all sectors to recognize this behaviour and to stop it whenever they can. We do not want our elderly loved ones who go into a care facility suddenly having to hide their identity. That is simply not what we are about in this place, I would hope.

One of the things that I am a little disappointed in is that amendment 5(a), from my understanding, will not be supported by the government. This is really about releasing the investigation report to the victim. It is important that some of the information be redacted but the victim absolutely deserves to look at the report, to understand what is coming from the report, the recommendations that are going out, so that he or she can take the next step in knowing that his or her workplace is going to be safe.

These are serious conversations but they are also very precarious conversations. I am glad that every five years this legislation will come back for review.

We must always engage in a process where we create a safe environment for workers, where we have these meaningful discussions. We need to make sure that people are not shut down. We need to be leaders in this country. We need to see more people come forward.

There is a reason that the #MeToo movement is happening. It is definitely a time of hard battles, some of which are won and some of which are lost. We have to think about how we can create an environment where women, people from different communities, people with disabilities can actually feel included.

I remember not too long ago spending a day in a wheelchair. I met with a lovely woman in my riding. Karen has been in a wheelchair for many years. She talked to me about some of the discrimination that she faces and how hard it can sometimes be for this population to find meaningful work, because people do not support them and how they deal with that type of harassment.

It is important that we include people. It is important that we have legislation like this that really outlines what that looks like. We must always be accountable.

[Sean Fraser]

Mr. Speaker, I have previously had the pleasure of serving with my colleague on the transport committee. I recall on a number of occasions her advocacy to ensure that Transport Canada had the enforcement capacity to make sure the rules we adopt in this place can be fully implemented on the ground where it matters.

It is not just rail, banking, telecommunications and aviation that I have a concern with, I have a concern with the fact that any Canadian could go to work and not have the same protections. However, our constitutional authority only goes so far. The bill will aim to protect folks who work in those federally regulated sectors. Of course the employers in those sectors are subjected to the Canada Labour Code, and regulations are going to breathe life into the framework that is established in Bill C-65.

One of the things that we absolutely need to do, and I expect members in opposition should hold us to account if we fail to do, is ensure that the enforcement agencies responsible for ensuring that the protections on paper have an impact on the ground are present in Canadian society. The rules need to be worth more than the paper they are written on. We need to be able to have somebody out there in the communities to make sure that these employees have the protections they need.

[Sean Fraser]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague who represents the good people of Guelph for the question.

Before we get into how Bill C-65 addresses this, the member makes a good point that we all need to look inward. It is awfully difficult for the public to accept that they should behave differently under the laws we pass if we do not model that kind of behaviour ourselves in this place and on Parliament Hill.

On the issue of the dynamic between elected officials and staff, which I touched on in my speech, it is something that the public is not aware of. One of the problems with the rules that we have today, as I mentioned, is that here on Parliament Hill the recourse for episodes of violence, if one works in the public service, or episodes of sexual harassment, if one works in federally regulated private sectors, just do not exist. Young people are actually rewarded for essentially keeping their mouths shut because they do not want to be viewed as a problem.

This is not okay. By creating a single, integrated system that allows us to be subjected to the same rules that other aspects of the public world are subjected to, we can ensure that the power imbalance that exists between an elected official, for example, and a staff person will not cause that staff person to see that there is no possibility for recourse if they come forward with a complaint against someone who may be in a position that makes that difficult for them.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the fact that all of us in the House understand the importance of a bill like Bill C-65 and the direction it takes us to ensure as leaders in the community and elected officials that we are taking a role and sending the message that sexual assault and harassment are no longer tolerated anywhere in the workplace.

There are some concerns with the bill. One area I mentioned earlier today was the provision where a complaint cannot be filed after that employee has been terminated from their position for three months. However, the minister has the authority to override that timeline, meaning the minister can make a decision that an employee can bring a complaint against a sitting member of Parliament or another staff member well after the timeline.

We worked very hard and I appreciate the work that the committee did to accept amendments from all parties, but I am concerned that there is still political interference or the optics of political interference in the bill.

I would like the member's comment on how important it is to ensure that we do not have those optics, that there are very clear mandates that the third party will deal with complaints against elected officials.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously cares a lot about this subject and has worked to deal with these sorts of situations. He talked a bit about the importance of privacy. Could he perhaps expand on how Bill C-65 would protect anonymity in smaller workplaces and the parliamentary workplace?

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to offer some remarks in support of Bill C-65 so we can continue to move this important legislation through the legislative process and toward being implemented as law in Canada.

I would like to thank the minister responsible for the bill, as well as all of my colleagues from different parties who have taken part in the debate from inception to today. I had the pleasure of substituting in for a handful of studies while the bill was going through the standing committee process after second reading, and I am pleased to have it return to my attention today.

The bill is meant to address harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, Crown corporations and the federal public service. Over the course of my remarks, I hope to offer some thoughts on the scope of the problem of workplace harassment and violence, as well as address some of the measures included in Bill C-65 to combat these social problems. If time permits, I will address some of the Senate amendments.

It is my pleasure to begin by discussing head-on the subject of workplace harassment and violence. This social phenomenon, quite frankly, is a serious problem that has no place in Canadian society whatsoever. It is disappointing to me that while most people we speak to would acknowledge this, workplace harassment and violence continues to persist.

I note that in a study conducted by Abacus Data, one in 10 people believed harassment in the workplace was really quite common. This is unacceptable. The standard of one in 10 thinking it is quite common should shock the conscience of every Canadian. We need to be promoting healthy workplaces where people can feel free to be their best selves and ensure they are able to contribute fully.

What makes it worse is I anticipate that most people who actually experience harassment or violence in the workplace do not come forward as often as we would like to think they do and when they do, they feel the measures are extraordinarily ineffective. This is a very serious problem. In my opinion, the system we have today disincentivizes people to report harm done to them in the workplace, incidents such as harassment or violence in the workplace.

The impact of harassment and violence at work should concern every one of us. It obviously has an impact on the individual who is the subject of this harassment or violence. We can imagine that people who are subjected to harassment or violence at work experience a far higher degree of stress or anxiety when they go to work in the morning and put in their shift. I am sure as well that it is a less satisfying experience as an employee to go to work and face this kind of harassment. It will also impact work performance if an employee is worried about physical violence or emotional harassment of any kind in the workplace. It is hard to imagine how the individual could be his or her best.

This can also have a ripple effect over the course of a person's career. We know that if people are experiencing this kind of subjugation at work from another person, it has the potential to cause them to miss work. They could actually have their careers thrown off track. People leave jobs over these kinds of incidents. Often the person who suffers the greatest consequences from harassment is the victim rather than the perpetrator, which is unacceptable in today's Canada.

However, it is not just the victim or survivor of harassment and violence who suffers consequences. Quite frankly, everyone suffers.

To remove the emotional or social context from this and to just look at hard and crass economics, it does not make sense to continue with the current system that helps to perpetuate violence and harassment in the workplace. When employees are subjected to harassment and violence, productivity of our companies go down. We know there can be reputational damage done to employers as well as severe reputational damage done to the employees when there are allegations of harassment, true or untrue, in the workplace. We need to consider this. We also know that workers who are subjected to violence have a poorer attendance records at work, through no fault of their own, by the way, and this also brings down the ability of companies to succeed in the Canadian economy.

However, this cannot be dealt with simply in terms of the hard and crass economics. We have to understand that there are individual human beings at the centre of this and that there is a disproportionate impact on different kinds of people based on the rate at which they experience violence and harassment in the workplace.

In particular, marginalized groups such as women, the LGBTQ community, indigenous people, people living with disabilities, racial and religious minorities and linguistic minorities suffer harassment and violence in the workplace at a far greater rate than the ordinary Canadian citizen. That is not okay.

I have been given every advantage in life. I am a white male from a good family. My parents both had good jobs. People whom I have worked with through my life have faced so many obstacles I have not faced. I am not okay with continuing to obtain advantages that my neighbours do not have. We live in an unfair society. Until every one of my neighbours is free and has the same advantages I had growing up, I cannot give up fighting inequality in our society.

If we want to take, for example, the experience that Canadian women have as opposed to Canadian men when it comes to workplace harassment and violence, the examples will shock members. For my first three years as a parliamentarian, I had the pleasure and privilege of serving on the Standing Committee for the Status of Women. It was an eye-opening experience for me, to say the least. We conducted studies on things like gender-based analysis, on ending violence against young women and girls, and on seeking equity in the Canadian economy.

I had the opportunity to sift through testimony. It is something that I will never forget. I have spoken personally with women whose careers have been completely derailed because of harassment in the workplace, including in Crown corporations and the federal public service and in certain agencies where the rules will change when Bill C-65 is implemented. I have heard stories about women who have been pushed into divorce because of the harassment they experienced when a husband and wife worked in the same workplace. I have heard tales of women being harassed so much that when they requested a transfer to another location, the employer would not accommodate their family being transferred as well. Those are consequences that we cannot accept, because they are having such a devastating impact on individual Canadians and a systemic impact on large groups of the Canadian population.

We know that women experience rates of workplace harassment and violence three times the rate experienced by Canadian men. We know that women are more likely to find themselves in an occupation that is subject to workplace harassment. We know, for example, that women are disproportionately represented in positions such as clerks or administrative assistants that report higher incidents of harassment and violence in the workplace.

This is holding our society back. We know that if we have rules that might in effect discriminate against women, though may not seek to do so, then those rules need to change. We will all benefit when they do.

Over the past couple of years in #MeToo era, we have come to better understand this problem in society and it is time that we do something about it. I cannot, in good faith, stand up here and argue that Bill C-65 is the panacea that will erase all of our social problems when it comes to gender and equity, but it will move the ball forward. I hope that some day we will get there, one step at a time.

It is not just women who suffer disproportionately when it comes to the social problem of workplace harassment and violence. If we look at minorities or marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ community, we know that they also face higher rates of violence and sexual harassment.

I had the opportunity to work for a human rights organization in Johannesburg in a position funded by the Canadian government. While I was there I did a fair amount of work with the LGBTQ community, helping them to access information held by the government. One of the key issues we focused on was employees who were wrongfully dismissed based on their sexual orientation or gender status. I have worked with clients who have been fired for reporting bullying as a result of their being transgender. That is not okay.

We have to remember that whatever one's sexual orientation, whatever one's gender, one does not deserve discrimination. I am talking about people who had spotless performance records, people who got along very well with their fellow employees but who, when they went public about going through a transition, were discriminated against and heavily bullied. When they reported to their employers they were experiencing this kind of bullying based on who they were as a person, the employers terminated their positions. Although it took years of fighting, we were able to obtain records demonstrating that the reason they were let go was that they had filed complaints that had caused their employers headaches. That is not okay. The rules in South Africa are not the same as the rules in Canada, but I want to highlight that we can always do better to make sure that everyone is treated equally.

If we consider indigenous people in the workplace, we need to do a better job at creating an environment and circumstances that make them feel welcome in the Canadian economy. We are dealing with the fastest growing and youngest segment of the population. This should concern not just indigenous Canadians but non-indigenous Canadians as well. If we are going to make progress as a country, we need to embrace the youngest and fastest growing sector of the population. Right now these people are being discriminated against. They experience violence in the workplace at more than double the rate of non-indigenous people.

If we consider persons with disabilities, one would not believe the lack of accommodation for them throughout our society. On a separate but related piece, I am so pleased that our government is moving forward with Bill C-81. I note that we have members in the House who strongly support those who live with episodic disabilities as well. I congratulate those who took part in that debate.

We know that individuals living with disabilities, and particularly those living with intellectual disabilities, suffer from harassment and workplace violence at an extraordinarily high rate, sometimes more than four times that of the average population. We know that those facing mobility challenges face an extraordinarily high rate of violence in the workplace as well, and are treated far too often as victims because they are seen as not having the tools to defend themselves like many other Canadians have. This is absolutely disgusting and we need to ensure that we have a process that prevents these kinds of incidents from occurring, one that offers a meaningful response, that delivers justice to the victims of harassment and violence and also creates a change in workplace culture.

My point is that workplace harassment and violence is a serious problem that we all need to play a part in addressing to ensure that we can move forward in Canada by supporting Canadians, no matter what their background.

That leads me to the measures contained in Bill C-65. It takes us to where we are today. I think it is appropriate to take a snapshot of where we are today and how today's rules can change for the better. Presently, if I can oversimplify things, there are two regimes for workplace harassment and violence in Canada. Those two regimes have different mechanisms for resolving the issues facing those who have been affected by harassment or violence in the workplace. This creates an imbalance between workplaces. To point to a defining kind of example, current sexual harassment rules only apply in the federally regulated private sector, whereas rules pertaining to violence apply to the public service as well. This kind of two-tier approach makes absolutely no sense. Whether one works in the private sector, in transportation for example, or the banking sector, as opposed to working for a branch of the federal public service, one deserves the same remedy if one is treated inappropriately, no matter where one works. This is incredibly important.

What really bothers me as well is that the workplace we all share here in Parliament does not fall under either of these categories. That has been newsworthy over the last number of years, particularly when dealing with the power imbalance between elected officials or senior members of government or of a different political party, who often deal with young people who are having their first experience in politics. There is an extreme power imbalance.

Today there is not really an effective remedy, in my opinion. We are getting better as a parliamentary community and a parliamentary family, but realistically, the stories we hear through the grapevine are predominantly of young women leaving politics after a few years of being exposed to it, if they have been victimized by sexual harassment or violence in the workplace. We need to do better and Bill C-65 is an opportunity to make us be just a little better.

There are three real pillars to Bill C-65 in how we are going to approach things moving forward. The first is that we are going to try to prevent incidents from taking place in the first place; the second that we will try to offer a meaningful response to incidents when they occur; and the third, and perhaps most important, that we will try to better support employees who have been victimized and lived through episodes of violence or harassment in the workplace.

On the point of prevention, Bill C-65 will require employers to train employees and undergo training. I was very pleased to take part in the training organized by the House of Commons to ensure that I could better understand what harassment and violence in the workplace look like. Some of the examples might be very obvious when it comes to a violent outburst and some of the more subtle instances of harassment, when viewed through the eyes of one person, who may be giving direction but can be interpreted and felt as harassment by another. Through training, employees and employers can better understand where the line that should never be crossed is.

Still on the point of prevention, employers will be required to work with their employees to develop a harassment and violence prevention policy. It is essential that this not be dictated from the top down. The feedback from those living in a work environment can contribute to the development of policy. When more voices from different perspectives come to the table, the quality of the policy on the back end will improve.

Under the second pillar of the changes under Bill C-65, the need to respond to incidents of harassment and violence, the bill would implement a number of measures. The first is the establishment of a timeline for responses and attempts to resolve a dispute. It will require that employers appoint a competent person to conduct proper investigations of incidents when they occur. It would also empower employers to share information with the workplace committee when it would not compromise the privacy of the persons involved in a given incident. It would also require that when an investigation by a competent person does take place, the recommendations of that investigation be implemented. Finally, it would require that when incidents occur, they be recorded and reported in a systemic way.

The final pillar is that employers will be required to provide assistance to employees who subjected to harassment or violence in the workplace and that employers engage the workplace committees in developing policies to help make their workplaces safer.

Bill C-65, as I mentioned, will not have every answer and will not cure every problem in a day, but it represents meaningful progress. One of the features included in the bill that would ensure that we are moving in the right direction over time is the five-year review. It would ensure that we revisit these policies after we have had enough time to determine whether they are having a meaningful impact. With the co-operation of the Parliament five years from now, hopefully we can examine how things have gone in this new world and continue to improve them.

In conclusion, it has been a privilege to learn about the issues that employees face when they are subjected to harassment and violence. It is completely inappropriate and unacceptable that we continue to discriminate against marginalized groups in the workplace, in federally regulated sectors, in the public service and in any employment situation in Canada, quite frankly. We need to do better and Bill C-65 helps move us in the right direction.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are speaking to a motion about the amendments proposed by the other place. If he wants to know more specifics about Bill C-65, I suggest he read it the way I did.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to elaborate a little on Bill C-65. Throughout her speech, I did not hear a whole lot of substance about Bill C-65. Rather, I heard a lot of accusations and character attacks against the sitting Prime Minister. Maybe she would like to take a bit of extra time and actually focus on Bill C-65.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure because my colleague mentioned Bill C-69 and the hypocrisy. Bill C-69 is the new legislation that would require the energy companies, any resource companies, to be more intense, spend more time and more resources in getting the proper assessments through.

I will speak to the hypocrisy to which my colleague alluded. On the one hand, the Prime Minister is saying that he wants to have this pipeline built, yet on the other hand what he is really doing at the same time is putting in legislation that would kill any pipeline, not just the one he says has been okay.

Likewise, we are concerned about Bill C-65. He is putting forth that he is trying to eliminate sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. Would Bill C-65, like the concerns of my colleague, truly accomplish what we set out to do?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague across the way from Winnipeg North was concerned about the personal attacks, but this goes to a large part of the essence of the bill. There seems to be a lot of “Do as I say, not as I do” from the government. What are the implications of the message we are sending with Bill C-69?

The intent of this bill is very important. We do want to address sexual assault and harassment in the workplace. However, as parliamentarians, it is also very important that we send the message that this applies to everyone, no matter what his or her position is, no matter if the individuals are regular parliamentarians, regular Canadians, a cabinet minister or the prime minister.

Could the member talk about why it is important that we discuss the hypocrisy of what the Liberal actions have been when it comes to these types of issues and what Bill C-65 is intended to accomplish?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my number one fan in the House for standing and asking me a question. In fact, he was truly groping for a way to criticize me and my speech.

However, the reason we are here today is to talk about what is missing. Even though we will be supporting Bill C-65, the problem is that the bill will be passed, but one set of rules will apply to the Prime Minister and his cabinet and another set of rules for the rest of Canadians. It legislates one thing and does another. That is the point I am trying to make.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am honoured to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-65, which deals with workplace harassment and violence.

Violence against women is not new. While I would like to believe that in a predominantly rural riding like mine in eastern Ontario violence against women is an urban problem, we know that is not the case. Violence against women continues to be a fact of life in Canada and in rural Renfrew County.

Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam, and Anastasia Kuzyk were killed on September 22, 2015. Their killer was known to all of the women and to police for a long history of violence. He had been released from prison just shortly before the murders. The system failed these women.

On average in Canada, one woman is killed by her intimate partner every five days. The man arrested and accused of their murders had a long criminal history, including charges involving two of the three women. I am not prepared to let Carol, Nathalie, Anastasia and all the other women who have been murdered by their intimate partners die in vain. My memory of their senseless murders pushes me to speak out in this debate.

When I was first elected in 2000, I immediately recognized the transient and precarious nature of politics in general, and Parliament Hill in particular. For a female in a new political party with an evolving political culture, my position was even more precarious. Uncertainty after each election, and with the change in assignments in the ebb and flow of duties, was compounded by the hierarchical nature of Canadian politics and the fact that we serve at pleasure.

To quote one of my colleagues:

At any moment, everyone here weighs the opportunity cost of making a complaint or committing an non-acquiescent action with the threat of quiet dismissal, being overlooked for a promotion, being shuffled out of a spot, having a nomination candidate quietly run against us, or not having our nomination papers signed at all.

She went on to say:

To say that there is a power imbalance here is an understatement. Further, for all the talk of feminism and pursual of women's rights, there is not gender equality in the broader context of Parliament Hill. Women are still used as photo-op props, included for quotas or optics without having the authority of real decision-making automatically attached to their perceived utility. For that, women have to fight, and fight hard, and put up with being accused of not being a team player, or being an “insert choice of gender expletive here” when they do. That is only for those of us who are lucky enough to have built a platform and a profile that allows us to do that without those in the top tiers of power having to take a bit of damage in order to suppress our voices.

When this legislation was debated in the House of Commons previously, I did not have an opportunity to be part of this discussion. I was successfully defending my right to represent my party in the next federal election.

Bill C-65 is being supported by the Conservative Party. Today we are discussing amendments made by the other place, which allows for a re-examination of the legislation and the context in which it has been brought forward. At the time the legislation was previously in this chamber, it was presented by the government as partisan politics being set aside for a common purpose. All parliamentarians were prepared, or so I thought, to stand together and send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable and that they will not be tolerated any longer, period.

It was that implied spirit of co-operation that encouraged my party to support Bill C-65. As a long-standing female member of Parliament, I am very cognizant of my position as a role model. I am reminded of my responsibility as a positive role model by the Daughters of the Vote program.

Young women are smart enough to spot a hypocrite when they see one. All parliamentarians have a responsibility to be a positive role model, starting with the Prime Minister.

I was hopeful that Bill C-65 would not be just another example of virtue signalling by the Liberal Party, where the Prime Minister directs his attack dog Gerald Butts to throw social media mud from the political ditch he occupies while claiming to take the high road. Subsequent events have proven me wrong.

Sexual violence and harassment in the workplace are nothing new.

I was particularly encouraged by the comments made by newly elected members of Parliament on the government side, such as the member for Oakville North—Burlington, who talked about taking a stand together. She shared her personal experience of harassment and bullying on Parliament Hill when she worked as a staffer prior to seeking elected office. She made reference to the #MeToo movement, #AfterMeToo and Time's Up and to having the courage and the strength to speak out and be a positive role model. In that context, her brave words in the House of Commons and her subsequent total capitulation to the Gerald Butts, “Kokanee grope” talking points were all the greater disappointment.

The greatest disappointment in this entire discussion has been the deafening silence from the female caucus on the government benches, who have quietly condoned the Prime Minister's behaviour with their silence. Not one female Liberal MP rose to defend the female reporter who was subjected to an unwanted sexual advance by the Prime Minister in her workplace. Not one government MP rose to demand a coherent explanation of what the Prime Minister admitted to doing when he belatedly provided an apology to the young female reporter who was the subject of his unwanted advance.

Enabling bad behaviour almost guarantees that it will continue. After all, is that not the subject of Bill C-65, which is what we are discussing here today? Silence is tacit approval.

Certainly in my career as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, spanning six elections over 18 years, I have experienced sexual harassment and bullying. It would be impossible to find a woman in politics who is not expected to put up with misogynist fools like Dan Leger or the tiresome Dick Mercer, let alone similar dinosaur attitudes in their own parties.

From the time Bill C-65 passed third reading and returned from the other place with amendments, something has changed. Canadians learned something about the leader of the Liberal Party. Canadians learned that the Prime Minister admitted to groping a young woman reporter at a music festival before he sought elected office. This is a very important discovery.

Unlike the recent events in the United States during the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about alleged events before he started his professional career, the Prime Minister has avoided a rigorous examination of his inappropriate behaviour.

South of the border, the Prime Minister has been referred to as the Bill Clinton of the great white north.

The Prime Minister had an opportunity. Rather than making up one answer, the Prime Minister chose to come up with a series of tortured explanations for the groping allegation against him. Constantly changing his story, he had an opportunity to come clean with Canadians.

In the process, the Prime Minister dodged questions about the need to call an investigation on his own conduct, the way he did with Liberal MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti in his caucus, who faced similar allegations in the past and were removed from the Liberal Party.

The Prime Minister has single-handedly “terribly set back”, to quote Kathleen Finlay, founder of the Zero Now campaign to fight sexual misconduct in the workplace, progress on women's issues.

Ms. Finlay said:

He went from saying he had a good day and sort of smiling about it, and dismissing it that way...and then he went on to explain it, in a tortured explanation about different perceptions, how men and women can perceive things differently. And from where I was sitting, that just re-opened the whole “he said, she said” kind of explanation...which is something women who have suffered incidents of sexual misconduct do not want to hear.

The incident was first published in an editorial in the Creston Valley Advance, a community newspaper in British Columbia. The Prime Minister, who was in Creston to attend the Kokanee Summit festival, put on by the Columbia Brewery, admitted later to inappropriately groping the reporter while she was on assignment.

In addition to being on assignment for the Creston Valley Advance, the female reporter was also on assignment for the National Post and the Vancouver Sun. While her connection to the big city newspapers may have prompted remorse after the fact, that is a topic for a proper investigation.

The incident resurfaced online, including in a scandal magazine earlier this year. The allegation came into wider circulation the first week of June, when photos of the Creston Valley Advance editorial were widely shared on social media, and it received further comments when prominent online media outlets reported on it that same week.

The now former female reporter for the Creston Valley Advance community newspaper, the Vancouver Sun and the National Post confirmed that the Prime Minister groped her, or in his words, “inappropriately handling”, while she was on assignment at the festival.

After the incident, she wrote an unsigned editorial blasting the Prime Minister for his misconduct. The editorial did say that the Prime Minister told the female reporter that had he known the reporter was working for a national paper, he never would have been so forward.

The reporter wrote this about the Prime Minister:

...shouldn't the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn't he learn, through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn't in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is or where they are?

After the incident, the female reporter, who is not in journalism anymore, held meetings with Valerie Bourne, the then publisher, and Brian Bell, the then editor of the newspaper, and communicated her displeasure about the Prime Minister's conduct. In a statement, the female reporter said she reluctantly went public to identify herself and to confirm the incident because of numerous media requests. She would not offer any comment or take part in any discussion on the subject, she said, adding that the incident happened as reported.

This is what the Prime Minister stated on CBC Radio, on January 30, 2018, before details of the groping incident were reported in the national and international media. He stated:

I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well. This is something that I'm not new to. I've been working on issues around sexual assault for over 25 years.

My first activism and engagement was at the sexual assault centre at McGill students' society where I was one of the first male facilitators in their outreach program leading conversations—sometimes very difficult ones—on the issues of consent, communications, accountability, power dynamics.

To connect the dots, it was after the Prime Minister left university in Quebec when the groping incident occurred.

The following is from the newspaper editorial following the groping incident. It states:

It’s not a rare incident to have a young reporter, especially a female who is working for a small community newspaper, be considered an underling to their ‘more predominant’ associates and blatantly disrespected because of it. But shouldn’t the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn’t he learn through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn’t in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is, or where they are?

And what makes the fact that she was working for the Post of any relevance? Big stories break first in community newspapers after all.

It may not have been an earth-shattering find, but one thing could have been learned from the experience. Like father, like son?

That was from the Creston Valley Advance, Monday, August 14, 2000.

What are Canadians expected to take away from this incident of groping that took place between the Prime Minister and a young female reporter? First and foremost, this incident is about hypocrisy, saying one thing and applying a different set of rules to one's own behaviour. It is about believing women, until it happens, then it is deny and hope that the clock runs out on the media cycle.

It has been noted by the CBC that there is no dispute that this incident happened. In 2018, the excuse “I did not think I was doing anything wrong” does not pass the smell test. Worst of all, the Prime Minister has shown no ability to grow with the job and learn from his mistake. Women in Canada deserve better from a Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist.

What this incident has also taught Canadians is that they cannot trust the Prime Minister, when he tells the public he is doing one thing but legislatively does another. It was finally figured out by the temporary socialist government of Alberta that the current government has no intention of seeing any pipelines built, let alone the Trans Mountain pipeline. In response, the NDP in Alberta pulled its support for the scam carbon tax, which is all about getting the provinces to take the blame for raising taxes while using the environment as an excuse to raise taxes.

If dragging the government's feet on this issue somehow does not work, Bill C-69 will be sure to suffocate any resource project from going forward.

There are ethics rules for parliamentarians, versus the Prime Minister's trip to a tropical island. When the Ethics Commissioner rules that opposition members are in violation of the rules, charges are laid by the RCMP. Where are the charges against the Prime Minister for his breaches of the code of ethics for parliamentarians?

In public, the Prime Minister claims that his government is going to crack down on guns and gangs but it cranks out Bill C-71 instead, which cracks down on law-abiding citizens who are already obeying the law. Then there is Bill C-75, which would soften the penalties for gang violence, among other atrocities.

The biggest lie of all is the Prime Minister's betrayal of veterans. It was announced by the government that no Canadian Armed Forces personnel would be medically released until their benefits were in place, yet last week, not only was it confirmed that soldiers are being released without their pension amounts and benefits confirmed but that soldiers should be told to wait longer.

In the last election, the Prime Minister claimed that the problem was that there were not enough offices open to service veterans. The government went ahead and spent funds intended for veterans to open offices in government ridings, and it now tells veterans that it has just doubled the official wait time, if they even qualify.

How much is the political decision to direct shipbuilding contracts going to cost Canadians?

I had high hopes for Bill C-65. It now appears that Canadians will be disappointed, as they have been disappointed with everything else this Prime Minister has touched.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I became a member of Parliament, I was surprised, even shocked, at the lack of protections that were afforded to parliamentary staff both here on the Hill and in our constituency offices in terms of the safety provisions in place for them, in terms of the regime that existed for protecting people against unwanted sexual advances in the workplace.

Bill C-65 is a historic change. It is one regime. It extends to parliamentary staff both on Parliament Hill and in our constituency offices. I think it boils down to three verbs: prevent, respond, support. We are preventing incidents of harassment and violence from occurring. We are responding effectively to them when they do occur. We are supporting employees affected by harassment and violence, and protecting their privacy. That includes LGBTQ2 Canadians, indigenous Canadians, all staff in federally regulated agencies and in parliamentary offices. It is about time.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is really important about Bill C-65 is our new approach to workplace committees and their role in investigating alleged harassment in the workplace.

In the consultations that were held across the country, it was very clear that a matter of allegation of harassment or unwanted sexual touching in the workplace is so serious and such a private matter that our government has decided it is best for the individual to be able to raise this with one person in the workplace and not involve a whole workplace committee. Many people who said they were victims of workplace harassment did not bring it forward because they did not want a whole workplace committee involved in the investigation process.

It is important to note that should an alleged victim want to have someone accompany him or her in that process, the person is able to do so but that is the person's choice. It is not an automatic role and the workplace committees will not have involvement in that process.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand today and reflect on the speech my colleague from Edmonton Centre gave earlier today when he spoke about the need for a sense of belonging in the workplace, tolerance and inclusion. I am wondering if the member could tell us how Bill C-65 will change the role of workplace committees in investigating harassment allegations.

The House resumed consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-65, 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.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about his experience of workplace violence and harassment. That took a lot of courage and it informs the debate. That is why we want to pass a bill. We agree that it moves things along.

They want to change workplace culture, but the Liberals did not want to keep joint health and safety committees. They opposed letting the very diverse experts on those committees, which include people working with LGBTQ communities, racialized people and linguistic minorities, continue to support victims. Under Bill C-65, this will no longer happen.

I would like my colleague to explain why it is important to bring back these joint committees so they can support victims when they face their employers, who can be somewhat intimidating in the workplace.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague is in robust health. As he can see, my hairline is taking the same trajectory that his has taken. I do not know if that makes us wiser or just more experienced on the campaign trail.

However, I can tell the member that everybody's experience when it comes to unwanted approaches in the workplace must be taken with the seriousness that they deserve and they must be investigated. What we are talking about here in Bill C-65 is one regime to stop workplace violence, to help people who are subject to it, and to make sure that our political staff on the Hill and in our constituencies are afforded the same rights, protections and safety as all Canadians.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to speak to Bill C-65, which amends the Canada Labour Code and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to help ensure that federally regulated workplaces, including the federal public service and parliamentary workplaces, are free from harassment and violence. With this legislation we can all look forward to a time when Canadian workers are better protected against workplace violence and harassment. We can look forward to a time when no worker in Canada has to fear coming forward after experiencing these inappropriate behaviours to protect themselves or their families.

I want to begin by thanking the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour for bringing this very important legislation before Parliament. While it is not often that we enjoy support from our opposition colleagues, the way in which we have worked together across the aisle to support this legislation shows that it is truly time for change. Whether it is how sexual violence in the workplace is handled, or how power imbalances are reinforced in our culture, violence and harassment in the workplace are not partisan issues. They are issues that affect us all, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

Of course, the first thing that comes to mind when I think of this bill is that it benefits vulnerable minorities who are much more likely to be harassed in the workplace. Sexual minorities, including people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or two-spirit are at a particularly high risk of being victims of harassment and violence in the workplace. To me that is totally unacceptable.

Historically, LGBTQ2 community members have been targets of workplace violence and harassment. Progress is being made, but we need to continue to do more.

One example of such societal progress is the historic apology made to LGBTQ2 Canadians last summer by Prime Minister Trudeau. When most of us see Canada as a progressive and accepting nation, our past has not always been so open-minded. We know that from the 1950s to the early 1990s, the Government of Canada undertook a horrifying campaign of oppression against citizens suspected of being part of LGBTQ2 communities, setting a course for decades of discrimination in the Canadian workforce and destroying the lives of thousands of workers, including public servants and soldiers in the process. As we know, the Prime Minister made a historic apology that day. I apologize for using his name in this chamber.

Although we now see workplace violence and harassment as issues that need to be solved, this shows that for these communities in particular, workplace violence and harassment have been part of the lives of people for too long. Today, as a legacy of this dark period of our history, LGBTQ2 Canadians are still subjected to discrimination, violence and aggression at alarming rates. In fact, trans people did not even have explicit protection under federal human rights legislation until 2017. Occurrences of mental health issues and suicides remain higher among LGBTQ2 youth as a result of violence and harassment. In fact, LGBTQ2 youth are four times more likely to attempt to suicide than their straight counterparts. The homelessness and joblessness rates that face the LGBTQ2 community are high. Therefore, the steps we are taking today will encourage LGBTQ2 Canadians to be full participants in our workforce.

I must also mention the treatment of indigenous workers, for whom violence and discrimination are part of their daily lives. According to the 2014 Statistics Canada General Social Survey, violent victimization among indigenous people is more than double of that of the non-indigenous population. Research shows that regardless the type of violent offence, whether it is sexual assault, robbery or assault, the victimization rate is almost always higher in indigenous populations than in Canada's non-indigenous populations.

It is vitally important that indigenous peoples and LGBTQ2 citizens feel able to be 100% themselves without the fear of being harassed, treated poorly or made to feel insignificant.

Before I came out, I felt like I could only operate at about 60% or 70%. I spent 30% to 40% of my brain space trying to be a straight guy. It did not work and it ate me up from the inside. Once I came out, I was able to be 100% me. Even some of my friends said, “Could we just have the 80% Randy back? You're a lot to handle.” Quite frankly, I am 100% now. I am not going back in that closet.

Guess what? We want LGBTQ2 Canadians to be 100% themselves, and that includes in the workforce. When we get this kind of legislation passed, when we practise what we preach inside this chamber, all Canadians can feel like they belong in our workforces.

As I have said to friends and colleagues in the workplace since coming out, “Joke with me, not about me. I am a bald, gay guy. They can make lots of jokes about that, but just do it with me in the room, not when I am outside the room grabbing some coffee.”

The results and the stats are real. A 2018 Human Rights Campaign foundation study noted that a little more than half of employees surveyed, 53%, hide their sexual orientation or gender identity at work, and a little over a third, 35%, do not disclose their personal lives. Could members imagine going through a week in this place not talking about what it is like to be part of a family, not talking about their kids, not talking about their loved ones, not talking about whether they are an aunt or uncle, and whether they are a proud member of a partnership that has lasted for 10, 15, or 20 years? That would be unthinkable to me, and yet it happens to far too many Canadians. That means they are not bringing their full selves to work.

The transgender community especially faces staggering challenges. Transgender people face an unemployment rate three times higher than average. Twenty-seven per cent were not hired, were fired or were not promoted in 2015, due to their gender identity or expression, according to the U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest of its kind looking at the American transgender community. In 2015, an astounding 80% of transgender people were harassed or mistreated at work or had to take steps to avoid it. We do not have data at the national level, but we are getting there. The Trans Pulse project in Ontario studied the impact of social exclusion and discrimination on the health of transgender people. Of those surveyed, 13% said they were fired specifically for being transgender; another 15% suspected that it might have been the reason for their dismissal; 18% said they were turned down from a job for being transgender, while another 32% suspected this was the reason.

I have faced this kind of discrimination in advance of the campaign trail. I was on a study tour, learning how to speak Spanish in Latin America. I was in Buenos Aries, and serendipity happened to lead me to hear a voice of a distinguished member of my community of Edmonton. We met in the kiosk at the local museum and we agreed to have lunch the next day. It was a long lunch. After about two and a half hours, I mentioned that I might someday like to be in politics and mentioned my partner at the time. He said, “Wait a second, you are gay?" I said yes, that I had been out for almost 20 years. “And you're francophone,” he said. I said that I was. He said he could tell me what I needed to do, that I needed to take my francophone, gay self and go back to Montreal where I came from because I did not stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever being elected in Edmonton. I found that really interesting because my family does not come from Montreal. It comes from Quebec City and had moved to Alberta 126 years earlier. Therefore, I took what was overt discrimination and used that as fuel. I used that as fuel at the doors and won that election. Within a couple of days of winning the election and becoming a Liberal, gay, francophone person in Edmonton Centre, I found a postcard, en français, that said, “thinking of you”, “pensant à vous”. I wrote on the inside, “Looking forward to lunch soon. Can't wait to see you”, and signed my name with “Edmonton Centre, member of Parliament”.

We had a meal together and it went very well.

He totally fell on his sword and said, “I can't believe I said that to you. I was wrong, and please forgive me.” Discrimination happens, but so does reconciliation.

What we are talking about here is stopping it, preventing it, and addressing it properly. Bill C-65 can help to further our fight for equality. The legislation builds on existing violence and harassment provisions in the code to create a comprehensive approach that would cover the full spectrum of harassment and violence, from bullying and teasing to sexual harassment and physical violence. This legislation extends the full suite of occupational health and safety protections, including harassment and violence protections, to parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons, including our own political staff.

I was surprised, mystified and shocked when I was elected to realize the few protections afforded to parliamentary staff. As a new member of Parliament, coming from business, I was shocked. I am proud to be part of a Parliament that is taking steps to address that. As a result of this legislation, a single, integrated regime would be created to protect all federally regulated employees from harassment and violence in the workplace, including LGBTQ2 and indigenous workers, preventing incidents of harassment from occurring and supporting those employees affected by harassment and violence, including respecting their privacy.

I know that the other chamber has done extensive study of this bill and that it engaged in discussions with witnesses from many organizations to help in the study.

Having read the amendments made to Bill C-65, I find that these changes clearly help strengthen a powerful framework that will support every Canadian worker from coast to coast to coast.

The other place heard concerns that Bill C-65 would prevent employees from complaining to the Canadian Human Rights Commission when they experience workplace harassment or violence. As such, they proposed an amendment that explicitly states that “nothing in this Part shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the rights provided for under the Canadian Human Rights Act.” Indeed, it is not the intention of this legislation to prevent someone from going to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. As such, we support this amendment.

The Government of Canada reiterates that it is essential for Canadian employees to know that they can file complaints without fear of those complaints being buried under a pile of red tape. Reprisals are already prohibited under the Canada Labour Code. Accordingly, a complainant who feels they are being punished for coming forward can contact the labour program for help.

This amendment also guarantees that the information concerning any complaint of workplace harassment or violence remains confidential, whether it is brought before one tribunal or another.

The other chamber has proposed additional amendments. A member of the other place proposed that the terms “trivial, frivolous or vexatious” be replaced with the term “abuse of process” to limit the negative associations of coming forward with a complaint. Language matters. It is important that we show the government that people who experience workplace harassment or violence will have their claims taken seriously and that experiences will not be dismissed as trivial, or frivolous, or vexatious. We know that it takes strength and courage for someone to come forward when they have experienced inappropriate behaviours in the workplace. We know that we must make it easier for those people to come forward.

This amendment shows that the government recognizes that abusive language can harm anyone who has been a victim of sexual harassment and wishes to file a complaint, but who is ashamed of what happened to him or her.

There were other amendments proposed by the other place that we were not able to accept, and I will address one such amendment in particular.

A member of the other chamber proposed that persons who investigate the complaint shall inform the employee and employer in writing of the results of the investigation. We agree with the intent of this amendment, which was thoughtful and positive. However, we are unable to accept this amendment because of its location in the legislation. The section of the Canadian Labour Code that would be amended by the other chamber pertains to investigations by workplace committees. In Bill C-65, incidents of workplace harassment or violence are not subject to this part of the code, in order to protect the privacy of individuals in cases of harassment and violence. Bill C-65 prohibits the involvement of workplace committees in the investigation of specific incidents.

If this amendment were included the Canada Labour Code, it would not apply to incidents of harassment or violence, and that is why it was not adopted. If an incident of harassment or violence is not resolved, the workplace committee investigates and proceeds directly to an investigation by a qualified person.

This concern is not lost. The process related to the investigation by a competent person will be set out in the regulations. That point was raised by the other chamber and will be included in the regulations as well. What we propose is that these regulations include who receives a copy of an investigative report, including the employee. Since the entire process related to the competent person investigation is set in the regulations, there is nowhere in the code where a reference to who receives the investigative report could be added.

Further, the reason why the process is set out in regulations is that it builds on the existing violence prevention regulations that were developed through tripartite consultation. The new regulations for Bill C-65 are also being developed through tripartite consultation to ensure that the process meets the needs of all parties and will result in timely resolution of incidents.

I am also glad to see that this legislation will apply to employees of Parliament who were not previously protected, as we discussed. It is also important to know that staff are being supported both on the Hill and in constituency offices like my own in Edmonton Centre. This legislation now extends all safety protections to Hill and constituency staff.

The fundamental objective of this bill is to prevent not just physical illness and injury, but also mental health issues. This bill will apply to the entire spectrum of workplace harassment and violence. The amendments to the code will apply to federally-regulated workplaces, including international and interprovincial transportation, banks, telecommunications, most Crown corporations, the federal public service, ministerial exempt staff and interns employed in these sectors.

The proposed changes to Bill C-65 will show Canadians that these behaviours will not be tolerated.

There is a misconception brought to the House by the member for Foothills that I would like to address. The issue pertains to the possibility of perceived political interference in processes related to political staff and their employees.

Let me be really clear on this. To avoid any perception of conflict of interest where a matter involves a member of the Senate or their staff, or a member of the House of Commons or their employees, the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour will be exercised by the deputy minister of labour. This includes the ability to extend the length of time for a former employee to bring forward a complaint. It is the deputy minister of labour who will grant this extension. There will be no political influence or interference in such matters, full stop.

It is important to circle back to why this matters so much. The federal government employs some 300,000 Canadians, as the largest employer in the country. A 2014 World Bank study estimated that the cost of intolerance in the Indian economy was $31 billion U.S. a year. What does that mean in the Canadian context? If we take the average company, the average NGO, the average provincial workforce or, in our case, the federally regulated agencies, and we take 15% of the bottom line, 15% of the staff costs, and add up what that number is, it is the cost of exclusion. That is what intolerance in the workplace costs us as Canadians every day. Add up how much is spent on salary and benefits, take 15% of that, and ask how much is it worth to get workplace harassment under control, to stop it, to prevent it and to help people who are victims of it.

That is what we are talking about. I would like to be here in the future to talk about the benefits of inclusion, not the costs of exclusion. That is exactly what this kind of legislation will help us to achieve here today.

Here is a magical thing that happens. When an inclusive workforce is created, when people know they are protected, when the 15% of those who feel marginalized because of racism, bullying, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia and biphobia feel welcome, that workforce will include 100% of its employees. Something magical happens, because the other 85% know they are in a healthy ecosystem as well, and the whole workforce does better. The pie increases.

What we want to do here is to have workplaces where people can bring 100% of themselves to work. We want to have workplaces where people can be their full selves. We want people to be safe. We want them to have a good day at work and to go home to their loved ones and to be able to talk about how awesome it is to work for the Government of Canada, because we have put in place a system and a piece of legislation that keeps them protected.

I am honoured to serve in the 42nd Parliament. I am even more honoured to know that we are working on an issue that not just Canadians face, but also people around the world. Workplace harassment is serious. We must stamp it out. With this legislation, we are taking great strides. We know that the measures in Bill C-65 will help make these changes possible. I hope that the bill will serve as a historic reminder of Canada's dedication to equality and strength here and from coast to coast to coast. I encourage all colleagues in the House and around the country to bring their 100% selves to work. Canadians would ask no less of them.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my presentation, I will be supporting Bill C-65 because I believe it is an important step forward that we set the tone and show a leadership position on this issue and work with the provinces to come up with regulations and rules around sexual harassment in the workplace.

I know the parliamentary secretary is working very hard to change the subject on what our concerns are with this legislation. No matter how historic they believe the legislation is, we cannot put that forward to Canadians and say, “Do as I say, not as I do”. That is not the message we should be sending.

The message we are sending is that this is for everyone else, but when it comes to cabinet and the prime minister of Canada, there are different rules. We have to be very cognizant of the fact that Canadians are looking to us to set the example and show leadership. That is what we are asking the Liberal government to do.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the committee at that time so I do not know the background of that amendment, but I appreciate the member bringing it forward. I agree to some of her comments, and I do think it is the victim's right to understand as much information as possible that went into the decision, whatever the decision may be. However, as part of that, I also believe it is just as important to protect the privacy of those involved in an investigation.

I am pleased to see some of the portions of Bill C-65 go a long way to ensure the protection of both parties in an incident, whether it is the victim or the accused. Both parties have to ensure their privacy is protected. A very critical piece of this legislation is to ensure those people feel safe coming forward and that their identity may not be revealed to the complainant, but I think that goes both ways.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a theme that was repeated throughout the committee review of Bill C-65, and has certainly been reflected in my colleague's speech, is removing barriers to victims of harassment in the workplace that prevent them from coming forward because they fear privacy concerns. The member alluded to this in his speech.

One of the amendments my New Democratic colleague, the member of Parliament for Jonquière, made at committee was blocked by the government and again in the Senate amendments. It was a provision to ensure the investigation report could be released to the victim and the health and safety representatives, with details such as the workplace redacted, which might reveal things about the victim's identity.

The question is about how to share the victim's recommendations about changes to the workplace without revealing who that victim is. Are there any comments from my colleague about how that could be accommodated given my understanding is the government has refused those amendments?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question really hits on one of the major themes in my presentation. Absolutely, we want to ensure any Canadian feels comfortable coming forward, whether to a colleague at work or through something more formal that we are trying to put together as part of Bill C-65.

The concern I have is that, as part of this bill, we are telling Canadians that in the House of Commons and the federal government there is zero tolerance for harassment and bullying in the workplace. However, it is very important we practise what we preach. As my colleague said, if we want to take the view of the victim, I agree with that. If the victim comes to us or to somebody to make a complaint, then we have to take that complaint seriously. We cannot say that person experienced the incident differently.

I am very concerned we are sending a double message to Canadians that if they are in a specific position of power, or they are in a position of authority, their story would not have the same credence as anybody else. I am very concerned we are sending a very poor message to Canadians. What we should be sending is that no matter who they are, no matter what position they are in, they are under the same status as anybody else. That is a very important message.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-65, which is an important piece of proposed legislation. I gather from all the presentations today that all of us in the House understand that this legislation is overdue. As elected officials and members of Parliament in the House of Commons, I do not think there is any doubt that we should be the ones to set the example. Canadians across the country look up to us, and it behooves us as members of Parliament to ensure that leadership comes from the top down and that we are the ones taking the lead on an issue such as this.

All forms of harassment, sexual violence, discrimination and bullying are unacceptable in our society today. That has been very clear, not only from the presentations and interventions in the House but in the media and society as a whole. We have seen that the time has come where these types of actions are simply no longer acceptable. They probably should never have been acceptable, but now with the coverage and the change in society, this has certainly come to a head. Therefore, it is important that we enact this legislation, Bill C-65, but I also think Canadians expect us to make sure we do it right.

Like many of my colleagues who have spoken today, I too am a father. I have three children. My youngest actually leaves her teenage years today. It is her 20th birthday, which makes me feel very old.

As my wife and I raised our three kids, we certainly encountered various instances of bullying and harassment in school and in sports. I understand, as I think every parent in the House does, the profound and long-lasting impact that had on my children from when they were in elementary school to their lives now as young adults. We cannot underestimate the long-lasting impact that these types of inappropriate activities have on our children, which certainly leads and shapes how they are as adults.

Therefore, I am very proud of the work that was done at committee and within the House on Bill C-65 to ensure that we get this right, that we lead by example, and that the example starts right here in the House with this proposed legislation, which is a good first step forward.

However, as many of my colleagues have said, I believe that some pieces of the proposed legislation are concerning. When we are hearing allegations that for powerful officials, elected representatives or people in business there is a two-tiered system or a two-tiered level of acceptance, that is where we have to ensure that we get this right and that we are going in the right direction.

As I said, I truly believe Canadians are looking at us today to set the right example. They want to see that we are taking action, and that the action we are taking means every single Canadian is treated equally and with respect, and that their stories hold the same weight as any other Canadian, regardless of that person's position of power or as an elected official.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that is in the spirit of the bill before us. We simply cannot have a system where people in power do not face the same consequences as any other Canadian.

I will tell members a quick story. I was watching the news on the weekend, as I do just about every weekend, and I saw an interview on CBS with former first lady and secretary of state Hillary Clinton. She was asked whether or not her husband and former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, should have resigned as president after the sex scandal with his intern, who was 22 years old at the time.

As a father, but certainly as an elected representative and member of Parliament, I was appalled by her answer. Her answer was that he should not have stepped down, that the intern was an adult, and that this was a consensual relationship. That is certainly not the type of answer or the attitude that we are expecting in today's day and age, especially from a well-respected Democrat in the United States who tried to become the president of the United States. She just sloughed off this issue, saying that they were consenting adults despite his being 27 years her senior and in a very influential position of power. He was the president of the United States.

I would profess that had anybody else been in this situation, I think Ms. Clinton would have had a very different response. We have seen that across all spectrums of society, whether it is Mr. Weinstein or Mr. Cosby. It concerns me that in today's society, there seems to be this development of a two-tiered system, where people in power are somehow exempt from the same repercussions as any other Canadian.

That was also quite evident earlier this summer when the Prime Minister, albeit it occurred 18 years ago or in that range, was accused of inappropriate behaviour with a newspaper reporter. He did not apologize and there were no consequences within the House of Commons or Parliament. It is very important for us, as parliamentarians, that we send a very strong and clear message to Canadians with Bill C-65 that these actions will not be tolerated, regardless of one's position, one's job title and certainly if it is the Prime Minister.

That reaffirms why this bill is so important. It is behaviour such as this that Canadians and members of Parliament can no longer tolerate. We have to send a message and set the tone for the rest of Canada.

The legislation would impact more than 900,000 employees in federally regulated areas. It would cover nearly 8% of workers actively employed in Canada. Therefore, the impact of the legislation would be quite profound.

Bill C-65 aims to protect federal public service employees and federally regulated employees, including staff working on Parliament Hill. I think all of us would agree that these employees are exceptionally talented and very important to us as elected officials. If it were not for them, we certainly would not be able to do the day-to-day tasks expected of us. Before this legislation, things were traditionally kind of in a gray area for these employees. They were not sure where they fell when issues of harassment or even bullying occurred in an office and where they could turn for support. This is an extremely important point in the legislation.

Sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and bullying certainly have no place in Canadian society, especially within our political system and on Parliament Hill. By electing us, our constituents across Canada have shown an incredible trust and confidence in us. Each and every one of us should take that responsibility to heart. When they cast their votes, they expected us to represent then with the utmost professionalism, to be above reproach. I dare say constituents look to us and hope to be very proud of the men and women they have selected to represent them in the House of Commons. They look at us to personify their values and the things that are important to them, their friends, their families and certainly their communities.

It is our duty to act in a manner that behooves a member of Parliament, to set a very strong example not only for our colleagues in the House but our staff and certainly and foremost for our constituents. That is why I am voicing a bit of frustration with the bill today as there clearly seems to be two-tier treatment for how people in the House will be treated.

I have been here for just over four years, so I do not have the experience of some of my other very esteemed and honourable colleagues. However, in my short four years, I saw colleagues removed from NDP and Liberal caucuses when allegations of harassment were made. I do not want to judge the validity of those charges, that is not for me to do, but the action in those cases was very swift. A lot of those colleagues were not re-elected, which is the decision of their constituents. However, their leadership teams and caucuses acted very quickly in addressing these situations.

However, it is a much different approach for the Prime Minister and members of cabinet when similar allegations are made against them. It seems that serious allegations of harassment cannot be set aside simply by saying that we remember things differently. We cannot have ministers calling their colleagues ambulance chasers or Neanderthals. That is not acceptable behaviour. We are at a level where Canadians expect us to be beyond that.

I want to go back to this summer. We should focus on that with respect to where this legislation should take us. When the Prime Minister spoke about the allegations that were raised to him regarding the reporter in BC, he said that this should be a reckoning for us all. I agree. This legislation should be a reckoning for us all. It should be tighter, more succinct and stronger than it is.

Protecting our employees and ensuring we have a safe workplace should be unequivocally a non-partisan issue. All of us in the House should be working together to ensure we put the best legislation forward.

When we had some discussions with department officials about Bill C-65, I asked about the investigation guidelines. If members have a chance to take a look at it, it is a flow chart of sorts when complaints are made. Complaints against a staff member go in one direction and a complaint against members of Parliament goes in another. It was important to try to take the politics out of the investigation and the decision-making system.

When I asked department officials if some of the regulations in the bill would be equally enforced on members of cabinet and a prime minister as they would be on any other member of Parliament, I was concerned when they said they were unsure. They did not know if that was truly the case.

Another element in the bill is that a complainant cannot make a complaint against an employer after he or she has been out of the position for three months. Once a complainant has left that position for whatever reason, he or she can no longer file a complaint against the employer. However, the minister of labour of whatever party is in government would have the authority to waive that timeline in perpetuity. It could be three months, three years or 30 years. Again, that brings political influence into the bill. I again want to commend members of the committee who worked to accept amendments from all parties to ensure we tried to eliminate that whenever possible

However, there are still some gaps in the legislation that are open to political influence and we have to be cognizant of that. The optics of the bill have to ensure that there is no political influence when it comes to cases of sexual harassment, harassment in the workplace and certainly bullying.

When I again asked department officials if the minister would be able to make a decision on exempting a former member of Parliament or an existing member, a cabinet minister or a prime minister, they answered that they did not know. We should be aware of that as we follow through on Bill C-65.

There are some good regulations within the bill. Again, the Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-65 as we move it forward. It is an important step but it is just one step.

For example, under the previous wording in the bill, a person who was a victim of harassment by his or her immediate supervisor had to deal directly with the harasser. With the changes to the bill, that would no longer be the case. Victims will not have to deal with the people they are complaining against or who have allegedly attacked or harassed them, which is important. It will ensure that anyone who does have concerns or does have a complaint can feel comfortable that he or she will not have to face the accused in that matter.

The previous wording would have put any victim in a very challenging situation. We heard that at committee when witnesses came forward with their stories, and I appreciate all of them for doing that. It can be very difficult to relive that situation. People do not want retell their story over and over again. I appreciate the effort the witnesses made because it helped us to build this legislation.

Prior to that, if victims or alleged victims had to face their accusers to tell their stories, I think it may have deterred a lot of them from coming forward. They once again would have felt violated. They would have had to confront their harassers and they certainly were not provided the proper resources or the proper tools to deal with that. This was why the proposed amendment, which was accepted, to ensure that victims would not have to go through that situation again was very critical. They would put forward their complaints to a third party.

A third amendment introduced clause 2.1. It added a new text which would amend the Canada Labour Code to explicitly guarantee the ability of complainants to see redress through the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This would also provide greater certainty to those who experienced workplace violence and harassment. That is another important piece of the bill.

Another amendment to clause 11.1 would ensure that the minister's annual report would contain and categorize statistical information related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is also a very positive step forward.

I am proud of the initiatives that our Conservative caucus brought forward as part of the amendments to the bill. Through this process over the last year, we have certainly ensured that our staff are aware of the resources available to them and we have had training sessions. All members of Parliament went through mandatory harassment training, which I think was a very positive experience for all of us. It is very important for us because we want to eliminate harassment. We want to ensure that our employees, our colleagues and the people who we work with here for very long hours each and every day feel comfortable in their workplace.

It is important for members, not only as leaders in our offices but also as leaders in our community, to be aware of how we handle these situations if a staff members feel harassed or uncomfortable. It is important they be aware that there is a system and that guidelines are in place for them to file their complaints and have them resolved.

Knowledge is a powerful thing. The more people who know about their rights and responsibilities regarding issues of harassment and discrimination, the better off they will be and the happier they will be in their lives and in their workplace. We must let our employees know where they can go for assistance. We also need to give them the basic tools and support for them to speak up for themselves and resolve these issues as efficiently and easily as they can.

Staff members are critical to our everyday lives. However, this is larger than just what happens on the Hill. As a father, I want to see protections in our workplace and our communities and I want to see a cultural shift so everyone understands that harassment will not and cannot be tolerated. We are seeing a shift. It begins with us standing up against it, talking about it and proactively changing the dynamic. Creating a safe environment starts here, but we have to do that for everyone.

I urge all members of the House to practise what we preach and show Canadians that we are serious about zero tolerance for harassment and bullying. No one should be exempt from these new rules. No one should be able to shrug off a complaint or an allegation by simply saying he or she remembers it differently.

For this to work, Canadians need to know they will be protected, that they will be believed, that they will be treated equally and that they will be respected. No one is above the law. We in the House must set the example. We must be the leaders and that leadership comes from the top down.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-65 was at committee, there were repeated requests from the labour movement, from the NDP and from my colleague, the member for Parliament for Jonquière and NDP labour critic, to keep alive the role of occupational health and safety committees.

They have been extremely important, being made up of both employer and employee representatives, with a great diversity of representation, whether gender, indigenous or racialized. It is something that has worked very well for decades, supporting complaints and investigations under the labour code.

All of those witnesses, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada and others I mentioned, asked that the role of those occupational health and safety committees be maintained. In the case of workplace or sexual harassment, they asked that the complainant have the option to turn to these committees and all the experience they have garnered. The NDP's amendment to have that included in Bill C-65 was rejected by the government side. The Senate proposed the same amendment, and that was also rejected by the government side.

Is it my colleague's view that these occupational health and safety committees truly have no utility here?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak to the proposed amendments to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the other place for the effort they put into studying Bill C-65 and proposing the amendments we are considering and debating today. The government believes that their work strengthened this bill.

I know that members of the other place heard testimony that impacted them, as our committee did as well. Hearing the experiences of those working with victims of workplace harassment and violence sent a very strong message to all of us as parliamentarians that we must act and work quickly, but also deliberately, to ensure that the bill works to protect victims and prevent any form of workplace harassment or violence in the first place, because we can all agree that harassment and sexual violence of any kind is unacceptable.

I would like to thank all members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities who extended the sittings and came back early from their constituency week to hear important testimony. As well, I extend the thanks of the House to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and the department for evaluating and providing guidance to our committee as we evaluated each clause and section. I also thank the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso for his work in support of our committee evaluating Bill C-65 effectively.

The committee heard from witnesses, all whom spoke with passion about the urgency with which harassment and violence in the workplace need to be addressed. While everyone in the House agreed to the urgency of the bill, we understood the complexities of ensuring that employees are protected from workplace harassment and violence.

The last time I rose in the House, I spoke of the Vice News journalist Hilary Beaumont, author of an investigation into workplace harassment. As I cited then, Mrs. Beaumont interviewed more than 40 women who work on Parliament Hill, including current and former MPs, as well as lobbyists, journalists, staff and interns. Mrs. Beaumont stated at committee that it quickly became apparent that female employees were more vulnerable to harassment than their male colleagues. The women she spoke with told her their stories and experiences, including sexist comments, touching and even sexual assault. Some women said they had been dismissed or had lost job opportunities after trying to report workplace abuse. Some of the women who currently work on the Hill said they would not even know how to report harassment if they had to. Harassment such as this and sexual violence have absolutely no place in any workplace. They are not okay.

With that in mind, we agree with the principles underlying some of the amendments proposed by the other place. I would like to focus specifically on those concerning the recourse available to victims of violence and harassment. During its study of Bill C-65, the committee raised several valid concerns.

An employee of any gender who feels their rights have been violated may be unaware that they have two options for recourse. The employee can file a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act, or they can file a complaint with the employer under Bill C-65.

A member of the other place said that “we must ensure that women who are victims of sexual harassment can still choose the type of recourse, including a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act”. She went on to say that she thinks it is important to clarify that the new framework will not preclude a discrimination complaint for sexual harassment from being filed because that could end up trivializing the harassment and violence that women are subjected to in the workplace and could take away these women's hard-won avenues of recourse.

Bill C-65 is not at all intended to replace the Canadian Human Rights Act. On the contrary, the bill complements it by laying out a clear procedure for preventing and dealing with incidents of harassment and violence in the workplace. However, we do see the need for absolute clarity on this issue.

A tremendous amount of work will be done to make sure everyone understands how to proceed if an employee believes he or she has been subjected to harassment or violence at work, but the message may not reach everyone, and that could cause confusion.

In reality, the law is often complex and difficult to grasp. During our committee discussions, we often heard differing views on the same principles from equally qualified legal experts.

The law can be even more complex and difficult to digest for someone who has just experienced a stressful, even traumatic, event at work and is trying to fully understand what remedy he or she has.

It is not hard to imagine how employees who are dealing with the consequences of such an experience may not realize right away that they are protected under both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code. They may think that they have to choose one or the other when, in fact, they are and always will be covered by both. That is why we support the amendments proposed by the Senate committee, which clearly explain that employees will not waive their rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act. More specifically, senators suggested that Bill C-65 be amended by adding a clause to the section relating to the Canada Labour Code and by amending clause 21, which deals with the way in which part II of the code applies to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

The additional text proposed for the two clauses specifies that it is understood that the relevant sections will not infringe on the rights provided under the Canadian Human Rights Act. We think that is an important and valuable addition to Bill C-65 because it eliminates any ambiguity regarding the relationship between the bill and the existing legislation. Senators pointed that out and proposed the addition. In order to truly achieve the kind of cultural change needed to eliminate workplace harassment and violence, we need to ensure that all legislative measures that seek to put an end to such shameful behaviour are consistent. A consistent set of laws will help us to make a profound cultural change, a change toward civility and respect, a change that ignores differences and enables human rights to take their rightful place.

It is very important to condemn the acts of violence reported by victims, at all levels, so that these injustices do not go unpunished.

This is exactly what the bill will provide for. We must create a culture of equality in our country, so that all Canadians see themselves as equals and treat each other as equal in rights, dignity and aspirations.

It is important that we create a culture of equality in our country so that all Canadians recognize each other as equals and treat each other with the respect we all deserve.

I know that today of all days, when many members of this place have young women students from the University of Toronto shadowing them, it is important that we work together to ensure that these principles are enshrined in law.

This bill is just the first step, and it is a necessary one. We urgently need to change the culture in Canadian society so that inappropriate behaviour is no longer reinforced.

While this is just a first step, it is an important and necessary first step, one that, along with the regulatory changes prescribed by Bill C-65, will work to change the culture of federally regulated work environments and demonstrate our joint commitment to ending workplace violence and harassment.

We must also teach workers about the means of recourse available to them if they are victims of harassment or violence. Bill C-65 will add to the existing recourse options, and workers must know that they are entitled to full protection guaranteed by the various legislative tools.

I therefore support the amendment to specify that employees are not renouncing their rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Ultimately, we support this amendment because it strengthens Bill C-65, offering more clarity and thus more protections to those employees.

We remain committed to securing the timely passage of Bill C-65. I urge all members to support the government's position.

I would like to remind my esteemed colleagues that harassment and sexual violence of any kind are unacceptable, period. Our government made a commitment to take action on harassment and sexual violence in Parliament and in federally regulated workplaces.

With Bill C-65, the Government of Canada is taking an important step toward making workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from these behaviours.

As noted in this bill, our framework will prevent incidents of harassment and violence, respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur, and support victims, survivors and employers throughout the process.

That being said, no government can fix these problems alone. We live in a culture where power imbalances and gender norms create tolerance for these kinds of unacceptable behaviours.

It will take all of us, employers, employees, colleagues, family members and friends, to do better and change this culture.

As I was saying, it is important that we realize that harassment and sexual violence of any kind are unacceptable, period.

Our government ran on a commitment to take action on workplace harassment and sexual violence in Parliament and in federally regulated workplaces. With Bill C-65, we are taking an important and necessary step toward making workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from these behaviours. This framework will prevent incidents of harassment and violence. It will respond effectively to these incidents when they occur. It will support victims, survivors and employers.

However, no government can fix this alone. We live in a culture where power imbalances and gender norms create tolerance for these kinds of unacceptable behaviours. It will take all of us, employers, employees, colleagues, family members and friends, to do better and to change this culture.

The members of the committee worked very hard during those months to make sure that we would strengthen the legislation. Today we received suggestions and amendments from the Senate, and we believe that some of them need to be integrated to strengthen this legislation. I hope the members of this House will make sure we pass these suggested amendments, which we think can help strengthen the legislation, so we can move on and change the situation that exists in our government and in the workplace.

I will now answer questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate Bill C-65 in the House today. This bill represents a major step forward in enhancing the rights of victims of sexual harassment and violence.

I would like to begin my thanking my Conservative colleagues who sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for their excellent work on this bill. They successfully brought in a number of changes to the bill. For instance, they proposed a change aimed at transferring certain powers from the Minister of Labour to the deputy minister, a non-partisan civil servant. This change ensures that there can be no appearance of political interference in an investigation into complaints of sexual harassment committed by a member of the House.

I have spoken before in this House about the #MeToo movement in general and its importance. It is a movement that has had a powerful impact. It has helped women who are survivors to see that they are not alone. It has helped many men who were previously unaware to gain a greater understanding of the all too common experience of harassment and violence that has affected the lives of many women. I have always believed that men need to seek to engage these conversations in a supportive way, especially in terms of talking to and challenging other men about their behaviour. We all need to be part of the solution.

Before getting elected, I had the honour of serving on the board of a local organization called Saffron, which provides public education programs aimed at prevention, as well as counselling and support to survivors. Saffron was obviously engaged with these issues long before the #MeToo movement but it has found a significant increase in the number of people coming to it for counselling ever since the movement began. This growth is the result of people coming forward to talk about historic trauma, events that have happened in their past, maybe even decades ago, that they had not felt ready or empowered to speak about even in private until the current moment. It is certainly positive that people are now feeling able to come forward and discuss things that have happened to them in the past.

There is one particular issue, perhaps challenge, that I want to discuss today with respect to the #MeToo movement. I read with interest some discussion in the news recently revisiting the actions of former U.S. president Bill Clinton with a former White House intern. Hillary Clinton told a CBS correspondent that the relationship between the most powerful person in the world and an intern did not constitute an abuse of power because the 22-year-old intern was an adult.

About the interaction itself, that intern, Monica Lewinsky, recently wrote an essay in Vanity Fair, and I want to quote a passage from it. She wrote:

Just four years ago, in an essay for this magazine, I wrote the following: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.” I now see how problematic it was that the two of us even got to a place where there was a question of consent. Instead, the road that led there was littered with inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege. (Full stop.)

Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern. I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances—and the ability to abuse them—do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)

But it’s also complicated. Very, very complicated. The dictionary definition of “consent”? “To give permission for something to happen.” And yet what did the “something” mean in this instance, given the power dynamics, his position, and my age? Was the “something” just about crossing a line of sexual (and later emotional) intimacy? (An intimacy I wanted—with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences.) He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better. He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college.

I think this episode from American politics and the striking contrast between Hillary Clinton's words and Monica Lewinsky's words are important for our understanding of the #MeToo movement and the dynamics around harassment which can exist in the workplace. The continuing way in which this episode is regarded by many partisan Liberal progressives is, I think, important as well.

The #MeToo movement calls on us to set a new standard for behaviour, to demand women be treated with respect, and to hold those responsible for violence and/or harassment accountable. That standard of behaviour and the appropriate standard of evidence associated with accountability must be set in a consistent way. There ought not to be a Republican standard and a Democrat standard, a Conservative standard and a Liberal standard. There ought not to be a difference between a prime minister of Canada standard and a leader of the Ontario PC Party standard. There must be a human standard enforced in the same way in all cases.

Failure to apply an equivalent standard across parties allows any perpetrator to use political divisions and inconsistent application of standards as an excuse to avoid accountability. The infection of partisanship into the evaluation of cases very clearly risks weakening the universality of condemnation that should be associated with these kinds of abuses of power.

As an avowed partisan, I do understand the temptation to stand by one's man while firing arrows across the aisle. Standing with one's team is the instinctive human response, further enforced by the norms of our political system.

The #MeToo movement undoubtedly provides political parties with an opportunity to accuse their opponents and perhaps also even an excuse to purge unpopular people from their own ranks. We see elements of this as well of someone possibly being purged on the basis of allegations but also the same person having substantial policy disagreements with the leadership of the party.

Those of us who believe in the importance of this movement must ensure we resist the temptation to evaluate allegations through a partisan lens. This movement is too important for its impact to be lost in partisan rancour. That is true on either side of the border.

As with Bill Clinton, we also had a case here in Canada where a powerful self-identified progressive and feminist leader faced serious allegations of sexual misconduct. It has been alleged, and we have talked about this in the House, that the Prime Minister was involved in the past in a “groping” incident. This allegation was made against the Prime Minister before he had entered politics. Those who talk about believing women and believing these allegations need to consider it seriously and seek to put aside their partisan hats when they make those evaluations.

In response to these allegations, the Prime Minister has said that people can experience things differently. That is perplexing, in so far as it is true people can have a different response to the same events, but events are events. In the question of appropriate behaviour, there is a subjective as well as an objective element in harassment. Certainly, the word “groping” being used in the editorial implies very strongly the crossing of an objective line.

I do wonder parenthetically what the response of my friends on the left would have been if Justice Brett Kavanaugh had said in response to allegations against him that people experience things differently. As well, the response from members of this House is interesting. The minister responsible for bringing forward this legislation, the former minister for the status of women, had the following to say about the Prime Minister's response to these events:

I'm actually proud of a prime minister that understands that you can believe that you didn't have negative interactions with someone—I think we can think about this in all kinds of different situations—and find out later that someone perceived that interaction in a completely different way, and reflect on how our behaviour and the way that we make our way in the world impacts other people.

Of course, we should consider how certain things can affect the subjective experience of others, but there is an objective element to inappropriate behaviour. There are things a person ought not do to another person and ought to know, and yet we have the former status of women minister standing up for the Prime Minister in this context. I would have thought that the role of the minister for the status of women would be to speak to the Prime Minister and cabinet on behalf of women, not to be defending the Prime Minister's action in every case, including in allegations of inappropriate action toward women.

The #MeToo movement responds to a reality that some men, who have often enjoyed disproportionate power and prestige in the workplace, take advantage of their position at the expense of women. It should trouble us then if the way in which the adjudication and debate about #MeToo allegations works out in practice is to make examples of some men while still allowing some of the most privileged and self-identified progressives to escape being held accountable. These are serious challenges that we must face up to as we go forward.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual occasion when the NDP and the Conservatives have substantially the same position on Bill C-65. Both parties are looking for definitions and clarity within the act.

The Conservatives, we know, are primarily focused on psychological abuses. Will the Conservatives support the NDP's call for amendments to clarify the terms and objectives of Bill C-65, and do our colleagues in the opposition also believe that workers and employers need clear definitions of harassment, violence and psychological harassment?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I would not say that I am pleased to rise to speak in the debate today, but I think it is an important debate we are having on a very important issue that impacts women and men throughout the world.

I will quickly go over what the bill would do and where it is at in the process, and then I would like to share some personal reflections on why the bill would be so important.

On November 7, 2017, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced Bill C-65, which would amend the Labour Code on harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017. It has been through the process, and we are talking today about some Senate amendments.

Part 1 of the bill would amend the Labour Code to strengthen the existing framework for the prevention of harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in the workplace. Part 2 would amend 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 powers and privileges. Part III looks at a transitional budget.

For those who are watching who do not think Parliament comes together to try to do things that are important, this is an example of where all parties participated thoughtfully in the debate on this bill. They knew it was important. The Senate amendments were proposed in the House and were accepted. Amendments were proposed in the Senate, and the vast majority were accepted. When they were not accepted, there was a reasonable rationale provided as to why those particular amendments were not seen as helpful for this legislation.

I think we have agreement here that the bill is important and that we need to move forward with it. It really is a bit of an awakening, which perhaps has taken too long.

It is interesting, as we are debating the bill here today, that yesterday there was an important report released in the British Parliament on sexual harassment in the workplace. Some of the things said there, as my colleague referenced earlier, are important, because the same thoughts apply here.

There have been disturbing cases that have been tolerated and concealed for too long. Certainly when we look at what has been happening since I have been here, which is 10 years, cases have become more public. We have struggled with how we deal with them. However, do not for a minute think that there were no issues prior to those 10 years. These issues have been here as long as the House has been meeting.

The British Parliament's response was to apologize for the past failings and to commit to change the culture. Hopefully, not only would we pass this piece of proposed legislation, we would also recognize and make a commitment to change.

The British Parliament described a culture of “deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence”. Those are very disturbing words, but they relate to what the impact was of that attitude of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence on the people or the victims who were impacted. It was hugely distressing and long-lasting, and in many cases, had a devastating impact on people's lives. This is a serious issue that we are coming to a point of awareness on.

Of course, as we enter into these debates, we always look into our past and reflect on our own careers and experiences.

As I was considering this piece of legislation and how I felt about it, I reflected back to my first role in a management position. This was back in the 1980s. I was thrilled to be given an opportunity to have a pretty important job for someone in her late 20s. I answered to a board of directors. The chairman of the board of directors would come to the office to visit quite regularly, and it quickly became apparent that when this chair of the board of directors was coming to the office, we either wanted someone else in the office with us or we needed to be out and about, because he thought nothing of grabbing a person and trying to sit her on his lap. It was the chairman of the board. As members can imagine, it was creepy, and it was highly inappropriate and uncomfortable, but what was at play here was that he was the chairman of the board, and I was in my late 20s. Acquiescence, silence, and just trying to avoid the situation was how one dealt with it. That was the example I should have brought. It was something that was sort of personal. As a nurse, I have certainly dealt with some very horrific abuses, but this was creepy and uncomfortable, and it was wrong.

This brings me to another issue I found very disturbing this year. As we are coming to an awareness of this issue, we are starting to talk about it, and we are trying to put policies in place. That was the story this summer in terms of the issue of the person in the highest office in this country and an incident many years ago, from his past, at a music festival, where there was an inappropriate interaction with a journalist. I have to give the journalist credit. She was very uncomfortable with the situation, and she acted on it. Unlike what I had done many years ago, when I just tried to avoid the situation, she acted on it. She wrote an editorial, at which time the response of the Prime Minister was quite telling: Had he known that she worked for a national newspaper, he might not have done it. Perhaps he thought that she worked for a small-town newspaper, and it was okay. Sometimes, for people who have famous names and are handsome, those sorts of advances are welcome, but clearly they are not always welcome.

In Canada, most people would say that this was a lot of years ago, it was an incident that was not too terrible, that we can see, so let us just move on, or he should make the appropriate comments and move on.

What happened next, though, is what was the most offensive to me. Instead of just saying, “It was a long time ago. I apologize. Obviously, there was something that was very uncomfortable, and I will endeavour to never let that sort of thing happen again,” or, “It was related to a time in my past when I was having a difficult time,” he did not say that. We did not get that message. At first he remembered being in Creston but did not think he had any negative interactions.

The next comments we got directly from the Prime Minister were, “We've all been reflecting on past behaviours. There is a collective awakening going on and we need to take opportunities to reflect on it”.

He went on to say, “often a man experiences an interaction as being benign or not inappropriate and a woman, particularly in a professional context, can experience it differently”.

I remember being in a professional context and having something happen that was incredibly inappropriate, and those comments were insulting. It should have been very easy for the Prime Minister to say, “I was young. I had had too many beers, I did something that was foolish, and I am sorry”. Instead, he gave us this kind of nonsense. It was so offensive.

It was not about awareness. It was not about moving on. It was something that was terribly troubling, and I wish he could make it better. I wish he could make it right.

In closing, this is an important piece of legislation. It is incumbent on people that when they set a standard, they reflect on their past and are honest and do not try to say that they would have seen things differently and as a benign, professional interaction.

I will be happy to support this legislation, but there are many things that we in this House need to continue to reflect upon.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members that unions and even legal experts said that it was a bad idea to remove the joint workplace health and safety committees. I do not understand why the member keeps saying that it is such a good idea and that the Liberals held consultations because this was one of the things that legal experts and unions were calling for and it is not included in the Liberals' bill.

Including statistical data in the five-year review is also key to ensuring that the bill serves as an effective deterrent to harassment and abuse in federal workplaces. That would ensure that we have a detailed, ongoing report, but the Liberals are refusing to include that in Bill C-65. That is one of the tools we have to improve. It would give us feedback so that we could see what is working and what is not and what changes could be made to improve the situation. The Liberals seem to be making a habit of failing to monitor statistics.

The same goes for climate change: 14 out of 19 federal departments have no plan and no means of evaluating whether those objectives are being met. Once again, Bill C-65 contains no means of evaluating the statistical data regularly collected on how things are going in the workplace. This is a major flaw that needs to be—

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate plea in support of victims of sexual harassment and violence in the workplace.

Listening to some of the points raised by my colleague from Jonquière, it is hard for me to understand the Liberals' position. For example, they refused to allow joint health and safety committees to exist and to allow experts from different backgrounds to represent the complainants.

As everyone knows, the majority of complainants are women of colour from vulnerable communities. Sexual harassment or violence in the workplace leaves victims shaken up. Having a trained expert by their side can often be reassuring. This is part of the trust-building process.

Doing away with joint committees means losing that expertise and training, which will cause complainants to lose faith in the process when they are being encouraged to file a complaint. More than half of abuse victims do not report their aggressors because they figure that nothing will be done.

Bill C-65 abolishes joint committees despite the fact that they provide a sense of safety, expertise and training in representing the interests of complainants and conduct investigations.

That is ridiculous, and I think those provisions should be returned to Bill C-65. That would give the bill some teeth and enable it to offer some real protection to those who are dealing with harassment and violence in the workplace.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate some of my remarks, today we are taking an important step towards making workplaces in federally regulated industries and Parliament Hill free from these behaviours with Bill C-65.

I would note that this piece of legislation is built on the gender-based violence framework, that I referred to earlier in my remarks, to prevent gender-based violence in the workplace, out there in Canadian society, to support survivors and their families, and to develop responsive legal and justice systems.

I would remind all members in this House that we have invested $200 million in the first-ever strategy to address and prevent gender-based violence. This is having a dramatic impact all over our country. We are supporting women's groups. We are supporting other groups that are fighting this scourge that we have in our society.

I want to assure the hon. member and other members in this House that we cannot, we must not rest until we stamp out gender-based violence and sexual harassment once and for all.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-65.

The main goal of Bill C-65 is to ensure that all employees under federal jurisdiction, including those in federal workplaces and in federally regulated industries, are treated fairly and are protected from harmful behaviours such as harassment and sexual violence. The bill underscores our government's strong commitment to taking action that will help create healthy, respectful workplaces.

Harassment, sexism and any type of sexual violence are wrong and completely unacceptable. The tragic reality is that despite our country's progress toward a modern and respectful society, we know that harassment and violence are persistent and pervasive in Canadian workplaces and that incidents often go unreported because people fear retaliation.

These behaviours can have long-term negative effects, not just for people who experience them and their families but for employers as well through lost productivity, absenteeism and employee turnover. Underpinning these realities are the many power imbalances and gender norms still in our culture that have led to unacceptable tolerance of these behaviours for far too long and it is time they stopped.

One of the key building blocks leading up to this proposed legislation was listening to Canadians. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour engaged Canadian stakeholders and experts to gather their experiences and perspectives on these issues. Members of Parliament and senators were also consulted to ensure the government could fulfill its commitment to making Parliament a workplace free from harassment and sexual violence.

This engagement of Canadians resulted in the report released last November, entitled “Harassment and sexual violence in the workplace public consultations--what we heard”. In this report, Canadians indicated that incidents of harassment and sexual violence in the workplace were not only under-reported, but also they were often dealt with ineffectively when they were reported. The report found that women reported more sexual harassment and violence than men and that people with disabilities and visible minorities reported more harassment than other groups.

These discussions with stakeholders and experts provided insight on how to address these and other issues and helped inform the bill we are discussing today.

Bill C-65 would strengthen provisions in the Labour Code by putting into place one comprehensive approach that would take the full spectrum of harassment and violence into consideration and would expand the coverage to cover parliamentary workplaces, including the staff of Parliament Hill.

Simply said, the bill would prevent incidents of harassment and violence, respond effectively to these incidents when they would occur and support victims, survivors and employers.

The legislation we are discussing today also aligns with “It’s Time”, Canada’s strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence, which I was privileged to help the Minister of Status of Women launch last year. The title, “It's Time”, was selected because it was time to learn more about the pervasiveness of this problem. It was time to believe survivors. It was time to invest in effective solutions.

Developing this strategy was a key priority of this government upon taking office. Listening to Canadians was a critical first step. As part of this engagement, approximately 300 individuals from over 175 organizations shared their views during meetings held across Canada. The Canadian public was also invited to provide comments via emails and through an online survey in which over 7,500 Canadians participated.

In addition, the Minister of Status of Women created an advisory council of experts on gender-based violence and engaged with provincial and territorial colleagues to receive additional feedback to further inform the strategy.

Our government has invested nearly $200 million in this first-ever federal strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence. The strategy takes important steps to prevent gender-based violence, support survivors and their families and promote a responsive legal and justice system. The strategy will fill important gaps in support for diverse groups, such as indigenous women, LGBTQ2 people, women with disabilities and other populations.

Moreover, it takes a whole-of-government approach that engages a range of key stakeholders and partners across government, including Status of Women Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Public Safety Canada, the RCMP, the Department of National Defence and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

As the #MeToo and “Times Up” movements have made clear, gender-based violence is not isolated to the private or domestic sphere. It can take place in workplaces, online, on university campuses and in public environments, places where everyone has the right to feel safe. That is why legislation such as Bill C-65 is critical in making federally regulated workplaces safer for everyone by ensuring they are free from harassment and violence.

I would now like to recognize the excellent work of those in the other chamber. Following their careful study of this important bill, they proposed a number of amendments aimed at making Bill C-65 as strong as possible. Let me go into a little more detail about these proposed amendments.

The members proposed a revision of certain terminology, terminology that they felt could have an adverse effect on the very people we were trying to protect if left unchanged. Currently, the words “trivial”, “frivolous” and “vexatious” are used to describe the basis upon which a complaint can be dismissed. While these terms are generally understood in law and appear throughout the Canada Labour Code, they are, as a member of the other place so rightly pointed out, rooted in prejudice and pose a risk for a survivor's claim to be mollified on a whim. Our government understands the power of language and we fully support the replacement of these terms with the more neutral term “abuse of process”.

However, there were a number of additional amendments, which our government respectfully does not support. For example, members from the other chamber proposed an amendment to the purpose clause. This is an important clause as it sets the context for all other provisions in the bill. They suggested to include two additional elements, which would:

...recognize that every employee has the right to employment that is free from harassment and violence; and...advance gender equality, address issues of racism and ensure that the rights of women workers, including those who face intersectional forms of discrimination, are respected, protected and fulfilled.

While we agree these are laudable goals, it is important to remember that part II of the Labour Code is about occupational health and safety. Adding a specific reference to harassment and violence in the purpose clause, in addition to the reference that was already added during the HUMA process, would have the effect of creating an imbalance in the code, focusing more on harassment and violence relative to other rights under part II, such as the ability to refuse dangerous work.

We must ensure that the bill balances all workers' rights as they pertain to health and safety without favouring one over the other.

Since the purpose of the code is already clearly stated, which is to create fair and safe workplaces, which by implication includes freedom from sexual harassment, violence and discrimination, our government does not believe this clause needs to be amended.

The second proposed addition to the purpose clause would add a reference to gender equality, racism and the rights of women workers. This is also an important goal. However, it does not belong in this legislation. This amendment would create new expectations under the Canada Labour Code regarding discrimination, gender equality and human rights. Such amendments would simply be inappropriately placed in a code that does not currently address these issues in a fulsome enough manner. Furthermore, it does not include all grounds, for example, LGBTQ2, which is covered by existing legislation.

The intent of this clause is to clearly and succinctly explain the purpose of the Canada Labour Code. Adding these new expectations and additional elements would result in a lack of clarity regarding what would be expected of workplace parties in relation to these matters. More important, these issues are already addressed in numerous pieces of existing legislation, such as the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act.

The code, which is not meant to address these issues, does not supersede these laws. Indeed, their inclusion in the code could potentially have the unintended effect of lessening these rights through the confusion that could arise around who would be responsible for enforcing them and how.

Another proposed amendment that our government believes would have a similar effect of introducing lack of clarity is modifying the definition of harassment and violence. This was added during the committee process in this House, and currently reads as follows:

harassment and violence means any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment.

Members of the other chamber proposed replacing the word “means” with “includes”. This change would render the definition significantly more open-ended and result in a lack of clarity for both employees and employers, as it is essentially limitless. For example, appropriate performance management actions could possibly be captured under this revised definition. The term is far too open-ended and potentially all-encompassing.

What we consistently heard through our consultations with stakeholders was the need for clarity to the greatest extent possible. Employers in particular have consistently strongly opposed the inclusion of any definition. They believed it was already too broad without this proposal, which would make it even broader.

While all of the proposed amendments from the other chamber are noble in principle, we believe that some would be ineffective in practice. At this time, more than anything, we need clarity. If we want to create legislation that protects workers and gives them effective recourse, we cannot distort the purpose of the bill nor create open-ended and overly broad provisions. I know that protecting workers is the goal we all share.

In conclusion, the bottom line for Canadians is that harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable anywhere, including in the workplace. This proposed legislation sends a strong message that the federal government is prepared to take bold action and be part of the solution on this critical issue. The bill also aligns with the whole-of-government approach we are taking to prevent and address gender-based violence in all its forms, yet even with the important step forward this bill represents, we know that government cannot do it alone. It is going to take all of us, employers, employees, stakeholders and Canadians, to help end workplace harassment and sexual violence.

Where do we hope our collective work leads us? To a place where violence of any kind, including gender-based violence, is never tolerated, where everyone is a part of the solution, including men and boys, and where everyone enjoys their right to live a life free of violence.

Finally, making Canada a safer, more inclusive place to live and work will not be easy, and it will not happen overnight. However, we can make it a reality if we work together.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which goes to the main point of my speech.

Joint occupational health and safety committees are important. They consist of employer and worker representatives who often receive training. They are not experts, but they at least have expertise in their field of work as well as workplace health and safety training. These people investigate complaints about violence, harassment and bullying. We are going to lose many years of experience.

As an aside, I would like to remind members that complainants were not required to go directly the the health and safety committee. It was one of a number of options. Unfortunately, this option will not be included in Bill C-65. We are also losing cultural diversity. The complainant will no longer be able to choose whether they are represented by a woman or a man. That will not be in Bill C-65.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the long-standing involvement of the labour movement, with local health and safety representatives on the occupational health and safety committees, has been a very important part in ensuring that the Canada Labour Code works well and that investigations have people on the ground as part of the process.

It is my understanding that in the process of reviewing Bill C-65, the government's amendment to include harassment and violence in the workplace directly in the Canada Labour Code and make it also apply to the parliamentary precinct and the good men and women who support us in our work has been left out.

I would like to hear more about the efforts of our labour critic, the member of Parliament for Jonquière, to try to insert the advice of the labour movement into the draft version of this legislation. What is lost by the exclusion of that long-standing practice to have occupational health and safety committees and their representatives be involved in investigations of workplace harassment?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important comments.

That is why the guidelines are necessary, but it is true that everything depends on people's good intentions. Everyone starts out with the best of intentions, but sometimes things happen, which is why workplace training is so important. Both management and employees have to be on board. This is about providing guidance, and as a government institution, that is our job.

We have the Canada Labour Code, which is a useful tool in all kinds of workplaces every day. As I explained, Quebec is unique in that only its federally regulated workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code, but the code does provide a framework and set out measures related to training and consultation.

I said earlier that the health and safety committees could no longer intervene, investigate workplaces, and submit reports, so how will we equip workers and businesses with the necessary provisions? That is one of my questions about Bill C-65 that remains unanswered.

I have even more questions. For example, at a unionized business, can the union representative still help the person who is filing a complaint or who is the subject of an investigation related to allegations of violence or harassment?

There are many questions, but the main thing for the businesses is to get the means and the provisions. Bill C-65 is a step in the right direction, but, again, it will not solve every problem. There was an opportunity to make it better and we are still prepared to make proposals.

I hope that workers and employers will be receptive to Bill C-65 and will lead the way on prevention.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. Bill C-65 makes some amendments to the Canada Labour Code that will protect all Canadians. With regard to Quebec, it will be up to those working in transportation and telecommunications, for example. I am thinking of Canada Post employees, who are governed by the Canada Labour Code in matters of health and safety. Some businesses and workplaces are unionized, while others are not.

Yes, the overall objective of Bill C-65 is to raise awareness among the provinces. However, there is one important aspect and that is to have clear provisions that are easy to apply. As I said in my speech, they did not include guidelines to provide direction to employers on how to intervene and establish clear workplace policies to prevent harassment and violence. It is important that we provide direction.

I believe that we amend legislation in the House in order to provide direction. It is vitally important that the Canada Labour Code provide guidance and direction when consultations are held between management and labour. The primary goal of Bill C-65 is to eliminate harassment and violence. We want that to be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, it will always be there. At the very least, we need to have guidelines and clear direction. Unfortunately, Bill C-65 has some gaps. We could have used this bill to make clear improvements.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times in the House today, my thoughts are with all the victims. To all those going through a tough time or who wonder what to do, hang on. There are people who can help you. This bill is a step in the right direction. It will not end bullying, harassment, sexual or other violence, but we are here today to improve legislation. My thoughts are with these people.

Every member of the House should have respect for the victims and I know that to be true. More often than not, victims of an unfortunate incident tend to feel very isolated. I believe I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we all stand with the victims.

I also want to acknowledge the important work done by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, and both chambers on Bill C-65, which seeks to prevent harassment and violence in the work place. This bill is of general interest and this is a non-partisan issue, as I keep saying.

Harassment and violence, especially sexual harassment and violence, are too important an issue to allow partisan politics and bickering to hamstring our efforts. On the contrary, this bill needs to free up speech once and for all and empower victims to speak out about sexual harassment, because workplace harassment and violence are still widespread today, even here in Parliament.

That is why the NDP supports the principle and spirit of Bill C-65. However, in its current form, the bill is not perfect. Sadly, I think Bill C-65 only partially meets its goal of strengthening the harassment and violence prevention regime. Bill C-65 falls well short of addressing all of our concerns or those of the many witnesses who came to testify before the Senate or House committees.

The Senate proposed some good amendments. Some were similar to what I had presented to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, although once again, the government rejected more than half of my amendments. At any rate, those amendments would have improved Bill C-65 and helped us address the concerns raised by many witnesses who appeared before the House and Senate committees.

The suggestions were for simple things, such as recognizing that every employee has the right to employment that is free from harassment and violence, advancing gender equality, addressing issues of racism, and ensuring that the rights of women workers, including those who face intersectional forms of discrimination, are respected, protected and fulfilled. There was nothing particularly radical about these proposed amendments, but they were rejected nonetheless.

On April 26, the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees contacted me to discuss the bill. Here is what he said to me:

I am writing to you today about two serious flaws in Bill C-65 that will undermine the rights of workers affected by violence and harassment in the workplace.

What flaws could be so worrisome that the union felt compelled to urge the minister to correct them immediately?

That would be the exclusion of health and safety committees from both the complaint and the investigation processes. The process for filing harassment and violence complaints and the investigation process must both continue to benefit from the expertise of these committees. Excluding them makes no sense to me.

The surprising reason given by the Liberals to justify their measures was the purported breach of victims' confidentiality, were they to take part in the investigations by these committees. This is barely credible for many reasons, which I would like to outline.

First of all, the decision to bring these committees into the process was made by the victims themselves. The bill eliminates without a valid reason some options available to victims. It was an additional choice available to the victim, not a constraint that was imposed.

Second, to date, these joint health and safety committees have always received these complaints and successfully carried out the harassment investigations. Their modern investigative methods have always emphasized respect for victims' privacy. By excluding these committees from the investigative process, Bill C-65 is about to eliminate decades of experience, training and work, to say the least.

That is not all. If the Liberals truly wanted to protect victims' privacy and confidentiality, then why did they oppose several of the amendments I put forward at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and why did they oppose Senate amendment 7(b)? I had the pleasure of proposing some twenty amendments to the committee, but the Liberals allowed only three of them. Many of the other amendments were not even discussed. The Liberals chose to go straight to a vote and would not even explain why they were rejecting the amendments.

One of the amendments that was voted down without any explanation was a simple proposal from the Confederation of National Trade Unions. Under Bill C-65, joint health and safety committees would not be subject to investigations for privacy reasons. The problem is that such committees still provide a wealth of expertise to victims. Witnesses suggested a logical solution: give the committees codes of practice and a code of ethics that would ensure victims' privacy.

The government opposed this recommendation without any explanation out of stubbornness or because they did not understand it. It seems to me that excluding these committees from the investigation process is a serious decision. There was certainly no shortage of witnesses who supported the amendment. Unions, associations, and law firms were all in favour, and there are more.

My speech may not be interesting to some of my colleagues, but I think that the nature of Bill C-65 calls for a little order. If those who want to talk could do so outside or in the lobby, I think my colleagues who want to listen to my speech would appreciate it. I do not think my message was heard.

I will pick up where I left off and perhaps members in the House will keep it down. The expertise of the joint health and safety committees spans decades, but that alone does not explain why witnesses adamantly defended keeping them in the investigative process. The other reason, which is rather important, is the exceptional diversity of the investigators who make up the joint committees tasked with investigating harassment cases. The right of joint committees to conduct investigations has until now made it possible for victims to benefit from an incredible diversity of investigators in terms of colour, religion, age and sex. Such diversity in the profile of investigators is invaluable in a workplace.

Unfortunately, it is clear that this aspect has been removed from Bill C-65, against the recommendations of the International Labour Office.

In investigations into sexual harassment, the victims will no longer be able to benefit from the expertise or the extreme diversity within the joint health and safety committees.

It was still possible, at the committee stage, to include a provision in the bill to ensure the diversity of investigators, similar to that made possible by joint committees, that would have applied to all investigators.

That is exactly what one of my amendments proposed. It stated that the choice of investigators, although no longer the purview of the joint committees, must reflect the diversity of Canadian society. Thus, the diversity of investigators, which until now was made possible by the joint committees, would be perpetuated even though the committees were excluded from the investigation.

A balanced representation of Canadian diversity would be assured. Apparently, the recommendation made by the UN Secretariat on labour was not good enough for the government, because it did not let Canada adopt legislation to guarantee equality and non-discrimination in the investigators' profile.

We need to remember that minorities are disproportionately affected by workplace harassment and violence. By "minority", I mean members of an ethnic or religious minority as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex workers, and migrant workers.

That is why the profile of individuals responsible for the investigation must at all costs reflect diversity. However, it seems that our legislation will not take into account national diversity in the selection of investigators, and I find that very unfortunate.

Those are some of the aspects that were especially important to me, after spending all those hours listening to and reading the recommendations made by witnesses when they appeared before the committee and in their briefs.

In order to respond to their concerns and correct the deficiencies in Bill C-65, I drafted amendments that were not even debated. There has been nothing but radio silence from the Liberal members.

I would like to now move on to other aspects of the bill that the NDP is also concerned about. There are many of them and they have to do with the development of employer policies on harassment and violence, for example.

Some employers said on several occasions that they did not understand exactly what was expected of them when it comes to workplace policies. They need guidance on writing and implementing their anti-harassment policies.

Since the primary purpose of Bill C-65 is to bring about a major change in political and corporate culture when it comes to harassment, we had hoped for more from the government in this regard.

When the witnesses appeared before the committee, they expressed their concerns about the effectiveness of employer anti-harassment policies. The witnesses came up with one solution.

In order to give employers guidance and enhance protection for employees, the witnesses recommended that the Canada Labour Code set out guidelines for what is expected of a corporate policy on harassment in the workplace.

The guidelines should include information about the process for getting immediate assistance in the case of harassment and about the fundamental principles of privacy protection and the processing of complaints.

The NDP's amendment would kill two birds with one stone. It would help guide employers in developing their internal policies and also enhance protection for employees, who would now be covered by effective prevention policies.

That amendment also would have prevented potentially ill-intentioned employers from shirking their basic harassment prevention obligations through the use of deliberately complex anti-harassment policies that ultimately end up disincentivizing victims.

Unfortunately, it seems the Liberals would rather leave employers guessing about how to write their internal policies, since not one Liberal bothered to say anything about this measure, let alone come out in favour of it.

Over the course of our deliberations today and tomorrow, I hope to find out what prompted the government to oppose this measure, which witnesses offered up on a silver platter in committee. I hope to get some answers in the next few hours in the House.

Would it not make sense for expectations around policies, specifically anti-harassment policies, to be included in the Canada Labour Code? That is another thing that is conspicuously absent from Bill C-65.

Once again, there were certainly plenty of opportunities to address the problem, and plenty of witnesses who spoke in favour of such a measure. All our efforts to strengthen the prevention aspect of Bill C-65 were apparently for naught.

The Liberals put forward an amendment to include a five-year review, which was not at all objectionable and was in fact more than welcome. We all recognized the importance of including a provision to review the legislation over the years. Reviewing workplace violence and harassment provisions every five years is a perfectly justifiable improvement. What is less justifiable is that Liberals refused to support one of my amendments to make the five-year review more effective.

I will give a quick explanation. The Liberals proposed that the department publish statistics on workplace harassment and violence every five years. This is good. It complies with almost all of the recommendations of their own report published by Employment and Social Development Canada in March 2017. Almost.

In this report, the government lamented the “insufficient data on workplace harassment and violence“, in particular regarding sexual harassment.

The report also pointed out the need for ongoing data collection in order to address this lack of data.

The Liberals remedied part of the problem by proposing that the department publish a statistical report every five years. However, the reality is that we lack data. This lack of data in the statistical report is rather problematic because we will not have the information required to assess the evolution of Bill C-65.

I will stop here, but I have a lot more to say about Bill C-65. I will have the opportunity to answer questions here in the House and to participate in several more hours of debate.

The NDP supports the principle and the spirit of Bill C-65 but still finds the legislation lacking. We will therefore support the bill on division.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, as the saying goes, a leopard cannot change its spots. Everyone in the House agreed that we wanted to take a non-partisan approach to our study of Bill C-65. We were able to do a thorough job in committee, and I would really like to come back to the bill and its very essence.

We are talking about victims here. Some of the people who are listening at home have experienced harassment, violence or sexual intimidation themselves.

I would like to get back to the substance of Bill C-65. I moved an amendment in committee regarding the individuals responsible for an investigation providing a written report of the results of the investigation to specific people, such as the employer or employee. Following consultation with the employee, those documents could then be destroyed. My amendment was rejected.

The same thing happened in the Senate. A similar proposal was made, and the amendment was rejected. I do not understand why the government rejected both of those amendments, one at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and one in the Senate.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that that amendment was rejected, as well as her comments on the importance of providing written results from the investigation to the victim and the employer, and then destroying those documents to ensure full confidentiality.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us why the government rejected Senate amendment 4, which sought to add “ensure that the work place is free from harassment and violence” to clause 3 of Bill C-65. That would have been a very important addition.

I would like my colleague to quickly share her opinion on that.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for what is a historic piece of legislation, Bill C-65. I want to add a dimension to it.

The minister mentioned that women often do not report and that their stories are often not heard. When we add intersectionality to that, either of race, disability or sexual orientation, the reporting is often a lot lower. I am wondering if the minister can elaborate on how this piece of legislation would adjust for that but also make more inclusive workplaces, not just within the federal jurisdiction but beyond that.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sharing stories cannot be where this ends. It is time for us to take action, and we are. According to an Angus Reid poll, 52% of Canadian women say that they have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace and 28% report having experienced non-consensual sexual touching in the workplace, and 72% of respondents who experienced harassment never reported it. In fact, these behaviours have become so normalized that the discomfort women feel is normalized. Women tell us that they do not come forward because it is easier not to, because it often is not worth it. They feel embarrassed, and many fear reprisal, up to even losing their jobs. Most disappointing is that most women simply do not believe that coming forward will make any difference whatsoever in their situation or for others.

It is time for a change. All Canadians deserve a workplace that is free of harassment and violence and where unacceptable behaviour is no longer tolerated. Bill C-65 would be a tool to help achieve that goal. It is how we would send the message that unacceptable behaviour in the workplace will not be tolerated. It would move us, as a society, from outrage to action. Bill C-65 would address all types of harassment and violence. It would strengthen the Canada Labour Code to complement existing laws and policies. It would broaden the scope of legislation to include staff working right here and in constituency offices, both in this House and in the other chamber.

There are three main elements to Bill C-65: the prevention of incidents, a timely and effective response to incidents, and support for affected employees.

This is a progressive and revolutionary bill that all Canadians can be proud of. However, I am well aware that Bill C-65 applies only to federally regulated employers and employees.

My hope is that the legislation would set the example and the standard for fairness and harmony in all workplaces in Canada.

I wish to thank the other chamber for its careful study. I also thank the witnesses who shared their expertise and their experiences, many of them deeply personal, which helped inform the committee's study. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights took to heart the messages heard from these witnesses and proposed amendments to echo those voices and stories.

Many of these amendments are supported by our government. For example, we are supporting the removal of the terms “trivial”, “frivolous” and “vexatious” to describe complaints that could be refused for investigation. While these terms are commonly used in law, there is no denying that they have powerful negative connotations.

There are some amendments we are unable to support, despite the fact that we understand their intent. These concerns did not go unheard. It is the government's perspective that the amendments have already been addressed through other legislation. My hon. colleagues will speak in more detail about each of the amendments.

Rest assured that this legislation would be meaningful for Canadians. It would create better protections, safer workplaces and swifter action for employees covered by this legislation. It would also start a cultural shift that would affect all workplaces and our society. In fact, I believe that it already has.

For example, during our consultations on the regulations, the majority of stakeholders we met recognized the need to change the status quo, and most expressed their willingness to help make that happen. It is important that as a government, we lead the way, that we provide an example, and that we take our responsibility to our workers seriously. We need this legislation simply because what is in place right now is not doing the job.

Let me tell members a bit about Hilary Beaumont, a VICE News reporter. Ms. Beaumont conducted some very interesting research. She interviewed more than 40 women who work right here on the Hill, including former and current members of Parliament, lobbyists, journalists, employees and trainees. In her presentation to committee, Ms. Beaumont said that she quickly realized that female employees were much more vulnerable to harassment than their male counterparts.

The women she interviewed reported personal stories of sexist comments and touching and even sexual assault. Some women said they had been fired or had lost job opportunities after trying to report the abuses they had suffered at work, in this workplace. Some currently employed on the Hill are not even aware of how to manage and report incidents.

Ms. Beaumont discovered that existing measures are not protecting employees from harassment and violence. However, if Bill C-65 had been in place, these women would have had better support and justice, and even better, these incidents could have been prevented. That is why this bill is so important.

From the outset, each member of this House agreed on its importance, and this was apparent during the meetings of the committee of this House, which worked very hard to strengthen the bill. Out of those meetings came important amendments: adding the definition of harassment and violence to the Canada Labour Code; adding a clause that required that the provisions on harassment and violence established in Bill C-65 be re-examined every five years; requiring the minister of labour to produce, each year, a report on harassment and violence in all workplaces under federal regulation; and for the application of part 3 of the law in Parliament, providing the deputy minister with powers normally attributed to the minister to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

These changes, which have already been adopted, along with the amendments from the other chamber that we propose to accept, have created a piece of exceptionally strong legislation that we can all be sure would reach its intended goal.

I firmly believe that Bill C-65, as amended, will really change the lives of thousands of Canadians.

It would ensure better protection for employees in the public service and in federal Crown corporations.

This applies to people working for federal banks, railroads, marine transportation services and ferries, airlines and airports, and radio and television broadcasting.

Bill C-65 would also, importantly, protect political staff in this chamber and in the other one, where all too often we have heard of, and may have even witnessed, inappropriate behaviour, often to humiliate or belittle or to use power as a way to pursue intentions of assault.

I ask my hon. colleagues to support the advancement of this important bill; in fact, this historic bill. For every person who has come forward, for those who have felt that they could not come forward, let us stand up and declare together that we will not accept the status quo and that we will be responsible employers in this place. Let us be an example for Canada and for the rest of the world. We owe it to our citizens, and we owe it to the incredibly hard-working staff who serve us all, to take action now.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved:

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-65, 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, the House: agrees with amendments 3, 5(b), 6 and 7(a) made by the Senate;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 because replacing the word “means” with “includes” would result in a lack of clarity for both employees and employers;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because, in focusing on harassment and violence, it would create an imbalance relative to all of the other occupational health and safety measures under Part II of the Canada Labour Code, and, in addition, other legislation, such as the Employment Equity Act, addresses some of those issues;

proposes that amendment 4 be amended by deleting paragraph (z.163) and by renumbering paragraph (z.164) as paragraph (z.163) because the addition of proposed paragraph (z.163) would mean that a single incident of harassment and violence in a work place would be considered to be a violation of the Canada Labour Code on the part of the employer, which would undermine the framework for addressing harassment and violence that Bill C-65 seeks to establish;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 5(a) because the complaints that are investigated under the section that would be amended do not include complaints relating to an occurrence of harassment and violence;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 7(b) because this would be inconsistent with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board’s other annual reporting obligations under both the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Part I of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and because that Board would only be reporting on a small subset of cases in respect of which there are appeals, thus creating a high risk that an employee’s identity would be revealed if such statistical data were published.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-65. First, I would like to recognize both chambers for their excellent work on the bill. Bill C-65 has had careful study over the course of many meetings, and both chambers have suggested amendments that would strengthen this historic legislation. All hon. members agree it is our responsibility and duty to end workplace harassment and violence, and Bill C-65 brings us closer to that goal.

This bill will change how we perceive and put a stop to unacceptable behaviour in workplaces under federal jurisdiction, including Parliament, but its ultimate goal is so much greater.

It is my hope that Bill C-65 will become the standard and the model for other jurisdictions in the country.

We have heard for years many stories of harassment and violence in the workplace and the extent of the problem. In 2017, more women than ever before came forward to share their experiences through the #MeToo movement. The flood of stories was overwhelming. Some were shocked by what we heard and read, but too many of us were not. So many women have experienced what can no longer be denied: a systematic and widespread tolerance of workplace harassment and sexual violence.

The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-65, 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.

National Defence Act

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of comments that the hon. member made, which I would like to respond to.

My understanding is that there was a similar bill introduced under the former Harper Conservative government. However, it was introduced in the dying days of that government. I wonder whether there was any intention to actually pass that legislation. We have made sure that this legislation was introduced in more than enough time for us to be able to see this bill through the legislative process. I am very proud that we, through this bill, will be strengthening victims rights within the military justice system.

In terms of some of the additional comments that the hon. member made, there is, as part of this bill, the declaration of victims rights. It would ensure that victims who come forward to report harassment and misconduct would have the support that they need. It very much builds on Bill C-65, which is our commitment to create workplaces free from harassment and discrimination from the federal sphere. Also, as I mentioned earlier, for those victims who are looking for specific services, it would create the role of a victim liaison officer who would help guide them through the military justice system and what is available to help them.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue second reading of Bill C-78, the family justice act. Tomorrow we will begin debate at third reading of Bill C-79, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership implementation act.

Next week, members will be working with Canadians in their ridings. When we return, we will begin debate on Senate amendments to Bill C-65, the harassment prevention act. Priority will then be given to the following bills: Bill C-77 on the Victims Bill of Rights and Bill C-82, the multilateral instrument in respect of tax conventions act.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues and their families a happy Thanksgiving.

National Defence Act

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today for second reading debate of Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Canada's military justice system has a long and proud history of helping to maintain a high level of discipline, efficiency and morale within the Canadian Armed Forces. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has been asked by the Prime Minister to conduct a review of the criminal justice system.

It is in that same spirit that our government has committed to reviewing, modernizing and improving our civilian and military justice systems.

We are proposing a number of changes to the National Defence Act, some minor and others more significant. At the heart of these changes are our people, the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who make extraordinary sacrifices every day in the service of their country.

When we formed government, we promised to put people at the core of everything we did. I am proud to say that this focus on people especially applies to our defence team. Since launching our defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged” last year, we have done great work to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces culture and improve support to our members.

For example, we are investing in our military family resource centres by providing an additional $6 million per year to modernize military family support programs. This will provide more support to our military families when members are deploying or during long periods of absence. We are also helping to stabilize family life for Canadian Armed Forces members and their families, which frequently have to relocate. Through our seamless Canada initiative, we have started a dialogue with the provinces and territories to improve the coordination of services across provinces to ease the burden of moving. We have introduced tax-free status for all Canadian Armed Forces personnel that are deployed on named international operations.

These are just a few examples of what we are doing to look after our women and men in uniform.

Many members are aware of Operation Honour, which aims to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Through Operation Honour, we have introduced a new victim response centre, better training for Canadian Armed Forces personnel and easier reporting.

On a related note, our government is pleased to see the results of a comprehensive review of previously unfounded sexual assault cases conducted by the Canadian Forces provost marshal. Twenty-three cases have been reopened and identified for further investigation. I want to commend the Canadian Forces national investigation service and the provost marshal for their work in ensuring victims are heard.

The changes laid out in Bill C-77 build on Operation Honour and will further strengthen our ability to create a positive and respectful environment within our military.

Before I outline what is included in Bill C-77, I want to explain how the legislation fits within the broader context of what our government is doing to create workplaces that are free from harassment.

After we formed government, the Prime Minister gave me a specific mandate to work with senior leaders of the Canadian Armed Forces to establish and maintain a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. I spoke earlier about Operation Honour and how it was one tool we had to stamp out this unacceptable behaviour. However, it is not only in the military that we see these issues.

Over the last year, we have seen many acts of tremendous bravery, with victims speaking out and standing up to their abusers. I am proud of the efforts our government is taking to end this unacceptable behaviour.

For example, last spring, my colleague, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, introduced Bill C-65, which aims to prevent harassment and violence in federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces. One of the key elements of the legislation is providing better support to victims of this unacceptable behaviour. It is in the same spirit that we are debating Bill C-77 today.

Let me now offer a broad overview of the changes we are proposing through Bill C-77.

To start, the amendments would clearly enshrine victims' rights in the military justice system. We know from a Department of Justice report that victims often feel excluded and even re-victimized by the criminal justice process. Bill C-77 would address these concerns by committing to a more victim-centred approach in our military justice system.

To do that, Bill C-77 proposes to add a declaration of victims' rights within the code of service discipline. This declaration gives victims a voice. It will ensure that victims of service offences are informed, protected and heard. The declaration provides victims of service offences with four new rights.

The first is the right to information so victims understand the process that they are a part of, how the case is proceeding, which services and programs are available to them and how to file a complaint if they believe their rights under the declaration have been denied or infringed. Because of the unique nature of the military justice system, understanding it can be difficult and potentially intimidating. For those reasons this legislation also includes the appointment of victims' liaison officers to help guide victims through the process and inform them about the system. Under the victims' rights to information, they will also have access to information about the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who harmed them.

The second right is to protection, so victims' privacy and security are considered at all stages in the military justice system. Moreover, where it is appropriate, we will ensure their identities are protected. This right to protection also guarantees that reasonable and necessary measures are taken to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation.

The third right is to participation, so victims can express their views about the decisions to be made by military justice authorities and have those views considered. This right will ensure that victims' views and the harm and loss they have suffered can be fully considered. In addition, it will be possible to submit military and community impact statements to the court martial. These will convey the full extent of harm caused to the Canadian Armed Forces or the community as a result of the offence.

The fourth right is to restitution, so the court martial may consider making a restitution order for all offences where financial losses and damages can be reasonably determined.

The next important change introduced by the legislation relates to how indigenous offenders are sentenced. This stems from the evolution of Canada's civilian criminal justice system and our desire to ensure the military justice system reflects our times, while remaining responsive to its mandate.

As the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, no relationship is more important to our government and to Canada than the one we have with indigenous peoples. Naturally, the fact that indigenous people are significantly overrepresented within the civilian criminal justice system is of grave concern to all of us. It is not enough to serve justice fairly. In a case like this, where we see such an imbalance, we must pursue the root causes of that imbalance and be considerate in our response.

The Criminal Code has provisions, introduced by Parliament, that have sought to alleviate the higher rate of incarceration for indigenous offenders. In fact, it calls for judges to consider all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable under the circumstances, with particular attention to circumstances of indigenous offenders.

While the military just system has not experienced any overrepresention of indigenous offenders, the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act reflect the civilian system's considerations for sentencing and our nation's history. Bill C-77 would enshrine those same principles in the military justice system.

Similarly, Bill C-77 aligns military justice with the civilian system where LGBTQ2 rights are concerned.

In June 2017, our government added gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. In November, the Prime Minister issued a formal apology to LGBTQ2 Canadians for the historic wrongs and injustices they suffered because of their gender or sexuality.

The defence team has been working hard through initiatives like the positive space initiative to help create inclusive work environments for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. This bill is another step in that direction. It calls for harsher sanctions and sentences for service infractions and offences that are rooted in bias, hate or prejudice toward individuals based on their gender expression or identity. This change will foster a more inclusive and cohesive Canadian Armed Forces, while delivering justice for the victims of fear and prejudice.

The last category of changes introduced by this bill relate to broad efforts to make Canada's justice systems more flexible. In the case of the military justice system, the changes introduced by Bill C-77 would make the system faster and simpler. The summary hearing will be introduced and address minor breaches of military discipline in a non-penal and non-criminal manner. More serious matters will be directed to court martial and there will no longer be summary trials. The summary hearing would only deal with the new category of minor breaches of military discipline, known as service infractions. Service offences that are more major in nature will be dealt with at a court martial.

I want to be clear. There will be no criminal consequences for service infractions and military commanders who conduct summary hearings will be limited to non-penal sanctions to address them. This will improve the chain of command's ability to address minor breaches of military discipline fairly and more rapidly. We also expect it will enhance the responsiveness and efficiency of military discipline, thereby contributing to the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Canada's defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, is a policy that will guide us for the next 20 years. It clearly outlines that our government will continue to support the women and men of our Canadian Armed Forces. The military justice system is critical to how the Canadian Armed Forces accomplishes what it does every day. It sets up a framework for all service members to maintain an outstanding level of discipline and a high level or morale so they can successfully accomplish the difficult tasks asked of them. Knowing they are protected by the military justice system that keeps pace with the Canadian concepts of justice builds on the great unit cohesion among our forces as well.

It is a pleasure to see this legislation progress to second reading, something my Conservative colleagues could not manage when they tabled similar legislation in the dying days of the last Parliament. However, we will see this through as we continue to make every effort to deliver for the women and men of our Canadian Armed Forces and all Canadians. The drive to be fair, to be just and to restore that which has been harmed is a drive that dates back to the very foundations of our country and our armed forces.

Today, we take steps in the pursuit of justice; steps to take care of victims, while we seek to ensure justice is served; steps to ensure that indigenous peoples in the military justice system receive the same considerations on sentence as those in the civilian justice system; steps to uphold justice within our military so it can continue defending our country.

I want to thank everyone for working with us toward this very worthy goal.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue debate on the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-82, the multilateral instrument in respect of tax conventions act.

Monday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-77 on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and of Bill C-78, the family law act.

Next Tuesday, October 2, shall be an allotted day.

Finally, for the rest of the week, priority shall be given to report stage and third reading of Bill C-79, the CPTPP implementation act; and the Senate amendments on Bill C-65, the framework for the prevention of harassment.

[Chris Roberts, National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, Canada's largest labour central, advocating on behalf of three million workers in Canada.

I want to spend the time I have available today focusing on several priority areas for the labour movement: pharmacare, child care, good jobs and the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Our first recommendation is that the Government of Canada commence planning in budget 2019 to implement a national universal single-payer pharmacare program in Canada in conjunction with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Not only would a universal single-payer pharmacare program improve the health outcomes of Canadians and save billions of dollars in prescription drug spending, but it would also strengthen competitiveness by lowering employers' labour costs and improving labour mobility.

Canada's existing patchwork prescription drug system provides uneven and inequitable access to medicines, based on place of residence, employment status, income and age. The current system is also extremely wasteful and inefficient. We pay as much as $11 billion more than we would if we had a single-payer universal pharmacare system. Currently, drug prices are about 40% higher in Canada than in countries with single-payer, evidence-based pharmacare systems. We urge the federal government to sustainably fund the universal pharmacare plan based on principles of fair and progressive taxation.

The CLC also recommends expanded investments in such productivity-enhancing programs as universal, high-quality, accessible public child care. Accessible affordable child care has been shown to significantly boost women's labour market participation and training, to say nothing of the positive impact the investments in quality early learning and child care can have later in life. The government's current child care commitments are modest and should be significantly expanded, increasing the number of child care spaces available and reducing fees, enabling higher female labour market participation in order to offset the cost of the program.

We recommend that the federal government commit to a minimum of $1 billion in the coming fiscal year and an additional $1 billion each year until total spending on early learning and child care in Canada reaches the international benchmark of 1% of GDP.

In order to address Canada's long and disappointing record of sluggish productivity growth, the federal government must put quality jobs at the heart of its agenda. Labour market and social policies should systematically restrict precarious work and the exploitation of vulnerable workers. The federal government should strengthen labour standards and lead the way in improving job quality by ending contract flipping in airports and federally regulated workplaces, the misclassification of employees as independent contractors, and employers' ability to discriminate in pay and benefits based solely on employment status. I'm thinking here of part-time, temporary and contract workers. It should also reinstate the federal minimum wage at $15 an hour and implement a robust, proactive pay equity regime to close the gender wage gap.

Having ratified ILO convention 98, the government should improve access to collective bargaining for workers who want to form a union, and replace tied work permits, which currently shackle vulnerable migrant workers to their employers, with open work permits and a path to permanent residency. Budget 2019 should also include funding for increased labour program inspectors to enforce compliance with federal labour standards and for the additional staffing and enhanced training of health and safety officers necessitated by Bill C-65.

Finally, in order to stimulate business investment while meeting Canada's carbon emission reduction targets, the federal government should be much more ambitious with respect to investing in economic transformation for environmental resilience and sustainability. This means a much bolder plan of public investment in environmentally resilient infrastructure, renewable energy, public transit, and energy efficiency in home and building retrofits. An integral part of this plan must be continued investments in just transition measures to assist workers, their families and their communities affected by climate change and climate change policies.

Thank you very much. I look forward to any questions you might have.

Accessible Canada Act

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, at this point I am not on the committee, although I did sit on the committee when it reviewed Bill C-65.

My experience on committee has been that there is really good work that happens there. Bill C-65 would be a prime example, where really important amendments were brought forward.

In my opinion, it is critical that this bill be implemented. I know the minister has made a commitment to see that this is legislation that will impact people's lives and not years from now, but in the near term.

I look forward to the deliberations that happen at committee and to hearing from witnesses. If there are improvements to be made, the committee will benefit from the expertise that will be provided at the committee meetings.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

On the non-partisan aspect, obviously in Parliament here we have Bill C-65, which all parties have been working on together, on the harassment on the Hill and working towards improving this.

You mentioned in your opening remarks about social media and how that is possibly a factor in preventing women from entering, especially federal, or all levels of politics. Can you elaborate on that?

[Justine Akman]

I will take that, but I will also welcome my colleagues to jump in.

There's an incredible number of different roles.

Bill C-65, which addressed harassment in a variety of workplaces, is one of the most important measures.

As I mentioned, that Inter-Parliamentary Union study identified harassment as one of the major barriers to women entering politics. I have had the opportunity a couple of times to be part of a panel run by them at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, and the tales were truly harrowing, I would say, in terms of levels of both emotional and physical harassment of female politicians.

Certainly, Bill C-65 will help in that space, but also the work that Status of Women does to address gender and equality generally, speaking about gender-based violence. The work we have under that program would also help in that space.

As I mentioned, the women's program funds a lot of work in the leadership space, so Nancy Gardiner will jump in on that.

[Justine Akman, Director General, Policy and External Relations, Office of the Co-ordinator, Status of Women Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I missed the last Status of Women FEWO appearance, so I'm happy to be with you today as you undertake to study barriers facing women in politics.

Recently we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the first women in Canada winning the right to vote in federal elections. As we acknowledge this achievement in our country's history, we remain mindful of the work remaining and so welcome this study.

The advancement of women's participation in democracy is essential to achieving gender equality and ensuring a better future for us all.

Introducing a gender-balanced federal cabinet in 2015 marked an important milestone for Canada; however, women still only represent 27% of members of Parliament. The Inter-Parliamentary Union ranks Canada 61st out of 190 countries on the proportion of women elected to Parliament. In comparison, women make up 19% of House representatives in the U.S., 39% in France, and 44% in Sweden.

These numbers point to continued barriers to women's equal participation in democracy, indicating ongoing systemic discrimination and persistent unconscious bias.

Barriers that prevent women from political participation are many, and they include societal perceptions of appropriate career paths for women, a lack of support from party leadership, a lack of role models, sexual harassment and violence, disproportionate responsibility for caregiving, and a fear of negative attacks and media attention based on gender norms. These barriers impede the development of a pipeline capable of carrying talented and committed women into political life in Canada.

Some women face additional barriers as a result of diverse identity factors, which particularly affects the democratic participation of visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and youth.

Indigenous women in particular can face great barriers to leadership positions. In 2015, only three of the 88 women elected to Parliament were indigenous. In first nations communities, women represented only 17.2% of band chiefs.

Addressing the many different barriers to our democratic participation requires the commitment of many different stakeholders.

Fostering women's leadership skills needs to start at the grassroots. It requires harnessing the power of networks and mentors to ensure women have the necessary tools and support to make it through the pipeline. For this reason, Status of Women Canada, through its women's program, supports projects that strengthen the participation of women in democracy and enhance their chances of success in the pipeline.

Among these is support for women's empowerment with over $13.5 million in funding for 25 projects to promote and enhance the participation of women in civic and political life by addressing systemic barriers. Of this, $5 million went to projects to strengthen the voice of indigenous women in their communities. Another is funding to advance gender equality, with $18 million for approximately 50 projects that engage some 150 women leaders from across the country working to advance gender equality locally and as part of a pan-Canadian network.

These investments allow us to support the work of organizations like Equal Voice, whose Daughters of the Vote initiative brought 338 young women leaders, representing each federal riding, to Ottawa to communicate their vision for Canada in 2017.

The government is also looking at ways to address structural barriers to women in politics. It announced in budget 2018 that it supports the measures recommended by the procedure and House affairs committee to make the House of Commons more family friendly, which my colleagues will address.

Real change for women in politics cannot happen without a commitment from political parties to look at their candidate recruitment and selection processes were sexism and implicit bias play out.

Research by Dr. Melanee Thomas at the University of Calgary shows that when parties are recruiting in ridings they know they can win, they prefer to place male candidates. Women are more likely to be chosen as nominees in areas considered strongholds for other parties, decreasing their likelihood of winning and the number of elected women overall. Political parties could look to the steps taken by the Government of Canada to integrate gender-based analysis plus into all decision-making, and to address biases in internal appointment processes.

As a result of the introduction of an open, transparent, and merit-based approach to selecting Governor in Council appointments in 2015, the appointment of women has increased by 10%, and is now at 44% for GIC appointments.

Even with opportunities and structural changes, harassment remains one of the most significant barriers to women in politics.

A 2016 study by the Inter-Parliamentary Union reveals that sexism, harassment and violence against women MPs are global problems that impede gender equality and undermine the foundations of democracy.

IPU's study, based on interviews with women MPs from 39 countries, reports that more than 80% of survey participants have experienced some form of psychological violence, including threats of death, rape, beatings, or abduction, during their parliamentary terms, as well as threats to their children. Social media is the main channel where psychological violence is perpetrated.

Sexist insults are equally frequent, with nearly two-thirds of respondents reporting this. Sexual harassment is described as common practice, and condescension a daily occurrence. Levels of physical violence are also significant, with 20% reporting they had been slapped, pushed, struck, or targeted by an object that could have injured them.

These findings are not unlike those of a December 2017 survey of female MPs in Canada. The government is moving to address this situation, having introduced Bill C-65 to ensure that federally regulated workplaces, including Parliament, are free from sexual harassment and violence.

Budget 2018 has also indicated $34.5 million starting in 2018-19, and $7.4 million per year ongoing, to support implementation of Bill C-65.

As can be seen, achieving equality for women in politics requires the participation of a wide range of actors working toward long-term solutions. Encouragingly, this scenario is playing out in many jurisdictions across the globe. In the U.K., MPs across party lines have formed the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Women in Parliament, to improve the recruitment and retention of women in politics. Diverse countries, such as Mexico, Rwanda, and Spain, have seen success with quotas, requiring that a certain proportion of women candidates fielded by a political party be women.

Going forward, this study will be invaluable to all of us for understanding the barriers to democratic participation that women face in Canada, and for searching out meaningful solutions. Status of Women Canada is looking forward to hearing the testimonies of stakeholders and experts in this area. We also await the recommendations of this committee to promote the institutional and cultural changes that will make our democracy more inclusive of women, in all our diversity.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was out in the lobby listening carefully to the speech by my friend, the member for Kingston and the Islands. He used to be a member of the environment committee and he did good work there. I enjoyed having him there. We miss him. However, he did suggest in his speech that there are remarkable reforms in the committee system and that the committees are independent. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is that the Prime Minister's Office controls every single committee. There are officials from the PMO at those meetings, directing the members on how they should vote. How do I know that? At the environment committee, we were just recently considering Bill C-65, and as we were going through these different—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the discussion and debate in the House on this particular motion, Motion No. 22, and I am rising to support the motion.

I have been in this place for a very long time and I have watched political gamesmanship come and go. I have watched, when we were in opposition, all these little games being played occasionally. However, I think what we are talking about right now is that there are still some important government bills that need to be finished. Let us just pick one.

Let us look at Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1. I understand and I heard very clearly the debate from the hon. member that this is not going to be fair, that the government had a long time, and that it could have done a lot of things. This may or may not be true; that is not the issue. The point is that there are some things in our budget implementation bill that must come to pass in a certain period of time.

Let us look, for instance, at the Canada child benefit, which is being indexed starting in July this summer, and what will happen if we do not finish the debate on it or if we do not get it passed. If we do not get that done, middle-class families will not get the benefit of the indexation.

There is the workers benefit plan. If we do not get this debate done, workers will not be able to take advantage of that extra $500 that they may get, especially if they are making $15,000 a year. That could help them out over the rest of the time.

One could argue about how many angels dance on the head of a pin, who said what, when they said it, and what this is all going to mean if it is or is not fair. At the end of the day, who is it supposed to be fair to? It is supposed to be fair to our constituents. It is supposed to be fair to Canadians. Canadians need to get the benefit of some of the things that are happening in these bills.

Let us look at the issue of pollution. In this House today, we are talking a lot about the environment and pollution, etc. The indexing of carbon needs to start. It needs to move forward. There are 67 nations in the world that have a carbon price, so let us get moving on this. Let us start getting money in and money out, and getting that money back into provinces so that they can start moving. Then we could get the greenhouse gas emissions down, and some other things could come about from the indexing of carbon.

Let us look at Norway. For me, this is the finest example of what a carbon tax could do. Norway started a carbon tax way back, with their former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. All of the oil companies decided that they hated it, but they paid it, and that moved them forward to start doing technology and changing to clean technology in terms of oil and bringing down their greenhouse gases. I think they are the fifth-largest oil producer in the world, but they are number one in terms of environmental sustainability and they are no longer paying a tax.

I hear sometimes from across the way, especially from the hon. members of the official opposition, that this measure is going to kill the economy. Norway has the highest per capita income in the world. All of the Norwegians are enjoying the benefits. The money is going into social programs. It is going into making sure that Norway is a better place for quality of life. When we look at some of these things, we see that we have to get moving.

British Columbia has had a carbon tax, I think for about 10 or 12 or 15 years. Now British Columbia is the number one performing economy in Canada. British Columbia is actually creating more jobs, and we are seeing better employment in British Columbia than in anywhere else across the country. Let us get moving on some of these things.

The point is that we need to move forward with the initiatives that we need to finish before we rise. We all want to go back to our ridings and enjoy the summer, spending time with our families and our constituents. Our constituents need us to roll up our sleeves and get moving here. Let us forget whatever gamesmanship we want to play and who said what and where and when, and who is right or wrong, and let us just get this done for Canadians.

Let us just move forward and do it. I do not understand why this is so difficult to comprehend. When we look at all the people who are waiting for these bills to move forward, we see it is really time to start talking about how to do things to change it.

Let us talk about, for instance, Bill C-65, which addresses harassment and violence in the workplace. Let us get this done, get it moving, so that we can diminish the amount of harassment and violence in the workplace. We know that this is important. If we do not get this done before we rise, and we wait until we come back in the fall, what will happen is that it will continue for an extra three months.

We passed Bill C-66, on which all of us came together. That was a shining example, in my opinion, of how well we can work when we care and when we put Canadians first. Let us look at the expunging of the records of LGBTQ2+ Canadians who were convicted of offences involving consensual sexual activity. The bill was introduced on the same day the Prime Minister delivered his apology. Everyone in this House came together. We moved forward, and those affected are going to be able to get compensation. We can do things when we want to.

Sometimes I think the politics get in the way of getting the work done. Let us all agree that we need to get this done. Working later hours means that we can get to some of these important pieces of legislation that must be passed for the benefit of Canadians. This is what I am getting to. If we have these extended sittings, one can actually discuss and debate the bills and do what we need to do with these bills. The motion would give us time for that extra debate on those bills.

At least before we rise for the summer, we would be able to say to Canadians that we worked hard; some of us did not like it or think it was fair or the the right thing to do, but we were putting them first. I think we sometimes forget to do that in this place. We forget who we are serving and why we should be serving them in a very efficient and effective manner. Tricks and tactics are cute. Everyone gets a “gotcha” and “my strategy is better than yours”, but sometimes we have to put that aside for the benefit of the people who elected us.

Let us think of what we need to get going on and agree on in terms of British Columbia and New Brunswick, which are facing flooding. We know that in British Columbia, there are chances of fires over this very hot summer, which may be another thing we have to deal with. Therefore, let us put in place some kind of process so we can move forward and get help to them.

On Bill C-74, the budget implementation bill, we have seen amendments come from the standing committee. Let us deal with those amendments. Let us look at this and talk about how we get going. We are talking about the Canada child benefit, which is the biggest one I can think of for the middle class. I know that families are waiting for this to give them the extra money they need to help their children. Time is of the essence when we are looking at putting money in people's pockets. Not only that, but once we index it with this bill, it is going to assist indigenous communities. Many do not know that they are eligible or that they need to apply. They need to know how to apply for this money, and it is important for them.

As I said, the new workers benefit, the CWB, will allow Canadians to take home more money while they work, and it will encourage Canadians to enter the labour market. Some of the other pieces in the budget implementation bill will help to create a work-life balance for people in this House and women and men who are working and trying to bring up their children. They are worried that they do not have the time for anything, that they are neither fish nor fowl, they are neither workers nor parents.

Let us move forward and be generous with our time in terms of helping Canadians. We can look at some of the work to do in this House that will not only help middle-class Canadians but also move the economy forward, get people working, and get more jobs going in the summer. I am not being condescending, but we all know that sometimes, for our constituents, a month, two months, or a year is what they need to get moving to live the quality of life they want. Let us get moving on some of these things.

We can look at the Minister of Democratic Reform. I do not necessarily agree or disagree with any of the arguments that have been made, but at the end of the day, we need time to move forward, with the election coming up.

I know that some members have said that we did not do it, and so now what? Who are we punishing when we do not do it and say we could have done it and should have done it, and now we are running late? At the end of the day, getting work done is not about saying “woulda, coulda, shoulda” and that we have a timeline. Let us just put aside some of the scoring of points we try to do in this place. It would really help Canadians in feeling that they can trust their politicians, that politicians sometimes care about them more than about scoring points and creating tactics and “gotcha” moments in the House.

We can look at tax reform in Bill C-74, for instance. We are talking about the fact that small and medium-sized businesses can use the corporate tax savings to help themselves get about $7,500 a year so they can expand their businesses. In so doing, they can create more jobs. It would help people come summer and moving on into the fall. They can bring new capital investments. Those are some of the things we are talking about.

We also know there are loopholes for large private corporations and that they use the loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Let us fix that. Let us get some of these things moving. It may be the unintended tax advantage they are looking for. Let us fix it. Let us move on and get some of these things done.

I will go back to carbon pricing. Right now, everyone is debating carbon pricing and what is happening with carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, and the Paris agreement. Let us get it moving. Every time we delay things here in the House, we are making Canadians lag behind. We are putting things on hold, when we know that time is of the essence. Again, I am not necessarily disagreeing with people who say that we had an opportunity to do it but we did not and that we are not giving the opposition enough time to get their pieces on the table.

Right now we have legislation on the table that has to be passed for the benefit of Canadians. I will reiterate. Let us put aside all the tactics we are employing in the House, all the gamesmanship, and come together, as we have shown we can. We did it with the LGBTQ2+ issue. Let us show that we can come together for the benefit of Canadians, because that is what we were elected to do.

There will always be enough time for gamesmanship and pointing fingers. However, the environment, the economy, and jobs are very important things. Look at the changes we are proposing in terms of making Parliament more open and transparent. We have promised to give the Canadian public a bigger say when looking at projects and when planning, and so on. We can get better input from them. Let us get that going. The summer gives Canadians an opportunity to start thinking about these things and having input.

Let us talk about parliamentary committees. I remember being in opposition when the parliamentary committee system was run by the parliamentary secretary, and we had to do what the parliamentary secretary said. They got the agenda going and nobody listened to anyone. We said we were going to change it. We came in, and we did. Parliamentary secretaries sit on committees, because they need to hear what is going on so they can go back to the minister and say what people are debating. However, they have no vote. They cannot run the show anymore. It is now far more democratic in parliamentary committees.

Having chaired a committee myself, I can say that now everyone is busy debating the issues and people are agreeing on so many things. I look to my seatmate here, who is chair of the finance committee. The finance committee is doing yeoman's work. It is changing things and making amendments that are making a difference, and it is all because Parliament is working a whole lot better.

I could go on, but I am not going to. I just want to make a plea. We have made our points in the debate in the House that the government is dragging its feet or not dragging its feet. Members have made their points. Let us now get on with the work. Let us roll up our sleeves and work the extra hours. Let Canadians see that we are committed to them, to the work we need to do, and to the reason we were elected, and let us just get things done.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Resources that are supporting irregular immigrants are not being taken away from others. I want to clarify that.

Gender-based-violence funding is important to all Canadians, not just our government, which is why in this recent budget we more than doubled the funding for organizations to do this work.

As to sexual harassment, I appreciate your bringing that up. Bill C-65 has gone through several iterations, and it recognizes that sexual harassment, violence, and discrimination are not particular to any one group. We know all parties are affected by this. We know all communities and cultures are affected by it, and we are united in our efforts to address it.

Canada Post

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention on this issue and, indeed, on the future of Canada Post.

We too are committed to a bright future at Canada Post. We too are committed to workplaces free of harassment and bullying. We too are taking measures, including the passage of Bill C-65, hopefully very soon, and other active measures that will govern workplaces to make sure that we have a climate of respect, collaboration, and harmony in Canada Post and beyond.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss this very important issue. I can perhaps shorten the length of the wait.

I too was happy to join the Minister of Public Services and Procurement in meeting with the national president of CUPW and several of his colleagues to discuss this very issue. They presented us with a number of specific allegations and, of course, also made a number of general observations with respect to harassment and bullying in the workplace.

This is something that we take very seriously. In announcing our new vision for Canada Post, where we kept our promises around home delivery, where we kept our promise to renew the board of Canada Post, and kept our promise to change the leadership at Canada Post, we also made sure that we put the accent on improving the labour-management climate at Canada Post. We frankly agree that a healthy workplace is the sign of a healthy corporation, and that all sides, labour, management, and others, have an obligation to work together to create a harmonious work environment, free of bullying, free of harassment, for everyone.

Canada Post is committed to providing a safe and healthy workplace, free from harassment, conflict, and violence. We must adopt a systematic approach to addressing reported cases of harassment. Canada Post is committed to addressing these cases quickly, professionally, and discretely.

Canada Post has implemented and is actively promoting workplace policies that reinforce this commitment. Employees have been provided with access to a toll-free hotline, managed by a third party, and are encouraged to call to report any kind of workplace incident.

As the Prime Minister said in Winnipeg, harassment, threats, and bullying are never ok, in any workplace in this country. He takes harassment at a Crown corporation, within the responsibility of the federal government, extremely seriously, as we all do. We are at a critical time in our society, during which sexual harassment is finally a top priority.

That is why our government introduced Bill C-65. This bill, which is currently being considered in the other place, will create a more robust regime that better addresses harassment and violence in all federally regulated workplaces, including, of course, Canada Post. This legislation is part of a comprehensive strategy focused on three main goals: to prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring; to respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur; and to support victims, survivors, and employers in the process.

We are very proud of the progress we have made at Canada Post and working with our partners in the labour unions. We want to ensure that Canada Post continues to have a bright future. That is why we have renewed the board of directors. That is why we are renewing and will continue to renew the management of Canada Post. As well, that is why we are proud to stand here to say that we are with the employees in their desire to have a harmonious and productive workplace at Canada Post and, indeed, everywhere.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I asked a question regarding harassment in the Canada Post workplace in February, the minister assured me that she was doing everything in her power to address the issue. However, when I attended the CUPW spring educational conference at the end of April, the members were quite vocal about the fact that harassment was still one of the biggest issues plaguing them in the workplace. There appears to be some light on the horizon, albeit if not late in its timing, for those already suffering the effects of bullying and harassment. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers reported on May 9 that some incremental first steps had finally been taken on the part of the minister, who assured them that there would be follow-up. I do hope that is the case.

During committee hearings on Bill C-65, a union representative described a culture of harassment that is deep-seated and systemic. New Democrats are committed to supporting workers in finding a resolution to reduce incidences of bullying and harassment in all workplaces. As the NDP critic for Canada Post, my primary concern is to address this dysfunctional culture within the corporation. We have witnessed a steady deterioration in the working conditions of postmasters and assistants, including reduction of hours, post office closures, and other issues that contribute significantly to the potential for stress and unhealthy conflict in the workplace. CPAA members report mental health issues related to this particular situation and things like absenteeism, which is second only to musculoskeletal issues. While workplace conditions are not always the cause of mental health issues, a culture of bullying and harassment certainly does nothing to alleviate workers' stress levels. It just makes sense to work to create an overall cultural change at Canada that improves working conditions and reduces stress with meaningful and concrete solutions.

To quote the Government of Canada's Department of Employment and Social Development from November 2, 2017, on the release of the report entitled “Harassment and sexual violence in the workplace public consultations—what we heard”:

Harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable. Period. The Government of Canada made a commitment to Canadians to take action to ensure that federal workplaces, including Parliament Hill, are free from these types of behaviours....

Harassment and sexual violence in the workplace negatively impact not only the person experiencing these behaviours, but also their families, coworkers, and their employers.

The release goes on to say that the government is committed to taking meaningful action to address the full spectrum of harassment and sexual violence at work and will be announcing next steps in the near future. I am encouraged to hear that Jessica McDonald, Canada Post's new CEO, has initiated discussions with the Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association to discuss bullying and harassment in the workplace. It appears that she is attempting to find the root of the problem, and a solution as well, and that she is open to working with the unions. This gives me cause for hope.

The time for addressing these issues is now. We cannot afford the cost of bullying and harassment in the workplace. We cannot afford it in human terms; nor can we afford it in dollars and cents, because the bottom line is that this kind of disruption of work costs us all. Therefore, I am waiting to hear from the minister.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today about Employment and Social Development Canada's portion of the 2018-19 main estimate and to outline how important programs will be delivered by the department.

Before we begin, I, too, would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

As Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, I am firmly focused on making sure that every Canadian has a fair chance to succeed. Since November 2015, Canadians have created over 600,000 jobs, most of which are full-time. The unemployment rate is now near historic lows, and Canada is leading the G7 countries in economic growth.

We know, however, that there's still more work to do. We need equality of opportunity for all Canadians to reach their full potential. This is a lens that we apply to everything we do as a government.

The fact is, for women and girls, there are still many barriers to overcome. Our government is intent on breaking down those barriers.

Budget 2018 focused on actions to ensure that the benefits of a growing economy are shared by more and more people.

Part of this action includes measures to promote gender equality through pay equity. On average, women earn just 69¢ for every dollar earned by men on an annual basis, even though about three-quarters of young women have post-secondary certificates or a degree. That's not right. It's also not very smart. It's why we're moving forward with proactive pay equity legislation.

We also have to address this wage gap for women and other vulnerable populations through pay transparency measures, which will provide Canadians with information on the pay practices of federally regulated employers. These measures will help to highlight those employers who model equitable pay practices, while holding employers accountable for wage gaps.

We have also taken action to promote and advance women in occupations in which they're currently under-represented. Indeed, we've put forward measures to further support the participation and success of women in the trades. We announced three initiatives as part of budget 2018. These are $46 million over five years for a new pre-apprenticeship program; $19.9 million over five years to pilot an apprenticeship incentive grant for women; and $10 million over three years for the new women in construction fund.

We are confident that the steps we are taking to promote gender equality will go a long way to ensure everyone has an equal chance of success.

It's very important that women and other vulnerable workers have the same opportunities when it comes to getting a job and succeeding in that job. We have to ensure that every person can work in an environment free of harassment and violence. Bill C-65 will do just that by helping to put an end to these unacceptable behaviours in federally regulated workplaces and on Parliament Hill. It will require employers to prevent incidents of harassment and violence, to respond effectively if these incidents happen and when they occur, and to support victims.

Through budget 2018 we announced $34.9 million over five years starting in 2018-19, and $7.4 million per year ongoing, to build awareness on harassment and violence, create education and training tools for employees and employers, and establish a toll-free helpline to help employers and employees navigate the process and put in place effective workplace policies.

I want to thank again the members of this committee, who I know worked incredibly hard to propose amendments that will strengthen Bill C-65, for working so collaboratively to get the job done.

In addition to Bill C-65, we are also taking steps to modernize our labour standards. Innovation is changing the way that we work and live, bringing with it new realities for Canadian workers and employers. In this rapidly changing environment, we need to continue to protect the rights and well-being of workers while ensuring that employers have the flexibility they need to succeed.

You will recall that in budget 2017 we proposed to give federally regulated private sector employees the right to request flexible work arrangements from their employer, such as flexible start and finish times and the ability to work from home.

Budget 2017 also made bereavement leave more flexible and introduced new leave for family responsibilities, to participate in traditional indigenous practices, and for employees who are victims of family violence, or the parent of a child who is the victim of family violence. These measures will help employees in the federally regulated private sector to better balance their work, family, and other personal responsibilities.

We are continuing our work on that front. In budget 2018 we announced that we intend to make five days of the new 10-day leave for family violence paid. How can we make sure that all of this actually happens, once these and other new measures are in place? Well, of course we need stronger compliance and enforcement measures. For example, amendments made to the Canada Labour Code, such as the introduction of monetary penalties and administrative fees and the authority to publicly name violators, will update enforcement tools, bringing the code in line with regimes that exist in other jurisdictions.

I think the chair is giving me notice that my time is done.

I want very much to talk about all of the other exciting things we're doing, but we'll have to save that for a later date.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nepean for reminding us that this week is Mental Health Week.

Our government is focused on ensuring federally regulated workers have healthy and safe workplaces. We introduced Bill C-65, a historic piece of legislation, to put an end to harassment and sexual violence in the federal sector and here on Parliament Hill. We have also introduced the right to request flexible work arrangements and new leave provisions for workers so they can better balance work with family responsibilities.

This week and every day, we will support those struggling with mental health issues.

Status of Women

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week we heard over and over again disconcerting things from Conservative political leaders across the country denying the facts and ignoring the real barriers faced by women in politics. Our government understands that women in politics face sexism, harassment, and other systemic barriers, and we are working to eliminate these factors.

That is why we are working with organizations like Equal Voice and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to find out why there are fewer female elected representatives than male.

We also announced $18 million in funding to enhance the participation of women, including indigenous women, as leaders in their communities.

We have introduced Bill C-65 to address harassment and sexual violence. Our government knows that we simply cannot move forward when half of us are held back.

Canada Labour Code

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. His speeches are always funny with a kernel of truth, which is something I really appreciate in the House.

We had the opportunity to examine Bill C-65 and we have talked about its positive aspects. The study was non-partisan, which allowed us to elevate the debate and I am very proud of that. There are now just a few more minutes remaining in the debate of Bill C-65 in the House.

In committee, we had the opportunity to discuss psychological harassment with the Conservatives. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the fact that there is no mention of psychological harassment in the bill. Does my colleague think that it would improve Bill C-65 if the government were to add something about psychological harassment?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the colleague we just heard from and whose time it is my pleasure to share.

God knows that my hard-working colleague is well known in the House. He always has strong opinions about everything that goes on here in the Canadian political arena, and that is a good thing.

I am very pleased to give my full support to the bill. This is an important piece of legislation, and I am very proud to rise today and talk on behalf of my colleagues and my party to support the bill. We are talking about a very serious issue. We are talking about harassment and even violence here in our precinct, in the House of Commons and the Senate, the Parliament of Canada. If there is a place where we should respect each and every one, it is in the Parliament of Canada. We should be very good on that. We have to be very sincere. We should lead on addressing harassment and violence here in Canada.

Our party has always supported and will continue to support this bill. That is the case for the government, the second opposition party, and the people of the other parties represented in the House of Commons, and it is done in a spirit of non-partisanship. Just because we are non-partisan does not mean that we say “yes” to everything. On the contrary, our party, and others as well, made changes and proposed amendments because it is vital that this debate be devoid of any political partisanship. I am sometimes partisan. That goes with the job and there is nothing wrong with that. However, in such matters, we must say “no” to partisanship.

Our party's main concern was the protection of victims. In cases of harassment and violence, there is the aggressor and the victim, and either one can be male or female. All too often, the aggressor receives a great deal of attention. However, we must think first and foremost of the victim and of the courage it takes to testify and help ensure that this sad reality is eradicated one day. We can all have our dreams.

What is it about? Let us read the first change to the law, the first subclause of Bill C-65 on harassment and violence. It is rather important because every word matters in laws and especially when a law is on harassment and violence. We have to know the meaning of harassment and of violence. The text of the bill reads:

...means any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment.

With this very clear and very specific definition of harassment and violence, we have a better sense of what we can do when this sad reality occurs in our political world. Before getting into the details of this legislation and the amendments that our colleagues proposed under the guidance of the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, who is our shadow minister for this file, I want to make a distinction.

As said earlier, it is quite important for the House of Commons to lead on addressing harassment and violence, because we can lead. Just because we are talking about it here does not mean that 500 yards from the Parliament of Canada there is no harassment and no violence. Unfortunately, this tragedy occurs in each and every part of our country. It has no language, no race, no religion, and no age. It is in each and every province. We have to address this difficult situation in every part of the country. We do not have to close our eyes to the reality because unfortunately, the stupidity of mankind has no barriers, no roots, and no language.

It is important to note that, unfortunately, a lot of emphasis, and rightly so, is being placed on the political realm. However, just because we are focusing on our political world, it does not mean that this does not happen elsewhere, and so much the better if the Canadian Parliament leads the way in the fight against harassment and violence.

Let us look at the amendments that our parliamentary group proposed to improve this legislation, which was excellent from the outset and will be even better with the approved amendments. First, we must avoid political interference. We have to understand that the world of politics is a unique place. Indeed, it can be conducive to this type of situation. Why? Because the politician is the boss.

Politicians hold all the power over their employees—professionally speaking, of course. They can fire people on the spot with very little warning. That is part of the political reality. Our schedule is also very unusual, to say the least. In fact, it is not an unusual schedule, but rather there is no schedule. In politics, we are working as soon as we open our eyes in the morning. It is as simple as that. There are not really any clear rules to properly frame the work, since in politics we work 24 hours a day, even more so with today's social media.

I have been politically active for 10 years now, and I often like saying that the thrill of politics is that there are no Mondays. As many people know, going back to work on Monday can be difficult, because everyone is fed up and not very excited about their job. We, however, work seven days a week, so we have no Mondays, and that goes for all the parties. That is a plus, and I am glad to say so. Lastly, we must not forget that these are often young employees in precarious positions. All these factors combined can lead to violence and harassment problems.

I would also like to talk about human nature, which unfortunately is not always pretty. There may be times in our political careers when we experience certain frustrations and things do not go as planned. People who are in a position of authority but are not particularly smart sometimes use that as an excuse to take it out on their staff. It is completely despicable, disgraceful, unacceptable, disgusting, and contemptuous, but it does happen. Since this is an environment where there are no protections, with unusual schedules, where people are young and in precarious situations, unfortunately, some truly reprehensible abuses can occur. However, human stupidity is not exclusively a feature of Canadian politics.

We must therefore avoid political interference and allow for reasonable time frames. It takes time for victims to find the courage, honour, and dignity to lodge a complaint and to do what is necessary. It does not happen immediately. We must understand that this is painful and stressful for these victims. This is why we believe that they should have the time to find the courage to start the process—enough time for this process to play out in a proper, positive, and smart way. This is also why we decided to extend the time limit to file a complaint. Victims cannot always do so right away; they must be given the time.

I now want to talk about mandatory training for all members of Parliament, which is extremely useful. This is a good one. Three weeks ago, I attended a training session with many of my colleagues. It was quite interesting. We were all put into situations to see how we would react. This helped us learn whether a given person would react properly to a given situation. This opened a discussion, and my colleagues shared their thoughts. Sometimes, people shared a personal experience. It caused us all to reflect.

There is no such thing as a perfect training, of course. It is not like in mathematics, when you have 1 + 1 = 2 and this never changes. It is not easy to provide training on harassment and violence, but everyone benefits from mandatory training when we all share our own experiences, and this is very good.

Given that cyberbullying exists and is evolving, whereas it did not exist 10 years ago, it is quite normal to include this sunset clause, which allows for a more in-depth analysis of the situation in five years. It is a great idea and I congratulate my colleague who thought of it. There is greater awareness of harassment over cell phones. We see it, we hear it, we observe it, and we acknowledge it. So much the better. We do not know what technology will be like in five years, but we do know that harassment and violence could still be present in our society. That is why it is important to study this again in five years.

In closing, I am very proud to support this bill and very pleased to participate in this debate. It is quite remarkable to see each and every one of us, from every party, working together to bring forward good ideas and supporting this legislation. In five years, we will have the opportunity to give it new impetus and do our best to eradicate violence and harassment here, in Parliament, and to set an example for all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have the principle in general, in law, of people having issues adjudicated in a timely manner. This benefits the victims so that they can have clarity and closure about the way forward. They can feel, to whatever extent it is possible, that there is some degree of justice and response in light of what has happened. It is also for the accused. They can go through and see the results of that process. If there is a restorative process that is possible and a process of education, that can begin to happen as soon as possible.

From all points of the situation, there is an interest in ensuring that these things proceed in a timely manner. That is why the Conservatives saw fit to put forward an amendment to have that timeline provision in place. Unfortunately, it was not accepted by the government. Again, we cannot win them all, especially in opposition.

However, I appreciate the opportunity our members at committee and others had to get the government to see sense in a number of areas, to see the opportunity for improvements, and to bring about those improvements to make Bill C-65 a stronger bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I will share my time with the excellent member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

This is certainly an important issue, and it is a pleasure for me to rise to debate Bill C-65 at third reading. At second reading, when I spoke to this bill, I spoke in detail about the #MeToo movement, the practical and philosophical issues raised by that important movement, and the progress in terms of public awareness and public will to respond we have seen coming out of that discussion.

I will revisit some of those arguments later on, if time allows, but I want to begin by talking a little more about some of the practical issues around Bill C-65 and how those practical issues have been worked out through the legislative process. This bill is aimed at combatting harassment, specifically in the parliamentary precinct, but as well, more broadly, within the federally regulated workplace.

We are continuing to see the profound impact on politics, and certainly in other sectors of society, of the #MeToo movement, which has invited women to bring to light instances of previously undiscussed sexual harassment and assault. It has significantly increased awareness among men of the issues women face that we, as men, may not have been as aware of previously. It is important that we continue to encourage people to come forward to bring everyone's attention to this issue and to seek to strengthen the processes that protect victims and ensure more effective due process.

What this bill intends to do is very laudable, and that is to further develop a strong, fair, and reliable process. Indeed, a clear, fair, reliable process is the best way to ensure that victims are heard, that perpetrators are punished, and that potential perpetrators are deterred. We can show that there is a clear process in place that confronts these issues that is objective, that is impartial, and that ensures that victims have their fundamental rights protected. This bill would strengthen the processes and mechanisms that are in place, again as I said, to combat harassment on Parliament Hill as well as in federally regulated workplaces.

Conservatives support this bill. I am pleased that our caucus, and in particular, our team on the committee, have engaged constructively with this process to propose and see the passage of amendments that have improved and strengthened the bill and strengthened the process and what will be its ultimate effectiveness.

I recall, during second reading debate, that my colleague from Lethbridge, our shadow minister for the Status of Women, gave an impassioned speech, working through some of the areas where the previous draft of the bill was flawed and needed to be improved. I recall that at the time, some members of the government were critical of her for criticizing the bill, for violating what was allegedly supposed to be the non-partisan tone of the discussion, because this is, after all, something we all agree is so important.

I would argue that precisely the importance of this issue is why we should dig deeper. We should ask questions. We should analyze the text and its practical implications to see if it would do the kinds of things we wish it to do. Despite some of the criticism across the way, that is precisely what the member for Lethbridge and other members of our caucus were doing. They were trying to advance the underlying objectives by asking hard questions about what would be the most effective way of achieving those objectives.

Despite some of the criticisms Conservative members received for challenging aspects of the bill at second reading, I am pleased to see that the government did, in fact, see fit to accept amendments proposed by Conservatives that substantially improved the bill. I will mention a number of the issues where the mechanisms in place were improved.

The previous version of the bill would have created a situation where harassment complaints that involved MPs' offices would have been investigated under the direction of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. The obvious problem is that the minister is a member of Parliament and a member of a political party, so there would be, if not a lack of good intentions on the part of the minister, at least a potential perception of political bias. There would be a perception, perhaps, that a complaint by a member of the government's office might be treated differently from a potential complaint from within the office of a member of the opposition. We would not want to have either a taint in reality or a taint in terms of the perception of the credibility of that process.

That is why an amendment was proposed and successfully advanced at the committee stage that handed over that investigation to the deputy minister, a non-partisan civil servant. It ensured that the investigations of harassment complaints involving the offices of members of Parliament would be under the authority of a non-partisan public servant, as opposed to taking place under the direction of the office of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.

That was a very important constructive change the Conservatives were able to put forward to make this bill more effective. Fortunately in this case, we saw the process working as it should, and that amendment was accepted.

Another priority for Conservatives on the committee was ensuring a discussion of incorporating mandatory sexual harassment training. That training is critical, and it has been available to MPs. I know many MPs in our caucus have taken advantage of the opportunity to go through that training process as well. That training is important. It is something that we saw needed to be emphasized in the bill, and it was added.

We also put forward an amendment to have a mandatory review of the bill after five years. There has been some discussion in this House around social media and technology, and how that is a new platform on which harassment can take place. Obviously this illustrates the need for periodic reviews and updates, because technology changes. There may be new avenues or new platforms on which harassment takes place, and that may raise new issues in terms of the kind of legislative framework we are going to need going forward.

We have also seen, even over the last five years, increasing awareness and recognition of problems that previously were perhaps not identified and recognized appropriately. We could hope for that continuing process of greater recognition to ensure that everybody in the workplace is properly protected. That update provision was proposed and added and accepted by other members of the committee, and it is very important.

We see the legislative process working well here. Concerns were raised at second reading. We, as a caucus, have done our job. We have put forward constructive improvements to Bill C-65, and many of those have been incorporated.

We will continue to ask questions about ways in which the bill can be improved. Not all of the proposals we put forward were adopted. For example, we had a proposal around clear timelines over which an investigation would take place to ensure that an investigation would not not drag out indefinitely and that there would be a process in place to ensure closure for the victim and that these questions are ultimately answered and resolved in a timely manner. Unfortunately, the government members on the committee did not accept that proposal. Recognizing, though, that every proposal we put forward was not incorporated, we still see Bill C-65 as a step in the right direction, a positive step. I am pleased to be supporting it at this stage. It needs to continue to go through the process and hopefully be adopted.

As we work through discussions about processes, we should also acknowledge that changes to processes are not going to solve the whole problem. No matter how many processes and training opportunities are in place, there are always going to be people who will refuse to listen and who are going to think they can get away with it. Sometimes a sense of personal impunity can be a hazard associated with some people in positions of power.

Therefore it is important, as we confront the issue of harassment as it happens in this environment, that powerful people understand the rules of human conduct that apply to others very much apply to them as well. This needs to be reality reflected in the structure of the system, but it also needs to be absorbed into the minds and hearts of everyone in this place.

From conversations I have had, I know that some feel there is maybe a lack of clarity around what the rules are, in terms of what constitutes harassment and what does not. What this illustrates is a certain inadequacy of a purely rules-based, as opposed to virtue-based, approach to ethics.

A rules-based approach to ethics asks us to define specific lines. When it comes to this and many other things, rigid lines cannot always be easily defined, because there is an objective component to harassment—the behaviour—but there is also a subjective component, in terms of how that behaviour impacted the particular person in light of the context, in light of their situation, in light of cues that may have been given or not, the power structure, and so forth. There is that objective component, and there is the subjective component as well.

An alternative ethical approach, one defined by virtue ethics, is to define qualities of character that should animate action and interaction: a recognition of the dignity and value of every person, a rejection of objectification and the use of people merely as a means, and a commitment to well-being and happiness for all. These are the kinds of qualities that should animate all our interactions.

I am out of time. Thus, we should pass this bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with my friend from Nanaimo—Ladysmith and share her concerns that Premier Rachel Notley experiences death threats. I have already said in the media recently that I do as well. I want to hone in on one area where the comments are the most vile and are not really touched on by Bill C-65. Forgive me for going a bit outside the scope of this act. Does my friend from Nanaimo—Ladysmith not agree that we need to find a way to police the comments of social media, things that are essentially published? In the old days, by which I mean not that long ago, with anything that was published in a newspaper, the editors would make sure they knew the identity of the person posting a comment, and a comment could not be an incitement to hatred or violence. However, on Twitter and Facebook, we do not control those spaces. I wonder if my friend from Nanaimo—Ladysmith has any thoughts on that.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are at quite a time in our country. I am honoured to be representing Nanaimo—Ladysmith at this time.

First, we have an unprecedented opportunity for gender equality around the world. At the same time, I would argue that we have an unprecedented awareness of the impact that sexual harassment and workplace violence, and harassment, period, can have on workers and the fact that harassment should never be part of any job.

I think of my grandfather, John Osler, who was a lawyer for labour when there were not any in Canada, and the recognition of the violence done physically to people in the workplace and the importance of putting in place laws and frameworks to protect workers' physical safety. We now know our responsibility in this day and age is to have the same level of protection for people's workplace environment as it relates to harassment and sexual harassment. Therefore, we cannot pretend we do not know.

I am very aware of the media investigation this weekend about the threats against the life of New Democrat Premier Rachel Notley. I know she is not alone. Women in this House have been profiled as having received sexual harassment and threats of physical violence against them. Harassment is not part of a politician's job, so I am sorry for Rachel Notley.

While watching some of the media this weekend with my mom and dad, they observed that there was a great deal of hand-wringing but very little concrete action. What are we actually going to do? Talking about it or reporting on it is not enough.

I was reminded of two years ago when the status of women committee, in its 2016 all-party consensus report, made recommendations to the government, to this Parliament, in particular recommendation 18. This is in the context of its study on ending violence against young women and girls, but, inevitably, there was a great deal of testimony that we heard about online harassment and cyberbullying. Young women, like Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd, were harassed to the point that they took their own lives. There are horrible stories with which no family should ever have to contend.

When we asked the witnesses for remedies, they said that the previous Conservative government had removed part of the Canadian Human Rights Act, maybe for reasons of freedom of speech, which turned out leaving a very serious hole in our human rights legislation that we needed fixed immediately. Therefore, our recommendation was:

That the Government of Canada introduce legislation to restore Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which permitted rights complaints to the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission for the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet.

However, here it sits two years later. The government received an all-party recommendation to repair the damage the Conservative government did in the Harper era.

While we are talking about harassment in the workplace and while our attention is focused on the death threats that Premier Notley received, as reported last week, let us remember there are actions that we can take, and I urge that we take them. We need a little less conversation and a little more action.

Bill C-65 is an example of action, which the New Democrats welcome. We welcome anything that makes workplaces freer from harassment and creates a clearer path for employees. For employees on the Hill, there is this strange kind of cone of no-rules land somehow around the Labour Code, especially as it relates to harassment and sexual harassment. Therefore, we are glad to see the bill here. We are also glad that all parties have been able to work together, especially with the labour movement, which has very good advice on this file to try to bring changes to the bill.

We know the need is real. Fifty-three per cent of Canadian women have experienced unwanted sexual pressure. Fifty per cent of Canadian women have experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. Sixty per cent of respondents experienced some form of harassment in the workplace, with nearly half of those from people with authority over them. Therefore, power is a big part of this dynamic. Women who are racialized, queer or indigenous and women living with disabilities all have a much harder time and receive a disproportionate amount of harassment and violence in the workplace. Therefore, the work needs to be done.

This legislation is mostly procedural. It sets up an investigatory process through which issues of violence or harassment in the workplace could be investigated fully and without prejudice. That is the intention. It follows two similar streams through both Parliament and government-regulated workplaces and industries such as telecommunications, transport, and banks, which is about 8% of the national workforce, as well as the people that work here with us in Ottawa and in our constituency offices to provide us with vital support, as well as federally regulated workers across the country. The rules apply to parliamentarians and everybody.

We are glad to see the bill before the House. However—and there is always a “however”—there are some gaps, and we worked quite hard to try to fill them. I salute my friend to my left, the member for Saskatoon West, who is our former labour critic, and my colleague to my right, the member for Jonquière, both of whom led the charge in committee to try to bring many amendments forward and perfect the bill as much as we could.

Our strong disappointment remains that the joint health and safety committees have basically been removed from the process. These committees have worked for years, and it is a great disappointment that this legislation would remove them from doing their effective work. Every labour ally who came to committee asked for these committees to be returned to their roles. We proposed amendments, but they were not accepted by the Liberal-dominated committee. That continues to be a great disappointment. In the words of CUPE, the union that represents 650,000 workers in this country, limiting the role of the health and safety committees will have “a chilling effect” on workers' willingness to come forward and participate in the process.

The Liberal bill is an employer-driven process. If an employer is harassing an employee or if an employer has failed to create a safe workplace and regulate the other employees, then quite reasonably the person experiencing the harassment may not want to participate fully in a process that is dominated and controlled by his or her employer.

The health and safety committees have doing all kinds of good work in different areas of the Labour Code for all this time. If they had been used, an existing tool would have been used and an impediment to complaints would have been removed.

CUPE has deep experience in federally regulated industries. It has 650,000 members across the country, many of whom work in rail, ports, communications, and energy, all places that would be protected by this legislation.

We tried to bring forward a number of other amendments. Fortunately, three of them were taken up, including one with respect to the definition of “harassment” in the legislation, which all of our labour allies had called for. Certainly those of us who are employers want to have that clarity. I am glad that our perseverance resulted in that definition being brought in.

We also had input from the teamsters union, which wanted changes made to the Labour Code. It was pushing the government to clarify that mental health was included as part of this legislation. The Canadian Labour Congress very strongly voiced its concerns about a lack of capacity for labour investigators. PIPSC, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, was well represented. Workers at the DFO biological station in my riding are members of PIPSC. It is a very strong advocate. It wants to see Bill C-65 guarantee adequate representation for those involved.

In closing, I would like to thank the government for bringing this legislation forward. I would also like to thank Conservative and New Democrat members for being able to advance some of the changes that we wanted to see, but I continue to urge the government to draw on the deep experience of the labour movement, which has been doing this hard work for many years. Let us not leave to regulation what we could transparently include in legislation right now.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. Clear internal policies are crucial to ensuring that people feel safe in healthy workplaces. That is what employers want, and it is what workers and union representatives want, but Bill C-65 is silent on the subject.

There is no clear internal policy to help employers introduce codes of conduct for handling complaints, protecting information, and providing immediate assistance to their employees. They even proposed a code of ethics, which the Liberals rejected. Joint health and safety committees that include people within the organization who know the workplace and its culture and are made up of people of different ages, genders, cultures, and religions would have helped victims feel safe. None of that is in the bill as written.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

I am very pleased to speak to this bill, which underwent a non-partisan study. All of the members worked on it together for the benefit of survivors of workplace harassment and violence. We have taken a big step forward in that regard. The NDP will support this bill so that it can become a reality.

We are on the cusp of major changes, not only in labour relations, but also in matters of gender equality. Some courageous voices have been raised in every sector against sexist acts, harassment, and assault. We have only to look at the #MeToo movement, which was launched the United States to speak out about assault and, in some cases, about allegations of rape made by actresses. In France, a wave of naming and shaming of abusers started with the hashtag #BalanceTonPorc, which also involved Quebec. In our province, we also remember the hashtag #AgressionNonDénoncée, about unreported rapes, that was launched on social media by the Fédération des femmes du Québec in 2014.

The purpose of these citizen-led movements is not only to change the culture, but also to call on the government and parliamentarians to take action. Bill C-65 emerged from these movements, and I must commend this first step. I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this bill. Although some aspects are incomplete, it is a starting point to allow federal workers in sectors like transport, banking, or telecommunications to be able to benefit from protection from harassment, sexual harassment, bullying, and violence.

Half of all Canadian women say that they have experienced unwanted sexual pressure. Nearly half of all Canadian women have suffered from some form of sexual harassment at the workplace. For a young woman my age or younger, that figure rises to nearly 66%. We can no longer hide this basic reality in our society. There is no more room for “but”, for “it has always been like that”, or for other such language to deny any progress. A number of female MPs and former MPs have experienced sexist or sexual violence or harassment. Many of our staffers, male and female alike, have suffered this type of violence in our offices, at receptions, or elsewhere on Parliament Hill.

We are now all aware that this problem happens everywhere, no matter our party, our religion, or our philosophy. Bill C-65 lets us take a step forward by putting an end to this outdated form of patriarchal behaviour that affects many women, especially those from cultural communities or those earning minimum wage.

Other groups, such as rape crisis centres, explain how violence affects mainly women, especially those already experiencing discrimination based on skin colour, disability, sexuality, or mental health issues. Women are also more affected because of gender inequality.

The first version of Bill C-65 did not have a definition. Martine Faille, executive director of Centre D'Main de Femmes, which is located in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield in my riding, explained to my office staff how important the definition is and how unacceptable such actions and attitudes are in the work environment.

Recently, at the prompting of experts and advocacy groups in committee, an amendment to add a definition to the bill was accepted. It states:

[H]arassment and violence means any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment.

That is a step forward.

Another amendment proposed in committee now allows for a five-year review of the act and its effectiveness. This is an extremely important exercise, because it allows us to verify and ensure that the act is being enforced and to identify any new needs or deficiencies that need to be addressed. However, there is still one problem with the amendment on the five-year review, namely that there is not enough statistical data.

We need data in order to see the big picture and know where we are going, what is not working, what the best practices are, and what is missing. However, we do not have that data, because even the bill itself contains no requirement for employers to track and log incidents that occur in their workplaces. If employers are not required to track incidents, how will we get a continuous stream of data coming in?

This is a flaw in the bill, and we would like it to be corrected.

Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle voted against certain amendments proposed by my colleague from Jonquière, an NDP member who has been working on this bill in committee since the beginning. She also worked on the clause-by-clause study of the report. She proposed 17 amendments, but only 3 amendments were adopted.

The existing joint health and safety committees, especially in unionized workplaces, are currently authorized to receive and investigate complaints. The interesting thing is that joint committees have become expert resources, because they have been around for decades. They know the culture of the workplace, because their members come from that workplace. Employers are represented, but employees are too. There is also a diversity of experts who can meet the needs of the victim or the person who needs help. They are diverse in terms of age, sex, religion, and culture. This makes it easier for the person to feel at ease and report wrongdoing. That helps ensure that reports stay confidential.

The Liberals decided to exclude joint committees from receiving complaints and conducting investigations. That is a problem. All of the witnesses said that the contribution of these committees needed to be incorporated into the act, but the Liberals decided not to do that. We do not know why because they did not give any explanations.

Joint committees are a functional mechanism for dealing with harassment. As I was saying, joint committees have a lot of experience and a diverse group of investigators. These committees offer a lot of training and do a lot in the way of prevention. The government is saying that we need to change workplace culture, and these committees are part of that. The different points of view of these investigators are necessary in order to better understand the victim's living conditions both at work and outside of work. Finally, these committees will not be able to receive complaints. As I was saying, the government can remedy this situation by implementing regulations that would allow these joint committees to receive complaints. I sincerely hope that the government will do that. If the government really wants to provide all the necessary tools to make victims feel comfortable in a situation where their voices are heard and what they say is kept confidential, it needs to include these mechanisms in the bill. Employees need to have the opportunity to turn to joint committees or have access to other resources. That is a choice that helps victims decide which approach is best for them.

Another flaw I could talk about is the lack of assistance regarding internal policies. Employers should have to develop an internal policy. This should be part of the Canada Labour Code. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard from a number of employers, who asked for assistance and clearer guidelines. Some workers even suggested creating a code of conduct, because the notion of immediate assistance is not clear, nor is it clear how to handle cases and ensure confidentiality of private information. If employers do not know how, an internal policy in the Canada Labour Code would really help employers and employees feel respected.

In conclusion, I want to say that without codes of conduct and without financing, women who do not have the resources to follow up on their complaints could continue to experience harassment and violence.

Karine Gagné, the coordinator of C.A.L.A.C.S. in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, supports women as they go through their legal processes and psychological recoveries every day.

She and her team helped more than 500 women last year. Victims of harassment and violence know that complaints will, unfortunately, be mismanaged if there is no joint committee or clear internal policy.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lethbridge, who does excellent work at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate in the House to speak to and support Bill C-65. I commend the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour on introducing this bill to amend the Canada Labour Code on harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

I am also proud to see the members' commitment to find solutions to this sad reality. The non-partisan discussions that took place following the introduction and first reading of this bill last November and at second reading in January were constructive. A number of amendments were proposed. I am pleased to note that committee members from all parties respected each other's representations and successfully worked together. A number of amendments were presented to improve the bill.

Part 1 of Bill C-65 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 workplace. 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. The stage is set. That is what the bill says. Now let us talk about what it means.

Sexual misconduct and sexual harassment have no place in Canadian society. Most of us have to work for a living, and we spend many hours at work. People should be able to live and work safely, but that is clearly not always the case. Unfortunately, this is also a problem in the public service and on Parliament Hill. It is therefore the government's responsibility to protect victims' rights. The government must also focus on helping victims and making sure the process is fair and impartial. It must ensure that sexual harassers suffer the consequences because a symbolic, toothless law will do very little to tackle the problem.

Since the victims are generally women, and since it is not easy for a man to put himself in the shoes of the victims, I want to share part of a speech that my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill gave on January 29, 2018, regarding the dynamic here, in Ottawa, and on the Hill:

In Ottawa, in the sense of it being a nexus of power in Canada, it is an intense place. Leaders in all three branches of government, senior public servants, military leaders, the diplomatic corps, the Parliamentary Press Gallery, highly paid lobbyists, smart political staff, civil society, and business leaders all converge in one tightly confined space. They are all trying to accomplish big things. Many are assertive and ambitious. Many are highly skilled at their crafts. Many hold privileged positions of influence, and many think very highly of themselves. It is a highly tribal environment where information is a commodity and blind partisanship, conformity, loyalty, and acquiescence are often traits significantly valued above judgment, compassion, or acting with dignity.

As soon as there is a hierarchy with subordinates, there is a risk that some people will become more vulnerable. It is up to the government to protect the public and to create recourse mechanisms. Try to imagine what happens when the harasser is an employer, a supervisor, or a work colleague. Even if the actions are not necessarily as extreme as those that make the headlines, we have to remember that a victim must spend five days a week, for eight hours a day or more, in close proximity to their harasser. How uncomfortable and terrifying it must be to experience that every day. Everyone should be able to be safe and comfortable at work.

Victims subjected to this behaviour become fragile, and no one in Canada should have their safety compromised when they are just trying to do their job. This means that it is very important that the law clearly set out and explain all available recourse.

We Conservatives want to make sure that the government focuses on help for victims, as it promised to do. To do so, the systems created to support victims also need to be solid, well established, and safe for victims. They also must be accessible and well known. Information must be shared in a way that reaches everyone.

Here is an idea off the top of my head. We could have a government-led hotline that victims could reach easily without the risk of consequences, rather than having to go through their supervisor, who might unfortunately be complicit or could even be the harasser.

As legislators, we have a duty to make the information accessible and to facilitate reporting based on the fundamental principle of always protecting victims.

The committee team introduced and supported mandatory sexual harassment training as an essential component of this bill. I think that is an extremely important aspect of this bill. I would even go so far as to say that mandatory training on this subject should, if possible, be incorporated into the orientation training given to new employees in all contexts. We have a responsibility to raise awareness up front, before this kind of behaviour becomes entrenched in our culture.

This is because I sincerely believe part of the problem stems from ignorance. There are people who simply are not aware that certain behaviours are unacceptable and should never occur, least of all in the workplace. I think there is a certain naivety at work here as well. We also need to think about the complexities of life in our modern society. We have only to think of typical messages like “real men don't cry, real men are strong, real men are in control, real men fight”. It is sad, but these message are still around today. That is why mandatory training gets a resounding yes. We should try to reach as many people as possible and repeat this message regularly on multiple platforms.

I want to emphasize one last very important point. The problem of harassment could evolve again, in the context of cyberbullying, for example. Consequently, the committee's Conservative members also proposed and supported a mandatory review of the legislation after five years. I am pleased that a five-year review is one of the amendments presented by the committee.

To return to what my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill told us in January, judgment, compassion, or acting with dignity are not often highly valued. We must work to change that on Parliament Hill and throughout Canada.

I am proud that I live in the most beautiful country in the world and that I represent the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Even though there is always something that can be improved, it is important that the government tackle the problems that affect Canadians. It must take concrete action to improve the lives of our fellow Canadians and always consider the victims, who deserve all the attention they need. Bill C-65 is a step forward for our society. My colleagues can be proud because we worked together, without partisanship, all the while keeping in mind the main goal of protecting victims. I say it very humbly, it is a credit to us all as members of the House of Commons.

The Conservative Party will be supporting Bill C-65.

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

I don't have the intimate knowledge of Bill C-65, but I know that we're taking a lot of steps and looking at our processes internally with respect to harassment and violence in the workplace. We have to make sure that victims feel free to come forward. Often, the victims who are in the organization don't feel that our process is transparent. We're looking at different ways that we can deal with that—maybe outsourcing—but we're just in the preliminary stages of looking at various ways in which we can ensure that a victim feels they can trust the process we have. Because we can do whatever we want, but if they don't trust it, it's not going to....

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay. That's great.

What impact do you think Bill C-65 will have on what you're doing in the RCMP?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I didn't think I'd get time.

I apologize for being late, Commissioner. I want to first welcome you to the committee. I was in the House for the debate on Bill C-65, which is on harassment and violence in the workplace, something that I know, and I'm confident, you will be dealing with in the RCMP.

My colleague Ms. Dabrusin was asking about sexual assault cases and the unfounded cases. One of the other things we've heard quite a bit about, especially at the status of women committee, is indigenous women in corrections and their experience through the justice system, as well as bringing the level of training for RCMP officers.... It's similar to what you're doing with sexual assault cases, but ensuring that all of the officers have training on the history of colonialism, for example, and residential schools, so that when they are dealing with indigenous women who come into the justice system they have some comprehension of the history that these women have probably gone through.

I'm wondering if you could share with us your plans around training, in particular for the officers dealing with indigenous women in the communities.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I wish it were unnecessary for me to stand here today to speak to this bill. I wish that harassment and violence were actions of long ago and things of the past. I wish that discrimination were eradicated with the movement of Martin Luther King, Jr. and that when women were granted equal rights before the law, including the right to vote and own property, they were also guaranteed fair treatment at all times. I wish there were no need for Bill C-65, that it could be ruled redundant, outdated, or altogether unnecessary, but sadly, that is not the case, so here I am speaking to this piece of legislation.

“You look more beautiful than I remember,” he says, as he stares her up and down.

“Nice skirt. It shows off the best parts of you,” he says, as he leans over to get a better look.

“It's just fact. Men are better MPs than women,” he says to his colleague. “Women are too emotional to make good leaders.”

“It is really nice to see you,” he says, as he moves his hand over her knee and toward her thigh.

These are just a few examples of the comments and gestures women all too often face in this place and in other workplaces across this country. They might seem like innocent or playful comments or gestures to some, but they are, in fact, altogether inappropriate and unacceptable. While women are not the sole targets of harassment and violence, it is right to point out that women disproportionately are the recipients of unwanted gestures and comments like these.

That said, it is important for me to state that the issue before the House is not a male-only issue, nor is it a female-only issue, nor is it a political partisan issue. In fact, the matter before the House is largely a power issue. Specifically, in this place, it has to do with the power imbalance that exists between employees and employers. Staff find themselves at the mercy of their employers. When it comes to hiring and firing, MPs have complete freedom to do so at will. At present, there are no overarching protocols or mechanisms of accountability in place to give guidance to this structure. An MP can hire or fire someone simply because he or she wishes to do so.

For every paid staffer, there are also dozens of interns who are looking for jobs, which then leaves staff having to be very careful about whether they report an incident. After all, they might lose their jobs, or they fear some other form of reprisal.

We heard at committee that those who are mistreated by their employers are often afraid to speak out, because they fear what the repercussions might be. This imbalance of power without proper preventive measures and reporting mechanisms can create an environment that is incredibly unsafe for people to work in and can leave staff feeling as if they have no other option than to keep silent.

For these reasons, my colleagues and I welcome the initiative the government has put forward through Bill C-65. We have to work together as parliamentarians to create an environment that is free of harassment and violence, and to this end, those of us on this side of the House are committed.

As members of Canada's Parliament, we are meant to serve as role models. That is part of our job. We should strive for excellence in everything we do. We are called to function with the utmost level of integrity; to treat others with dignity, respect, and honour; to be humble; to work hard; and to serve the betterment of others. This is true public service. It is what we signed up for. That is why we are in this place.

Bill C-65 is only a first step. On its own, the document before the House is not enough to put a complete stop to harassment and violence within this workplace or any other publicly funded workplace. Instead, I would contend that a culture change is needed. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us as members, as senators, as employers, and as role models to act rightly and to be above reproach at all times. We must take personal responsibility for our actions, and we must choose to treat others well. I will comment further on this in just a moment, but first permit me to summarize what Bill C-65 would achieve.

Right now, federally regulated workplaces, including Parliament Hill, are without a streamlined approach when it comes to policies and rules on harassment and violence. Bill C-65 would actually amend the Canada Labour Code to require employers to do all they can to prevent harassment and violence from taking place in the workplace. Should a concern arise, the employer would then be required to investigate and report any incident brought to his or her attention. As part of this initiative, federally regulated employers would be required to have a sexual harassment policy in place and to report to Parliament how many complaints had been put forward over the course of time and how they had been handled.

We have always supported the intent of this bill, but before it went to committee, we had a few amendments we wanted to see made. Although we feel the legislation could be further strengthened by taking a stronger stand on behalf of victims, we are pleased with this bill overall and with where we are landing.

There were a number of Conservative amendments that were adopted. One of the biggest concerns I had when this bill was first introduced was the fact that the labour minister would have the power to investigate himself or herself if a complaint were brought against him or her by an employee. This concerned me because it would put the employees who work for the minister in a very precarious situation. If one goes to their boss to complain about their boss only to have them investigate themselves, then that is a problem. We were able to put forward an amendment to fix this, which would take the power out of the hands of the minister and instead put it with the deputy minister, thereby allowing for the protection of a victim who might come forward with a complaint.

Furthermore, my Conservative colleagues and I successfully introduced an amendment that would protect against political interference regardless of the party that might be in power at the time. Originally, the legislation would have allowed the minister to conduct the investigation into any member of Parliament in this House. It would mean that the minister of labour could investigate a Conservative one way, an NDP another way, a Bloc Québécois another way, and a Liberal member another way. It would not have set a complete streamlined fashion by which all these investigations would have to be completed. It was partisan in nature.

Therefore, it also concerned me that there could be potential for political interference given the party of the day, whichever party that might be. This problem was resolved at committee by amending the legislation, again by putting the investigative authority or power into the hands of the deputy minister and out of the hands of the partisan minister who serves as minister for labour. Ultimately, this would preserve the integrity of the investigative process. I am extremely proud of the work accomplished in committee, and the fact that it had all-party support going forward.

Nevertheless, there is one amendment I feel very strongly should have made its way into this legislation, and unfortunately it did not. As Conservatives, we always take a stand for the victim—always. To this end, we introduced an amendment that would implement strict timelines for investigations into incidents of harassment to make sure that a victim's concern would be dealt with in a timely manner. Unfortunately, this amendment was voted down by the Liberals. As a result, an employee could effectively make an official complaint and the investigation could take one year, five years, or 10 years without there being any sort of recourse for that complainant. This concerns me, because that means the victim would be tied up in this process of a long investigation, perhaps could be re-victimized in that process, and there would be nothing that he or she could do about it. There needs to be a timeline placed on this in order to protect those coming forward with their vulnerable stories.

While this legislation would help create a more wholesome work environment, I believe more is required than just policy. As stated earlier, I believe it is incumbent upon each one of us in parliamentary roles to ensure we are doing all we can to prevent harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and violence, from becoming an issue in the first place. We can do this in a few ways. We can have clear, comprehensive policies in place, and make our expectations very well known within our offices. Furthermore, we can participate in sensitivity training and ask our staff to do the same.

When we witness inappropriate conduct, we can also call it out for what it is. It is not okay to make sexual jokes, touch without consent, intimidate others, use rude or insulting language or gestures, use derogatory language or name-calling, make sex-related comments about a person's physical characteristics or actions, and it is certainly not okay to share intimate photos. These are the types of behaviour that we can start to call out in this place, thereby allowing ourselves to participate as a collective in creating an environment where everyone gets to thrive.

To see lasting change, I believe a cultural change is necessary. This is a matter of the human heart, and we will need to work together in order to achieve the culture we desire in this place. This policy before the House is one good step in that direction. It is incumbent upon all of us to make a personal choice to participate in the lasting changes.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the more women we have on Parliament Hill, the more the culture will change. It is a deeply entrenched culture that we have to change.

Bill C-65 will help change the culture. There are three important things, as I was saying earlier. The regulatory framework seeks to prevent incidents, intervene effectively to support the victims and survivors, and help employers.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her moving speech.

As a member of the status of women committee myself, I heard many witnesses, including women from indigenous, immigrant, and LGBTQ2 communities, talking about several topics we have studied. We heard from many victims who did not have the courage to report their aggressor. As a female parliamentarian, I myself have been bullied—I am not talking about sexual harassment—and I reported the people who tried to bully me.

As a fellow female parliamentarian, can my colleague explain how a few years from now, after Bill C-65 passes, the new climate on the Hill might encourage more women to get into politics? Will this bill increase women's participation?

How does she see—

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am really happy to be here today to speak to this very important bill.

With Bill C-65, our government is taking an important step towards building a country where all Canadians are better protected from workplace harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, and where victims of such abuse receive the support they need. I am certain that all members of the House will agree that we must ensure that no one is prevented from fully participating in society as a result of bullying, harassment, hate, or violence.

As a government, it is critical that all of us understand these phenomena, so that we can determine how to stop them. Over the past two years, we have consulted a number of stakeholders, our partners, and all Canadians to understand how the problem of harassment and violence is currently being handled in federally regulated workplaces. It became essential that we look at how to strengthen our anti-harassment and anti-violence measures.

Two types of consultation took place: a public consultation through an online survey, and a series of round tables and teleconferences with stakeholders. Following those consultations, we prepared a report on our findings from the engagement activities we had held with the Canadian public, unions, employers, non-governmental organizations, academics, and other experts. The report was published in November, and I invite all members of the House and all Canadians to read it, if they have not already.

I want to spend a few minutes on our key findings. First, we noted that levels of harassment and violence remain high, even here in Canada. Although the survey was not representative, since all respondents self-selected, the results were nonetheless alarming. Harassment was the most common type of behaviour experienced by online survey respondents, 60% of whom reported having experienced it, while 30% said that they had experienced sexual harassment, 21% that they had experienced violence, and 3% that they had experienced sexual violence. Among respondents who had experienced sexual harassment, 94% were women.

The second finding from the consultations has to do with prevention measures. Although there are policies to prevent workplace harassment and violence, work must be done to raise employer and employee awareness of these issues. Awareness is part of prevention. If employers are more aware of the problem, they will be able to understand what is happening in their workplace and respond appropriately. We need to face facts. All too often, incidents are not reported, and when they are, the response is ineffective.

The third finding has to do with the measures taken in response to such incidents. Although 75% of online survey respondents who had experienced harassment or violence reported the most recent incident, 41% of them said that no attempt was made to resolve the issue. Of those respondents who did not report the most recent incident, many feared reprisals if they filed a complaint. Nevertheless, employers must ensure that their workplaces are free from harassment and violence. Despite everything, it is not always mandatory for employers to provide support mechanisms for victims.

The fourth finding of the consultations was that little support is currently available for victims of harassment and violence. Most respondents believed that employers, the government, and unions should be responsible for providing support to help victims feel safe and secure in their workplace. What is more, stakeholders told us that clear written policies are needed so that organizations know how to respond to allegations of workplace harassment and violence. It is therefore important to educate employers so that they can provide effective support for people who report acts of violence or harassment.

The last finding of the consultations has to do with under-reporting and insufficient data.

As I said earlier, people in these situations are afraid to file a complaint because they fear reprisals. Stakeholders agreed that appropriate data should be collected to track results. In the end, we concluded that the existing measures are just not good enough. There is no comprehensive system in place to prevent and address harassment and violence. Instead, we have a patchwork of federal laws and policies on these issues.

For example, violence is covered in part II of the Canada Labour Code, which applies to all federally regulated workplaces, including the public service. However, harassment is dealt with in part III of the Canada Labour Code, which does not apply to public servants, only to federally regulated private-sector employees. Moreover, neither part covers parliamentary workplaces.

During our consultations, experts told us that we should treat occurrences of harassment and violence as a continuum of inappropriate behaviours, extending from teasing, which is not always funny, to physical violence. We need a comprehensive approach. We need to be clear about the sources of those behaviours and the consequences.

Essentially, we need a cultural shift. Grey areas are no longer good enough. We need to embrace the idea that Canada has zero tolerance for all forms of workplace harassment and violence. I am pleased to say that this bill reflects the consultations and will meet many of those needs. I am very proud of the work we have done on Bill C-65. This new legislation will initiate a cultural shift in federally regulated workplaces thanks to a new framework that will better protect employees from harassment and violence. It will go a long way toward de-normalizing harassment and violence by preventing and reducing these problems.

In closing, as I said, the results of the consultations are clear: the measures in place do not go far enough. We must make it our goal to bring about a profound cultural shift that leads us to civility and respect and puts human rights above all differences.

Let us not forget that violence is born out of inequality and that inequality is born out of discrimination against women and others who are victims of it. It is therefore of the utmost importance that acts of harassment and violence are addressed at every level so that these injustices do not go unpunished. That is the purpose of Bill C-65.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I am extremely proud to speak today about Bill C-65, which is important legislation to address harassment and violence in federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces. Through this bill, our government is taking an important step toward building a country where Canadians are better protected from inappropriate behaviours, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, and where those who have experienced such abuse receive the support they need.

I was proud to sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for the duration of its study of Bill C-65 and was privileged to have the opportunity to propose amendments to this bill.

Legislation alone will not solve the problem of harassment and violence.

We know that a cultural shift is also needed.

Sadly, we live in a society that has tolerated workplace harassment and violence, that accepts power imbalances and gender norms and creates and reinforces these behaviours.

However, it is our view that Bill C-65 will go a long way in supporting a much-needed and long-overdue cultural shift. With this legislation, the government is sending a clear message that harassment and violence in the workplace, including parliamentary workplaces, is entirely unacceptable. The negative impact of these toxic behaviours on the individuals who experience them, as well as on their families and co-workers, is enormous.

During a visit to Edmonton earlier this year, I met with members of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees who worked in the extremely toxic environment that had developed at the Edmonton maximum security prison. I hope they are watching today as the bill moves through the House, knowing the information that they shared with me helped to frame my work on committee as we studied the bill.

Over the course of the committee hearings, we heard from many witnesses who described situations and incidents that no one should have to endure. We heard from Beisan Zubi, a former Parliament Hill staffer, who described some of the sexual harassment she witnessed and in some cases was subjected to herself during her time on the Hill. These experiences included touching, groping, comments and come-ons, and older men telling stories to a table of young staffers about their sexual encounters with young staffers. Ms. Zubi recounted how at one point her body was being discussed by others right in front of her.

As a young Parliament Hill staffer many years ago, I too experienced and witnessed this type of behaviour, which was tolerated and accepted then and continues to be tolerated in some circles today.

The unfortunate reality is that many people who are harassed have felt as though they had no choice but to leave. They felt fundamentally unsafe and unsupported, or they stayed because they had no other option for financial reasons or out of fear for their colleagues whom they would leave behind. I was told by one staff member at Edmonton Max that she could not leave the good ones behind to suffer the abuse on their own.

One of the issues that has come up over and over again, especially on Parliament Hill, has to do with defining harassment and violence. Since the #MeToo movement and the important discussion that followed, I have noticed that there is a lot of confusion about what is and is not appropriate behaviour.

That is why the committee introduced a definition of harassment into Bill C-65. It will help employees and supervisors understand how to conduct themselves in a respectful and appropriate manner in the workplace and learn what behaviours might be unwelcome or inadvertently harmful.

Many have stayed silent because they knew their complaints would not be treated seriously and that bringing a complaint forward might even result in negative repercussions from their employer. In many cases, supervisors themselves are the perpetrators. That is why we made an amendment to the bill at committee stage to allow employees to come forward to someone other than their direct supervisor, which would give them more options to report.

Many Canadians continue to work every day knowing they will be subjected to inappropriate behaviour from their co-workers or supervisors. This mentality is still deeply ingrained in our culture. These experiences are all too common and take place in all types of workplaces. Many women nod in recognition when I ask how many of them have taken a different route to get to their desk in the morning to avoid that one person.

There needs to be an understanding that this behaviour cannot and will not be tolerated and that this is a country where no one should have to endure harassment or violence of any kind.

To this end, we are putting into place a comprehensive approach that takes the full spectrum of harassment and violence in the workplace into consideration, and we are expanding coverage to parliamentary workplaces for the first time. This approach focuses on preventing these behaviours before they happen; responding effectively when they do occur; and supporting victims, survivors, and employees throughout the process.

Once the new process is put in place, we expect to see a better understanding of what workplace harassment and violence is and what behaviours are unacceptable, as well as more willingness among employees to speak up about this behaviour understanding that they have a right to be safe. Ultimately, we expect to see a culture change in the workplace where there is zero tolerance for harassment and violence.

We know that legislation can never be the only fix for the pervasiveness of harassment and violence in the workplace in Canada. Culture change requires work and it will take all of us, not just within government, to see that change through. Legislation is one tool our society has in its tool box and I am proud to have been part of this process to strengthen our laws around violence and harassment so that survivors have more support.

In order to drive a culture change in workplaces, we know that we need to play a more active role in raising awareness and educating workplace parties around the issue of harassment and violence in the workplace. We will work closely with employers and employees and other key stakeholders through the regulatory process to provide an opportunity for them to influence the design of the specific requirements of employers and employees.

We will also undertake extensive education and outreach to ensure that employees understand their rights and employers understand their roles and responsibilities. The good news is that a culture change is under way. The global movement against workplace harassment and violence on social media has brought a great deal of attention to the issue and has shed much-needed light on it. I am immensely impressed by the bravery of those who have shared their stories.

More and more people are having these conversations, not just in the media and in politics, but in workplaces around the world. They are more than just conversations, but transformational change in our understanding of healthy workplaces.

All members of the House agree on the importance of the bill and are committed to working together to get this important piece of legislation right. Throughout our committee hearings and during debate on the bill, there has been an unprecedented level of all-party co-operation, something that speaks to the importance of this legislation.

I am proud to speak to the bill today as I strongly believe it is a very important step forward in our efforts to improve our workplaces, one that would help create healthy, respectful environments where employees feel safe and are not afraid of reprisal, and where businesses increase their productivity and prevent losing talent and experience.

I would like to thank the departmental officials for their hard work in helping to put the bill together and also assisting us during the committee as we navigated the complex aspects of the bill. It was an honour to sit in with members of the committee as we studied the legislation. I extend a special thanks to the witnesses who shared their stories, their advice, and wisdom with the committee to inform our discussions. Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all members of the House for their support in getting the bill to the next step in the parliamentary process.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Yes, we must put an end to sexual harassment.

Under Bill C-65, employers have three obligations: prevent harassment and violence, respond to occurrences of harassment or violence, and support employees affected by harassment and violence. These three elements are part of the bill. There will also be an annual report and a five-year review of the legislation.

Can my colleague speak to those points?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-65. I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

At the outset, I would like to say that the opposition party is in agreement with the bill, the harassment act for federally regulated workplaces, including this parliamentary precinct and indeed Parliament Hill. Several amendments were made at committee, and I will be speaking to those amendments specifically.

There are current critical movements and campaigns to empower victims of harassment, and those campaigns very sincerely reminded the world that harassment is intolerable in any circumstance.

Canada's Conservatives are proud to support Bill C-65 as it comes to the House at report stage, with our proposed amendments to ensure that complaints of harassment are dealt with in a non-partisan and timely manner. I will outline some of those amendments in a few minutes.

As representatives and leaders for Canada, it is our job to be proactive in our approach to standing against workplace harassment. I speak for myself and for members on this side of the House when I say that it is something we take very seriously within our own workplaces, because we are employers. We are employers of parliamentary staff who work not just in our Hill offices, but in our constituency offices. It is very important for us to set an example, and I believe Bill C-65 sets that example and sets a standard that all employers should follow with respect to federally regulated workplaces.

The bill focuses on three areas: preventing workplace harassment, responding to it, and supporting those who feel they have been harassed. There has been a tremendous amount of support shown for victims of harassment and bullying.

Bill C-65 went to committee, and there was a tremendous amount of work done by the committee. From speaking to our members, I know there were some issues with the bill as it came to committee, but all committee members came together to propose amendments to the bill that put a little more meat on it, considering some of the concerns that were first introduced.

I will read a quote from Manon Poirier, of the Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada. At committee, she said:

Bullying, harassment, and sexual violence have no place in today's workplace, yet according to a survey conducted for the federal government, 10% of respondents said that harassment is common in the workplace, and 44% said that while it is not frequent, it happens. Most respondents agreed that incidents are under-reported and often dealt with ineffectively.

According to a report of the Human Resources Professionals Association, one third of women and over 10% of men have been sexually harassed at work. I think all members of the House would agree that this statistic is unacceptable and cannot stand to reflect the future of Canadian workplaces. It is our intent to create and set that example.

The Conservative Party introduced an amendment to avoid political interference in political offices during harassment investigations. That was a very important amendment that was put forward to make the investigation into harassment allegations free of political interference and political influence. That is one thing that I think all members would agree was very good in terms of the amendments that were proposed. It is also important that investigations not be seen to be intertwined with the perception of political interference.

The amendment transferred from the Minister of Labour to the deputy minister, a non-partisan civil servant, investigations involving the offices of members of Parliament. Again, this will preserve the integrity of the investigation process.

Another amendment ensures that strict timelines for investigations into incidents of harassment are in place to ensure investigations are carried out in a timely manner. Our committee team introduced and supported mandatory sexual harassment training as an essential part of the bill. I know several members of the House have already participated and have been engaged in the sexual harassment training. I know my mandatory session is coming up, and I look forward to participating in that.

At committee, Greg Phillips, the president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, summed up the importance of supporting not only those who had been harassed, but also their colleagues. He stated:

... the colleagues of an employee who receives a minimal resolution are less likely to come forward with their own cases of harassment. When someone sees a very minor penalty being implemented against the employer in a harassment complaint, nobody is going to want to file a harassment complaint...That workplace then becomes a toxic environment where nobody wants to work, and if they're working on something fundamental to the government, the most qualified employees aren't going to want to go there.

That is a very important point. It is very important that those who are dealing with issues of workplace harassment, sexual or otherwise, have their voices heard. Certainly, those situations are taken seriously by the members and by the House.

As the opposition deputy whip, I and the hon. member for Milton, whose birthday it is today, have been part of the subcommittee that has worked to ensure the code of conduct for the members of the House of Commons addresses complaints of sexual harassment. We have been working very closely. I am not in a position to discuss the details of our work because we are in the draft stage of the report , but it is very important work. It is work that has dovetailed the work of the PROC committee on harassment in the workplace among members.

The discussions at committee have progressed very well. All members have acted accordingly, with an understanding of the importance of this issue, with member-on-member complaints. I think the House, once the report comes, will be very pleased, because it was a consensus-building approach to the recommendations of this report. The expectation is that the report will be coming out very soon.

The House staff who were involved in that, namely Mr. Parent and Mr. Dufresne, were instrumental in ensuring that we, as members of the committee, were effective in our mandate from PROC in dealing with that committee.

Sexual misconduct and sexual harassment have no place in Canadian society, especially within our political system if we are to provide an example. From the experience of serving the residents of my riding as a ward and city councillor, I understand that safe workplaces entail freedom from all forms of harassment. As a proud parent of four, my hope is that their workplace is as committed to preventing and addressing harassment as the House is today. Harassment is an issue that may evolve again, considering that cyberbullying, for example, is so prevalent within our society. As such, Conservative committee members also introduced and supported a mandatory review every five years.

I appreciate the work that was done at committee by not just members on our side, but on all sides, who came together to support Bill C-65. Combatting harassment is a pressing need in Parliament. Parliament and political leaders need to set the example, need to be the high bar for safe workplaces across Canada. Let Parliament Hill be the standard by which we will measure success in stopping all forms of harassment and creating a climate of respect for all.

We want to ensure that governments today and in the future focus on supporting victims as we have pledged to do. As a father, an elected official, and an employer, it is my responsibility to lead by example and to instill the qualities of a harassment-free workplace.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, 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, be read the third time and passed.

Workplace Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for his question and his continued commitment to Canadian workers. Our government takes the health and safety of Canadian workers very seriously. We have strengthened the Canada Labour Code to bring worker protection in line with current realities. We introduced Bill C-65, putting an end to harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, and we amended asbestos standards so that Canadians are not exposed at work.

This year's theme for North American Occupational Safety and Health Week is “Making Safety a Habit”. As Canadians, let us do our part and—

Canada Labour Code

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his advocacy in trying to prevent harassment in the workplace.

One of the concerns I have with Bill C-65 is that if a complaint comes forward that involves members of the House from different parties, the Minister of Labour would be able to arbitrate the case. I do not think that is the kind of independent person one would like to have overseeing that. I would not want any people challenging the results of any findings because they felt that the person was partisan.

Could the member comment on how he sees this working?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to meet those very high expectations you have set with your remarks.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-65. This legislation would address harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in federally regulated workplaces, and for the first time, importantly, right here on Parliament Hill.

Our government’s position on this is no secret. We have been saying it for some time now: harassment and violence of any kind are unacceptable and we have a clear, zero-tolerance stance on the issue.

Bill C-65 uses the most effective legislative and policy levers possible to help put an end to workplace harassment and violence and their consequences, in Parliament and in all federally regulated workplaces. We all know that the distinct power imbalances found here on Parliament Hill can cause damage to working relationships and also to the people who work here. These imbalances perpetuate a culture where some people with a lot of power use it, knowingly or unknowingly, to victimize others. However, this culture is not exclusive to the world of politics.

According to a 2018 Angus Reid study, 52% of Canadian women have experienced workplace sexual harassment and 28% were subject to non-consensual sexual touching. While those numbers are outrageous, what is maybe most staggering is that 89% of the women surveyed reported they have taken steps to avoid unwanted sexual advances. That is nearly nine in 10 women having to deal with inappropriate behaviour when they are trying to do their job.

If the recent #MeToo and Time's Up social media movements have taught us anything, it is that workplace harassment and violence, and in particular sexual harassment and sexual violence, are toxic behaviours that affect a shocking number of people. This issue is pervasive, not only in the workplace but across our entire society. It is a problem that has been going on and tolerated for far too long. Only now are we calling out this behaviour and saying, “No more. This has to end here.”

Having these conversations and changing the discourse are extremely important, but we cannot let this momentum die. We also have to take concrete, lasting action. That is precisely what we want to do with Bill C-65.

Essentially, the bill would help put an end to workplace harassment and violence by requiring employers to take action on three specific fronts: preventing incidents of harassment and violence, responding effectively to those incidents when they do occur, and, finally, supporting affected employees.

I am incredibly proud of the House for the unanimous support the bill received at second reading, as well as the positive feedback it received at committee. Now we are calling on the House to continue that full support of Bill C-65 at third reading.

It is our job as a government to stand up for the rights of all Canadians. Everyone deserves to work in an environment free from harassment and violence. This is why we introduced Bill C-65 in November of last year after consulting stakeholders, experts, and Canadians across the country.

Canadians told us that incidents are still vastly under-reported. They told us that, when incidents are reported, the follow-up, if any, is often ineffective and flawed.

We also consulted with MPs and senators, who made it clear that these behaviours need to be addressed. We heard similar sentiments through many committee consultations with experts and interested parties.

The message has been incredibly clear. What we have in place today is not doing the job. We need a comprehensive approach that focuses on preventing behaviours before they happen, responding effectively when they do, and supporting survivors after the fact. With Bill C-65, I have confidence that we are doing just that.

The basis of this initiative is the protection of employees through preventative measures that would ensure that harassment and violence do not happen in the first instance. The amended Canada Labour Code would specifically require employers to prevent such incidents and protect employees from these behaviours. I would ask members to allow me just a moment to explain.

Employers would be required to have a workplace harassment and violence prevention policy that is developed with employees through their workplace committees. Employers would also need to ensure that their employees receive training, and that they themselves undergo training, on the prevention of harassment and violence in the workplace.

Employees who believe they have been victims of harassment or violence, or have witnessed these behaviours, as a first step would report the incident to their employer or a person designated in the workplace harassment and violence prevention policy, and they would have to work to resolve the issue.

While informal resolution would be emphasized, the employee-driven resolution process would provide employees with the option of bringing in a mediator or having a competent person appointed to undertake a formal investigation.

If a competent person is appointed, following the investigation that person would issue a report, and the employer would be obligated to implement all recommendations or corrective measures set out in that report. Details regarding the informal resolution and investigation processes, including time frames for completion, would be set out in the regulations.

If the employee believes that the employer has not respected any part of the code or the regulations, he or she could file a complaint with the labour program. Labour program officials would then investigate and take enforcement action if they found that a contravention of the code or its associated regulations in fact occurred.

Reporting an incident requires a lot of courage. I have an enormous amount of respect for those who do choose to come forward, because fear of reprisal and stigma associated with being a victim of harassment or sexual violence can be a powerful deterrent to those who want to report an incident. The proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code would protect the privacy of employees but encourage those who are victimized to come forward at the same time.

Finally, under Bill C-65, employers would be required to support affected employees, with details to be identified through the regulatory process.

In addition, the labour program would put in place an outreach hub and a 1-800 call support line, as well as education materials and tools to further support employees.

Everyone deserves to work in an environment free from harassment and violence. These are far-reaching measures that I believe will make the workplace better for everyone; a place where personal growth is fostered and where people are permitted to express their talents and their skills.

I want to thank the members of the committee for their thoughtful review of Bill C-65 and their efforts to improve the proposed legislation. Members’ collaboration across party lines has led to important amendments that will strengthen our bill.

During the course of this study, it was my pleasure to sub in during a few meetings to really see the non-partisan nature of the important work that was taking place. For example, after careful consideration of the points raised by witnesses and members of the committee, we included a clear definition of “harassment” and “violence”. We also included a provision regarding mandatory training for employees and employers and specified that the department would now be responsible for producing an annual report. These measures are going to help ensure that everyone understands their rights and responsibilities and that we are kept accountable by measuring our progress and addressing negative trends if and when they arise.

Thanks to the hard work of the committee and those who shared their insights and expertise, I believe that what we have before us today is a strong piece of legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of millions of Canadians. While Bill C-65 will only apply directly to federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces, it will send a clear and important message that these behaviours are not acceptable, anywhere, and we cannot afford to tolerate them any longer.

I call on all members of Parliament, regardless of political affiliation, to do the right thing once again, as they did at second reading, and show their support for this important bill. Together, we can finally help eradicate harassment and violence in the workplace in Canada.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Central Nova. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

Bill C-65 seeks to enhance the current legislative framework that deals with harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces.

The bill proposes replacing all laws and policies with a single, comprehensive approach that covers every possible type of harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence.

It would also expand the scope of these laws and policies to cover parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament, the House of Commons, and political staffers on Parliament Hill.

As a member of the committee that reviewed the bill, I would like to take a moment to thank all members for their collaborative efforts to strengthen the proposed legislation.

At committee, members heard many compelling testimonies and debated for hours over the course of a number of meetings. For example, we heard from Vice News journalist Hilary Beaumont, author of a recent investigative report into workplace harassment on Parliament Hill.

Over the past three months, Ms. Beaumont interviewed more than 40 women who work on Parliament Hill, including current and former MPs, as well as lobbyists, journalists, staff, and interns. In her testimony, Ms. Beaumont stated that it quickly became apparent that female employees were more vulnerable to harassment than their male counterparts.

The women she interviewed told her stories about their own experiences: sexist comments, touching and even sexual assault. Some women she spoke to said that they were dismissed or lost job opportunities after trying to report workplace abuse. Some of the women interviewed who currently work on the Hill say that they would not even know how to report harassment if they had to.

In short, Mrs. Beaumont found that existing measures were simply nowhere near adequate.

That is why the bill is so important. The importance of the bill is something we have all agreed on from the start. This fact was especially apparent during many of the committee meetings where we worked tirelessly to strengthen the legislation.

From this perspective, here are the many changes that were proposed: defining harassment and violence in the Canada Labour Code; making training mandatory, meaning that employers would be required to make courses available to staff and to follow them themselves; specifically referencing preventing occurrences of harassment in the purpose of the bill; adding a section requiring that the provisions respecting harassment and violence in Bill C-65 be reviewed every five years; requiring that the Minister of Labour produce an annual report on harassment and violence in every workplace under federal jurisdiction; and, for the purposes of applying part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, giving the deputy minister powers normally given to the minister to avoid the possibility of any conflict of interest.

These amendments, among others, have since been adopted and the result is an exceptionally strong piece of legislation that we can all be proud of.

However, although the bill is a big step in the right direction, and although it is essential in order to put an end to such behaviour in workplaces under federal jurisdiction and on Parliament Hill, our government is aware that a mere law cannot totally eliminate behaviours so deeply rooted in the Canadian workplace.

We said it many times today and we will repeat it again: we need a change of culture, and we must all help bring this change about. The good news is that such a change is well under way.

The global movements on social media brought a great deal of attention to this issue and shed much-needed light on it. I am immensely impressed by the bravery of those who have shared their stories. It takes so much courage to come forward and speak out against this behaviour.

Thanks to their courage, these conversations are taking place more and more frequently, not only in the media and politics but in workplaces the world over. People are re-evaluating their actions and the repercussions they have for others. People who have had to deal with inappropriate acts in the past or who are experiencing them now feel free to speak up. This process can be very unpleasant, but that is often the case with change. In this case, it is worth it.

We all know that these behaviours can have a long-term negative impact, not only on victims and their families, but also on employers and in terms of productivity, absenteeism and employee turnover.

There are many persistent gender norms and power imbalances in our society that keep things the way they are. The consequence is that unacceptable behaviours have been tolerated for far too long. It is time that we put an end to them. It is high time for a change.

Through Bill C-65, our government is taking an important step toward building a country where all Canadians are better protected from harassment and violence in the workplace, and where those who have experienced such abuse receive the support they need.

We believe that this bill will also go a long way toward putting an end to workplace violence and harassment.

Canadians deserve nothing less than workplaces that are free from this type of behaviour and that reflect our society’s values.

I strongly encourage the members of the House of Commons to support Bill C-65 at this stage in order to give a voice to people who are vulnerable and to hold responsible those who, despite proof to the contrary, continue to believe that any form of harassment or violence in any circumstances can be acceptable.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague once again for her very appropriate question. This very issue raised quite a few eyebrows, including among the witnesses appearing before the committee. Survivors need to feel safe. Unfortunately, in some workplaces I have seen, it is the employer who is harassing, bullying or sexually harassing employees. If survivors have no choices, and the perpetrator is the employer, what can they do?

We need to offer them this choice and abide by strict ethical guidelines on confidentiality in order to gain their trust. We want to offer every opportunity for survivors to feel safe enough to report the incident and follow through with the process. Victims of violence and harassment often feel isolated.

If people do not trust the process, we need to find another way to help them feel better and safe. Everyone benefits from greater possibilities. Survivors will feel comfortable and follow through with the process, whatever path they choose. What is important is that they have a choice. In my opinion, that is what matters with Bill C-65.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, who also actively participated in the study of Bill C-65 in committee. I would like to thank her for bringing her experience to the consideration of the amendments and the clause-by-clause review of the bill.

To answer her question, we support the five-year report, since it is important to assess our methods. However, we would have liked greater openness on the issue of data. That is the problem. As the bill currently stands, employers are not required to log or report incidents. Writing reports is all well and good, but they have to be based on hard data if the situation is to improve. We need to know what happened in order to analyze the situation and also plan for the future and keep improving the system. This might not seem important, but, according to Employment and Social Development Canada, we have very little data. An improvement in this area would have allowed us to make more enlightened changes in five years.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by paying tribute to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for the work it did on Bill C-65. I took part in that work myself. I especially want to honour my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for the tremendous efforts she put in. We worked on this bill together, and I am very proud of it. She even managed to get the committee to adopt a few of the NDP's amendments.

Bill C-65 is intended to prevent workplace harassment and violence. It is a general interest bill. This was not a partisan issue. When we were listening to the witnesses and studying the bill, our focus was on survivors. Without wanting to speak for the committee's other members, those are the people we were thinking about during the course of our study.

As I said earlier, harassment and violence, especially sexual harassment and violence, are too important an issue to allow partisan politics to creep in. I think that was something the committee members were really aware of. The bill needs to once and for all free up speech, restore confidence, and empower victims to speak out about sexual harassment without fear. Workplace harassment and violence are still widespread today, even here in Parliament, I am sad to say. That is why the NDP is going to support the principle and spirit behind Bill C-65. We are going to vote in favour of this bill when the time comes.

However, we still have some misgivings. We think Bill C-65 only partially meets its goal of strengthening the harassment and violence prevention regime. Bill C-65 does not address every concern. Far from it. Judging from the emails and calls I have received, the unions are not particularly reassured either.

Here are a few examples. On April 26, the national president of the Canadian Union of Public employees contacted me to discuss “two serious flaws in Bill C-65 that will undermine the rights of workers affected by violence or harassment in the workplace.” What flaws could be so worrisome that the union felt compelled to urge the minister to correct them immediately?

I am referring to the exclusion of health and safety committees from two steps processes. First, they are excluded from the complaint process and, second, they are excluded from the investigation process. The complaints process concerning harassment and violence and the investigation process must both continue to rely on the expertise of these committees. Excluding them makes no sense to us.

Members of health and safety committees have received training and have a finger on the pulse of the workplace. Management and employees usually have equal representation, and members are experienced, know the culture, and know what is happening on the work floor. Who better to provide solutions, investigate, and also serve the victims and provide a sense of security and confidence when a survivor comes forward as a victim of harassment, or sexual violence or harassment?

The surprising excuse given by the Liberals to justify their measure was the purported breach of victims' confidentiality if they had to take part in the investigations of these committees. In my view, this is not a valid pretext for many reasons, which I would like to outline.

First of all, the decision to bring these committees into the process came from victims themselves. This was an option offered to them. It was a possibility open to victims. I am speaking in the past tense because, unfortunately, with the amendment in effect, they will no longer have this option. It was an additional choice that was available to the victim, not a constraint that was imposed. When someone is familiar with the victim's working conditions, the victim will feel understood, and this may help. This might have helped encourage people to report such incidents.

Second, to add to my argument, to date, these joint health and safety committees have always received these complaints and have successfully carried out the harassment investigations. Their modern investigative methods have always emphasized respect for victims' privacy. By excluding these committees from the investigative process, Bill C-65 is about to eliminate decades of experience, training, and work. I really want to stress the training and work aspect that will be wasted.

That is not all. If what the Liberals really wanted to do was protect victims' privacy and confidentiality, then someone needs to explain why they opposed many of my amendments. I had the pleasure of proposing nearly 20 amendments along with my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît during the committee study of Bill C-65, but only three of them were accepted by the Liberals, and even that took some convincing. In many cases, the other amendments were not even discussed. On a number of occasions, the Liberals chose to go straight to a vote and would not even explain why they were refusing the amendments.

Among the amendments that were voted down without any explanation was a very simple proposal made by the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. Allow me to explain it. Bill C-65 seeks to exclude joint employer-employee health and safety committees from investigations for privacy reasons. The problem is that, right now, these committees still continue to provide victims with unquestionable expertise. The logical solution proposed by the witnesses was to give these committees codes of practice and a code of ethics that would guarantee the privacy of victims. Did the Liberals oppose the CSN's recommendation without any explanation out of stubbornness or because they did not understand it? It seems to me that excluding these committees from the investigation process is a serious decision. There was no shortage of witnesses who supported amending the bill. Unions, associations, and law firms all supported the amendment. A quick look at the committee transcripts is all it takes to see that they all disagreed with this exclusion.

There is more. The expertise of the joint health and safety committees spans decades, but that alone does not explain why witnesses adamantly defended keeping them in the investigative process. The other reason, which is rather important, is the exceptional diversity of the investigators who make up the joint committees. The right of joint committees to conduct investigations has until now made it possible for victims to benefit from an incredible diversity of investigators in terms of colour, religion, age, and sex. Such diversity in the profile of investigators is invaluable.

Unfortunately, it is clear that Bill C-65 has completely shelved this aspect, which is inconsistent with the recommendations of the International Labour Office. In investigations into sexual harassment, the victims will not be able to benefit from the expertise or the extreme diversity within the joint health and safety committees.

That brings us back to what I was saying earlier. Members of the joint health and safety committees come from the workplace and represent all the communities. They are people we can confide in, people we can relate to if we are victims of harassment or violence in the workplace. They can make us feel understood. Unfortunately, with the changes made to Bill C-65, victims can no longer rely on this service.

It would still have been possible to include in the bill a provision to ensure the diversity of investigators, similar to that made possible by joint committees, for all investigators. That is exactly what one of my amendments proposed. It set out that the choice of investigators, although no longer the purview of the joint committees, must reflect the diversity of Canadian society. Thus, the diversity of investigators, which until now was made possible by the joint committees, would be perpetuated even though the committees were excluded from the investigation. A balanced representation of Canadian diversity would be assured.

Apparently, the recommendation made by the UN Secretariat concerning labour was not good enough for the Liberals, because they did not let Canada adopt legislation to guarantee equality and non-discrimination in the investigators' profile. We need to remember that minorities are disproportionately affected by workplace harassment and violence. By “minority” I mean members of an ethnic or religious minority as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex workers, and migrant workers.

That is why the profile of individuals responsible for the investigation must at all costs reflect diversity. However, it seems that our legislation will not take into account national diversity in the selection of investigators, and that is very unfortunate. Those are some of the aspects that were important to me. After spending all those hours listening to and reading witnesses' recommendations, we drafted amendments that were not even debated.

I would like to move on to other aspects of the bill that are also cause for concern. There are many of them. Let us first talk about the development of employer policies on harassment and violence. Some employers said on several occasions that they did not understand exactly what was expected of them when it comes to workplace policies. They need guidance on writing and implementing their anti-harassment policies. It is important to give employers clear instructions. They are waiting for such instructions in order to determine whether they are on the right track in complying with the legislation.

Since the primary purpose of Bill C-65 is to bring about a major change in political and corporate culture when it comes to harassment, we had hoped for more from the government in this regard, but that it not currently the case. When the witnesses appeared before the committee, they expressed their concerns about the effectiveness of employer anti-harassment policies. Leading law firms Rubin Thomlison and Fogler Rubinoff came up with one solution.

In order to give employers guidance and enhance protection for employees, the witnesses recommended that the Canada Labour Code set out guidelines for what is expected of a corporate policy on harassment in the workplace. The guidelines should include information about the process for getting immediate assistance in the case of harassment and about the fundamental aspects of privacy protection and the processing of complaints. I want to point out that companies also requested such guidelines.

The NDP's amendment would kill two birds with one stone. It would help guide employers in developing their internal policies and also enhance protection for employees, who would now be covered by effective prevention policies.

That amendment also would have prevented potentially ill intentioned employers from shirking their basic harassment prevention obligations through the use of deliberately complex anti-harassment policies that ultimately end up disincentivizing victims. We are talking here about how important it is to have prevention policies. Prevention in our workplaces is vital.

Even here in Parliament, people have been talking about a change in culture for several months now. I myself am now an employer. I have staff working for my constituents in Jonquière. I am their employer, and I have a duty to ensure they have a healthy environment, a place they can work that is completely safe and free of all forms of harassment and violence. Being on the Hill, we need to attend many events and meet with a lot of people. Sometimes we have interns. Here in the House, for example, we have pages who work with us every day. We must ensure their safety and provide them with a healthy environment. Even businesses need to have clear guidelines and policies so that they too can provide proper training and a healthy environment that is free of harassment and violence.

Unfortunately, it seems the Liberals would rather leave employers guessing about how to write their internal policies because not one of them bothered to say anything about this measure, let alone come out in favour of it. I do not know why, and nobody ever explained why my amendment was rejected. I hope to find out why today.

Would it not make sense for expectations around policies, specifically anti-harassment policies, to be in the Canada Labour Code? That is another thing that is conspicuously absent from Bill C-65. Once again, there were certainly plenty of opportunities to address the problem, and plenty of witnesses who spoke in favour of such a measure. All our efforts to strengthen the prevention aspect of Bill C-65 were apparently for naught. The Liberals put forward an amendment to include a five-year review, which was not at all objectionable and was in fact more than welcome. We all recognized the importance of including a provision to review the legislation over the years. Reviewing workplace violence and harassment provisions every five years is a perfectly justifiable improvement.

What is less justifiable is that Liberals refused to support one of my amendments to make the five-year review more effective. The Liberals proposed that the department publish statistics on workplace harassment and violence every five years. This is good. It complies with almost all of the recommendations of their own report published by Employment and Social Development Canada in March 2017. I said “almost” because this report lamented the “insufficient data on workplace harassment and violence“, in particular regarding sexual harassment. The report also mentioned the need for data to be collected, in order to address this lack of data. We need data.

I have much more to say about this bill. We did a comprehensive study, we heard from many witnesses, and we also managed to keep partisanship out of the debate. As I mentioned earlier, we will support the spirit and principle of the bill for all survivors. We will also encourage people to report these situations and help maintain a workplace free from violence and harassment for workers across Canada.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the work we did in committee on Bill C-65. I did not think it would be possible to set partisanship aside to work on and advance a topic as important as workplace harassment, violence, and sexual harassment.

In committee, my colleague was worried that psychological harassment is not clearly defined in the bill. I would like to hear his thoughts on this and to know why this should have been included in the bill.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating that the official opposition intends to support the bill before us today at third reading stage, even though it is not perfect, to say the least. I will have an opportunity to say more about that in a few minutes.

We support the bill because harassment has no place in our workplaces and we welcome any initiative or measure that eliminates harassment and violence from our workplaces.

Members will recall that the government introduced this bill only six months ago, on November 7, 2017. That may seem a long time ago for those listening at home, but it is rather quick for a legislative process. It proves that the opposition parties and the government have shown good will in advancing a bill that tackles a societal problem. We need only think, unfortunately, of all the scandals that have come to light in recent months and years. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour that it is important to change the mentality of tolerance for these types of totally unacceptable behaviours, gestures, and actions in our workplaces.

The bill before us today, namely anact to amend the Canada Labour Code, harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, covers approximately 8% of the workers actively employed in Canada. Who does it cover? It covers federal public service employees and federally regulated employees. The other part of the bill, the part that the opposition welcomes, applies to political staffers who are currently in a grey area, a legal limbo that leaves victims of harassment even more vulnerable. The bill covers federal employees and employees in federally regulated workplaces, but it also more broadly covers Parliament Hill staffers. That is a good thing, and it is one of the reasons why we support the bill.

I will start by listing three good points about the bill that convinced us to support it and for which the government has agreed to make amendments. We would have liked to see the government go much further, because our goal as the official opposition was to make this bill put the victim first. Unfortunately, in this case, as in many other cases, the current government was not willing to go as far as we would have liked.

We are confused because there is only a single definition for the words “harassment” and “violence”, which is completely illogical. The opposition fought to ensure that the bill contains at least one definition. The unfortunate thing about this government is that the Liberals sometimes tend to not want to put a name on things, and that can create confusion. At least there is a definition now. It is not perfect, but there is a definition of harassment and violence. A colleague read that definition just a few moments ago, but I am going to read it again because it is important.

[H]arassment and violence means any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment;

Were it not for the opposition's hard work, there would be no definition in this bill, even though that is very important because the definition serves as a framework for developing the regulations and enforcing the act. It was the opposition that proposed an amendment regarding the definition.

Another amendment I will call the pièce de résistance was also made. In that regard, I would like to recognize the remarkable work of my committee colleagues. I want to recognize the work of my colleague from British Columbia, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, who also worked overtime to help move this bill quickly through the House. The young member for Battlefords—Lloydminster also did an outstanding job. We had the support of other members, particularly my colleague from Lethbridge, who proposed an amendment that made us feel a lot better about supporting this bill. The amendment I am talking about is what I would call the firewall amendment. In our democratic system, it is crucial to maintain the independence of the various branches of government. There is the executive branch, represented by the government, and the legislative branch, represented by Parliament, or the House of Commons and the Senate.

One of our main concerns about the original version of the bill was that it opened the door to government interference in the affairs of parliamentarians. It undermined the independence of parliamentarians, which is completely unacceptable. That said, we must ensure full compliance with the law when such despicable events happen in the parliamentary environment. My colleague from Lethbridge proposed a very sensible amendment that would ensure that all complaints regarding harassment or any other offence under the labour code would land on the desk of the deputy minister. This amendment was designed to prevent political interference.

We often used the same example in committee; it concerns all governments, not just the current one. If a political staffer, either male or female, says they have been the victim of harassment on the part of a minister, we must ensure that their complaint is dealt with independently, without political interference. That is what the amendment does. I would even say that it was so well worded that it also prevents people from using occupational health and safety issues to interfere in parliamentary offices. Thus, the objective has been met thanks to the amendment brought forward by my colleague from Lethbridge, and I thank the government for accepting it. It will prevent all insidious political interference in the process. That is a good thing. Thus, we now have a definition and a firewall of sorts.

Other measures were introduced through amendments that we proposed to ensure that the government focuses on supporting and helping the victims, as it promised it would. The government talks a good game, but we wanted to ensure that the small steps being taken were taken responsibly, and these amendments will certainly help with that.

As I was saying, we had some serious concerns about this bill before it was sent to committee. We were concerned about the provisions on mediation, the risks of political interference in investigations into workplace harassment, the definition of key terms, and the priority given to protecting victims and their rights. For example, according to the previous wording of the bill, a person who was a victim of harassment by their immediate supervisor had to deal directly with their harasser, meaning the very person who attacked the complainant.

Hon. members can appreciate how that might put the victim in an awkward position. An amendment was proposed to ensure that the complainant could talk to a third party. Let us not forget that this applies to all federal public service employees. Accordingly, in some cases, we could be talking about corporations or small businesses, unionized or not. It was important for us to consider these realities. That is why we proposed an amendment, which was accepted, in order to ensure that a victim does not have to go through their harasser in the event that the victim feels that the situation warrants a formal complaint.

The Conservative members of our committee also successfully introduced an amendment to establish strict deadlines for harassment investigations so they are completed in a timely fashion. This bill requires companies to adopt a harassment policy and enforce it through mediation and, when necessary, investigations by independent investigators. This bill is designed to prevent victims of harassment from being victimized twice. That is what happens when a victim of harassment gets involved in a process that ends up being a whole new nightmare when it comes to delays. We introduced provisions that will make this whole process regulation-based and not in the act itself. We will hold consultations with various stakeholders to establish timelines for the process.

Our team also introduced and supported mandatory sexual harassment training. One of the main focuses of the government's approach in this bill is prevention. If we want to eliminate harassment, we must work on prevention. Here in the House of Commons, this group of parliamentarians currently receives training on this issue. Training is key to changing mindsets. This was missing from the bill, but there is now a training component in the bill as a result of our proposed amendments. Obviously, we have to consider the realities of the labour market, but a variety of options can be put forward to make the process effective and rational.

Furthermore, an amendment was proposed to allow former employees who had claimed to be victims of harassment to file a complaint. To protect the integrity of the process, I brought up a firewall clause. All of this can be done within a reasonable time. Another important measure is that the bill could be reviewed in five years. One of my colleagues proposed this amendment.

There is one amendment to the bill that I wish had been accepted but, unfortunately, it was rejected outright by the government. We were disappointed because the amendment would have ensured that a victim could turn to the Department of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour if they thought the process was not being conducted properly. One of our ongoing concerns is that potential victims will have to jump through hoops if they must first turn to their employer to file a complaint. The employer will initially suggest mediation, then there will be an independent investigation, and, after that, recommendations will be made.

Another area where the bill is weak is in the application of sanctions if the investigator makes recommendations in a case of harassment.

When an individual believes that they have been wronged, how can they resolve the situation and move forward if, as in past cases we have seen, the employer has not fully accepted its responsibilities? Now, with this legislation, the government will be able to tell companies to do their job and apply the law. We are aware of the delays this may cause.

That is why the official opposition moved an amendment to have section 127.1(1.1) read as follows:

In the case of a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment or violence in a work place at which less than 20 employees are normally employed, the employee who believes on reasonable grounds that there has been a contravention of this Part may refer his or her complaint to the Minister in accordance with subsection (8).

I have to say, the federal government is not leading the way in addressing harassment and sexual violence. Several provinces, such as Quebec, instituted processes and mechanisms over a decade ago that allow employees to report harassment directly to the department of labour, which in Quebec is known as the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST. Sadly, this option currently does not exist in the federal government because investigators examine only the process, not the ins and outs of a particular situation. The government really missed an opportunity here. It could have addressed the unfortunate issue of harassment and violence in the workplace much more vigorously. That amendment was rejected. It was intended to give the bill more teeth and provide victims with a tool to ensure that the employer's process is carried out properly. This was regrettably a missed opportunity.

Awareness is another issue that gets little mention in the bill. We asked for mandatory training. The government says a lot of things, but it needs to provide the necessary tools. There was no mention in the minister's remarks and subsequent discussions with government colleagues of any measure for monitoring compliance with the spirit of the act by raising employee awareness, whether in the public sector, on Parliament Hill, or in the private sector.

For these reasons, we believe the bill could have been better, but as the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We therefore plan to support this bill.

I want to thank all the committee members, especially the chair, the member for Cambridge, who did his job well. He made sure the bill moved forward in a very quick and timely fashion so that we could pass this bill and send a message that the Parliament of Canada does not tolerate workplace harassment.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the parliamentary secretary for his excellent speech and for all of the work he has done to bring this bill forward.

We all know of this issue of people feeling hesitant to report the number of incidents that take place in the workplace with respect to harassment or sexual harassment. That is unfortunate. I commend the government for bringing forward this legislation, because the government is taking a proactive measure that is going to help create a safe space within which people can report.

I wonder if he could expand on the impact of Bill C-65 with respect to raising awareness and encouraging people who are experiencing harassment to come forth and report that harassment.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will support the spirit and principle of Bill C-65, a bill that every party had a hand in. It was an onerous task that required a lot of extra hours in committee. We could have spent those hours in our ridings, but we spent them here in Ottawa working on Bill C-65.

There is something that I would like to address. I am not sure whether it is a misunderstanding or a matter of stubbornness, but in the bill the Liberals completely excluded the joint workplace health and safety committees from the complaint and investigative processes. Several witnesses, including representatives from unions and law firms, told us that it was important to maintain the joint workplace safety committees. They even offered a logical solution. They argued that confidentiality would be breached upon the filing of a complaint of abuse, harassment, or sexual harassment or during an investigation. They also floated the idea of creating a code of ethics in order to truly ensure victims' confidentiality.

I would like to know why the government insisted on completely eliminating from the Canada Labour Code the interaction with the joint workplace health and safety committees, thereby shutting them out of the complaint and investigative processes.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, for his speech on Bill C-65, which we have started debating at third reading today.

My question has to do with the substance of the bill. All of the witnesses we heard in committee agreed that there needs to be a definition of workplace harassment and violence. Our NDP colleague proposed an amendment that would have created a broad definition, with a clear distinction between harassment and violence. Unfortunately, this amendment did not receive support, even though it would have given this bill some teeth.

Since the government did not tell us why in committee, I would like to know why the government created one definition that includes harassment and violence, even though these are two different concepts. Are they not concerned that this will create confusion in relation to other sections of the Canada Labour Code? Should the Senate not clearly review the definition of harassment and violence and separate the two?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up on a Monday morning, starting the parliamentary week off with a bill that has received so much support and agreement from a number of members from all parties in the House. As we wind down the parliamentary calendar, getting this level of agreement on a piece of legislation is rare, so I am going to enjoy that for the next 20 minutes.

Off the top, I want to recognize the government members on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the contribution they have made to this particular piece of legislation. Their efforts are always appreciated and welcomed, and they are very productive. The members for Toronto—Danforth and Oakville North—Burlington went above and beyond. Aside from their own committee duties, they pitched in on the HUMA committee and made huge contributions. There were a number of other members as well, but these members were there for pretty much all of the meetings. I want to recognize that.

I am pleased to participate in third reading of Bill C-65. As I said before, all parties think Bill C-65 is critical at this point in time in our country. No one can argue against the fact that harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, have no place in the workplace or, for that matter, anywhere at all. We have all heard stories that demonstrate just how detrimental and pervasive these behaviours really are. These stories have dominated the media for some time now, and many more were heard during the meetings of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-65.

There is a sort of strange story, a little weird, but it really stuck with me. It was testimony given by Dr. Sandy Hershcovis, associate professor at the University of Calgary. Dr. Hershcovis cited a recent Science magazine article describing “women on a geological expedition to Antarctica...reported that they were pelted with rocks by male colleagues, called names, had volcanic ash blown in their eyes, and were told that women should not be field geologists.” It is strange, but that one stuck with me. Many members also heard from former Parliament Hill staffer Beisan Zubi, who described the outrageously inappropriate behaviour she witnessed and in some cases was subject to herself right here on Parliament Hill. The testimony was very compelling.

What these and other stories demonstrate is that we live in a culture that tolerates workplace harassment and violence, accepts power imbalances and gender norms, and creates and reinforces inappropriate behaviours. For too long, these behaviours have been widely accepted in our society. These experiences are still too common and continue to take place in all types of workplaces. Many Canadians are still suffering because they feel they cannot speak out on this issue. They are staying silent because they feel their complaints will not be treated seriously or swept under the rug, or perhaps they fear repercussions from their employers—maybe even the loss of their jobs.

Many are in that position right now, and it is unacceptable. According to a recent Angus Reid study, 52% of Canadian women experienced workplace sexual harassment, 28% were subject to non-consensual sexual touching, and 89% took steps to avoid unwanted sexual advances. These all-too-common occurrences have had devastating and far-reaching effects.

For victims, the effects may include, among other things, an increase in stress and anxiety and a reduction in engagement and job satisfaction.

For employers, the negative effects of workplace harassment and violence can include a reduction in productivity, increased absenteeism and sick leave costs, higher turnover and legal costs, and in some cases, unwanted publicity. The bottom line is that these behaviours are bad for employees and employers, and at the end of the day, they are bad for the Canadian economy.

Our government has carried the messages of inclusiveness and fairness since we were first elected. We are committed to the fact that everyone deserves respect and dignity. All of our actions, including our policies and legislative initiatives, have those principles as a backdrop. We have made it clear from the outset that we will stand up for the rights of all Canadians, including women, people of colour, those with disabilities, and the LGBTQ2 community, as these are often the people with the least power and who are the most vulnerable in our society.

Our Prime Minister has been at the forefront of this issue, with strong and definite positions on fairness and the principle of opportunity for all, as well as on his determination to take strong action on harassment and violence. This is at the core of our values and principles in Canada. After all, we are people of diversity, but that diversity has not always been matched with compassion and consideration for others in the workplace or, for that matter, in our society. Now is the time to effect real and lasting cultural change. We are resolute in creating a social climate where people can live in an environment free of harassment and violence, and where unacceptable behaviour is denounced and condemned.

This is the backdrop to Bill C-65.

I would like to point out that our actions started well before the #MeToo movement. In 2016 and early 2017, we consulted with employers, employees, various stakeholder groups, experts, academics, and Canadians from across the country. We previously had some data on the issue. However, it was clear we needed deeper insight, not only on the extent of the problem but also on current reporting and actions taken following workplace incidents. Canadians told us that incidents were largely under-reported, and that when incidents were reported, the follow-up action was inadequate and ineffective.

Here are a few statistics I would like to share: 60% of those who responded to the online survey said that they personally had experienced harassment at their place of work, 30% said that they had experienced sexual harassment in their place of work, 21% reported that they had experienced violence in their place of work; and 3% of those who responded said that they had experienced sexual violence in their workplace. We can all agree in the House that this is unacceptable. We can, and we must, do better.

We consulted with members of Parliament and senators. They were unanimous in the belief that strong action on harassment and sexual violence should be taken and that victims should be heard and helped. That is exactly what we are aiming to achieve with this historic bill, Bill C-65. Using the most effective legislative and policy levers to address the problem, Bill C-65 would put an end to workplace harassment and violence and its consequences in federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces.

Bill C-65 would do this by requiring employers to do three things: first, prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring; second, respond effectively to these incidents; and third, support the victims and affected employees.

Let me take this opportunity to thank each member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. After careful consideration of the many points raised by witnesses, members of the committee put forward important amendments to the bill, and amendments from all parties in the House were accepted.

The committee accepted the following an amendment to add clear definition of harassment and violence in the Canada Labour Code:

...any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment.

Amendments also include specific reference to preventing occurrences of harassment and violence in the purpose clause of part II of the code. When it comes to training, employers would be obligated to provide it and take it.

Amendments also include more support for former employees in coming forward with complaints related to occurrences of harassment and violence, as well as provisions allowing employees to complain to someone other than their supervisor. That came out loud and clear during testimony and discussions with committee members.

The committee also sought and agreed to amendments that would ensure the harassment and violence provisions introduced in Bill C-65 would be reviewed every five years after coming into force to ensure these provisions would be current and would continue to meet the needs of workers.

To ensure the government is kept accountable and to track our progress and trends, the committee called for an annual report on harassment and violence in all federally regulated workplaces.

The committee unanimously agreed to make amendments that would give the deputy minister powers normally given to the minister to avoid the possibility of any conflict of interest when political actors were involved. This amendment in particular is a clear indicator of the collaborative efforts that went on during discussions and went into the bill before us today.

Thanks to these and other amendments, what we have before us today is a bill that we can all stand and be proud of, a historic piece of legislation that is long overdue. Our government is committed to taking action against workplace harassment and violence.

In addition to what we are doing in Canada with Bill C-65, we are also taking action against workplace harassment and violence on the international stage. We will be actively participating in the upcoming International Labour Organization, the ILO, negotiations at the international labour conference in Geneva later this month to develop new international labour standards. We will be there with our friends from the CLC, who will be making presentations at this conference as well.

These standards will help protect individuals from harassment and violence in the workplace. Canada's presidency of the 2018 G7 is an important opportunity for Canada to show global leadership and to engage our G7 counterparts on pressing global challenges, including the development and promotion of policies that prevent workplace violence and harassment.

Make no mistake, awareness is growing. We have come so far over the last year. The very fact that we are talking about it now demonstrates just how far we have come, and it is not just in Parliament.

This year's theme of the National Day of Mourning, which took place on April 28, was “Violence and Harassment - it’s not part of the job”. The National Day of Mourning is not only an opportunity for us to remember and honour all workers, men and women, who have lost their lives, been injured or fallen ill, but also an opportunity for us to renew our commitment to improving workplace health and safety to help prevent future tragedies.

More and more, people are recognizing the seriousness of the impacts of workplace harassment and violence. Many individuals are speaking out against these unacceptable behaviours and many employers are taking action as a result of the stories that are being told, but we still have a long way to go. Employers still need to do more. They need to take strong action to ensure that workplace culture does not tolerate this behaviour, respond quickly when the incidents do occur, and support the individuals affected. They must also take measures to ensure it does not happen again.

Our government is taking action for federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces, but we know the governments cannot effect change alone. We know that legislation is not enough. We have said, and my minister has been incredibly strong on this aspect, that what we need right now is a cultural shift to stop these unacceptable behaviours in the workplace. It will take us all working together to make that happen.

Changing the culture will require everyone to do their part. That means zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour anywhere and everywhere. It means all Canadians should feel safe and empowered to speak up when they see or experience something. We know that in federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces, the measures in Bill C-65 will help make these things possible, and we hope the bill will serve as an example of what it means to foster workplaces free of harassment and violence.

What is good for Canadian workers is good for Canadian business. We know that measures to prevent and effectively deal with harassment and violence directly result in increased productivity and retention of talent. It is about creating the kinds of workplaces in which the best and the brightest can thrive. Addressing harassment and violence is a big part of that.

For these reasons, we are calling for the continued support of Bill C-65 in the House. Simply put, support for the bill is the right thing to do for Canadian workers, Canadian businesses, and Canada as a whole.

With the passage of Bill C-65, we expect to see more people come forward and speak out against harassment and violence. There is no doubt there will be some uncomfortable discussions as we re-examine our behaviours and create new policies and tools to support more inclusive, safer workplaces free from harassment and violence. In the long term, we expect to see better outcomes for all employers and Canadians alike, real change and real progress in our society. Our hope is that the law will set the example and the standard for fairness and harmony in all workplaces in Canada.

Workplace harassment and violence is an issue that crosses all party lines, and we have certainly demonstrated that with Bill C-65. We are on the right path. Harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, must stop in our country, and we need to prevent it from happening in the first place.

I am confident that what we have heard to date on harassment and violence in the workplace will encourage the members of the House to continue to support this important initiative.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-65, 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-48 on the oil tanker moratorium. The debate shall continue tomorrow.

On Monday, we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-65 on harassment. Tuesday will be an allotted day.

Next Wednesday, in accordance with the order adopted on April 26, the House will resolve itself into a committee of the whole following question period to welcome the athletes of the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympic and Paralympic Games. Afterward, the House will proceed with debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Next Thursday, we will only begin the debate of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. As members have heard in this House numerous times, we are committed to seeing more people participate in democracy. I have always committed to ensuring that there is a reasonable amount of time to debate and also to ensure that the committee can do its work. Therefore, I look forward to hearing from all parties how much time is needed so that we can continue to ensure that legislation is advanced in a timely fashion.

Just quickly, Mr. Speaker, I want the opposition House leader and all colleagues to know that this is our parliamentary family, and we are always going to be here to work together. We know that in the days and weeks and years to come, there might be times that we need to lean on each other, and we will always be here to do that, and I know the opposition does the same. We sincerely appreciate those kind words today. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members.

[Sandra Hassan]

Bill C-65 allowed the employer to impose it. This power was delegated, but never exercised. Consequently, the legislation included the possibility of imposing it, but the president of the Treasury Board would have had to recommend that his department impose it. That would have been a Treasury Board decision, but this power was never exercised.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

As you said, Bill C-65 was amended. Were sick leave and the disability insurance plan imposed by the employer as a result of these amendments?

[Sandra Hassan]

Bill C-62 plans to repeal the measures introduced by Bill C-65 that are part of the current legislation.

Fundamentally, once these provisions are repealed, we will return to the status quo, and we will have to sit down with union representatives and negotiate every amendment to the provisions of the collective agreements, as well as those of the short- and long-term disability insurance plan. The employer will not be able to impose this; it will have to be negotiated.

There are currently two common negotiation tables discussing these issues. The Public Service Alliance of Canada chairs one table, and the institute chairs the other. The future of the plan is regularly discussed.

Workplace Safety

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sydney—Victoria for his tireless work on behalf of injured workers.

My sincerest condolences go out to the families, friends, and colleagues of the victims so deeply affected by these tragedies.

Not all workplace injuries are physical. To help put an end to harassment and sexual violence, our government has introduced the historic Bill C-65.

We are going to continue to work with the labour movement, with employers, and provincial and territorial partners to improve work environments, to better protect the safety of Canadian workers.

Status of Women

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we share the member's horror at the experience women have every single day in this country with gender-based violence. That is why, as a former minister of status of women, I was so honoured to be part of creating the very first federal gender-based violence strategy, which we have funded to the tune of at least $100 million, with more in budget 2018.

My colleague, the Minister of Status of Women, is currently working with grassroots organizations to ensure the full implementation of the gender-based violence strategy.

Bill C-65 is historic legislation in that it will provide protection for federally regulated workers and—

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, women with mental health or cognitive-related issues are four times more likely to report experiencing sexual violence. The government's response to this shocking reality has been with Bill C-65 and social development programs. This is woefully inadequate, due to the harsh reality.

I would like to hear the government explain to us today why it is not taking this issue seriously and what it is actually going to do now.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of People with Disabilities

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of People with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-65, 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Barbara Moran]

Yes.

Off the top, I'd suggest that you'd have to think about what the intention of this amendment is. If the concern is trying to address the potential for political interference, for example, is it relative to all of part II—what I'll call tripping hazards and things like that—or is it mostly limited to what C-65 is trying to address, which is harassment and violence? That would be off the top.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

This amendment proposes a general, non-restrictive framework that reflects Canada's national diversity in choosing investigators. The goal is to allow for an investigation that is fairer and more open-minded, but above all, one that is free of bias and able to earn the victims' trust. It is important for that to be in Bill C-65.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Yes.

Our proposed amendment is intended to ensure that the investigation can begin as soon as the complaint is made, in order to avoid re-victimization. If the objective of Bill C-65 really is to improve workplace conditions and the working climate, it must at least be amended so that the investigation begins a maximum of 14 days after the complaint is received, in order to assist the victims.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am sorry that I could not be at Monday's meeting of the committee. The leader of my party was in my constituency. I know that my colleague Ms. Quach did a good job.

The NDP is proposing an amendment to Bill C-65—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good afternoon, everybody. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, we are resuming our study of Bill C-65, 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.

We're going to start right away, but again I would like to welcome the departmental officials. We have from the Department of Employment and Social Development, Brenda Baxter, director general, workplace directorate, labour program; and Barbara Moran, director general, strategic policy, analysis and workplace, labour program. From the Department of Public Works and Government Services, we have Charles Bernard, director general, portfolio and government affairs. Welcome to all three of you again, and thank you for being here.

We're going to get right into it. We are on NDP-9.

Is there any discussion?

MP Trudel.

[Barbara Moran]

I think this amendment is suggesting, first, to provide a person other than the supervisor. There is a protection already in the code, not even within Bill C-65 but within the Canada Labour Code, that protects an employee against reprisal. If they bring forward any complaint, under part II of the code, they are protected. They cannot be somehow disciplined for bringing forward that complaint. It's under section 147 of the Canada Labour Code. It's protection against any disciplinary action.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Personally, I find it completely absurd that as we are discussing Bill C-65, which deals with harassment and violence, we can't even include the words “harassment” and “violence” in the clause we are debating.

This was requested by the vice-president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. In her opinion, we have to add the occurrences of harassment or of violence, otherwise we'll only talk about accidents and injuries. If we want to refer to harassment and harassment-related violence, we have to include those terms, and this is where she suggested we include them.

[Barbara Moran]

Sure. One comment is that, because of the change that was made to the definition, if you move forward with that, it can't be “harassment or violence”. It would need to be “harassment and violence”. That would be one thing.

On the French/English thing, usually when we use incidents in French, we use “occurrences” in English, so I would say “occurrences”.

All I would add, though, is the point I made a little while ago. This is for all of part II, which is much broader than harassment and violence. The intention, I believe, in adding in the reference that's in Bill C-65 now to physical or psychological injuries was to get at the impact of these acts, and so in particular adding the psychological injuries was really intended to get at the impact, particularly of harassment and violence. That would be just something I would note for your consideration.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

If we do not want to amend the existing act by adding a term, we might as well not be here. Under the best of circumstances, we would not be sitting here and we would not have heard from witnesses, including employees of the House of Commons, of MPs and of crown corporations, who have experienced incidents of harassment, whether isolated or repeated. In that sense, I agree with my colleague Mr. Warawa: if we cannot agree to call a spade a spade and if the purpose of Bill C-65 is not to end incidents of harassment, we might as well close our books and leave things as they are.

This bill is important to the government and to all the opposition parties. Our job is to improve the bill. Adding the term “incidents of harassment” in this particular case seems to be fully consistent with the purpose of the act, which is to end harassment in the workplace, whether in institutions under federal jurisdiction, or in parliamentary institutions in particular.

In that sense, the NDP proposal is constructive and I think it would be a shame if the government decided not to add it on the pretext that it is already in the bill. If we are here to push through a new bill, it is precisely because there are problems and the tools the government currently has are inadequate to end harassment. As you accurately pointed out, we received a three-page letter from the minister, asking us to do everything possible to end harassment. This is a specific instance where we can do something.

I think the opposition is taking a constructive approach toward the government by stressing the importance of including incidents of harassment in Bill C-65. This suggestion does not come from us, but from the NDP, but it is fully consistent with the spirit of the minister's letter and with the spirit of the bill. As a result, I think this proposal is very good and, of course, I intend to support it.

On the other hand, it is clear that if the opposition supports definitions that are struck down by the government each time, it will be a one-way process. I would even say the result could be watered down. I do not think that is what the committee wants, nor is what the minister asked us to do.

Thank you.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

I would like to add that even the Liberals, in amendment LIB-2, use the term “incidents”. This amendment would amend Bill C-65 on page 2 to read “all incidents of harassment”.

In Bill C-65, the word “incident” is already used 14 times. I do not understand how that could create a precedent since it is already used.

Our amendment would simply add the word “incident” to the purpose of the act; it would not replace another term. I do not see how that could create a serious precedent or make the bill so complex.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

“Accident” exists in the current legislation. What is being proposed is to add “, incidents of harassment or violence”. That's what Bill C-65 is all about. Are we supporting Bill C-65, yes or no?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Under section 122.1, the present wording is, “The purpose of this Part is to prevent accidents”, etc., and the amendment, then, would add “, incidents of harassment or violence” and then it would carry on reading “and physical or psychological injuries and illnesses arising out of”.

Just for clarity, what we're talking about is to add into the existing legislation “incidents of harassment and violence”.

And what is Bill C-65?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach]

This amendment comes from the vice-president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, which strives to prevent accidents and illnesses in the workplace. She would like us to add the word “injuries”. This term is already used, but she would like the term “incidents” used because the “incidents” and “accidents” are not the same thing, and if only “accidents” is used, the victim might not feel protected.

As the Office québécois de la langue française pointed out, these two terms are not interchangeable. An “accident” results in material and physical damage, while an “incident” refers to an event that is not significant in itself, but that could have serious consequences.

Since the term “incident” is already used 14 times in Bill C-65, we would like it to be used here as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good afternoon, everybody.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, we're dealing with Bill C-65, 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.

We are here to do clause by clause but before we get into that, I would like to recognize that we have a number of guests joining us today. From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Brenda Baxter, director general, workplace directorate, labour program; and Barbara Moran, director general, strategic policy, analysis and workplace, labour program. From the Department of Public Works and Government Services, we have Charles Bernard, director general, portfolio and government affairs.

Welcome to all of you.

For the benefit of my colleagues, they are here to answer any questions that you may have from a potential legal perspective on some of the amendments, and especially if we get into amending those amendments. There may be some specific ramifications and we may want to utilize the services of the people sitting before us.

Also, because it is going to be captured in Hansard, I would like to wish MP Dabrusin a happy birthday.

Labour

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

Mr. Speaker, the member well knows that all members in the House believe that harassment of any type is unacceptable in the workplace or anywhere. We put forward Bill C-65, which is legislation that would cover the Parliament Hill precinct and all federally regulated workplaces. The legislation is currently in committee and we are accepting some amendments from all parties. It is going to be a strong piece of legislation.

We committed to this in the past election and we are going—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you. I want to take a step back because I believe both of you talked about former employees.

Ms. Zubi, you spoke specifically about some of the thoughts you were having, after the fact, about the work environment you had worked in and had left.

Ms. Beaumont, I think you maybe had mentioned having interviewed former employees as well. The reason I mention this is that when I look at the legislation, it seems to cover current employees, but I don't believe it covers people who have left their place of employment. Do you think there would be any value in changing this so that former employees could also benefit from the new Bill C-65?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you. I have another question, and I would like you to answer it quickly because I don't have much time left.

Ms. Beaumont, in your opinion—you talked about this in your presentation—what parliamentary authorities are in the best position to help members and senators develop policies on harassment and violence, as laid out in Bill C-65?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

My first question is for both of you, ladies.

You said that the culture had to be changed, and I think that's very important. I believe you talked about ways to ensure prevention. Could you suggest ways to strengthen Bill C-65 in terms of prevention? We all know that the current culture on the Hill needs to change.

Ms. Beaumont, I'm listening.

[Beisan Zubi, As an Individual]

My name is Beisan Zubi. I am a former Parliament Hill staffer. I worked on the Hill twice, first from January 2011 to September 2012 as a political researcher in the NDP's media team, and then again in 2014 as a communication and logistics assistant in the NDP House leader's office.

My time on the Hill was very intense. Within a couple of months of my being hired, we had entered into a federal election that put us in official opposition status. We hired hundreds of new staffers in a very short period of time after that. Jack Layton died that summer, which threw us into a leadership race. Then we had a new leader. And then I left the Hill to do my master's degree in Toronto.

A couple of months after I finished my studies, I was back on the Hill. There was a terrorist attack. There was a sexual harassment scandal. I burnt out pretty quickly and left. I was there for about four months that second time.

I tell you this only to give you some context around the intensity of what it was like to work on Parliament Hill at that time, and I think also, in general, to frame why all the sexual harassment I was seeing and the terrible behaviour that I was experiencing seemed almost normalized. It felt like everyone was acting out because they had to. We were all on this intense and abnormal political odyssey. I don't say that to justify anyone's behaviour except, perhaps, my own in explaining why it was so difficult for me to register just how off an environment it was and why I went along with it for so long.

A year ago I wrote about my experiences on Parliament Hill for Vice, where Hilary works, in an article entitled “Here’s why I never reported sexual harassment while working in Parliament”.

Among the reasons I named in that piece are that it happened when alcohol was involved; because no one saw it; because everyone knew about it; because the perpetrator worked for the victim's party; because the perpetrator worked for a rival party; because it happened so fast; and because I didn't work there anymore.

I understand that Bill C-65 is not a panacea, but I'd hazard a guess that it doesn't do very much to protect people in many of these situations. In fact, the onus to report is on the victim. They have to work within their own party infrastructure and go to the whips. Sexual relationships between managers and subordinates aren't prohibited or even disclosed. And the culture piece, which in my opinion is the most pernicious and toxic part of all of it, isn't addressed.

I do get that you can't legislate office culture, but the normalization and glorification of alcohol and drinking, of aggressive behaviour, and of sexually explicit language are, in my experience, a large part of the Hill's culture, and I don't know if I see that changing.

The open secrets that we all participated in still hound me and make me feel guilty. I almost feel complicit in accepting my own mistreatment, and in how it could have created more abuse for women who came after me and who are still on the Hill. The political partisanship that makes you feel like you're in a never-ending campaign makes the idea of launching a complaint against someone in a rival party automatically seem partisan, and launching a complaint against your own team seem treasonous. As well, very little is being done to hear from and protect former employees, who are potentially more able and freer to speak out without fearing for their current jobs.

I have to say I'm disappointed that I am the only former Parliament Hill staffer who will be speaking on the record in regard to this bill. I was contacted by this committee on Thursday of last week. I was able to shift my schedule to accommodate it to speak as an individual, but I'd like to remind us all that harassment is received and processed differently. The intersectional perspectives of young queer men and women, black women, indigenous women, differently abled folks, and racialized staffers who don't benefit from the same systemic privileges that I do would have been an impactful and educational component of any holistic conversation about harassment.

I just want to say a couple of things on the record.

The first, I think, is the most important. Even though I worked in a partisan position, I made friends and acquaintances across the board. This isn't a problem within one party or group. At 25, 26, and 27 years old, I was subject to sexual harassment—innuendoes, inquiries, and general creepiness—from men, generally exclusively men, anywhere from 10 to 40 years older than me, from the Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, and NDP caucuses, from staff in all of those caucuses, from bureaucrats, lobbyists, and journalists.

You have to believe me when I say the problem was cultural. The types of sexual harassment were myriad. They involved touching, groping, comments, come-ons. My body was discussed in front of my face. Older men would tell stories to a table of young staffers about bedding other young staffers. Alcohol and gossipy conversations that you would turn a blind eye to at 32, I can say, having worked outside politics for almost four years, in retrospect, were very abusive and very destructive as far as work environments go.

I am still working through and processing my feelings of anger at the environment, but I didn't want to stop my intervention on that note, so I'd like to share one final thing.

I burnt out of politics really hard when I left. While I've toyed with the idea of going back in some capacity, as I noted in my Vice piece, Parliament Hill just felt fundamentally unsafe for young women. However the one ray of hope that I had, and the one that I would like to leave you with, is that I was lucky enough to have great managers at the NDP, including Kathleen Monk, who went to bat for me, protected me, and warned me when they could. It was a negative and toxic environment, except for brief moments of success and support. However, behind all those moments I experienced were women who wanted to make sure that women were getting credit that was due and that young women weren't being dismissed as women or as ornaments.

Yesterday, I joined the board of my local chapter of Equal Voice and I hope to one day be as supportive and fiercely protective of, and to advocate for, more women in the House moving forward. I don't necessarily agree with our Prime Minister on everything, but the one issue that I know he is right about is this: “Add women, change politics”.

I would like to leave you with that cultural suggestion.

[Hilary Beaumont, Staff Reporter, Vice News, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, and thank you to the honourable members for inviting me to testify on this urgent subject.

My name is Hilary Beaumont, and I'm a staff reporter with Vice News, an on-line news outlet. I have a journalism degree from the University of King's College and I recently completed the Banff Centre's investigative journalism workshop. One of my areas of focus is sexual harassment and assault in the digital age.

Recently, I published an investigation into workplace harassment on Parliament Hill, hoping to shed light on the issue and to influence debate on Bill C-65. Over the past three months, I interviewed more than 40 women who worked on Parliament Hill, everyone from current and former MPs, to lobbyists, journalists, staff, and interns.

It quickly became clear that female employees are the most vulnerable to harassment. Many of them shared negative experiences, ranging from sexist comments to groping and sexual assault. Some said they had been fired, or passed over for jobs, after they had tried to report abuse. Current employees said that they have no idea how to report harassment if it happens to them. My investigation found that weak anti-harassment policies, alongside a baked-in hyperpartisan and male-dominated culture, are failing survivors, particularly female employees.

Bill C-65 will do a number of important things. It will bring Hill employees under Canada's Labour Code, giving them another route to report. It will require investigations of known incidents of harassment and will add a third party to receive complaints. It will not replace the Hill's current feeble policies, and it will not erase cultural reasons that prevent women from reporting abuse, including party loyalty, small office environments, and the imbalance of power between employees and superiors. That's why I believe Bill C-65 is an important step forward.

Briefly, here are my recommendations as you study this bill. Please note that these recommendations are specific to the parliamentary workplace.

First, harassment complaints must be removed from politics as much as possible. The December 2014 House of Commons policy is the main policy that employees access to report harassment. Now that employees of all parties, including the NDP, can access this policy, it needs to be improved.

One major issue is that employees must first report harassment to the MP who employs them. I spoke to one former employee who said she experienced psychological harassment from a male co-worker who was her equal. She went to HR, but she was told that she had to report it to the MP she worked for. She was too intimidated to report to him, because she was still on probation and would have been easily identifiable in a small-office environment. Her alleged harasser referred to their office as a “boy's club”, and she would have been reporting to a male MP about male behaviour. She was fired shortly after she contacted HR. She believes the MP found out about her contact with HR through a co-worker whom she confided in, but she was given no reason for her dismissal.

Bill C-65 will not replace this policy, but it can strengthen it. The bill requires every workplace to have a third party to receive complaints. According to the survivors whom I spoke to, this person must be outside of politics completely in order for them to feel safe reporting. The first point of contact cannot be the MP.

Second, to that point, under the bill it should be possible for employees to report directly to the labour ministry without first having to complain through an existing workplace policy. As I said, this would help take politics out of the equation.

Third, there are employees on the Hill right now who do not know their rights or the policies that cover them. Training on the resulting anti-harassment policies must be mandatory for all employees and employers. In these sessions, they should go through the policy in detail so that employees understand how it works and what the consequences are if you're a perpetrator.

Fourth, all policies on the Hill have different definitions of harassment. The bill should adopt a single definition of harassment and it should require that this definition be present in all workplace policies. This definition should be broad, and it should include all forms of harassment, and not be limited to sexual harassment.

My reporting also found that in 2014 a group of staffers within the NDP came together in a closed-door meeting, and wrote a letter to prevent an alleged harasser from returning to Parliament Hill. Accordingly, if possible, anti-harassment policies should allow survivors the option to report their experiences in groups of peers, so they feel heard and not isolated.

All anti-harassment policies on the Hill should have annual public reporting requirements on the number of complaints received, and how they were dealt with. Only the December 2014 House of Commons mechanism has this requirement currently.

Finally, the regulations alongside the bill must have teeth. There must be clear, legal consequences for not acting to prevent or stop harassment.

With such a high bar to report abuse, the parliamentary workplace is an example of a catch-22 scenario. Because existing policy does not account for cultural issues, women know it's not safe to speak up, and because they don't speak up, the culture of harassment continues.

I hope that once it passes, this legislation will begin to break the cycle.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good afternoon.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-65, 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 two witnesses via teleconference. We have Hilary Beaumont, staff reporter, Vice News, who's in Los Angeles, California. I understand she's on holiday, so I really appreciate Hilary's attendance. And from Waterloo, Ontario, we have Beisan Zubi.

I believe we're going to give each of you seven minutes for your opening remarks. We'll start with Hilary. The next seven minutes is all yours.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Lippel, you said earlier that seven provinces have a definition of harassment. In your experience, should we draw on any one of those as regards Bill C-65?

[Christine Thomlinson]

I think the challenge for small employers is that often they are start-ups, so they're focused very much on their business. They don't always have the time and attention to focus on the kind of culture that avoids problems like the ones that are covered by Bill C-65. They don't always have the resources to do the kind of training we're talking about.

That's really where the legislation can be very effective. Again, I think you want flexibility, but you can certainly do meaningful training in any organization, no matter how big it is. It costs a lot less when it's in a small organization. The same employees who work in small businesses work in really big national organizations. They have the same susceptibility to this behaviour. In fact, I think one could argue that they're more susceptible in smaller organizations, because they don't always have the in-house expertise to understand how to avoid getting into these situations.

[Christine Thomlinson]

Where that language has become important is that when there are complaints of harassment, investigations seem to be the next natural step because someone has taken the step to actually come forward with a complaint.

Where it has been particularly challenging is in cases where information has come to the organization that suggests that harassment may be occurring, so what would be defined under Bill C-65 is an occurrence. That's where employers have really struggled, because how do you investigate a rumour? How do you investigate a piece of information that comes third-hand through someone? You don't have a complainant. Sometimes you don't have a respondent. That's where that flexibility has really been helpful.

They do some form of investigation. They might do an employee survey to try to find out whether there really an issue there. They might conduct a series of more generic interviews with staff. That flexibility has really helped deal with those situations.

[Suki Beavers]

No, just again to reaffirm the importance of ensuring that the multiplicity of mechanisms remains available to complainants, and in part because of the differences in remedies that are available under the various mechanisms.

What we would not want to see is that the remedy proposed under Bill C-65 ends up actually limiting the access to justice that those who are victim survivors of harassment, violence have available to them. Indeed, we think that making that intention clear in the act would be helpful, all around.

[Prof. Katherine Lippel]

No. Well, the thing is that I think what they refer to in Bill C-65 when they talk about competent persons is that there's a whole baggage of different persons interpreting the regulations.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay, but it's not in Bill C-65.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentations, which are so important in our consideration of Bill C-65.

My first question is for Ms. Lippel.

In the last hour, a witness made a recommendation regarding section 122.1, which explicitly addresses the prevention of physical or psychological injuries and illnesses. The witness suggested that the section should state that this part is intended to prevent incidents or accidents and physical or psychological injuries and illnesses linked with the employment to which this part applies.

This is along the same lines as what you commended. This recommendation would simply add the word “incidents”. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

How do you see Bill C-65 being able to address those issues?

[Christine Thomlinson, Co-Founder and Co-Managing Partner, Rubin Thomlinson LLP]

Thank you for inviting us here to make remarks on Bill C-65.

In preparing these remarks, we drew on our experience as a law firm that solely focuses on investigation and training relating to employee misconduct in the workplace, the vast majority of which involves harassment. We've been doing this work for 15 years, and we look forward today to sharing the collective experience of our team of 11 investigators who do this work full-time across the country.

Having reviewed the bill in detail, we have four areas that we want to focus on today in our limited time. They include the definitions, which we've heard some comments on already; policies and training; confidentiality; and the mechanics of investigation. I'll deal with each of those in turn.

Beginning with definitions, we've heard comments today already that the bill doesn't include definitions of violence and harassment, with the intention that those terms would be defined in the regulations. We know from the work that we do that definitions are critical. They're critical to establishing a standard of behaviour for people in the workplace so they understand how they're expected to behave, and they're critical from the perspective of the investigator, because we need them to underpin the findings that we make. We are concerned that leaving these critical definitions until the regulations will not send the strong message that you intend to send to the people who would be covered by this legislation.

We also have the unique perspective in our practice of seeing a myriad of definitions in play. Every investigation that we do takes place in a different workplace, typically under a different policy, and often under a different definition. We've seen definitions that work very well and definitions that work far less well.

For example, we see harassment definitions that require that behaviour be directed at particular individuals, which is not a definition that we would endorse. We see definitions that include a requirement that there be intent to offend, which I think is universally understood to not be an appropriate definition. We see definitions that include the requirement that the person on the receiving end suffer qualitative psychological or physical harm, which we've already heard comments on.

We really believe that you have an opportunity here to carefully consider an appropriate definition and to set that standard at the outset and not leave room for deviation later.

We wanted to address policies and training because we note that the bill includes language that talks about organizations taking measures to prevent and protect against harassment and violence in the workplace. We absolutely think those things are critical, but we're concerned that the current language in the bill is too general and leaves far too much room for organizations to interpret how they'll choose to do that.

What we've seen in our years of experience—and we have the Ontario experience to bring to bear, because similar legislation has been in place now for quite some time—is that, when organizations in Ontario were required to take efforts to generically prevent and protect, many organizations interpreted that by asking, “What is the bare minimum that I need to do in order to satisfy this statutory requirement?” That is absolutely not the intent of this legislation. The intent of this legislation is to put effective measures in place to help address this workplace problem. We're concerned right now that, without more guidance, you're going to leave that same situation in place federally.

In our work we've also had the opportunity to speak to hundreds and probably thousands of employees about their experience with harassment in the workplace, and we hear from many of them why they're reluctant to bring forward complaints about harassment at work. A recurring theme is that they tell us is that there were no policies, or if there were policies, they were unaware of the existence of the policies. They tell us that when there were policies, they didn't know they existed, they didn't understand them, and they didn't know how to use the reporting mechanisms that were set out therein.

From our perspective, language in the bill should absolutely explicitly require employers to both have policies that specifically address harassment and violence in their workplaces—that is the case in Ontario, and in our experience that has been extremely successful—and conduct meaningful and effective training on those policies. Again, the educational requirement in Ontario, has seen many employers do very little to effectively educate their people on what harassment is and how it can be addressed in the workplace.

The issue of confidentiality has been commented on by some of the other speakers tonight, so we'll make two comments here.

The first is that we understand some provisions have been put in the bill to address this, and they deal with how committees and health and safety representatives will be shrouded through confidentiality under the bill.

Our concern here is that in doing that really the language is too narrow because, absolutely, there are people who need to be kept out of the confidential information, who extend far beyond the health and safety committees, and health and safety representatives. There's another piece and I don't know if it's been considered. There may very well be people on those committees, amongst those representatives, who have to be involved in the investigative process. What if a respondent is a member of a committee? Certainly they have a right to participate in a process. What if they need to be a witness? What we would encourage you to do is to take a look at the language that was inserted in the Ontario legislation, and what it says in order to preserve confidentiality. It reads:

...information obtained about an incident or complaint of workplace harassment, including identifying information about any individuals involved, will not be disclosed unless [such] disclosure is necessary for the purposes of investigating or taking corrective action with respect to the incident or complaint, or is otherwise required by law;

You'll see that's far more general, but also more protective.

We've seen employers using that language since that particular provision was enacted in Bill 132, in September 2016, and the effect of it, in our experience, has made employers be much more thoughtful and careful about their use of confidential information surrounding investigations in the workplace.

The last comments we'd like to make relate to investigations, and here we'll echo some of the comments of the other speakers about the concern around reporting having to be through the supervisor. We absolutely in our practice see the percentage of occasions where the supervisor is the harasser; and not having a mechanism whereby someone can circumvent that reporting group, we think is extremely problematic. We would encourage you there to again consider the Ontario experience, where policies and procedures in Ontario are required to provide additional avenues for employees to complain. Even if the supervisor is not the harasser, many supervisors are not properly trained to deal with harassment complaints and are not sufficiently knowledgeable of harassment to identify it when it is brought to their attention, particularly psychological harassment which doesn't always present in the way that people understand.

The net result of that legislative gap for us means that as the bill is currently drafted, many complaints between employees and supervisors will remain unresolved, which means that they'll go to the minister, and the minister will then have to deal with them. We think that's going to leave the ministerial resources vastly over-extended.

One final note is that currently the bill talks about investigating all occurrences and complaints of harassment. While we think that is a laudable objective, we'll note one unique aspect about the Ontario legislation which contains the same requirement. In Ontario, with those investigations, the language that's used is that employers are to conduct investigations into incidents and complaints of workplace harassment that are “appropriate in the circumstances”. We would really encourage you to consider some language that allows for flexibility because not every incident and even complaint of harassment necessitates a full-blown investigation. We've seen employers struggle with even what's considered to be “appropriate in the circumstances”, but at least that language has allowed them to do some creative interpreting of what might be a way to deal with that particular situation. We fear that an inflexible requirement that everything be investigated is going to become unwieldy, and that the effect of that is going to mean that more of it is going to end up with the ministry.

We thank you for allowing us to make these comments, and as my colleagues have said, we look forward to your questions.

[Suki Beavers, Project Director, National Association of Women and the Law]

Good evening, and thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-65 on behalf of the National Association of Women and the Law.

NAWL is an incorporated not-for-profit feminist organization that promotes equality rights of women in Canada through legal education, research, and law reform advocacy.

We want to begin our comments this evening by congratulating the government for prioritizing action to strengthen the prevention of and response to violence and harassment, including sexual harassment, in federally regulated workplaces and on Parliament Hill. This is consistent with the federal government's constitutional obligation under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with Canada's domestic and international human rights obligations.

We're also very appreciative of the support that's been given to this issue by all the parties and by the broad agreement that tackling sexual harassment is an important component of any gender equality agenda.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the 1989 Janzen v. Platy case confirmed that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. Put very simply, sexual harassment is unlawful and it's a violation of women's rights. Nearly 30 years later, however, in Canada, as elsewhere, women continue to overwhelmingly be the targets of sexual harassment at work, and men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators.

An intersectional feminist analysis also highlights that violence and harassment, including sexual harassment, are not experienced in the same way by all women, and that racialized, indigenous, and disabled women are particularly at risk. Therefore, approaches to preventing and responding to sexual harassment must be framed in response to these realities.

While the good intentions of Bill C-65 are clear, we've identified a few key areas where critical content is not yet included or is open to a range of interpretations. Because of the particularities and the pervasiveness of gendered power dynamics in politics, our comments this evening will focus on some of the aspects of the bill that are particularly important to preventing and responding to sexual harassment on Parliament Hill. These include the following.

The legislative intent of achieving gender equality and security in the workplace could be explicitly referenced in Bill C-65. The law, and not the regulations that follow it, should include definitions of the violence, including gender-based violence, in all its forms across the continuum of harassment and sexual harassment that occur in the workplace, which Bill C-65 seeks to target.

Customized approaches to respond to the unique causes of different forms of violence, including gender-based violence, sexual harassment, and other forms of harassment, are required, as both international human rights law and the Canadian charter impose on Canada the duty to eradicate all forms of discrimination against women. However, in its current form, there is no distinction between sexual harassment and other forms of workplace harassment and violence.

Bill C-65's focus on strengthening health and safety approaches should be an additional mechanism that's available to victim survivors of sexual harassment, including on the Hill, and not be seen as a mandatory prerequisite to or a replacement of other mechanisms.

The complaint process under Bill C-65 should not delay or have any negative impact on the complainant's ability to access other mechanisms, including under the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as collective agreements or, in reporting crimes committed in the workplace, through the criminal justice system. Adding a clause that confirms that nothing in the act precludes recourse under the Canadian Human Rights Act would provide clarity on this point. Ensuring that Bill C-65 bolsters rather than hinders women's access to justice is particularly important, given the range of remedies available to a complainant under other processes that are not available under Bill C-65—and we've just heard some of those same comments.

Because Bill C-65 does not include details about the investigation process that will be used, it's not possible yet to assess whether the process proposed will be appropriate for and effective on Parliament Hill. The question of who will be appointed to undertake sexual harassment investigations and make determinations is an incredibly important one. The independence, expertise, and confidentiality of investigators will be even more important in an explicitly political environment such as that of Parliament Hill. If women are to trust the system and report, there can be no perception of any potential conflict of interest by the competent person appointed or by any parties involved in the investigation or decision-making.

Good options for ensuring independence, removing bias and partisanship by any party, and minimizing the possibilities of conflict of interest in sexual harassment cases, especially those involving parliamentary or political staff, include either the establishment of an independent body to govern investigations or the establishment of a list of independent external investigators with specific expertise on human rights, sexual harassment, gender-based violence, and all the forms of harassment and violence that take place in a workplace.

The model chosen should adopt a human rights framework and will need to be adequately funded to ensure appropriate support for victim survivors and the timely determination of complaints. At least half of the competent persons or investigators should be women, and the list of those who can be called on to conduct an investigation should reflect the population and include indigenous women and men, women and men with disabilities, racialized women and men, and LGBTQ2 people. Supportive roles can be identified for department of labour staff and/or tripartite workplace committees. For example, they could be used to review and agree on the list of external experts eligible for appointment.

Significant attention has been paid in Bill C-65 to ensuring the confidentiality of complainants, which is critical; however, clarifications may be useful to ensure that the approach to confidentiality doesn't inadvertently help harassers and harm women. Procedural fairness and respecting a victim survivor-centred approach necessitate that the complainant must be provided with a copy of the entire competent persons report and recommendations. This is a crucial amendment that should be made to Bill C-65.

NAWL supports the call for a provision to be added to Bill C-65 that will require all federally regulated workplaces and those on Parliament Hill who will also be bound by the Canada Labour Code provisions to publish annual statistics on the number of incidents of sexual misconduct reported to them, the outcome of each complaint, and any financial settlement paid.

Finally, it is important that any government measures to combat sexual harassment and violence be as effective as possible. NAWL therefore recommends that Bill C-65 provide for a formal review of the new federal regime within three years of its enactment. Because laws and regulations governing sexual harassment in legislatures have only recently begun to emerge in Canada and elsewhere, further study of the human rights-based approaches to, and effectiveness of, measures adopted at other levels of government and in other countries to prevent and respond to sexual harassment in their legislatures would be a helpful component of such a review.

I'll end my comments here. Along with my colleague, Professor Martha Jackman, who is co-chair of the NAWL national steering committee, I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

Thank you.

[Marie-Claude Landry, Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission]

Good evening. Thank you for inviting the Canadian Human Rights Commission to take part in your consideration of Bill C-65. As the chair noted, I am accompanied by Ms. Fiona Keith, senior legal counsel with the commission.

This bill is a positive step towards preventing all forms of harassment. Yet the bill is just one part of the solution to this issue that is deeply rooted in our society. While we support the establishment of proactive regulations as an important step in changing the culture in all federal workplaces, we have concerns about the process as it has been put forward.

We have three main messages.

First, in order to end harassment, and sexual harassment in particular, victims must absolutely feel safe, empowered, and supported. That is what they need to proceed. The bill does not go far enough, however.

Second, greater clarity is needed. In our opinion, too many things have been left up to the regulations.

Third, in order to find a solution to harassment and help victims deal with it, they must have access to the redress measures set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Any new process must be in addition to, and must not limit or delay access to the protection afforded by the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is a quasi-constitutional piece of legislation.

Regardless of the proactive disclosure regime, whenever power dynamics are at play, there will be imbalances in power. When there are imbalances, there will often be harassment.

The commission has more than 40 years of experience dealing with human rights and harassment complaints. Time and time again, we have heard that the victims of all forms of harassment, and sexual harassment in particular, must feel safe, empowered, and supported. When there are power imbalances in the workplace, any process can be intimidating. If the process is complicated, intimidating, embarrassing, the victims will have to endure the unbearable, and they will refuse to proceed.

We encourage the committee to ensure that Bill C-65 reflects an approach that does not leave victims knocking at the wrong door. It should be amended to clearly establish that a victim will not be required to turn to their supervisor, as my colleague said.

The reality is that harassment often involves people in supervisory and management positions. We must allow the victims of harassment to choose where and in whom they wish to confide. Moreover, once they have made that choice, they must know beyond the shadow of a doubt that their job is protected.

We have to consider how the victim will feel in the proposed process. Will they feel safe? Will they feel supported? Will they feel protected? Will the process enable them to file a complaint, in spite of the power imbalance that is often at the root of harassment?

How will the process work in cases where there are several grounds for discrimination? How will it help victims who have experienced multiple forms of discrimination or systemic discrimination in a hostile or toxic work environment?

We also have questions about how the bill will apply to small employers, including MPs' offices, to small trucking companies, local radio stations, and certain first nations employers. What additional support will be offered to them to ensure that they comply with the act?

We support the creation of a proactive regulatory regime that will create a positive obligation on employers to foster an environment that is respectful, inclusive, and safe.

When harassment occurs, a victim needs a clear, impartial, and flexible process that is effective. To ensure this, we suggest that this bill be amended to make it clear that the right to a workplace free from hazards includes a right to a workplace free from harassment as is currently provided in Part III of the Canada Labour Code. An illness or injury should not be required to make a complaint of harassment.

As well, victim should have the choice to seek redress immediately with the CHRC before or at any time during their internal complaint process at their respective organization.

The burden on the victim should be minimized as much as possible. For example, if a parallel human rights complaint is filed, the competent person's report should be shared with the Canadian Human Rights Commission so that the victim does not have to start from scratch and retell their story over and over.

The commission does not believe that a definition of harassment is needed in the Canada Labour Code, but should one be included, it should be non-exhaustive, inclusive, and consistent with human rights law.

As well, the bill must make it clear that the labour program and employees have obligations to report on the effectiveness of the process, including reporting data related to human rights.

Finally, human rights are not only a priority: they are quasi-constitutional legal obligations and must be available equitably to all. These are cornerstones of access to justice.

Any legislative proposal should be a complement to the redress-based protections guaranteed in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Whereas parallel processes that apply the CHRA, such as the federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, are empowered to provide remedies under the CHRA, this is not the case for Bill C-65.

Because of this, any victim who seeks remedies—for instance, for lost wages or for pain and suffering or for wilful and reckless behaviour—may choose to engage in two processes at the same time, the CHRA and the proposed internal process. It must be made clear to people that each system serves a different purpose. The proposed information hub and the 1-800 line must provide information that explains all the options, including the right to file a complaint under the CHRA.

In conclusion, we must address the pervasiveness of harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, which results from unhealthy power imbalances. That means that the victims of these unhealthy dynamics must feel competent, empowered, and supported.

The committee must ensure that the process does not limit human rights protections, but rather complements the protections already afforded all Canadians under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The commission intends to present a brief in the coming days that outlines its mandate, complaints process, and recommended technical amendments. We will of course be very pleased to help the committee as it carries out this extremely important work for Canadian society.

My colleague Ms. Keith and I will be pleased to answer all your questions.

[Professor Katherine Lippel, Professor, Canada Research Chair in Occupational Health and Safety Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, and thank you for the invitation. This was not my initiative—I was invited—and I really appreciate the invitation. As the chair said, I have brought a copy of a brief in French and English. The clerk has it, and she will distribute it to you.

I hold the Canada research chair on occupational health and safety law and have done so since 2006. I've been a member of the Quebec bar since 1978, and I was a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal between 1982 and 2006.

More relevant to this committee is the International Labour Organization, which is currently developing debates on an international convention on occupational violence. The gender bureau of the ILO invited me to prepare a document in support of their discussions, and you have the reference in your documentation. It provides an overview of what's going on, first of all in terms of definitions of violence in the workplace, and secondly in terms of different regulatory strategies around the world. In my seven minutes, I will not try to give you a synthesis of that, but, if you are interested, you have the ILO document that is published by the ILO.

I have seven points that I want to make in my seven minutes, and it might not even take seven minutes. You have the details that are fleshed out in the brief.

First of all, I want to applaud the explicit inclusion, at section 122.1 of the Canada Labour Code and in part 1 of Bill C-65, of the prevention of psychological injuries and illnesses. I think this is to be commended. I do not fundamentally think this is a change in the law, but I think it's very pedagogical, in the sense that it will avoid litigation.

Please don't make that disappear, because you're going to hire a lot of lawyers.... I love to train lawyers, but if I could train them to do something more useful, it would perhaps be better if you eliminated that ambiguity. I applaud you for doing that in this draft legislation.

Second, and I understand completely why it can be interesting to not define harassment, but I have concerns in relation to the absence of a definition, and I'll tell you why. I think it will lead to a lot of litigation. The current version of the proposed legislation may make this legislation more vulnerable to rapid modification through regulation against the will of the parliamentarians who have adopted it, because you don't control what happens two, three, or four years down the line.

I'm not going to provide you with a definition, although I'm happy to answer questions on this. What I would say is that, minimally, you should be able to ensure a broad and open-ended definition that explicitly includes psychological harassment, sexual harassment, as well as other forms of discriminatory harassment.

I also know that cyber-bullying is a key issue, but, if you have an open-ended definition, you don't have to talk about cyber-bullying. I think at least those three elements are absolutely essential in the legislation itself. All of these categories of workplace parlance in the report that I did for the ILO, and in ILO discussions, are included in the concept of violence. However, I understand that the regulatory practices here are not to include them, and that's fine.

Third, to be more effective, the legislation should include explicit mention of the need to address psychosocial risk factors underpinning violence in the workplace. I explain that in detail in the brief, and we discuss it in the ILO. In terms of psychological harassment, sexual harassment, and physical violence in the workplace, psychosocial hazards lead to this type of violence. If you don't prevent the psychosocial hazards, you're going to have a much more difficult time in preventing the violence.

Fourth, clause 5 of Bill C-65 proposes new subsection 127.1(1), and suggests we channel all complaints to the supervisor. I explained why I think this is a bad idea. We have research data, both federally, and from EQCOTESST, which is a study of a representative population of Quebec workers, and it's very clear that the majority of cases in Canada come from the supervisor as the author of harassment.

In part 2, it makes a lot of sense to have the supervisor find out if there's a leaky faucet or there's gas leaking into the workplace—you have to tell him right away—but when you're talking about violence, it may not be a good idea to start with a supervisor. You have to have some flexibility in there in cases where supervisors are responsible for the violence or harassment.

Fifth, clause 6, amending 134.1 of the Canada Labour Code and related provisions—and there are a whole bunch of them, as you well know—exclude policy committees and representatives of the union from processes relating to harassment and violence. I suggest respectfully that this is a mistake.

I have a doctoral student, Rachel Cox, who is now a professor. She did her doctorate on the implementation of the Quebec psychological harassment legislation in unionized workplaces in Quebec. She has clear evidence that unions can be allies in relation to this. I think it's important to have flexibility in that it's not necessarily the health and safety committee. It might well be better served to have a specialized committee, but one whereby all members have the same regulatory protections as health and safety committee members.

I hope that's clear: in other words, protect them from the reprisals, but it's not everybody who wants to hear about harassment. You have to pick and choose the people, both on the management and union side, who are interested in this.

In crafting legislation, lawmakers should bear in mind that gender and equity issues often underpin situations of violence and harassment in the workplace. I address this aspect in the brief. In particular, if you have a specialized committee, you might want to be able to adapt that committee specifically to the needs of the population who disproportionately are affected by violence and harassment, including discriminatory harassment.

My final point is that effective legislation should be designed to provide support for the target of the harassment. I try to avoid saying “victim”, but it's to support the victim of violence or the target of harassment, and the legislation should not, in my opinion, seek to regulate punishment of the perpetrator. Employers can already punish perpetrators. I find that when the legislation is punitive legislation, what happens is everybody lawyers up really quickly, and the victim gets re-victimized. I have suggestions in the brief as to how we could be more victim-friendly in this type of legislation.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We're going to get started.

Good evening. We're running a bit late here.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-65, An act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, No. 1.

Today the committee will hear from witnesses on the subject of the work environment and resources available to employees of the Parliament of Canada. Our witnesses include, as an individual, Katherine Lippel, professor, Canada research chair in occupational health and safety law, University of Ottawa.

Thank you very much for being here today.

From the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we have Marie-Claude Landry, chief commissioner; and Fiona Keith, senior legal counsel.

Thank you both for being here this evening.

We're missing our next witnesses, but hopefully they will arrive shortly. I'll just move on. From Rubin Thomlinson LLP, we have Christine Thomlinson, co-founder and co-managing partner as well as Jennifer White, investigator and trainer.

Thank you both for being here today.

We will give each organization seven minutes to introduce yourselves and bring greetings. Hopefully by the end, our two other witnesses will have arrived. Then, of course, we'll have a series of questions from my colleagues rounding out the evening.

First up we have Katherine Lippel, professor, Canada research chair in occupational health and safety law, University of Ottawa.

The next seven minutes are all yours.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

My question goes to you, Ms. Senneville.

Witnesses have suggested a five-year review to validate the effectiveness of Bill C-65 and to measure the results.

Do you think that is a good idea?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much for being here and for your testimony, which is very important for the committee members.

My first question is for you, Ms. Ebbs and Ms. Adamson. You touched on this a little bit earlier, but I would like to hear more about Parliament Hill, which is a special place to work because of its strong politicization and its high proportion of non-union employees. During several testimonies, we heard about the risk of unfair dismissal. This risk is all the greater here.

In your opinion, does Bill C-65 sufficiently protect employees on Parliament Hill from unfair dismissal? They are the ones who are likely to be when the identity of the victims or the employer is disclosed. Do they even file a complaint about harassment or workplace violence? I would like to know what you think.

[Catherine Ebbs, Chairperson, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board is an independent quasi-judicial statutory tribunal with the unique expertise required to deliver on its two key services, adjudication and mediation.

The FPSLREB was created on November 1, 2014, from the merger of the former Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, bringing staffing and labour relations under one umbrella. The board and its predecessors have been responsible for administering public sector labour relations for 50 years, and for resolving public sector staffing questions for over 10 years. With public service modernization in 2005, the board gained jurisdiction in the human rights area, both in staffing and labour relations.

At its foundation, the board's purpose is bringing the highest values of Canadian justice to bear on labour relations, grievance adjudication, and employment and staffing issues in the federal public sector. It is committed to resolving those issues impartially and fairly. This contributes to a productive and efficient workplace and helps to achieve harmonious labour relations and a fair employment environment for public sector employers, employees and their bargaining agents.

The FPSLREB operates with neutral and impartial board members. Most board members come with deep expertise and experience gained by working either on the management or the bargaining agent side of labour relations and staffing. As prescribed by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act, their appointment is made in recognition of that expertise with, to the extent possible, an equal number appointed from among persons recommended by the employer and from among persons recommended by the bargaining agents. However, despite being recommended by the employer or the bargaining agents, they do not sit on the board as representatives of the viewpoints or interests of either side.

At present, the FPSLREB's composition consists of one chairperson, two vice-chairpersons, and seven full-time members, as well as one part-time member. The board is currently working with the government to fill board member vacancies. A selection process is under way to appoint full-time and part-time members.

The FPSLREB has jurisdiction over several areas of federal public sector labour relations and staffing matters. Specifically, the board administers the public sector collective bargaining and grievance adjudication systems for the federal public service as well as for the institutions of Parliament. It resolves complaints related to internal appointments, appointment revocations, and layoffs in the federal public service. It resolves human rights issues in grievances and complaints that are already within its jurisdiction, as well as pay equity complaints in the federal public service. It also administers reprisal complaints of public servants under the Canada Labour Code.

Through the board's dispute resolution services, expert mediators and panels of the board help parties resolve a variety of labour relations and staffing disputes and complaints coherently and consistently and reach collective agreements often without resorting to a hearing.

Through the board's adjudication services and via fair and impartial hearings, it ensures that well-reasoned decisions are produced by an expert board for the federal sector.

The decisions made by panels of the board add to its growing case law in both staffing and labour relations, which is accessible to anyone.

During a continued period of legislative change affecting its work, the board has revisited how best to ensure uninterrupted service excellence while looking toward the integration of its additional mandates. This holistic approach to the formulation and implementation of a renewed vision in the efficient delivery of its mandate encompasses the values of fairness and transparency in its proceedings and includes one-stop shopping for mediation, adjudication, arbitration, and conciliation for the federal public sector.

The board has set a clear direction on providing a fair hearing and rendering well-reasoned decisions with a dedicated focus on dispute resolution.

Now I'd like to talk about the current mandate of the board under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

While the bulk of the board's caseload comes from its stakeholders who fall under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the board also has significant experience with the issues of parliamentary employers and employees. It has been the board responsible for this area since parliamentary employees first attained the right to bargain collectively in 1986. The FPSLREB is the expert board with respect to parliamentary labour relations. Part I of PESRA is administered and applied by the board, which hears various kinds of labour relations disputes, including such things as applications for certification, unfair labour practice complaints, and designations of persons employed in managerial and confidential capacities. The board also adjudicates grievances referred by parliamentary employees.

Now I'd like to talk about the impact of Bill C-65 on the work of the board. The FPSLREB has significant hands-on experience and expertise with labour relations and employment matters in the federal public service and for parliamentary institutions. From 1986 to 2000, public sector employees had recourse to the board, which was called the Public Service Staff Relations Board at the time, to challenge work refusal “absence of danger” decisions. These were not called appeals at the time, but they served the same function. During this time, parliamentary employees had no recourse with respect to occupational health and safety matters under part II of the Canada Labour Code.

In 2000, recourse for both private and public sector employees was transferred to appeal officers of the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal of Canada. Beginning in 1986, public service reprisal cases were heard by the board. This continues to the present. Reprisal complaints were not included in the transfer to the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal that took place in 2000.

The FPSLREB also has a great deal of experience with issues of harassment. It has dealt with these issues for many years. Harassment matters have come before the board through various legislative routes, such as grievances for violation of a collective agreement, grievances against disciplinary sanctions, matters pertaining to duty of fair representation and unfair labour practices, and staffing complaints.

Under Bill C-44, which received royal assent in June 2017, parliamentary employees will have their ministerial appeals and their reprisal complaints heard by the FPSLREB. Most political staffers will be added to the parliamentary employees and will also have their appeals and reprisal complaints heard by the FPSLREB.

To summarize, the board has extensive expertise and experience with occupational health and safety reprisal claims under the Canada Labour Code. It will retain its current mandate for reprisal claims from federal public service employees, and will acquire a new mandate for parliamentary employees, including most political staffers, for appeals of ministerial work refusal decisions regarding absence of danger, appeals of ministerial directions regarding contravention complaints, and reprisal complaints.

Given the board's substantial experience with the matters I've just described, I would like to conclude by saying that the FPSLREB has the adjudication and dispute resolution expertise to deal with appeals under part II of the Canada Labour Code, as it did before 2000, and to extend its current public sector mandate for reprisal claims for the federal public service to include parliamentary employees.

Thank you very much.

[Manon Poirier]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We at CPHR Canada are honoured to appear before your committee for the study of Bill C-65. CPHR Canada is a group of human resources associations across Canada. CPHR Canada is the national voice on the enhancement and promotion of the human resources profession. With an established and credible designation, CPHR Canada works on national issues related to the profession and is proactively positioning the national human resources agenda on the international stage.

In October 2016, the Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations, its nine provincial associations and three affiliated territorial associations chose a new name and introduced a new Canadian designation, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources, or CPHR. Only one designation—CPHR—is used for the standard of quality, in line with the model adopted by many other professions and professional designations in human resources around the world.

Our 27,000 members ensure the integration, development and well-being of workers, and help employers of all sizes meet the challenges of today's and tomorrow's labour market, challenges such as an aging workforce and the need to attract skilled workers, significant technological changes and an increasing regulatory burden. We are on the front lines of dealing with complaints of harassment and violence in the workplace. As such, we are ideally placed to assist parliamentarians on many strategic issues, including employment insurance reform, access to high-quality job training for all Canadian workers, pay equity, and of course, the features of Bill C-65.

Bullying, harassment, and sexual violence have no place in today's workplace, yet according to a survey conducted for the federal government, 10% of respondents said that harassment is common in the workplace, and 44% said that while it is not frequent, it happens. Most respondents agreed that incidents are under-reported and often dealt with ineffectively. According to our own data collected in my own province of Quebec, 60% of organizations surveyed reported receiving complaints related to harassment.

Obviously, this cannot continue. The issues underlying bullying, harassment, and violence in the workplace, including challenges faced by victims in the complaint process, have a direct impact on mental health, absenteeism, and loss of productivity. Bill C-65 is long overdue. In our submission, we will address three main issues: definition and implications for performance management, investigation of complaints, and prevention of harassment and violence through culture change.

We would like first to address the definition of bullying, harassment, and violence. We also believe that Bill C-65 should define workplace bullying, harassment, and violence, and we are pleased to learn that the minister is open to amendments in this respect. Definitions would provide clarity and direction to employers, employees, and the courts in understanding the legislator's intent. There are examples in provincial legislation that could guide the legislators for the federal sector. Recommendations from the standing committee would be invaluable in this respect, and we would be pleased to review them prior to their adoption.

One aspect that is of concern to members of CPHR Canada relates to issues surrounding performance management. Any definition must recognize that reasonable performance management is not harassment. An employee may feel anxious and stressed when receiving performance feedback or a written warning, a performance improvement plan, or progressive discipline. Anxiety and stress can obviously lead to illness, but it would be a tremendous burden on employers should they face harassment and bullying claims because they are properly managing performance. In that respect, we recommend that reasonable performance management be explicitly recognized in defining harassment, and that reference to illness be more clearly linked with events related to harassment, violence, and workplace safety.

Other key aspects of the bill of particular interest to HR professionals are the provisions relating to the investigation.

We are particularly concerned about the complaint process when complaints are filed against supervisors. Right now, the bill does not clearly set out whether an alternative will be available to someone who would like to make a complaint when the alleged harasser is their supervisor. This mechanism must absolutely be included if the intent of the legislation is to make reporting easier. When someone wants to make a complaint, if the first step is to go to their supervisor when the supervisor or the supervisor's supervisor is the subject of the complaint, it is highly likely that the complaint mechanism will not be effective. This is especially true for small organizations.

We urge you to clarify this aspect and provide an alternative for cases where the complaint is directed to the supervisor or the employer. Any disclosure process must be clear, simple and impartial, and include people working for small organizations.

We strongly support that any investigation relating to a complaint of harassment or violence must be assigned to an individual who is competent to do so. It is our recommendation that regulations need to be prescriptive in defining who is authorized to conduct investigations. Issues such as fairness, impartiality, and privacy are crucial components. Done badly, investigations can cause even greater damage to workplace relations.

Investigations must be performed by trained professionals who are subject to a code of ethics and rules of professional conduct and, in some instances, bound by professional secrecy.

A final word on investigations is that we strongly urge that regulations provide for what might be included in an investigator's report. Beyond a finding of whether there was bullying, harassment, or violence in the workplace, the investigator could, or actually should, make recommendations on practices that need to change or be initiated within the organization. The report should also create an obligation to abide by the recommendations within a set time frame. This approach would send a very clear signal that the federal government is serious about addressing bullying, harassment, and violence in the workplace.

I would like to turn to our third and final point, which is the issue of prevention.

The #MeToo movement has created a widespread public conversation on bullying, harassment, and violence. The movement has created an environment where individuals feel safer to lodge complaints and expect these complaints to be dealt with, but each time this happens, high personal and business costs result and productivity suffers. We need to do better.

Culture change is required in Canadian workplaces to prevent bullying, harassment, and violence. The government has committed to put in place supports such as awareness-building on harassment and violence, education and training tools for employees and employers, and direct support to help employees navigate the process and support employers in putting in place policies and processes. We look forward to hearing further details. We submit that support for training, especially in small and medium-sized organizations, is necessary.

Our members, the professionals who are responsible for policies, training, and prevention of bullying, harassment, and violence in the workplace, are keenly aware that culture change is required. The following key aspects, we believe, are necessary in every workplace to drive a change of culture: communicating regularly with employees; ensuring supervisors and managers apply policy; disciplinary management, if necessary, to correct wrongdoing; education and training workshops to facilitate changing attitudes and behaviour; and finally, support and training for managers.

In closing, we would like to reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity to participate in these hearings. We look forward to working with you on the next steps.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Dr. Sandy Hershcovis]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. It's an honour to be here today to speak to you about Bill C-65. I've specialized in the scientific study of workplace harassment, including workplace bullying, incivility, and sexual harassment, since 2004. My specific expertise lies in the consequences of these forms of harassment for employees and organizations as well as coping strategies that employees use. Most recently, I have begun to focus on witness reactions to these forms of harassment.

I commend this committee for working to introduce a bill that will help victims and employers create a more respectful work environment.

In my comments, I will focus on four main points: definitions, language in the Canada Labour Code, reporting processes, and mandated training. I have also submitted a brief that provides specific recommendations for this committee to consider.

Bill C-65 aims to cover all forms of workplace harassment, including sexual and non-sexual harassment.

In the February 12 meeting in which Minister Hajdu answered questions about Bill C-65, there were a number of questions pertaining to the definition. I agree with the minister that the definition needs to be broad enough to capture workplace harassment in all its forms. I also agree with the concerns that without a clear definition that explains what constitutes workplace harassment, it will be difficult for organizations to develop policies and properly train employees.

As my first point, I will begin with sexual harassment. In the social sciences, sexual harassment is defined in three categories: sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention, and gender harassment. The current definition in the Canada Labour Code, which is being repealed, covers only the first two categories. I would like to encourage the committee to develop a definition that covers all three.

Sexual coercion is defined as actions that make the victim's employment or advancement contingent on sexual favours. Unwanted sexual attention includes expressions of unwanted sexual interest. Gender harassment includes verbal and non-verbal behaviours that convey insulting, hostile, or degrading attitudes toward one's gender.

A recent example reported in Science magazine described women on a geological expedition to Antarctica who reported that they were pelted with rocks by male colleagues, called names, had volcanic ash blown in their eyes, and were told that women should not be field geologists.

Sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention are traditional sexual behaviours or come-ons, while gender harassment is not sexual. It's a put-down that focuses on gender.

Research shows that 89% of harassed women report gender harassment with no unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion, and that gender harassment has similar negative consequences for victims as the other two forms of sexual harassment, so exclusion of this form of harassment from the sexual harassment definition misses the majority of cases of sexual harassment.

In non-sexual workplace harassment, researchers found that all forms of psychological harassment, from minor slights to threats and physical abuse, have significant negative effects on the well-being of employees as well as their job attitudes and work performance. I agree with the minister that the language needs to be broad enough to encompass all harassment, including those that span traditional workplace space and time boundaries. In my brief I suggest working definitions for both sexual and non-sexual workplace harassment for you to consider.

My second point focuses on language in the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-65 attempts to inject harassment and violence into an existing health and safety labour code. From a layperson's perspective, reading through the code it appears to focus mostly on physical safety, which of course is very important, but I think workplace respect is equally important. More fully integrating harassment and violence language into the Canada Labour Code would send a message to federal organizations and employees that harassment prevention is a Canadian priority. To that end, I suggest the committee replace the term “health and safety” with something like “health, safety, and respectful treatment” wherever it makes sense to do so.

My third point pertains to reporting. Minister Hajdu correctly explained that a key driver of workplace harassment is power. Harassment in all its forms is much more likely to come from a person in a position of power. When harassment comes from someone in a position of power, it has significantly stronger negative effects on victims than when it comes from a co-worker. Also, witnesses are less likely to intervene on harassment from a powerful perpetrator. Because of the power differential, reporting harassment is a big problem. Victims fear reprisal, disbelief, and inaction. This bill addresses perceptions of disbelief and inaction by requiring an investigation, but I'm concerned that fear of reprisal may still prevent reporting.

Research shows that those who voice complaints of workplace harassment experience considerable counter-retaliation, and that retaliation is more likely from a powerful perpetrator. Proposed subsection 127.1 requires that employees make a complaint to the supervisor as a first course of action. Since harassment often comes from the supervisor, I think the bill needs to clearly state that where the supervisor is the source of the complaint, employees may take their complaint directly to the labour board.

Finally, I want to briefly mention that for repeat offences, it would help if the Canada Labour Code were to mandate respectful workplace training. Since workplace harassment is often driven by cultural norms, organizations that are found to be in violation of the Canada Labour Code on more than one occasion would benefit from civility training. I think the Canada Labour Code should specify mandated training in these circumstances.

I'll stop there and welcome any questions from the committee. Thank you once again for your important work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good afternoon, everybody.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-65, 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 witnesses on the subject of human resources practices and organizations dedicated to addressing sexual misconduct. I apologize in advance if I butcher any of your names. I've been practising for the first couple of minutes here, and I'm not confident I'm going to get them all right.

From the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, we have Caroline Senneville, vice-president, and Jason Godin, union representative. Jason I believe is coming to us via video conference. Can you hear me okay, Jason?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to the last question I put to you, so that all of our guests may reply. I want to hear what you have to say about the fact that Bill C-65 aims to exclude the joint occupational health and safety committee from investigations into cases of sexual assault or harassment, or any other type of harassment. One of the main arguments we have heard here at committee is that such incidents need to be handled very confidentially.

What do you have to say about confidentiality, as it relates to the importance of keeping the union in the process, as well as the occupational health and safety committee?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I barely have three minutes to wrap up, but I would like to hear all of your comments.

Bill C-65 aims to set aside the joint occupational health and safety committee, a joint committee that involves the employer, workers and the union on certain occasions. You mentioned the importance of including the union. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Do you think that the occupational health and safety committee should be maintained, and be a part of the investigation process into cases of assault or harassment?

Let's begin with Ms. Bauman.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

My apologies for interrupting, but my suggestion is that you might put your heads together and provide guidance to this committee, because this committee is going to be making a recommendation to the government and possibly amending the legislation as it is now, sending it back to the House, and then to the Senate. This will be happening again in the Senate committee. If there is a lot of thought, and you get consensus on what the definition should be in Bill C-65, I think it would go a long way to achieving what you want.

I think there is support around here if it were a definition that we could all support. Particularly if the witnesses are supporting it, then that would go a long way.

I do have a question for Ms. Peckford and Ms. Sutton.

My curiosity in having studied criminology and Corrections Canada, and visiting the different institutions from the Fraser Valley, Matsqui, which is a medium security, and then going up to Kent, and to Mountain, and visiting the different.... There is a dynamic, a feeling, a culture around each of these institutions that's quite different as you move around.

My question is, for people working in these different environments, is there a different level of sexual harassment? Does it breed a sexual harassment environment?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I wanted to follow up a bit on the discussion we're having about remedies.

Ms. Bauman, you were talking about the Human Rights Commission as one place to go. Do you think this legislation deals with the two avenues clearly enough as to whether you would proceed by going through the human rights code or the labour program in the legislation set out in Bill C-65?

[Nancy Peckford, Senior Policy Advisor, Union of Safety and Justice Employees]

Thank you, Bethany.

I, in fact, wear two hats today. One is as an occasional policy adviser with the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, and the other is as the executive director of Equal Voice, where I will provide some comments. I concur with many of the statements that Bethany and our colleagues have made. The parliamentary environment is not dissimilar to what we in fact see on Parliament Hill. I think we welcome Bill C-65 as a very strong first step, but I think in order for you to all get it right, we do need to look at some significant amendments to the bill.

In short, when Equal Voice looked at legislation and workplace policies across the country, we came up with nine criteria that I think are applicable both to the parliamentary working environment and to many of the federally regulated agencies and departments on whose behalf this legislation is being drafted. Very quickly, we have 10 points that we want you to consider. Many of them have already been addressed. Really, at its heart, politics has to be taken out of this process at every stage of the game. We know on Parliament Hill and in federally regulated agencies like the RCMP, politics often is the primary consideration, not explicitly, but implicitly in terms of how employers deal with what is often egregious behaviour.

Clearly, in our minds, a definition of “sexual harassment” is prudent in moving forward. We need to recognize that harassment can take place outside the workplace, crucial for both federally regulated agencies and, obviously, on Parliament Hill, given the extent of activity that takes place outside this working environment, or a constituency office. We need mandatory training by qualified experts. I think that's really clear. I think mandatory is key.

We have to ensure that the competent persons who are identified are in fact truly independent as many others have said, and that they have the qualifications necessary, otherwise this bill will not serve anybody in the long run. We too are very concerned about confidentiality involved in the cases of Correctional Service Canada, RCMP, and Parliament Hill. We know that confidentiality is a really tough one and that lots of people aren't coming forward because they are not trusting of that process. We have to make sure that the results of the investigation are clearly communicated and there is some stipulation for recourse. We know that the House of Commons policy that many parties have worked really hard to improve is vastly underutilized because people are not confident that their employment or their identity will be protected.

Finally, there are just three more points. Clearly, we want time limits stipulated in the bill so investigations don't go on for months, if not years, which we're seeing across the board. Employment and counselling services, I think, are fundamental especially on Parliament Hill where we know that the environment can be really toxic in certain instances; and even with the outcome of an investigation, we do need to ensure that people actually get the kind of support they need.

What we understand about harassment is that, really, we're forfeiting, in fact, in some cases, the pipeline of the future in terms of women coming to the Hill really wanting to make meaningful contributions to public service, using an opportunity to work in an MP's office as a way to do that and better understand political processes. If they have a highly negative experience, we've lost them. We've lost a potential MP, we've lost a potential elected person, and I would say on the USJE side of the House, we often see that. Often highly qualified women who leave Correctional Service Canada, say, “No, I can't do this. On I must go.” That would be true of the RCMP as well.

I'll leave it there.

[Greg Phillips, President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees]

Honourable members of Parliament, we would like to thank the members of this committee for inviting us to appear so that we might voice our opinion with respect to Bill C-65.

My name is Greg Phillips. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, CAPE. CAPE represents some 14,000 public service employees. The vast majority of our members are economists and social science workers who advise the government on public policy. We also represent the translators and interpreters who work every day to preserve and promote Canada's linguistic duality. Last but not least, we also have the great honour of representing the 90 analysts and research assistants employed by the Library of Parliament.

Accompanying me today is Colleen Bauman, a partner at Goldblatt Partners LLP's Ottawa office. She has a great deal of experience dealing with harassment issues and concerns in many different workplace settings, including the federal public service. I am also accompanied by Claude Vézina, CAPE's executive director, who manages the employees responsible for helping members who are experiencing workplace harassment issues.

As you are no doubt aware, the problem of harassment and violence in Canadian workplaces, including the federal public service, is an ever-present problem. Harassment not only harms the individual victims, but it also has a negative impact on workplace morale and productivity. CAPE is very pleased that the government is taking steps with Bill C-65 to help prevent and address this problem. In particular, CAPE is relieved to see that the legislation extends protection to parliamentary employees, including CAPE's members at the Library of Parliament.

CAPE has been fighting for many years for parliamentary employees to have the same protections as other federal employees. Historically, employees of Parliament did not even have the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In 2005, CAPE intervened in support of them in Canada v. Vaid, a case in which the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to all employees of the federal government, including those working for Parliament. While it is a positive development to see that Bill C-65 extends the protections of the Canada Labour Code to parliamentary employees, it is unfortunate that it has taken until 2018 for this to happen.

While CAPE fully supports the introduction of comprehensive legislation to address the problem of harassment in both parliamentary and other federal workplaces, we are concerned that as drafted, Bill C-65 does not go far enough and leaves too many important details to be determined by regulations. Today I'd like to speak briefly about three areas of concern that CAPE has with Bill C-65: the failure of the legislation to include a definition of harassment, the failure of the legislation to guarantee that employees will have access to independent and impartial investigations for harassment complaints, and the failure of the legislation to provide for redress for victims of harassment.

The government has stated that Bill C-65 is part of its commitment to eliminating harassment and violence in federal workplaces, yet surprisingly, the bill fails to define the very thing it seeks to eliminate, leaving it instead to be determined at a later date by regulation. CAPE submits that the definition of “harassment” is too important a matter to leave to regulation. Employees and their representatives need to know now whether the legislation will take a narrow and restrictive approach to harassment, excluding some victims from accessing its protection, or if it will be defined broadly and include all forms of personal harassment, such as conduct and/or behaviours that create an intimidating, demeaning, or hostile work environment.

CAPE submits that the legislation should be amended now to add a broad and purposive definition of “harassment” that will offer the widest-possible protection to employees. In CAPE's view, a definition similar to the one that is currently found in the Treasury Board's Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution, which includes both personal and grounds-based harassment, would be a good starting plan.

Our second area of concern with Bill C-65 is that the legislation fails to guarantee that employees will have access to independent and impartial investigations for harassment complaints. Having an independent and impartial investigator is the hallmark of a procedurally fair investigation. An independent investigation ensures that all parties—complainants, respondents, and witnesses—feel that they can speak freely and participate fully in the investigation without fear of retaliation or negative consequences. Indeed, one of the most common concerns we've heard from our members about the current process is that the investigation of their complaint was neither fair nor impartial.

Bill C-65 provides that these employees can complain about their workplace harassment, and where the employee and employer fail to resolve the complaint between themselves, that complaint can be referred directly to the minister for investigation, bypassing the workplace health and safety committee. However, it fails to guarantee that the harassment investigation will be independent and impartial. CAPE submits that the bill should be amended to add this type of requirement.

The final area of concern that I want to speak about today is the failure of Bill C-65 to provide for redress for victims of harassment. It is commonly said that there will be no right without remedy. In other words, a right is meaningless if you have no remedy for its violation.

Meaningful remedies ensure the victims are put back in the place they would have been but for the violation of their rights. Currently, if a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act involving harassment on protected grounds is founded, the victim may be awarded remedies including making available to the victim the rights, opportunities, or privileges that were denied, compensating the victim for any lost wages, compensating the victim for any pain and suffering that the victim would have experienced, or compensating the victim for discriminatory treatment that was willful or reckless.

In contrast, at present, the harassment investigations under the Treasury Board policy may end with a finding of harassment but without any corresponding remedy for the victim. An anti-harassment regime that provides no power to award remedies, or one that caps them at $20,000 for pain and suffering like the current CHRA provisions, will discourage victims from coming forward. CAPE submits that the anti-harassment regime under Bill C-65 should provide for real remedies and redress for victims of harassment.

In conclusion, CAPE sees Bill C-65 as a very positive step towards addressing the problem of harassment in federal workplaces. CAPE is hopeful that the reluctance that many employees currently feel in reporting workplace harassment and violence will be addressed and alleviated to at least some extent by the legislation you are currently working on. However, we ask that you consider improving its effectiveness by including a definition of harassment, a guarantee of independent and impartial investigation, and provision for redress for victims. All three of these additions will encourage more victims to come forward and make legislation more effective at eradicating harassment and providing meaningful remedies to its victims.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good evening, everybody.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code in regard to harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

Today the committee will hear from witnesses on the subject of the work environment and the resources available to the employees of the Parliament of Canada.

We're very pleased to be joined by a great panel of witnesses here this evening. From the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, we have Greg Phillips, president, and Colleen Bauman, a partner in Goldblatt Partners LLP; from the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Local 232, Nasha Brownridge, president, and Nina Amrov, chief steward; and from the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, Bethany Sutton, interim director, policy, projects, and media, and Nancy Peckford, senior policy adviser.

Welcome to you all, and thank you.

Each organization will have seven minutes for opening statements.

We're going to start off with the Canadian Association of Professional Employees. Greg Phillips and Colleen Bauman, the next seven minutes are yours.

[Pierre Parent]

It's a difficult question to answer.

We're monitoring Bill C-65. Unfortunately, the regulations are not drafted, so it's difficult to see the final effect of Bill C-65.

Fear of retribution depends on the structure, and that is why I go back to the structure of members' offices. If I go back to your reality, it concerns the structure of your offices. They are small offices, whereas in a bigger environment, in a corporate environment, you feel a bit more secure.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

In terms of sexual harassment, there's been a lot in the news, and we know that it's been an issue in members' offices—some members' offices, not all—for years, for decades.

Based on what's in Bill C-65, do you see this legislation changing people's ability to come forward? Will it make it easier if someone is in that position? The issue before has been their fear of retribution. Putting aside all the training and things you're doing outside of the legislation, do you see this legislation assisting in that process?

[Pierre Parent]

My answer will be very short.

Right now, we have no suggestions. Once Bill C-65 receives royal assent, we will adapt to it. Our internal processes are solid enough to help us going forward. So I don't have any specific concerns.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, I've not been able to be at most of the meetings up to this point—or any of them,actually—but I have read and I appreciate the work of the committee and the witnesses here today.

This is a very important topic. We've heard the use of the word “harassment”. In Bill C-65, we have defined “board”, we have defined “employee”, and we have defined “employer”.

Would it be helpful for Bill C-65 to have a definition of “harassment”? That's my first question.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you. I have a couple of questions.

We've been talking a lot at this committee about a “competent person” and how that person would be appointed under Bill C-65. Both of you have talked a bit about getting independent people to look into it. What do you think the best process is to find that competent person in a way that recognizes what is perhaps a power imbalance in a situation? Also, how do we ensure there is diversity among the competent people were seeking in applying with this legislation ?

[Lynn Potter]

The last time was in 2016. Of course, with the implementation of Bill C-65, we will look at that again.

Go ahead, Michelle.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Ms. Potter, you commented that you're already implementing policies in anticipation of Bill C-65. I would ask both the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament to comment on the following. You've discussed harassment. How do you define “harassment” now? The different degrees of harassment and how to interpret that has been a big issue before this committee. Should it be in the legislation? Should it be in regulation? Since you're now implementing policies and interpreting harassment, how do you define harassment?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to question you briefly on the process. Both the House of Commons and Library of Parliament indicated that you were following the process of Bill C-65 and the implications it may have for you.

Given the investigative process you have now, could you explain a bit or elaborate more on the final report? This question came up a lot when dealing with unions in the private sector. When you do a final report, what's in the report? Could you explain how detailed a report is and who it is made available to?

Mr. Parent.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Robert, you get involved in cases where MPs are also respondents. In your presentation, you talked about an independent grievance policy.

Can you explain to me how that can apply now, under Bill C-65, whose goal is to protect individuals claiming to have been—

[Lynn Potter, Director General, Business Support Services, Library of Parliament]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. As director general of business support services, I am responsible for providing leadership in managing the library's internal services, including the HR directorate where policies that deal with the subject matter of Bill C-65 are developed, administered and monitored.

I am accompanied today by Michelle Berry, director of human resources for the library.

Like our Hill partners, the library is separate from the federal public service and is not subject to Treasury Board policies. Our roles and responsibilities as an employer derive from the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. While we are not subject to Treasury Board, we do follow best practices in public administration. We often develop policies similar to those of Treasury Board and adapt them in accordance with PESRA, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the needs of our organization.

Our workforce of about 400 employees carries out the broad and diverse mandate of the library. These employees provide reference services to you and your staff. They respond to your research requests and provide research support to parliamentary committees, such as this one, and to parliamentary associations. They welcome visitors to the Hill every day and they inform the general public about how Canadians govern themselves.

The library is committed to promoting a culture of dignity and respect and to providing a safe and harassment-free work environment for all of its employees. We take this matter very seriously and have devoted considerable efforts to prevent and resolve harassment at the library.

I would like to outline for you the steps we have taken to prevent harassment in our organization and the processes that we have established to address and resolve incidents of harassment when they do occur.

In March 2011, the library introduced a new policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace. We reviewed the policy in 2016 to ensure it was up to date and consistent with best practice models in the field.

One of our policy's objectives is to prevent harassment by fostering a respectful workplace. We believe that one of the best ways to address workplace harassment is to prevent it from happening in the first place. As part of our prevention strategy, we identify and address situations of conflict that, if left unresolved, could lead to allegations of harassment, and we take the necessary steps to resolve these situations in a timely manner.

We provide regular mandatory harassment prevention training to all our employees in order to educate them on the role we each play in ensuring a respectful workplace, on what constitutes harassment, and on what avenues of resolution are available to them.

We provide our management community with the training and support they need to address conflict in the workplace when it arises.

We make a number of tools and resources available to employees and managers, such as guides and Q&As that provide further detail and explain the content of our policy.

And finally, we are putting in place a core competency that will apply to all library employees around respect and ethical behaviour in the workplace.

Despite our best efforts, inappropriate behaviour sometimes arises.

Our policy provides a framework for addressing and resolving harassment-related incidents, allegations, and complaints through a variety of both informal and formal processes. Early resolution, through discussions and informal resolution mechanisms, such as counselling, coaching, facilitation, and mediation is encouraged. Managers make every effort to resolve the issue between the parties as quickly as possible to prevent the situation from escalating.

Library employees always have the option and the right to file a formal complaint under our harassment policy. Any formal complaint is subject to an internal review and an investigation by an impartial and experienced person from within or outside the Library. The findings and recommendations following the investigation are reviewed to determine any corrective measures or disciplinary action to be taken.

It is important to note that even if the complaint is unfounded, the Library will undertake to apply resolution initiatives to help correct the situation that led to the complaint.

We want our employees to feel comfortable coming forward with issues without fear of embarrassment or reprisal whether allegations are founded or not. By using this type of process, we strive to send a strong message to our employees that offensive behaviours or harassment in any form will not be tolerated, that complaints will be addressed, and that they can trust us to help if they do experience harassment.

The library has already implemented measures contemplated by Bill C-65 through its policy on preventing harassment and related conflict resolution processes.

We recognize that our efforts must be ongoing. We are always looking to improve our policies and processes and we will continue to coordinate our efforts with those of our partners on the Hill to ensure that all employees enjoy a healthy work environment that is free from harassment and sexual violence.

Ms. Berry and I are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Pierre Parent, Chief Human Resources Officer, House of Commons]

Thank you, Mr. Robert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak about our organization and how we currently deal with safety and harassment prevention at the House of Commons. The following items detail the guiding principles, mechanisms, and tools that we have put in place to guide and assist us.

Let's start by addressing the prevention of harassment. We currently have in place a framework with various components that provide members of Parliament, House officers, research offices, and their employees, as well as House administration employees, with mechanisms to prevent and resolve alleged harassment situations.

In December 2014, the Board of Internal Economy adopted the first House of Commons policy on preventing and addressing harassment, which applies to members and House officers as employers, as well as to their employees and employees of research offices.

In June 2015 the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted a code of conduct for members of the House of Commons regarding sexual harassment. The code came into effect at the start of this parliament. It covers member-to-member situations only, and secures the commitment of members to provide an environment free of sexual harassment. Every member is required, under the code, to sign the pledge form, and all members have done so.

In addition, the House administration's policy on harassment prevention and resolution in the workplace has been in place for several decades and applies to all House administration employees. The latest version was updated in April, 2015.

Clear processes are in place for filing informal and formal complaints, investigating and reporting, appealing decisions, communicating findings, and ensuring that corrective actions are taken when appropriate.

Confidentiality and impartiality are at the heart of our policies. We want to ensure that everyone, regardless of position or title, feels safe addressing those situations, while protecting their privacy. Protecting the rights of both the complainant and the respondent will ensure that both parties benefit from fair and due process.

Reporting is an important part of our framework. As the CHRO, the chief human resources officer, I am responsible, under the policy, for reporting annually to the Board of Internal Economy. The report is made public on a yearly basis.

There were 10 cases in the 2015-16 report, and 19 in the 2016-17 report. The report categorizes the cases as either inquiries or complaints. For example, seven of the 10 cases in the first reporting period were categorized as inquiries, as were 13 of the 19 in 2016-17. The next report will be tabled at the Board of Internal Economy meeting in June 2018, covering the period of April 2017 to March 2018.

To further support the framework, various initiatives have been introduced. The House of Commons offers its employees, members, and staff access to an informal conflict resolution program known as Finding Solutions Together. A key element of this program is access to a full-time resource who is available to offer counselling on workplace conflicts, including harassment prevention, and, if appropriate, mediation. This program has been used frequently in the past two years and has been instrumental in resolving some of these cases as early as possible in the process.

Another essential service under the harassment prevention framework is training. In December 2016, an online training session was launched to raise awareness among members and their staff of what constitutes harassment and to inform them about available services.

The hour-long training features short information segments, scenarios, and questions to provide additional support with regard to harassment prevention. Participants can self-identify in a voluntary declaration at the end of the training session. As of January 31, 2018, 647 individuals had completed the training.

Online training provides employees with the flexibility to work the sessions into their schedule and enables staff in constituency offices to participate. It goes without saying that we also recognize the added value of offering in-person training in a classroom setting. We have been working with external training experts to develop a three-hour in-class session. We anticipate being able to offer this session to all members before this year's summer break.

We are also developing additional training sessions for staff both on the Hill and in constituencies.

Within their first week of work, new House administration employees are strongly encouraged to take the introductory training, which is a three-hour session. The program also provides more specific training as required. Many teams from human resources services have recently taken the civility course aimed at encouraging civil and respectful interactions with each other. Providing a harassment-free workplace for everyone in the parliamentary community is our priority.

Let's now discuss health and safety in the workplace. Although the Canada Labour Code does not currently apply to the House of Commons, the House administration, pursuant to its occupational health and safety policy, has accepted the responsibility of ensuring a safe and healthy workplace for its employees.

The policy approved by the board states the following: “the House of Commons Administration does accept the following standards as the basis for its organizational obligation to ensure a healthy and safe workplace for employees”.

The standards include, first, the obligation to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for its employees based on the standards found in the Canada Labour Code, part II; second, the regulations established pursuant to the Canada Labour Code, part II; third, the requirements established by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board; fourth, common law requirements; and finally, compliance with the provisions of the policy.

The House administration holds joint occupational safety and health committee meetings with employee representatives to discuss issues and opportunities. Again, as Mr. Robert stated earlier, the House administration is monitoring Bill C-65 and will make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Internal Economy in order to comply with it should it receive royal assent.

Thank you.

[Charles Robert, Clerk of the House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am here today to speak about the House of Commons harassment prevention and conflict resolution framework and its occupational health and safety measures.

These policies and practices are in place to support members, House officers, research offices, and their staff, as well as employees of the House of Commons administration.

As parliamentarians and employers, members have an obligation to ensure a safe workplace for their employees. As Clerk of the House of Commons, I also have this obligation.

The framework and measures in place to support us include policies, training, and other mechanisms that Monsieur Pierre Parent, chief human resources officer of the House administration, will explain in further detail.

The House administration is committed to maintaining a safe and harassment-free workplace. When necessary, we will resort to conflict resolution to deal with harassment cases, but our ultimate aim is prevention.

Prevention starts with promoting awareness of the importance of a harassment-free workplace. We achieve this through various educational activities as well as ongoing communication. Increasing the level of awareness and proactively addressing potential safety hazards and harassment situations at their earliest stages minimize their damaging impact. Up-to-date training is provided to members and their employees, both on and off the Hill, as well as to House administration employees.

We also provide a variety of resources that are adapted to the complex work environment of all employees, on and off the Hill: shifts, extended working hours, travel to and from constituency offices, etc.

Foremost, prevention and conflict resolution start by setting the example. Guided by a set of core values, such as respect for the democratic process and inclusiveness, the House of Commons administration strives to provide effective support to members and their employees and acts as a responsible steward of the House. The administration is committed to being a leader and to raising the standard in harassment prevention and conflict resolution.

Furthermore, the House of Commons administration is monitoring Bill C-65 and will make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Internal Economy, which is responsible for establishing bylaws, policies, and guidelines relating to the use of resources provided to members to carry out their parliamentary functions. I'm sure the board and the House administration will follow the work of this committee with great interest and be fully prepared to comply with Bill C-65 should it receive royal assent.

For my part, I have been looking at best practices on harassment prevention and conflict resolution, and most recently I have carefully reviewed the Westminster bicameral report of the cross-party working group on an independent complaints and grievance policy. Our determination to make this workplace harassment-free is a goal that is shared.

Also, as a responsible and diligent employer, the House administration has always followed the spirt of the Canada Labour Code and has been continuously committed to following the highest health and safety standards.

I will now turn it over to Mr. Pierre Parent, who is monitoring the implementation of the House of Commons policy on preventing and addressing harassment as well as the occupational health and safety policy. Mr. Parent collaborates with the Board of Internal Economy in the development of new initiatives relating to the issue at hand. He will now provide further details regarding the existing framework.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everybody.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-65, 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 in committee we will hear from witnesses on the subject of the work environment and resources available to employees of the Parliament of Canada.

We're very honoured and pleased to be joined today by a number of witnesses, including Charles Robert, Clerk of the House of Commons. Thank you for being here, sir.

Joining him is Monsieur Pierre Parent, chief human resources officer. Thank you for being here, sir.

From the Library of Parliament, we have Lynn Potter, director general, business support services, and Michelle Berry, director of human resources. Thank you both for joining us.

Each group will have seven minutes for opening statements, followed by rounds of questions.

Up first, we have Monsieur Robert, Clerk of the House of Commons. The next seven minutes is all yours, sir.

[Marina Mandal]

Sure. I think with the banking industry, as I set out in my opening remarks, a lot of the measures required by the bill and the regulations are already in place, so it's lucky that way, but to echo what Mr. Dorval just said, that was in a sense always the obligation, and banks take some proactive steps to have policies and processes in all the things I mentioned earlier.

In terms of costs, there are of course always going to be costs of compliance with new rules, whether that's on the reporting side or whether it's audit functions. Whatever is put in place, to meet the letter and the spirit of the law there will be additional costs, which might be more burdensome for our smaller banks that have fewer resources than the largest.

I have two things to suggest there. First is that to the extent possible, the regulations be streamlined and made clear, so that not a lot of money is spent on lawyers on how to interpret them—and I'm a lawyer, so I can say that. The second is flexibility, so that those employers who do have practices and policies in place could leverage off them. It would be good if there could be some recognition that the way you do this, the way you meet the objectives of Bill C-65, doesn't have to be exactly prescribed either in the legislation or the regulations, but managed and understood by the labour program and others so that we don't have to replicate what we're already doing.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

My question is for Ms. Johnson and pertains to small, non-unionized workplaces.

Under Bill C-65, the employee must complain directly to the employer. How would the bill apply if the harasser is the employer?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

One of the deterrents for many people in putting forth a complaint is seeing that other people have done it before, but no action or discipline or anything has taken place. That's a bit of a dilemma, because of course it may be that privacy needs have actually prevented people from being able to say when some of those actions have taken place.

How do you overcome that? Is there anything in Bill C-65 that would help with that, or could there be?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, all of you.

It seems to me, in listening to the testimony that we heard this morning and the testimony this afternoon, there is a gap in terms of policy versus implementation.

I know, Ms. Johnson, that you are an expert in terms of implementation. I know that Bill C-65 isn't just about having a policy and implementing the policy. We need to make sure that there are processes in place and that there is recourse if the processes are not followed.

Ms. Johnson, could you talk a little bit about how you...? Sometimes this is one of the systemic issues or part of the workplace culture. How do you bridge the gap between having the perfect policy and people who probably believe the policy is being implemented, and then the lived experience of the employees on the ground who would tell you otherwise?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today. I think we are all here because we want to find a way to strengthen the proposed legislation. A number of questions have been answered from the beginning and that has allowed us to see that the bill can be improved.

We must help to change the culture. As my colleague said this morning, the status quo is not an option in this case. So we need to find a way to help to change the culture and improve inquiry processes.

What can be done to protect victims and their witnesses or the people who support them? How can Bill C-65 be strengthened? Is this bill sufficient or should it be amended to protect victims, complainants and their witnesses? I would like answers to be brief, please.

Ms. Mandal, would you like to start?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you for your interventions and for your participation in this committee meeting.

My question, which follows on those of Ms. Dabrusin, is for Ms. Fortin and Ms. MacEachern.

A few weeks ago, Canada Post employees spoke out in the press and denounced a culture of psychological harassment and reported on certain events. In addition, during the public consultations conducted by the Prime Minister, a worker called on him directly to denounce this culture.

In this committee, witnesses said that supervisors were psychologically harassing and bullying employees. It seems that these behaviours were directly related to their bonuses.

Is this kind of remuneration part of the culture at Canada Post? We were talking about sick leave and people working overtime on their own route.

You said you have already implemented measures, but I would like to know whether you think Bill C-65 could help to improve the situation and mitigate these common practices that have emerged in recent weeks at Canada Post.

[Derrick Hynes]

The argument we've been making is that we believe the definition is more suitably placed in the regulations because they allow it to be updated as our understanding of this particular issue changes and evolves over time.

The minister alluded to this in her comments when she talked about cyber-bullying. That was something we didn't even know existed a decade ago. Regulations don't change on a dime. They have to go through a process. Regulations are as strong, in terms of how they have to be enforced by those over whom they are held, as if the language was written directly into the law.

We believe the experts should be engaged fully in developing that definition of what is and what is not harassment. We believe that process will take some time, as it did when we went through part XX and did the violence piece of the occupational health and safety regulations. It's a process the parties should go through—the experts from labour, the experts from business, the experts from government, and outside stakeholders—so that we can engage fully and comprehensively to get a full understanding of what should and should not be contained in that definition.

At the end of the day, whether it's in the legislation or in the regulation, I don't think it makes a difference in terms of how it will be enforced, but I think having it in the regulation gives us the opportunity, under this broad framework the government will be creating with Bill C-65 and the changes to the Canada Labour Code, to go through that process, which will take some time, and I frankly don't think it could be solved at this table in the weeks ahead in finishing this piece of legislation in particular.

[Derrick Hynes, Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, committee, for having me here today. I'm pleased to be here to speak to you on behalf of FETCO about Bill C-65.

By way of background, I should tell you that FETCO stands for Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications. That's a mouthful, so we usually go by the acronym of FETCO. Our members are all federally regulated firms in the transportation and communications sectors. We've existed as an employers' association for over 30 years. We are generally large employers in the federal sector, encompassing nearly 500,000 employees and representing well-known firms such as Air Canada, Bell, CN, CP Railway, and Telus, to name a few. Our members are almost exclusively predominantly unionized firms, and we have a rich history of tripartite collaboration within the federal sector.

Our key message today is this: FETCO members are highly supportive of the spirit and intent of Bill C-65. We support the minister's commitment to ensure employees have access to an efficient and effective process when they bring forward complaints of violence or harassment in the workplace.

Canadian workplaces should be free from harassment and violence, period. To this end, our member organizations typically have in place workplace policies that are already largely consistent with the process that will henceforth be mandated under part II of the Canada Labour Code via this bill. We are committed to doing all that we can as employers to improve these processes where deficiencies might exist.

FETCO members applaud the minister and senior officials from ESDC on the work completed to date on this matter, especially related to the comprehensive consultation that has been undertaken over the past 18 months, which we expect will continue once the bill becomes law. This bill, I believe, in fact comes from that consultation. The consultation work dates back to June 2016. In tripartite meetings held on harassment in the workplace, FETCO members noted that government has heard and subsequently responded to concerns raised by key stakeholders. Bill C-65 acknowledges these concerns, which are related to the protection of privacy in the process, the role of the workplace committees, and the responsibilities of the ESDC health and safety officers.

FETCO members also appreciate that government has chosen to provide a broad framework via this piece of legislation but to allow some of the details to be worked out by the parties via the regulatory process. As an example, we are pleased to see that the definition of “harassment” will be tackled by a regulation, thereby allowing two things: first, that the definition can be revised on an ongoing basis in a more seamless manner via a regulatory review; and second, that key stakeholders—of note, representatives from both the labour and business communities—can be involved in developing these important definitions.

FETCO's review of Bill C-65 has resulted in two specific concerns that we hope your committee can consider in your ongoing review of the bill. In fact, I think it's fair to say that our concerns are probably more on the operationalization of the bill through the regulatory process, but I'd like to raise them at this table nonetheless.

First, we would appreciate it if the government provided greater clarity on the potential intersection of this new ESDC harassment process under Bill C-65 with the investigatory powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Our hope is that there would be a single clearly defined process for all harassment complaints. Bill C-65 and the Canadian Human Rights Act provide dual opportunities for such complaints. Each, however, has specific language that could refuse complaints that are being heard elsewhere. It would add certainty if government provided clear direction that these clauses would be used when dual complaints on essentially the same issue are filed.

Second, Bill C-65 speaks to the appointment of a competent person to investigate all harassment and/or violence complaints. We request that government provide greater clarity on this process, as there is already some confusion in this space under the current violence investigation process. Specifically, we request that government acknowledge competent persons can be employees in the organization in question and that the employer would retain the ultimate responsibility for appointing the competent person, as long as they meet the clear criteria that are outlined under regulation. The process should not necessarily default to an outside investigator.

In conclusion, I'd like to repeat our key message: Canadian workplaces should be free from harassment and violence, period. FETCO members are highly supportive of the spirit and intent of Bill C-65. Our members' current practices generally align with this bill. We support the minister's commitment to ensure that employees have access to an efficient and effective process when they bring forward complaints of violence or harassment in the workplace. We are pleased to be part of this solution.

Thank you.

[Marina Mandal, Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to appear this afternoon to participate in the committee's review of Bill C-65. My name is Marina Mandal, and I'm the CBA's assistant general counsel.

The CBA is the voice of more than 60 domestic and foreign banks that drive Canada's economic growth and prosperity. The CBA advocates for public policies that contribute to a sound, thriving banking system to ensure Canadians can succeed in their financial goals.

Canada's banks fully support the federal government's actions to strengthen legislation on harassment and violence in the workplace. The CBA's position on this issue is clear: harassment and violence have no place in the workforce or in society. Canada's banking sector will continue to set an example for creating safe, rewarding, and respectful work environments for all employees.

The CBA actively participated in the government's consultations leading to Bill C-65, and we're pleased that the bill contains provisions that address what was a key focus for us: protecting the privacy and confidentiality of employees throughout the process of investigating any allegation of harassment or violence. We look forward to working with the government to ensure that Canada continues to have world-class health and safety advancements for all Canadians, including the more than 275,000 diverse employees of Canada's banking sector.

Canadian banks pride themselves on having leading practices in place to help prevent and address harassment in the workplace. In fact, many of the measures outlined in Bill C-65 are already reflected in existing bank practices. Banks have clear written policies that outline the following: behaviours considered to be workplace violence or harassment, steps employees should take when aware of an incident, how the organization will respond to allegations, and explicit protection against retaliation for raising a concern about workplace violence or harassment. Banks also have mandatory training for all employees on violence and harassment as a condition of continued employment.

If a complaint is brought forward in a bank, there are multiple channels through which incidents of violence or harassment may be reported. This includes channels that do not involve the parties' direct management. An example is an ombudsman office that is independent of other bank departments and reports directly to the most senior levels of the bank—directly to the general counsel or the bank's president and CEO.

Banks investigate all allegations of workplace violence or harassment, and more generally inappropriate conduct, regardless of whether the alleged conduct, if it was found to have occurred, would meet the definition of “workplace violence” or “harassment” under either the bank's own code of conduct or employee policy or under the law.

Prior to commencing an investigation, banks will determine whether it is appropriate for the parties to remain in the workplace during the course of the investigation and will ensure all parties are offered personal support during the investigation—for example, through counselling services offered through the bank's employee assistance program. Once the investigation is complete, they will communicate the findings of the investigation to all complainants and respondents prior to notifying them of the outcome or implementing corrective action. Internal bank review processes must align with legislation and common law, but are created to be flexible in order to account for practical realities. Banks also ensure that all investigations are conducted by a trained investigator who is impartial to the parties involved.

In her speech in the House of Commons, Minister Hajdu said, “...our government recognizes that safe workplaces, free of harassment and violence, are critical to the well-being of Canadian workers....” We agree with the minister's statement, and banks have long worked hard to ensure this is the case within their institutions.

Thank you once again for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association to participate in the committee's review of Bill C-65. I welcome any questions you may have.

[Ann-Therese MacEachern, Vice-President, Human Resources, Canada Post Corporation]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for inviting us to participate in this important discussion on Bill C-65.

I'm Ann-Therese MacEachern, vice-president of human resources. I'm with my colleague, Manon Fortin, who is vice-president of operations integration. We're proud to represent Canada Post, where we both have more than 25 years of experience at various levels within the organization.

Harassment and violence in the workplace are incredibly important issues, and we hope to contribute in a positive way to the development of this legislation. In the next few minutes, I will outline our approach to help ensure that our people feel safe, respected, and able to do their jobs without threat of harassment and violence.

First, it's important to understand the size and scope of our operations. More than 50,000 people, full- and part-time employees, work for Canada Post, not including our subsidiaries. With our size, our employees represent a microcosm of Canadian society. They interact with their colleagues, their supervisors, and countless customers in every province and territory.

It's our job to serve Canadians, and we're proud to do so, but it's also important to note that two-thirds of the complaints registered come from employees who believe they've been harassed, or worse, by a customer. As you see, our approach must be comprehensive, clear, and collaborative.

At Canada Post, our commitment is to create a workplace that brings out the best in our people and fosters a safe, supportive, and productive environment. Harassment, violence, or bullying in any form is not tolerated between our employees or against our employees. While nobody's perfect, we walk the walk with an approach that's focused on three main pillars.

The first is prevention through leadership, standards, training, and policies that reinforce expectations. Collaboration with our unions is also key. The second is an effective, appropriate, and timely response if an issue occurs, with numerous avenues for employees to be heard. The third is to review results, seek input, and look for areas to evolve and continuously improve our approach.

Prevention is the most important, so let me start there. It starts first with the tone that's set by the corporation through our values, our code of conduct, and our policies. As well, all five of our collective agreements include provisions with human rights clauses. These are more than just paper: they shape the culture and define the standards to which all employees must hold themselves accountable.

Leadership is where this approach is most evident. The day-to-day interactions our team leaders have with their employees and the tone they set are incredibly important. It's where I've seen a great deal of positive change in the last few years. Leaders who are accessible, know their people, engage with them in the workplace, and recognize good performance see better results. It also helps them to address issues with coaching, communication, and common sense.

To assist them, we provide training when they're first hired and refresher sessions on a regular basis. Core to the training is how to create a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. We also provide this type of training to all employees, starting with our onboarding process. I can provide more detail on the training during our discussion, but I'd like to highlight one example that demonstrates the importance we put on collaboration.

For more than 10 years, employees who are members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have participated in a training program called “Human Rights and Conflict in the Workplace”. This half-day training session was jointly developed and is co-facilitated with CUPW, our largest union. Approximately 30,000 employees have completed the training. Topics such as diversity in the workplace, harassment related to human rights, discrimination, and resolving conflicts are well received by participants.

This collaboration is not limited to training programs. Within our major facilities, we have long-standing local joint health and safety committees, where local management and union representatives work to prevent health and safety risks and address issues in a timely manner. In the event an incident occurs, employees have access to several options whereby they can be heard and supported, based on their comfort level. These are communicated to employees through various means to ensure they're aware of their options, as well as the consequences of inappropriate behaviour.

In all, employees have access to no less than eight different avenues, ranging from a discussion with a supervisor to confidential or anonymous programs run by third parties on behalf of Canada Post. I'd be happy to outline these in greater detail when we move to questions.

Regardless of their choice, complaints are addressed in a prompt and respectful manner. When investigating, management will not disclose the complainant's identity unless doing so is essential to resolving a complaint. This is important to the integrity of the process, just as important as ensuring the employee has the proper support in place once a report is filed. The investigation is quickly initiated and logged to ensure a proper response. The employee also has various avenues to turn to, such as employee assistance, for additional support.

Following an investigation, and depending on the circumstances, a range of consequences can apply. Some incidents are resolved with a frank conversation or a warning, while others involve more in-depth intervention. For serious violations, nothing short of dismissing the employee is the right thing to do. These decisions are never taken lightly.

As I said at the beginning, we've made progress, but improving workplace health, safety, and well-being is a continuous evolution. We collect and examine data on all our programs and review it regularly for trends, root-cause analysis, and improvement opportunities. This isn't just number-crunching; it's important in our ongoing improvement. Data allows us to detect trends to determine systemic issues. For example, this detailed level of analysis will greatly help to determine where we should place additional resources and support.

On behalf of Canada Post, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear. We applaud the government and members of the committee for working to provide clear expectations and direction for all federal employers through Bill C-65. Harassment, intimidation, and violence should not be tolerated in the workplace or any place. Employees should feel they have proper training, support, and protection, regardless of where they work.

Our approach has evolved over many years and aligns with the desired future state described in Bill C-65. We will continue to evolve and improve our approach to not only comply with the final legislation but also seek further improvements.

This is an important conversation, and you're on the right track. Start with prevention and collaboration, as it will have a tremendous positive impact on workplace culture. Ensure there are numerous avenues for employees to be heard and respected, constantly monitor progress, and look for opportunities to improve.

We'll be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

[Yves-Thomas Dorval]

My name is Yves-Thomas Dorval. I'm the CEO of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Quebec Employers' Council.

I'd like to thank the committee for hearing us on Bill C-65. I will speak in French, but you can ask your questions in English. Of course, for people who need it, they will need translation from French to English.

The Conseil du patronat du Québec, or CPQ, is an association of employers that either directly or indirectly represents over 70,000 employers, including several subject to provincial legislation and many others, to federal legislation. Our mission is to advocate best-possible conditions for employers to ensure they can be successful. Workplaces that are free form harassment and violence are essential for maintaining healthy working relationships, they give rise to productive environments and benefit the health of all workers.

In general, we support the goals and objectives pursued in the bill, which seeks to reinforce the code's regime to help ensure that workplaces are free from harassment and violence. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the CPQ, certain elements in the bill could be improved, at least in part. In the brief we have provided, we include our position on the regulation of harassment, which is based on our experiences with similar provisions under Quebec law.

Generally speaking, in terms of regulation, experiences in Quebec have shown that the subjective nature of perceptions can prove problematic when addressing and dealing with psychological harassment situations. The brief also contains quotes from a Quebec author who said that there can be no off-the-shelf solutions in these matters. Each situation is unique and must be assessed in the light of the particular facts and circumstances. The CPQ agrees with this statement. Moreover, experience has also shown that in some instances accusations of psychological harassment were brought forward by individuals suffering from personal problems. This can create workplace conflict situations that lead to an unhealthy work environment for everyone.

As for the CPQ's specific comments, we note that, in the section entitled “Definitions of the notions of violence and harassment”, the bill does not include any definitions of the terms “harassment” and “violence”. However, clause 14 of the bill provides that the definitions are to be prescribed by regulation.

In our opinion, this provision raises several questions. Foremost among these, the CPQ is left wondering why the definition of such a key notion should not be inserted directly into the code. A concept as potentially complex as harassment should warrant a carefully worded definition. To help illustrate this point, we cite another example from Quebec. In the Act respecting labour standards, psychological harassment is defined as follows:81.18 … any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affects an employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful work environment for the employee.

The following article should also be taken into consideration:A single serious incident of such behaviour that has a lasting harmful effect on an employee may also constitute psychological harassment.

In strictly theoretical terms, the definition of “psychological harassment” does not appear in the least problematic. However, experience has shown that the definition, which seems appropriate at first glance, could have been improved through the addition of a more complete explanation.

In our brief, we mention an employer's management rights can sometimes be a factor at the root of a workplace conflict. In short, it is important to recognize and clearly explain what constitutes psychological harassment and violence.

As for the expanded scope of the regime under the code, we note in our brief that the notions of harassment and violence, which will apparently cover acts of a sexual nature, will in future be prescribed by regulation. If the bill is to be adopted in its current form, it is essential that the regulation be simultaneously adopted, as otherwise it could occasion a regulatory vacuum.

If an investigation by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour becomes necessary at some point in the process, it should be done at the appropriate time. As such, the involvement of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in the resolution of complaints, as currently outlined in the bill, raises a few questions.

It should be kept in mind that international best practices mention that more intervention is needed, meaning that the community must take on these types of issues. We are not against the fact that there is intervention when appropriate, but we want to remind you that it should occur sparingly. Our brief contains several questions about this.

In closing, I would like to stress that we support the bill. We are providing some nuances from the Quebec experience and invite members of the committee to take these examples and situations into consideration. I think that some additional clarification could be added.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-65, 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 employers. We are very pleased to be joined today, via teleconference from the Quebec Employers' Council, by Yves-Thomas Dorval, president and chief executive officer, and Guy-François Lamy, vice-president, work and legal affairs.

Can you gentlemen hear me?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Is Bill C-65 good or should we reinforce it? That's my question.

Do you have any suggestions for strengthening the bill we are currently studying to encourage a culture change? We all agree that we need to change the culture. With respect to prevention, is there anything that we could strengthen in the current bill?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will ask my questions in French. You can use the simultaneous interpretation services, if you want.

We have talked at length about the investigative process and the complaint process. I would now like to talk about the prevention process and the culture change.

Will the measures in Bill C-65 strengthen prevention? Do you have any other suggestions?

You can start, Mrs. Major.

[Cody Woodcock, President, Youth Committee, Teamsters Canada]

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 Justin Trudeau, Thomas Mulcair, Elizabeth May, Murray Rankin, Steven Fletcher, and Rodger Cuzner 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 C-65. 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.

[Phil Benson, Lobbyist, Youth Committee, Teamsters Canada]

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 C-65 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.

[Troy Winters, Senior Officer, Health and Safety, Airline Division, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)]

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 C-65 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 C-65 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 Minister of Labour 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 C-65 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.

[Marie-Hélène Major, Secretary-Treasurer, Airline Division, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)]

Thank you.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees welcomes this opportunity to comment on Bill C-65 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.

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 C-65 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.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

My concern is that yesterday we heard that 22% of people in the public service said in a survey that they've experienced harassment in the last two years, and yet, if I got the numbers right, one third, I think, have not taken any action.

I think we are all very concerned about the people who don't come forward. We can look at the people who are experiencing harassment. Many of them say they don't want to come forward to anybody who is within proximity in their workplace, such as friends of the boss, people who might be working in the same department, and people they're going to have to interact with. We heard yesterday about a tip line that is actually causing more people to come forward, because it's more anonymous. It may be even in another part of the country that the complaint is registered and the process is given.

One of the reasons for Bill C-65, because the current system isn't working, is to have that ability to go external if needed, for people to feel.... It's an irony, but maybe they have more confidence if it's somebody who is not in close proximity.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Will the amendments to the Canada Labour Code proposed in Bill C-65 have immediate effects on the current collective agreements? You talked a little about it, but could you give me more details?

[Carl Girouard]

Thank you.

Of course, we are very concerned that Bill C-65 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 C-65. 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?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for their presentations.

My first question is for Mr. Girouard.

Earlier, you mentioned that you could answer questions about Bill C-65, which you have seen. I would like to know your concerns about the limitations and the role of the union with respect to Bill C-65.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

If Bill C-65 were to be changed to allow a person to not have to go directly to their employer, but rather to be able to seek out the union health and safety committee, let's say, is that the change you're looking for? Or is there a different change that you would be looking for?

[Andrea Peart, Health and Safety Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada appreciates the opportunity to express our views and provide input into Bill C-65. 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.

[Carl Girouard, National Union Representative, Grievances, Canadian Union of Postal Workers]

Thank you very much.

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 C-65 in the discussions that will follow.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Welcome.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-65, 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.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Dufresne-Meek, your organization's employees belong to unions. Will the amendments made by Bill C-65 to the Canadian Labour Code round out the collective agreements? Will they need to be reopened or adjusted? How do you think you'll be able to work this out with the union and with Bill C-65?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

That is quite a clever answer.

Bill C-65 is unclear on this issue. Still, we must address this reality, because most workplaces in the public sector and federal government are unionized.

Ms. Dufresne-Meek, are you of the same opinion?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Great.

Most of you work with unions. My question is on the current situation and our recommendations to unions, as referred to in Bill C-65.

I'll start with you, Mr. Thibodeau. Do unions currently support victims of harassment? If so, do you view Bill C-65 as a step in the right direction?

[Marc Thibodeau]

We have the option of both. We do most of our investigations internally, but we have an avenue whereby we can go outside and hire independent investigators.

I think the accountability to provide a workplace free of harassment rests with the deputy head, and I join that with the fact that the best resolution of any conflict in the workplace is the one reached closest to the workplace.

I welcome the opportunity to go to a third party when the internal mechanism is not working, but I think that having the possibility of going internally to your supervisors, generally speaking, is definitely a good thing. I can see some situations where that could be problematic or bring the impression that it will not be fairly addressed, so I think going outside is also desirable. Given that we're enshrining this into the code will Bill C-65 and that the ministry is the place that administers the code, it would make sense that it go there.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

My next question is for the RCMP, CBSA, and Correctional Services. I'd like each of you to answer it separately.

The question is this. If I'm understanding correctly, each of you does your own internal investigations when a complaint comes forward. Bill C-65 will now allow people to report directly to the minister and then go from there. The first step, technically, is to report to your employer, and then, if that doesn't go so well, to the minister.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this. Is this the best reporting mechanism, or could we strengthen this further and make it better?

[Don Graham]

I think one thing that has been done in Bill C-65 is its whole confidentiality aspect. It should encourage people to come forward as long as they have the confidence that it will be kept confidential.

That in itself, though, may pose a bit of a difficulty if there is action that possibly needs to take place, and I'm thinking in the form of discipline or something like that. It will be confidential to the investigation, relative to a harassment that's taking place, and with the competent person, so it's not necessarily information that can be used by the employer.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, all of you, for being here to answer our questions.

Mr. Graham, I'd like to go back to that statistic of the 22% who are experiencing harassment. You indicated that a large percentage within that have taken no action, the reasons being a fear of reprisal and a concern about the process. One of the things that can create that, of course, is that if you see others go through a process, it's re-traumatizing, it takes a long time, and then there's no outcome, it can actually deter others from going through the process.

What things could we do within Bill C-65 that would turn that around? I think we all agree that it's unacceptable that so many people are not taking action even though they are facing harassment.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay. I apologize for cutting you off, but I have a few things I'd like to get through.

Mr. Graham, you described the need to exhaust all intra-departmental remedies before you can approach the remedy under the Canadian Human Rights Act. In regard to some of the fears I have about this requirement, one is that it revictimizes the person who has already been harassed or potentially treated in a violent way by their employer and is having to go back to that same employer who is telling them that it wasn't actually a big deal.

Do you think there's an opportunity in Bill C-65 to potentially move away from this model? Or do you think there is an important reason to keep the need to report things first through internal remedies before you take that next step?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much. I'll pick up where my colleague Ms. Trudel left off with Mr. Thibodeau.

You mentioned during your testimony the “no wrong door” approach when there's a complainant. My initial reaction was that it sounds appetizing in some ways, but I also have some concerns about a lack of clarity of process. Is there an opportunity in Bill C-65 to enshrine some clarity for a complainant so they're not worried that “no wrong door” becomes no door at all?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

In the brief you submitted, you say the following about Bill C-65: “to take the necessary steps to prevent and protect employees against harassment and violence in the workplace”. Can you suggest any amendments to improve the bill?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentations.

My first question is for Mr. Breton and Mr. White.

We have heard in the news that more than 4,000 women have filed complaints against the RCMP.

My first question is about the investigation process, which you touched on in your report. You said that investigations of complaints are always carried out by the RCMP itself. Under Bill C-65, they will be conducted by outside investigators.

Would you be open to people who are not part of the RCMP or a police force—civilians with specialized training—investigating workplace harassment or violence complaints at the RCMP? Do you think that would be important?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you all for being here and for your testimony. It is really interesting to see how organizations operate.

One of the questions that's come up in our past sessions was about defining harassment. How do you define it? That came up when the minister and the department were here and we were looking at Bill C-65. Under the current systems you operate, does “workplace” include social situations or online situations? Have you seen any challenges in the circumstances as they evolve over time, with new things now being considered harassment that five years ago were not?

I guess we can start here and work across.

[Nathalie Dufresne-Meek, Director General, Labour Relations and Workplace Management, Correctional Service of Canada]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank you and the honourable members of this committee for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Correctional Service of Canada, or CSC, regarding this committee's study on Bill C-65.

In my opening remarks, I will outline CSC's policies against harassment and violence in the workplace, as well as recent actions that we have taken in response to allegations of staff misconduct at Edmonton Institution.

As CSC does not often appear before this committee, I would like to offer an overview of the work we do.

CSC is responsible for administering court-imposed sentences of two years or more, including conditional release supervision. On a typical day we manage approximately 15,000 offenders within our 43 institutions across the country, in addition to more than 8,500 offenders under supervision in the community.

CSC staff, especially those who are on the front lines in operational positions, often face very challenging and stressful situations, such as violence and death. Because of the nature of this work, CSC actively encourages employees to seek assistance in dealing with personal or work-related issues that may impair their well-being.

To speak specifically on the subject of the committee's study of Bill C-65 relating to the prevention of harassment and violence in the workplace, CSC takes this issue very seriously. Harassment of any kind is unacceptable and is not tolerated.

We are committed to ensuring that CSC is free from workplace harassment and sexual violence and that it represents a safe work environment for all of our employees. CSC has established five values that employees should use to guide their behaviour and decision-making: respect, fairness, professionalism, inclusiveness, and accountability.

From a procedural perspective, CSC has a policy on violence prevention, which mirrors the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. The Treasury Board Secretariat policy on harassment prevention and resolution, and its tools, guide the complaint process we utilize. This policy is a key reinforcer of the values of integrity and trust that are the foundation of a sound organization.

All CSC employees are responsible for adhering to our standards of professional conduct and code of discipline, and management is responsible for promptly and impartially taking appropriate corrective action when necessary. All allegations, regardless of the source, are thoroughly investigated by CSC. Whenever there is evidence of misconduct, appropriate disciplinary action is taken.

CSC is committed to a strengthened values and ethics program that responds to the nature of the correctional environment and the values and ethics code for the public service, and creates a stronger values-based workplace.

CSC's values statement, which is consistent with the CSC code of discipline and standards of professional conduct, guides behaviour, decision-making, and discretionary judgment within CSC. CSC staff are expected to demonstrate the aforementioned shared reciprocal values in all their interactions with offenders, colleagues, peers, subordinates and superiors, partners, stakeholders, and the public.

CSC's office of internal disclosure provides information to employees about making disclosures related to wrongdoing in the workplace as defined by the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and other possible redress mechanisms. This office also convenes investigations, as appropriate, in relation to allegations of wrongdoing in the workplace, and reports publicly all founded cases of wrongdoing.

Violations of the values and ethics code for the public service are subject to administrative investigations by CSC, which, depending on the nature of the issue, may be conducted by the values and ethics branch. The majority of cases are managed at the regional or institutional level, and certain cases may be referred to national headquarters.

In recent months, allegations of staff misconduct and inappropriate culture at CSC institutions have led to disciplinary action and the implementation of measures to ensure that all employees have the respectful work environment they deserve.

I will begin with the specific actions taken in relation to Edmonton Institution, as I believe the committee had already begun discussing the situation at their last meeting. In the case of Edmonton Institution, a maximum security level men's facility, CSC contracted an investigative team to look into allegations of harassment, intimidation, bullying, and inappropriate conduct. The investigators, including some external members, determined that a number of allegations were founded. Consequently, to date six employees have been terminated as a result of their inappropriate conduct. There is currently a separate independent investigation being conducted by the Edmonton Police Service in conjunction with the RCMP regarding allegations of possible criminal activity at Edmonton Institution.

As is always the case in investigations into possible criminal charges, CSC co-operates fully with its police partners. In addition, a director of workplace renewal was appointed to support management at Edmonton Institution in implementing activities.

A number of initiatives have been introduced across CSC to ensure that all employees are treated with respect and have tools available to report inappropriate behaviour. In the coming weeks, a campaign for a respectful workplace will be launched to raise awareness of the issue as well as of the actions being taken, and to promote the resources that are available to employees—namely, a confidential tip line and generic email account that are available to all employees, through which misconduct can be reported should an employee not wish to report this behaviour directly to their supervisor or manager.

On the prevention front, resources were added to support the CSC's harassment prevention coordinators. New training and awareness tools based on real scenarios and lived experiences at CSC are being developed, while being mindful of privacy and confidentiality concerns. Furthermore, two new training courses were added to the national training standard for all CSC staff, to be completed by March 31 of this year. The first of these courses focuses on creating a respectful workplace, while the second centres on workplace violence.

Finally, on the performance management side, new expectations will be added to performance agreements for all executives, managers, and supervisors. A failure to meet these commitments will impact performance pay and reviews, and could lead to discipline when warranted.

As we monitor the outcome of these initiatives, we will continue to ensure that workplace wellness is a priority at CSC. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect by their colleagues and managers. CSC's employees have demanding jobs. Every day, they work with some of the most vulnerable and challenging individuals in our society. As such, any behaviours that detract from our ability to be positive role models for others is not acceptable. A positive and respectful workplace contributes to the success of our organization's priority towards the safety and security of the public, victims, staff and offenders, both in institutions and in the community.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome your questions.

[A/Commr Stephen White]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and hon. members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today about the impacts of Bill C-65 on the RCMP's responsibility and efforts to protect the health, safety, and well-being of all of its employees as it relates to harassment and violence in the workplace.

I am joined today by my colleague, Chief Superintendent Jasmin Breton, director general of the workplace responsibility branch, to help answer questions you have for us on the subject of Bill C-65.

Since the RCMP is an organization under the federal public administration, part II of the Canada Labour Code applies to it and to all its employees, including regular members and civilian members. As such, the RCMP has a general duty to ensure that the health and safety at work of all its employees is protected. This includes taking the prescribed steps under part XX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations to prevent and protect RCMP employees against violence in the workplace.

The RCMP has complied with the regulated requirements of part XX, by establishing a policy on violence prevention in the workplace; establishing procedures for the reporting, resolution, investigation, and care of employees subject to violence occurrences; and developing mandatory training for all RCMP employees and supervisors on factors that contribute to workplace violence and how to mitigate them.

Many factors contribute to workplace violence, such as incivility, workplace conflicts, stress in the workplace, and harassing behaviours. As such, the RCMP provides its employees with a multitude of tools, resources, and awareness sessions to help prevent violence and harassment in the workplace. These include addressing incivility and harassing behaviours through a mandatory respectful workplace course; providing employees and managers with tools, services, and training for effectively resolving conflict at the earliest opportunity through the RCMP informal conflict management program; addressing stress in the workplace through Health Canada's employee assistance services, a robust RCMP peer-to-peer program, and a mandatory in-class “Road to Mental Readiness” course. As well, in an effort to eliminate harassment and discrimination from the workplace, the RCMP has created divisional and national gender and harassment advisory committees.

The RCMP's violence prevention policy states that: the RCMP will provide a healthy, safe, and violence-free workplace in accordance with part II of the Canada Labour Code and the Treasury Board policy on government security; and that the RCMP will not tolerate violent and abusive behaviour in the workplace and, with its employees, will promote a workplace that is free from intimidation, violence, bullying, threats of violence and other disruptive behaviours.

The RCMP has regulatory authorities currently in force through which it addresses the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints. The RCMP regulations and many of the commissioner's standing orders were amended in 2014, including establishing procedures to effectively and efficiently investigate and resolve harassment complaints. For example, the code of conduct contained in the schedule to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 2014, now provides that members may not engage in discrimination or harassment. As such, harassing behaviour can result in conduct measures being pursued. The Commissioner's Standing Orders (Investigation and Resolution of Harassment Complaints), and the Commissioner's Standing Orders (Conduct), which set out procedures relating to the investigation and resolution of harassment complaints could be affected by the regime proposed in Bill C-65.

One of the central elements of the recent reforms to the RCMP Act and its processes was to ensure that the decision-maker with respect to a harassment complaint was also the conduct authority with respect to the respondent to the complaint in order to ensure consistency between the findings of harassment and the conduct measures imposed.

Bill C-65 seeks to update the Canada Labour Code to consolidate violence prevention and harassment into a single regime to require employers, including the RCMP, to take the necessary steps to prevent and protect employees against harassment and violence in the workplace. The RCMP looks forward to being consulted on the drafting of the part XX regulations in order to gain a better appreciation of the impacts these changes would have on our current processes, and the role of the decision-maker and other parties in the process, including the investigator.

Based on our current knowledge of the proposed regime under Bill C-65, the RCMP feels that these changes will further help to bring positive change to preventing and addressing unwanted behaviours in our workplaces.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. We look forward to your questions.

[Marc Thibodeau, Director General, Labour Relations and Compensation, Canada Border Services Agency]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency for your deliberations on Bill C-65.

As the committee is aware, the aim of Bill C-65's amendments to the Canada Labour Code is to ensure that federal workplaces are free from harassment and violence, and to provide protection for all federally regulated workers, including employees of the Canada Border Services Agency.

While Employment and Social Development Canada is responsible for the administration of the code, each department and agency is responsible for ensuring its compliance by implementing its own processes and internal accountability mechanisms.

The CBSA is a dynamic organization with a border facilitation and national security mandate. The agency employs some 14,000 individuals, both uniformed and non-uniformed, who are involved in ensuring the operation runs smoothly 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Given our mandate and operational context, the CBSA has implemented a comprehensive code of conduct that applies to all employees. Furthermore, our front-line officers emerge from an induction and training program where the agency's values of integrity, respect, and professionalism are central.

The CBSA also has in place an integrity strategy, which is the cornerstone of the relationship between the agency and its employees, partners, and clients. The strategy outlines employees' expected behaviours as indicated in the CBSA code of conduct, as well as the values and ethics codes for the public sector, which form part of their terms and conditions of employment.

Strategy is built on three pillars. The first one is proactivity, where expected standards of conduct and disciplinary consequences for misconduct are communicated regularly, and where we investigate allegations of misconduct immediately. The second one is the “no wrong door” approach, in which our specialists guide employees toward the appropriate avenue to have their issues addressed no matter how they are brought to our attention. The third one is the motto of “no stone unturned”, in which issues are tracked and reviewed using numerous tools, such as, misconduct investigations, workplace assessments, and where necessary, criminal investigations.

That said, the agency takes all allegations of disrespectful conduct very seriously and applies a zero tolerance policy for any type of harassment. Managers at all levels are expected to foster and demonstrate integrity and ethical leadership at all times. They are all expected to identify and resolve issues, including harassment and violence in the workplace, sexual or otherwise, in an appropriate and effective manner.

The CBSA provides managers and employees with tools and resources to help them fulfill their responsibilities, including seven mandatory training courses that relate to harassment and violence prevention in the workplace.

Promoting awareness is key to ensuring that employees understand their rights, role, responsibilities and where to turn for assistance.

Bill C-65 provides government departments with another tool to prevent harassment and violence in the workplace, while supporting victims in the process, and complements the work being undertaken at the agency.

In addition to the new rights envisioned by Bill C-65, with respect to workplace harassment and sexual violence, as my colleague mentioned, employees can also file a complaint or report a situation of workplace violence under the code, proceed with a grievance in accordance with collective agreement provisions, or file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The agency ensures that all employees are aware of informal processes and have access to services provided by the employee assistance program and the informal conflict management system.

To conclude, the CBSA interacts with millions of individuals and goods, with domestic and international partners, with other law enforcement organizations, and with industry stakeholders. Ensuring that we undertake this important work in an environment free of harassment and violence is paramount.

I would be happy to answer any questions the committee members may have.

Thank you.

[Don Graham, Executive Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

I'm here with my colleague, Kathleen Clarkin. We're here to speak about the role of the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, the OCHRO, with respect to the current policy framework on harassment and violence in the core public administration.

For context, based on the result of the 2017 public service employee annual survey, nearly one-quarter, or 22%, of employees indicated they were victims of harassment on the job in the past two years, up from 19% in the 2014 survey. The main source of harassment was individuals with authority.

With regard to the current framework in the public service, currently organizations in the core public administration are subject to the Treasury Board policy on harassment prevention and resolution and the directive on the harassment complaint process. These instruments are aimed at preventing and resolving all forms of harassment, including personal harassment and sexual harassment, as well as abuse of authority.

Under the directive on the harassment complaint process, once a complaint is made or a manager is aware of an allegation, options for resolution include self-resolution between the affected parties, manager intervention—usually the initial discussion with employees—and informal conflict management systems. If the complaint remains unsolved, then an impartial investigator will review the allegations and determine if the complaint was founded. Where warranted, corrective or disciplinary measures may be imposed and methods of intervention to restore the well-being of the workplace can occur. If still unsatisfied with the outcome, the parties can grieve the results or apply for judicial review.

The focus of the harassment investigation is on remedies for individuals at the individual level. With respect to roles and responsibilities in relation to violence, currently central policy guidance is provided on harassment prevention and resolution. However, deputy heads are responsible to develop their own departmental policy on violence prevention.

An important note is that Bill C-65 will have significant impact on ministers' offices. The code's entire health and safety regime will apply to ministers' offices, whereas the current policies for ministers' offices does not include a regime to address harassment and violence prevention.

In addition to the provisions under the Canada Labour Code, there is an enforcement mechanism provided in the Canadian Human Rights Act for addressing individual complaints of discrimination based on 13 prohibited grounds. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would normally require that public service employees exhaust the mechanisms internal to their organizations before filing a complaint of discrimination.

In addition, there are several tools currently available to employees, who may present individual grievances to the employer for any matters affecting their terms and conditions of employment and in situations in which a provisional collective agreement has been infringed. Most collective agreements have a section that specifically refers to sexual harassment.

Organizations in the federal public service are required to have an informal conflict management system to resolve workplace disputes, which can be effective in resolving issues with respect to harassment. This has been mandatory since 2005 under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

The values and ethics code for the public service, employee assistance programs, the federal public service workplace mental health strategy, and training offered by the Canada School of Public Service are additional resources available to employees.

As we work toward continued alignment with legislative and regulatory requirements, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer will work with the Canada labour program in collaboration with bargaining agents in communities of practice such as occupational health and safety committees, harassment advisers, security, and informal conflict management services to develop communication strategies and tools to assist deputies through this process.

When it comes to monitoring, the achievement of expected results by deputy heads is assessed through the management accountability framework, which is an annual assessment of management practices and performance in departments and agencies, as well as the public service employee annual survey, which aims to gain insight into employee perceptions of their workforce and workplace conditions, including their experience with harassment.

As the employer, we are taking harassment issues seriously across the public service. Senior-level governance committees are being formed across the public service and in departments to ensure we understand the issue, assess the gaps, manage the issues and have an ongoing engagement strategy to support the necessary culture change to foster a supportive and respectful workforce.

We hope this has been helpful. We thank you for the opportunity to present before you. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, our committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-65, 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 federal public sector employers. We're very pleased to be joined today by Kathleen Clarkin, director of workplace policies, programs, engagement and ethics at the Treasury Board Secretariat, and Don Graham, executive director, compensation and labour relations sector at the Treasury Board Secretariat. Thank you for being here.

Next we have, from the Canada Border Services Agency, Marc Thibodeau, director general, labour relations and compensation. Welcome, sir.

Then joining us from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Assistant Commissioner Stephen White, who is the acting chief human resources officer, and Chief Superintendent Jasmin Breton, who is director general for workplace responsibility. Welcome.

Finally, from the Correctional Service of Canada, we have Nathalie Dufresne-Meek, director general, labour relations and workplace management.

Welcome to all of you.

We're going to get started right away with the Treasury Board Secretariat. I'm not sure who is going to speak.

It is Mr. Graham. You have seven minutes, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for appearing today and answering all of our questions.

I have a little bit of future business here.

On February 14, we will be going through the consideration of the draft report on our seniors study. Please, please, make sure you've had an opportunity to read the amazing changes that have been made by our analyst. The hope is that we go through it, not page by page, but section by section, so that we can get that process under way. That's this Wednesday. We should have the report soon. That is on February 14.

On February 21, we will be seeing witnesses again on Bill C-65, back here during the break week for two sessions, one on the 21st and again on the 22nd.

Go ahead, Mr. Blaney.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Would there ever be a time when the minister would be briefed on a matter or a complaint that could come forward under Bill C-65, within this legislation, having to do with an assault or mistreatment on the Hill?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you for being here.

I'd like to pick up on a discussion we had with the minister about financial resources. The slew of measures contained in Bill C-65 will have significant financial implications. Therefore, I'd like to know whether new funding will be available to help employers provide training and access the support needed to investigate allegations of sexual harassment and, of course, any harassment.

If so, can you tell me how much funding will be provided and, above all, where the money will come from?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

I'd like to pick up on the definitions issue and our earlier discussion.

Bill C-65 does not set out definitions for harassment or violence, and that is a serious concern. The Canada Labour Code lays out a definition for the term sexual harassment only. That means the definitions do not appear in the bill, the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, or the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

You gave a few examples. I'd like to know how employers and unions are going to be able to provide training and define what constitutes harassment in order to prevent it. You said that a touch on the shoulder could be considered harassment. If the point is to educate people, we need to define harassment so that people are able to recognize it.

[Lori Sterling]

Our intention is to have it in place and ready. When Bill C-65 comes into force, it will be ready. In fact, it may—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. I'm aware of that. That's what I said, but will it be implemented, will it be in place before Bill C-65 is implemented?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

The current act requires the minister to appoint an appeals officer for occupational health and safety appeals, and the decisions of this officer are binding and cannot be appealed to a federal court.

I understand that the budget implementation bill this spring will transfer these provisions to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Is this correct? That's my first question. Second, will this transition be in place before Bill C-65 comes into effect?

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

Now that this dialogue is happening and it's coming, for you, out of the shadows, sometimes there might be a little bit of fear that it might go a little bit too far. However, you have said that Bill C-65, once implemented, will actually help empower employers to be more effective when it comes to harassment and dealing with these issues. Can you expand a little bit further on that?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Minister, thank you for being here today to discuss Bill C-65. I have a number of questions for you.

First, the bill contains strong privacy protections for victims of harassment and violence. It also gives federally regulated employers and Parliament the ability to make use of a third party from the same workplace.

Now, I will fire off my questions. How are you going to manage and protect people's privacy when individuals in the same workplace will be the ones investigating the complaint to determine whether harassment or violence occurred, particularly in the case of sexual harassment or violence? Furthermore, how do you intend to protect victims?

Do victims have any recourse if their privacy is breached in the course of the investigation? If their personal information were exposed, would they have any recourse in that regard? Would individuals affected by workplace harassment or violence receive some sort of redress if their privacy were violated?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Minister.

I would point out not only that the official opposition supported Bill C-65 in the House, but also that the parties agreed to an intensive study of the bill to help fast-track it. We believe this is a necessary bill whose time has come, as you mentioned in your remarks.

You said you wanted to send a strong message to all Canadians with this legislation. For those of us in the opposition, two things matter a great deal. First of all, it's important to ensure that the process is independent, especially as regards incidents or harassment on Parliament Hill. That's one element we'd like to examine with you this afternoon, as well as with the witnesses we hear from in the course of our study.

Minister, partisanship must have no place in this process. An alleged victim must not be forced to interact with their attacker or, in this case, with the minister in question. We need assurance from you on that, and by the same token, you will be reassuring Canadians about the benefits of the bill.

Second of all, will you show that the Department of Employment and Social Development has the expertise and capacity to investigate complaints and make recommendations when the process does not work?

Let's say, that, right now, someone feels they are experiencing harassment or violence in the workplace but fears going to their employer and having to go through mediation with their attacker. Can that person take their complaint directly to the Department of Employment and Social Development? Do you have the necessary resources to support the victim and make sure that the complaint is dealt with, today and after the bill is passed?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am proud to be here with you today to speak to Bill C-65.

This bill aims to address and ultimately eliminate harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in federally regulated workplaces.

Bill C-65 is a reflection of our government's commitment to gender equality. Women simply can't get ahead and have opportunities equal to men's in workplaces where they experience harassment or sexual violence and where this behaviour is tolerated. This bill will provide greater protections to Canadians in federally regulated workplaces, including Parliament Hill and political staff, for the very first time in our history.

Harassment and sexual violence are unfortunately not new behaviours, and while recent reports of these unacceptable behaviours have captured our attention, it's been happening for far too long, and it is definitely time to take action. Harassment and sexual violence thrive in places where we see distinct power imbalances, especially here on Parliament Hill, and that creates a culture where victims of harassment or sexual violence don't feel comfortable bringing their complaints forward. As it stands right now, victims often don't have suitable options for making their complaints heard, and they also don't have options for resolving what are often very serious and traumatic incidents.

Like many of you here today, I have heard about heartbreaking experiences from many people who feel that their complaints will never be heard, that they will not be taken seriously, or that their issue won't be resolved.

When Canadians face harassment and violence at work, whether it's bullying, threats, physical assault, or mental abuse, the effects are detrimental for those employees, of course, but they are also detrimental for employers. People who experience harassment or violence often have higher rates of absenteeism, while employers see a greater staff turnover and, of course, a loss of productivity, so ensuring Canadian workplaces are safe and healthy is really a win-win for employees and employers alike.

That's why I was so proud to see my colleagues in the House take a united stand and unanimously send Bill C-65 to this committee.

I know that members of this committee agree that this is an issue that crosses party lines and that these behaviours have gone unchecked for far too long. Bill C-65 proposes amending existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code by replacing the patchwork of laws and policies that address these issues within the federal jurisdiction and putting into place one comprehensive approach that takes the full spectrum of harassment and violence into consideration.

It would expand these policies to cover, for the first time in the history of our country, as I've said, parliamentary workplaces such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament, and the House of Commons, including political staff on Parliament Hill.

Our framework aims to prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring, to respond effectively to those incidents when they do occur, and to support victims and survivors in the process.

I want to take a moment to outline the process for a complaint to be brought forward and dealt with in parliamentary and non-parliamentary workplaces. I want to be very clear that a complaint can be made to the Department of Labour at any time if a complainant doesn't feel that the process is being followed.

First, the employer must attempt to resolve the incident when a complaint is made. This can be done in various ways, including mediation, if the parties agree. If the incident cannot be resolved, a competent person will investigate and complete a report, with recommendations. If there is still non-compliance—for example, the employer doesn't implement the recommendations made by the competent person—there are two processes that follow, one for non-parliamentary employers and employees, and one for parliamentary employers and employees.

If an employee in a non-parliamentary workplace still believes that his or her employer is non-compliant after the investigation is complete, the employee can complain to the labour program. The labour program will initiate an investigation of whether or not the process laid out in the code has been followed. If the labour program finds that the employer is contravening the code, compliance will be sought through the use of compliance and enforcement tools that are available in the Canada Labour Code. We would first seek voluntary compliance, and then if it's not successful, there are a number of compliance and enforcement tools available that include publicly naming employers who are found to be non-compliant.

Similarly, if an employee in a parliamentary workplace still believes that his or her employer is non-compliant with the code after the investigation is completed, the employee can complain to the labour program. The labour program will initiate an investigation of whether or not the process has been followed. Then the Speaker of the House will be notified when there is an investigation. If the labour program finds that the employer is contravening the code, we will first seek voluntary compliance by the employer. If that's not successful, I, as the minister, will issue a direction to the employer to comply and will notify the Speaker. He or she may intervene. If there is still non-compliance and the direction has not been appealed, the direction, including naming the employer, will be tabled in the House of Commons.

For both parliamentary and non-parliamentary employers and employees, there is an opportunity to appeal directions from the labour program with independent boards.

Our government has been clear that harassment and violence will not be tolerated. The Prime Minister has shown that he is not afraid to take action when needed.

Also, the House sent a strong message to all Canadians in February with its unanimous support of this bill at second reading.

Now the time for inaction is indeed over. Bill C-65 will ensure that workers in federally regulated sectors, including on Parliament Hill, finally have the protections they need, and it will ensure that those who are in vulnerable positions will have a voice. Everyone deserves to work in a safe workplace, and they deserve to live free from harassment and violence.

I'm very much looking forward to hearing the committee's views on how we can strengthen the legislation. Ideas were brought forward during the debate, and I look forward to discussing these further with all of you.

We know that the problem is far too big for us to solve with a bill. All Canadians will have to work together to change the culture that tolerates harassment and violence in the workplace.

By discussing this legislation, we are sending a strong message to all Canadians that indeed time is up. These behaviours need to stop. We're taking important steps to eliminate these behaviours in all federally regulated workplaces and right here on Parliament Hill.

I want to thank my colleagues, from all parties, for supporting this important legislation so far.

This committee has an incredibly important role in examining this legislation. You have an opportunity to effect real change and to send a strong message to all Canadians that harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable and will not be tolerated any longer.

I look forward to working with all of you to ensure the timely passage of Bill C-65.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is commencing consideration of Bill C-65, 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 the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour for one hour, and then departmental officials for the second hour.

It's my pleasure to welcome the Honourable Patty Hajdu to this committee once again. Joining her today we have Lori Sterling, deputy minister, labour program.

Welcome, both of you.

Patty, the floor is yours.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear on this matter. Inappropriate sexual behaviour of any kind is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Our government has been very clear that we are committed to a harassment-free workplace for all Canadians. We have recently tabled Bill C-65, and we have a proven track record on this matter.

Though I cannot speak to the specifics of this case, as a government we have made our approach clear on issues like these, and we will continue along this path.

Canada Post

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, harassment and bullying of any kind are unacceptable, period. My office has reached out to the individual from Winnipeg who raised these concerns. Canada Post has policies in place to address issues of harassment, and we will make sure that this policy is being followed.

Our government ran on a commitment to take action on workplace harassment in federally regulated workplaces. That is why all parties worked to get Bill C-65 to committee, which would create a more robust regime that would better address harassment and violence in the workplace, including at Canada Post.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'm sorry, I didn't catch the last couple of sentences, but I just want to add that the human resources committee is doing an extensive study on Bill C-65, and it just passed a motion to have confidential sessions as well, so that even individuals, interns, staffers, and members of Parliament can come and tell their stories. In terms of that bill, there's movement on those other fronts at this particular point.

Canada Labour Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There being no further members rising for debate, by order made earlier this day, Bill C-65, 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, is deemed read a second time.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee).

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to raise one more thing. In the House today we are talking about our response to sexual harassment in the workplace. Bill C-65 will definitely do a lot in order to help us along that journey and make sure that individuals who come forward with allegations are heard and that action is taken.

My question is this. I am wondering if the hon. member could comment as to what measures could be taken within this place, and perhaps even within other workplaces, but giving priority to this place, that are preventive in nature to make sure that the staff who work for members of Parliament are actually free of victimization.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Essex. I am honoured in this astonishing time to be speaking to the vitally important issue of sexual harassment and violence in our public dialogue and in our workplaces.

I am going to talk about the brave young women who are coming forward, the legacy of social justice women's rights activists on whose shoulders we stand. I am going to talk about the support of my party, the NDP, for Bill C-65. I am going to affirm that no party is immune to the revelations and bad behaviour that are being reported. I am going to talk about the cost of shutting women out of politics. I am going to talk a bit about some of the changes to the bill that would help us to make it even better protection for workers.

The imperative for us to take this action as parliamentarians is fuelled by the terrible stories that we are hearing. I have a quote from a former parliamentary staffer, Beisan Zubi. She said that being a parliamentary staffer on the Hill was “a crash course in sexism and sexual harassment”. She said, “But if I’m being honest, I would have also warned them to stay away, that Parliament Hill, in my experience, was a fundamentally unsafe place for young women.” How can that be said about the Commons, the place for the people? Lauren Dobson-Hughes said, “You take your cues from people around you who are in positions of power, and if they don't think that's weird, if that didn't even momentarily give them a second glance, then you think, 'Maybe the problem is me; maybe that's just normal.'” It is not normal.

More than anything, I want to state it is a privilege for us to be in this House and to be able to make permanent change at this historic time. I want to honour the brave women who, after decades of holding these stories back, are risking themselves and their reputations and are telling their stories and ringing the alarm on deeply embedded sexism and violence in our common discourse and in our workplaces, including this workplace here. I recognize the great cost to women for coming forward. I want to say to them that I am really sorry it happened to them and that we are going to honour their bravery by doing the right thing here in this House. We recognize that we have the highest responsibility to act on the respect and importance of the words that we have been given. This is the global #MeToo movement. This is Time's Up, and time is up.

We are determined to ensure workplaces in this country are safe from sexual harassment. We know all workers everywhere deserve and are entitled to a safe and secure environment. The work before us today is to make sure there is zero tolerance for harassment and violence in our workplaces, and that when it does happen, there must be a transparent process where the complainants are confident that they will be treated with respect and privacy, and those who are accused know there is a process that will be adjudicated, and the public will have an idea about what that process is.

The labour minister's proposal, Bill C-65, amends the Canada Labour Code to include sexual violence and harassment, and it attempts to do a similar thing within parliamentary workplaces where the concern about parliamentary privilege has even prevented the Canada Labour Code from having effect in our constituency offices across the country and here on the Hill. I am very grateful to the labour movement for identifying changes that we can put in place that would improve the bill and also to my colleagues, the member for Saskatoon West, our former labour critic, and the member for Jonquière, our current labour critic, because the work by them and their staff is building our case and we are going to make this legislation even better.

I want to give thanks to the men in the NDP caucus who I serve with, as well as the members of Islands Trust Council, where I served for 12 years. I personally have had a very good experience as an elected woman in politics, maybe because Islands Trust Council had an exactly gender balanced 26-person council. Maybe that had something to do with the change in tone. However, what we are talking about today is the experience of workers and not so much about parliamentarians.

I want to acknowledge that if we can get more women into Parliament, they will change the tone. “Add women, change politics” is something we hear a lot. They will change the tone and also enact policies. We have seen across the world that by removing barriers to women's participation in public life, systems and countries protect all vulnerable people better than we do right now. We have seen this in other parts of the world. Canada is, sadly, really behind the ball on this.

The status quo policies that we have had in this Parliament have meant that the number of women elected to office has stalled out. If we could bump that number up, it might be that we would have less sexual harassment. We heard that specifically, maybe nine months ago. Daughters of the Vote was a beautiful initiative on International Women's Day, but one sister, Arezoo Najibzadeh, powerfully and symbolically left her seat empty to represent the cost of violence against women that keeps women from participating in public life and prevents them from taking their seats. Hands were raised to that sister. Both the member for Hochelaga and I saluted her efforts on that day. She is a reminder to me that we need all the diversity of voices in this House to change the country and bring proper representation.

That is the cost of keeping political staffers in an unsafe place and causing women to say that Parliament Hill is not safe for them. This is the power of social media. It makes it possible for us to transmit these stories, and it is bringing down some pretty amazing political leaders right now. Again, we are in quite a time.

I want to also acknowledge my Aunt Kim Malcolmson, who I have talked about in the House before. She was a pay equity commissioner. She was very challenging for my old grandfather. She was a hard-core feminist, a CCF-Waffle Party-Tommy Douglas aficionado. She shaped me enormously. She is in palliative care. On Friday morning, my fabulous Uncle Paul Barber told her that Patrick Brown had been forced to resign his seat, and although it was very hard for her to speak, she demanded to know more details. On Saturday, I was able to visit her in the hospital and let her know that the New Democrats were going to return to Parliament by calling out the need to act to end violence against women and sexual harassment, and at the end of the week we were going to be celebrating the two-year anniversary of the successful motion from me and the member for Jonquière in the House to legislate pay equity. I was able to let Kim know that we were coming into Parliament fighting. That was on Saturday, and yesterday she passed away.

I like to think, because she was a woman who knew she was going to Heaven, that she is looking down on this amazing time that we are living in and seeing that the work that has been done is carrying on and that the young women leaders in this country, with their deep bravery and astonishing ability to tell stories, are changing the way we will go forward with this legislation.

The labour movement is urging changes and New Democrats will be urging changes in committee. We are glad that with the new House leader of the NDP, we were able to accelerate the passage of this bill. We will debate its details and get changes as fast as we can so that we can make politics a safe place for all members of our country.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, does my hon. colleague feel we should be moving beyond just Bill C-65, looking at the big picture of what is happening in Canada, and why people are moving in this way?

We have had harassment policies in the civil service since the seventies, yet it still seems to continue. Does the member feel we should be looking at a broader picture to see why this is happening?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, ideally, one single process would be the best way we could provide a solution for what Bill C-65 is hoping to address. Under employment standards, if parliamentarians and senators fell under that legislation, we would be well served. There would be a clearly defined process whereby an independent third party would properly investigate a complaint in confidence so that the person bringing it forward would not need to feel that his or her job was threatened, and the person being accused of inappropriate behaviour would have the protection confidentiality would provide until the investigation was complete and further action required. A central agency looking after that under employment standards would be the ideal place for it.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that he was concerned about overlapping jurisdiction and rules. I have been involved in the government since 1968. I did not want to go back that far, but that is when I first started. We have had study sessions on these matters starting in the mid-seventies through the eighties, nineties, and two-thousands. I have taken a number of different courses.

Bill C-65 has to be pulled together to make it work as one unified bill. I wonder if the member would like to speak to how we can pull it all together so there is one bill respecting different agencies within the government and within industry.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, the shadow minister for employment, workforce development and labour.

I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-65, which amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1. I would like to state right from the start that I look forward to supporting the bill so as to ensure it is sent to committee for further study.

The broad themes addressed in Bill C-65 are very important, particularly in light of the recent reports that we received related to sexual misconduct and sexual harassment, both on Parliament Hill and elsewhere. It is necessary to ensure that whether in this place or anywhere in Canadian society sexual misconduct and harassment are not tolerated.

Unfortunately, we have a systemic problem in our culture where we spend so much time on rights and freedoms and not enough time on obligations and responsibilities to create safe, healthy, non-toxic workplaces. It needs to be a priority of all employers, of all members of Parliament, of all senators that our places of employment here on the Hill and in our constituencies are places where all employees feel valued, feel safe, and feel respected.

I want to reference the good work that was done by my colleague from Peace River—Westlock. His Motion No. 47, which went to the health committee, asked what the health effects of online violent pornography were to men, women, and children. That is a study that was very worthwhile. Unfortunately, the report does not really reflect the testimony that was provided by witnesses and seems to have been somewhat homogenized.

This is a bill which protects vulnerable people from exploitation, which is a noble goal. It is my hope that we in the House will achieve the goal that is set out in the bill. Despite the important objectives outlined in the bill, there are some questions that must be addressed. Sending Bill C-65 to committee will allow us to ensure that we meet the high expectations Canadians have for us as legislators as we deal with these critical issues.

We know that sexual harassment is not a new phenomenon. Unfortunately, there have always been occurrences. However, now victims are starting to speak up and out against those who use their positions of power to sexually harass those who have less power. It is important that harassment claims be dealt with appropriately and that they be seen to be dealt with appropriately. This inspires greater confidence in the systems which are in place, prevents abuses, and ultimately ensures that victims and perpetrators are both dealt with in a way that reflects the spirit of the law. We know that beyond the toll harassment can take on a victim, there are significant costs to a workplace where harassment is tolerated. Lost productivity, absenteeism, higher turnover all have an economic cost that undermines an office or a business.

By way of background, part 1 of Bill C-65 amends the Canada Labour Code to strengthen the existing framework for the prevention of harassment and violence. This includes sexual harassment and sexual violence in the workplace. Bill C-65, if passed into law, would put sexual harassment under the purview of workplace health and safety. Areas of federal jurisdiction would be under the new regime, including the federal public service. Part 2 amends 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 impacting the privileges and immunities of this place, the other place, and their members. In essence, harassment policies will be also be expanded to cover parliamentary workplaces. The bill will not change the way complaints are handled between parliamentarians. Sexual harassment complaints between members and senators will continue to be handled as they have been previously. Finally, part 3 amends a transitional provision of the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

In essence, the bill puts forward a multi-step process for dealing with complaints of harassment or violence. It aims first to prevent harassment and violence, but when it does occur, a system is to be in place for a complaint to be filed. An employer must try to resolve the complaint. If that does not work, mediation is an option. If that option fails or is bypassed, an individual identified as a competent person is to report on the incident and make recommendations to the employer, who then is required to implement the recommendations. I will not go into all the details here, but if the complaint remains unresolved, the minister of labour steps in to ensure compliance.

There are some issues I have with the bill, mostly with the lack of precision in the drafting. The first concern I would like to highlight is related to the fact that the minister of labour is given a great deal of power in the complaint process. The minister of labour is set up to be the arbiter of matters that proceed through the initial steps of the process but go unresolved. The trouble here is obvious, especially as we consider that this new regime is meant to provide protections to staff here on Parliament Hill. For example, if an individual who works within the office of a Liberal MP is harassed and he or she proceeds through the process that would be in place, he or she may find his or her situation being addressed by a colleague, maybe even a friend of the perpetrator.

The minister of labour would be in an awkward position here, to put it mildly. As anyone watching the news in the last week will realize, a sexual harassment situation arising in a political office can end a career. Are the Liberals seriously saying that the minister of labour, whether in this government or any other successive government, would be able to rightly deal with a situation of this type from an unbiased perspective, without any concern for political consequences? I doubt it.

A victim must have access to a process that is reliable and cannot be improperly interfered with. Even the perception that there could be interference calls the whole process into question. An independent third party would serve employees and employers much better here.

There are other problems within the legislation that require some further clarification as well. Throughout our time in government, Conservatives always placed a strong focus on supporting victims. It is our intention to ensure that the Liberals focus on supporting them as well through this legislation, as they have said they would. One of the concerns related to this point is the option of mediation as an avenue to solve harassment complaints.

The government must be absolutely clear about what is meant and intended with these sorts of areas of concern. The Liberals have said there would be a campaign that would focus on sexual harassment awareness. To date, there has been no mention of the cost of this campaign, where it would be targeted, or what the specific goals of the campaign would be. A campaign will not be successful unless it has defined goals and a strategy to meet them.

Similarly, there needs to be a plan for outreach to those people who have experienced sexual harassment. The plan is to help those who have been aggrieved to navigate the process of resolution and to direct victims to the support services that would be available to them. The bill needs to have an accurate costing estimate to accompany it. All Canadians have a stake in ensuring any campaign has a meaningful impact. The Liberals would do well to map out their plan for this campaign as quickly as possible to that end.

Bill C-65 also identifies a number of exemptions that need to be clarified. To give one example, there is an exemption to opt out of the regime for harassment complaints if workplaces have an equivalent regime of their own already in place. What would this look like? How would such requests be handled?

Finally, certain terms in the bill are not presently adequately defined in the law. The term “competent person” is someone a person could go to for help rendering a decision in the case of a complaint. What does a competent person look like? How would we describe a competent person? There needs to be an expansion in that part of the bill. Is it the law of contract definition of the competent person, which is someone who has the mental capacity to enter into an agreement? Is that what was meant by a competent person? Then such a person could be any individual in an office. Is it someone who has the required skills, training, experience, and other characteristics to truly be helpful? Someone in human resources or a counsellor might be more appropriate in a case like that. What does competency mean in relation to addressing complaints of sexual harassment, and for the purpose of Bill C-65?

These are all areas that could be more neatly defined to make this a better piece of legislation. Bill C-65 must be clear. It must be clear what it means. It also must be clear what it does not mean.

The intent of the bill is noble. However, it leaves many questions unanswered. I look forward to seeing the bill debated more fully at committee. I am sure that all members of Parliament, staff, and all Canadians want to see workplaces free of sexual harassment. I hope this bill, after some improvements and clarifications, will be helpful and will contribute to greater safety in the workplace.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it speaks to the fact that this is commonly understood by parliamentarians to be a serious challenge in Canadian society. It goes to show that while we are always trying to improve our institutions and to be more open, transparent, and inclusive, certain things cut straight to the heart of the matter. We are all very privileged and honoured to be discussing Bill C-65 and what we can do with regard to workplace harassment and sexual violence.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, maybe this is a little unusual, but I would also like to thank my colleague for her contribution to this. I am not able to get into details, but no doubt this is the beginning of a lot of serious work. Each and every one of us is taking harassment and sexual violence in the workplace very seriously. Of course, it is going to take beyond the members of Parliament in the room, and I look forward to ongoing consultation with Canadians to ensure the success of Bill C-65.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I would like her to tell us how Bill C-65 will apply to organizations with collective agreements.

For example, how will Bill C-65 and the collective agreement apply in resolving a harassment complaint that has gone to arbitration and where there is proof of harassment?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-65, especially because parliamentarians and the House of Commons are finding common cause in taking action on workplace harassment and violence.

Clearly this affects us all. We all know someone who has experienced some form of harassment or sexual violence in the workplace, and some of us may even have experienced it ourselves.

We know of the debilitating impact harassment and sexual violence has on women, on under-represented groups, employers, and Canadians in general. This is a key commitment of our government, and I am very proud that Bill C-65 is our effort to address harassment and sexual violence in federally regulated workplaces. This bill works to create safer and more respectful workplaces and sends a clear message to all Canadians that our government, the Government of Canada, is saying that harassment and sexual violence is unacceptable.

A lot of research shows us that this workplace behaviour has gone on for far too long and has also gone largely unreported. An Abacus Data survey last fall asked Canadians about harassment in the workplace. It found that over one in 10 Canadians said that sexual harassment was really quite common their workplace. Another 44% said that it was infrequent but it did happen. These respondents reported that women aged 30 to 44 were most likely to see this problem in the workplace. One-fifth said that it was common, and a total of two-thirds said that it happened in their workplace.

The study results explain that “The prevalence of this behaviour is no doubt in part because it rarely carries consequences for the harasser...The large majority of women, and most men, agree that normally there are no sanctions applied against those who sexually harass women in the workplace.” These findings paint a staggering portrait consistent with the picture that was painted during our recent government consultations.

Our government makes policy and legislative changes based on evidence through meaningful consultation with Canadians. Over the past year, the government has consulted widely with stakeholders and Canadians to gain a deeper understanding of the issue and to determine the best way to move forward. Consultations were also held with the government House leader, members of Parliament, and the Senate. I think it is very safe to say that all members and senators support the work we are doing together on this front.

In November of last year, we released the report “Harassment and Sexual Violence in the Workplace Public Consultations: What We Heard”, which summarized our consultations. I would encourage my hon colleagues to read it, share it with their constituents, help educate everyone about the intolerable impact this has, and join together in taking action.

Allowing this type of behaviour to continue in our workplace negatively impacts not just individuals, not just groups but ultimately the entire country as a whole and the country's economy. For example, we know that harassment and sexual violence primarily affects women. This means that women and other vulnerable groups face barriers to fully participate in the workforce and in society. How can they not when they feel threatened at the place they work? These behaviours act as barriers to not only women but other vulnerable and under-represented groups, such as members of the LGBTQ2 community. These are the very groups of people we need to ensure have a fair chance at success. We need diversity of viewpoints in businesses, organizations, the public service, and, of course, right here.

We know that our culture is largely patriarchal. It is a culture where the sexualization of women can contribute to intolerance. Somehow this is seen as normal. Research shows us that visible minorities, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ2 community are also disproportionately affected. We found that this behaviour was tied to power and privilege, and that it was independent of gender. It is often those with the least power who are least able to advocate for themselves. They fear reprisal, including sanctions or shame, and are least likely to be aware of what they can do to stop inappropriate behaviour. This creates and perpetuates inequality.

Sexual harassment can be more persistent in low-wage, low-profile jobs where there is, most unfortunately, low accountability for the employer. It means that the less power and status one has, the more likely one is to be vulnerable to experiencing harassment or sexual violence at work.

The fact is that no one should feel scared or like a target in places of work or anywhere else for that matter. This is especially true for women and under-represented groups, and their families suffer as a result. Harassment and sexual violence are also critical barriers women face when entering the workforce and maintaining employment that is lucrative enough to provide for themselves and their families, which makes sexual violence and harassment not just a moral issue but of course an economic issue as well. Victims of harassment and sexual violence often feel that once reported to their employers, any steps taken by employers to address the behaviour are often insufficient or ineffective. One aspect of this bill would ensure that employers are required to investigate, record, and report occurrences of harassment and violence. Employers would also be required to take steps to prevent and protect against these behaviours as well as respond to them when they do occur and provide support to employees affected by them.

Employers are not immune to paying a price and feeling a negative impact as well. This impact is felt through reputational costs, loss of productivity or absenteeism, low levels of employee commitment, high turnover, or legal costs. This adds up in lost time, stress, depression, and anxiety. It costs employers financially and it certainly does not build a strong, cohesive, and resilient Canadian society.

Allow me to note that we are also strengthening compliance and enforcement mechanisms under the code. 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 protect workers' rights.

Our government ran on a commitment to take action on workplace harassment and sexual violence in Parliament and in federally regulated workplaces. Today, together, we take an important step toward that aim. I am confident we will be joined by our colleagues and Canadians and that others will follow our lead. This is about doing what is right for people and doing what is right economically.

My hon. colleagues and I know the status quo is not an option. We know we need this legislation and that we should support it for families, employers, and all Canadians.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's passionate speech. She highlighted a number of important details about the bill, but I would like to go back to the definitions, which are just as important.

There can be such a thing as too many definitions when the time comes to go to court or make legal decisions. An overabundance of definitions can be restrictive. The flip side is a legal vacuum, and definitions can vary from one country to another. When it comes to defining harassment, a person can say they have been physically harassed or even assaulted, and there is also the definition of psychological harassment. It varies from person to person.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the importance of including definitions in Bill C-65. Does she think the government will agree to the amendments about definitions that the NDP is going to propose in committee?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

If I may be permitted, I will just quickly go over the first bit of what I said. I am really pleased to see the support of all members of Parliament for this bill, despite political affiliations.

This is an issue that is of great interest to me, as a physician. The fact is that people fear reprisal, there is stigma, and there is shame with regard to violence of any kind. I am familiar with physical violence, domestic violence, and societal violence. Sometimes the only person victims feel safe to tell their stories to is their physician, because of patient-physician confidentiality. Quite often physicians cannot do very much about it because people cannot be forced to speak out or to go wherever they need to go, but we can do certain things.

We now have a culture where there is open disclosure. People are less afraid to speak out because of the number of people who are speaking out. There is safety in numbers, and people feel they are not being singled out. They feel it is safer to speak out. However, that is not enough. There is still stigma and shame attached to victims of violence. The mentality to blame the victim still goes on.

We need to take concrete steps to change workplace culture, and Bill C-65 would do that. If we pass the bill in the House and we bring in the policies and the program that would support the bill, we would see a slow but definite change in the culture of at least the House of Commons as well as federally regulated workplaces.

There are three areas we need to look at. As always, protection is the most important. As a physician, I can treat diseases. I can put on bandaids and do whatever I need to do. However, if I do not look at the cause then I am not able to give long-term help or long-term support.

We need to look at the culture. This culture of abuse of authority and of making people afraid in order to do what one wants them to do is not 150 years old. This has gone on for millennia. This culture is so deeply ingrained that it is going to be difficult to remove it, but with goodwill, we can all start to do it.

The first thing we need to do is examine ourselves. What do we do? How do we think? How do we behave? What are the thoughtless things we do to our own staff when we are angry at them or we feel they are not doing the job well? What are the things that we do, both men and women, whether physically, psychologically, or in fact sexually, that make our colleagues feel ashamed and threatened? These are the things we need to do first.

Before we can do anything, we need to take the physician health thyself approach. We have to look at our behaviour. We have to look at how we pass information on to our children. We have to look at how we bring up our children so they can learn to respect each other and understand the way to behave with each other. We have to start with these fundamental things. It begins in kindergarten.

I have heard people talking about pornography, etc. That culture starts at the beginning of one's life. That culture starts with how we deal with each other from the very beginning, with how we talk with each other at home around the dinner table, with how we shame people and how we denigrate people. These are some of the things that we have to start examining.

We need this legislation. This legislation looks at how we can protect people from workplace violence. Employers would be required to investigate, record, and report incidents. That is the first thing. Labour programs would bring in toll-free lines for employees and employers to link up with experts who can help them through conflict resolution and negotiations, as well as navigate all of the processes.

We need to look at providing educational material, which this legislation would provide. We need guidelines that would provide support services for those who are victims, keeping foremost in mind the safety of the complainant. Complainant safety is really a problem. Fear of reprisal is a big problem, as is losing one's job, being demoted, not getting the wanted promotion, or not getting that big part in a movie one wanted.

Some of these are very real, and people need to feel that they are not going to be blackballed for the rest of their lives because they spoke out. That is going to be very important as we look at the protection component.

The next one is to look at effectiveness and if we have effective ways of dealing with this: how to deal with it effectively immediately; how to deal with a problem when it occurs; and how to support the victims themselves? That is a big part of that effective response.

Even though I stand here as I woman and as a long-time feminist, I want to say that this is not only about gender harassment. Indeed, there are men who are harassed in the workplace, either psychologically or physically. In fact, men are more at risk of physical violence in the workplace. When we look at that, we see 19% of women have a tendency to seek help, fill out a report, and look for support services; yet only 7% of men do that because of the absolute shame that a man has of being in this position. Therefore, I want us to look at the broad ways in which we can deal with this problem for both genders, to look at all of the ways in which we can keep people down. If because of this bill a lot of men are going to seek help, then it will help them to get the help they need.

The third pillar is to support the employees who are affected. This legislation does not replace the Criminal Code. There are going to be times when we need to look at going to enforcement because of the criminality of an act that has occurred in the workplace. This does not replace that, but it will bring into force Part III of PESRA, which is the employer and staff relations act that would bring in health and safety precautions and protections into the workplace.

I caution everyone in this House not to think that we will turn on a dime and that we will make changes. However, by passing this legislation right now, and by the ability of all of us in this place to think that this is extremely important enough to come together and to forget our differences, then we will make it safer for people to feel they can speak out, by protecting them when they speak out. If we do that, it will be one major step in moving this agenda forward. However, we need to have clear guidelines and clear policies. This bill is going to do exactly that, so we are not just talking or just tut-tutting and saying how terrible things are; we are actually putting into place concrete processes, steps, and sanctions that will affect employers and employees in the workplace.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member for Edmonton Centre builds on a theme he raised about the consequences of reduced productivity and absenteeism. Obviously, creating a regime for survivors of violence and victims of harassment is essential and the right thing to do. However, one of the trends I fear is that we are losing good people altogether.

In my own office, I am very fortunate to have incredibly talented women working for me without whom I could not do this job. I want to ask the member how the regime contemplated in Bill C-65 would help create a culture change that would ensure that the talented young women who are experiencing harassment today have faith in the system and will want to stay in these jobs and will want to contribute to the good work of government and the public service and federally regulated workplaces.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his concern on this issue and for taking his own initiative on this matter. Let me be very clear. In the work done by Status of Women Canada and by the minister responsible for Bill C-65, prevention, support, and measures to make sure that this does not happen in the workplace to start with is exactly what we are focused on.

The status of women report talks about support, prevention, and remediation. This is also addressed in Bill C-65. That is what came out of the consultations with Canadians. After the fact, it is important that we understand how to deal with it, but let us prevent it from happening.

It is also the work of our government to make sure that men understand that sexual violence is their issue. Sexual violence against women is an issue for men and boys, not simply an issue for women. Our government is committed to making sure that we get at the root of this problem and that we are upstream, in the middle of the stream, and downstream so that girls and women can be safe.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare to have the opportunity to support a bill that deals with an issue that affects so many people across the country and throughout the world. That is why I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-65.

As a feminist government and one that cares deeply about Canadians, we are committed to taking action on workplace harassment and sexual violence in Parliament and in federally regulated workplaces. This bill underscores the Government of Canada's strong commitment to taking action that would help create healthy, respectful workplaces for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression—heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or two spirit.

The tragic reality is that, despite our country's progress toward a modern, respectful society, we know that harassment and violence are persistent and pervasive in Canadian workplaces and that incidents often go unreported because employees fear retaliation. These behaviours can have long-term negative effects, not just for those who have experienced them but also for their families and employers as well, through lost productivity, absenteeism, and employee turnover.

Last fall, Abacus Data published a study on harassment and sexual violence in the workplace. It showed that over 10% of Canadians believe that sexual harassment is quite common in their workplace. Another 44% said that while it is not frequent, it does happen.

The recent #MeToo hashtag campaign on Twitter confirms these statistics and clearly shows how pervasive and far-reaching this problem is.

Underpinning these realities are the many power imbalances and gender norms still in our culture that have led to unacceptable tolerance of these behaviours for far too long. It is time they stopped. One of the key building blocks leading up to the tabling of this proposed legislation was listening to Canadians. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour engaged Canadians, stakeholders, and experts to gather their experiences and perspectives on these very issues. Members of Parliament and senators also consulted to ensure the government could fulfill its commitment to making Parliament a workplace free from harassment and sexual violence. This engagement of Canadians resulted in the report released last November, entitled “Harassment and sexual violence in the workplace public consultations: What We Heard”. In this report, Canadians indicated that incidents of harassment and sexual violence in the workplace are not only under-reported but also often dealt with ineffectively when they are reported.

Statistics show that approximately 80% of victims do not feel like they can report what happened, so what choice do they have?

The report found that women reported more sexual harassment and violence than men, and that visible minorities and people with disabilities reported more harassment. These discussions with stakeholders and experts provided insight on how to address these and other issues, and they informed the bill we are discussing today.

Bill C-65 proposes to amend existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code and replace the existing patchwork of laws and policies with one comprehensive approach that takes into consideration the full spectrum of harassment and violence that can occur. It would also expand the coverage to parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, House of Commons, and Library of Parliament. This would include political staff on Parliament Hill. Our staff right now are subject to some of the most antiquated provisions, where they exist, in the modern world. It is time that staff get the protection they deserve, and that is why this bill is so important.

The changes being proposed to the Canada Labour Code include expanding the current violence-prevention requirements to ensure that employers take the necessary steps to prevent and protect against both harassment and violence in the workplace; repealing less-effective sexual harassment provisions currently found in the code; ensuring that employers are required to investigate, record, and report occurrences of harassment and violence—employers would also be required to take steps to prevent and protect against occurrences of harassment of violence as well as respond to them when they occur and to offer support to employees affected by them; protecting the privacy of employees coming forward to report harassment and violence; and extending occupational health and safety coverage to exempt ministerial staff. I welcome these changes. I welcome the discipline and the responsibility and the important protections that these would afford to political staff.

As part of the new approach announced by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, our government also intends to launch an awareness campaign and to provide support to employees and employers.

This support will help them navigate the incident prevention and resolution processes and direct victims to services. We are committed to this work because, at the end of the day, this is about ensuring equal access to and enjoyment of fundamental human rights for all Canadians.

Human rights are not pieces of pie. We do not run out of human rights by serving them to everyone equally. We do not run out of human rights when they are extended to all and enjoyed by everyone. In fact, they are strengthened for all. Human rights are fundamental, inalienable, indivisible, and universal. That means they apply to everyone equally.

When people have been made vulnerable and fearful, that is when we can and must shine light on these fellow human beings, that is when we must lead to make things better, that is when we must stand up and be counted, that is when we must support each other, and that is what is at the core of this legislation. It is together that we demonstrate our solidarity and support for Canadian women, the LGBTQ2 community, and their family members and friends.

Research indicates higher rates of violent victimization and an elevated risk of harassment and sexual violence for sexual minorities, including individuals who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirited, and this includes queer people of colour. The intersectionality of gender and sexual violence must be understood. No one should face such acts of aggression and unwanted attention in the workplace or, in fact, anywhere.

That is why our government is taking a clear stand on the issue. Workplace sexual harassment and violence of any kind are unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. We must work together to eliminate such behaviours from our workplaces. No government can do that alone.

The legislation we are discussing today also aligns with the plan announced earlier this year by the Minister of Status of Women, entitled “It's Time: Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence”. The title, “It's Time”, was selected because it is time to learn more about the pervasiveness of this problem, it is time to believe survivors, and it is time to invest in effective solutions. After many years of neglect, there is a lot of work to do.

Developing this strategy was a key priority for our feminist government upon taking office, and listening to Canadians was a critical first step. As part of this engagement, approximately 300 individuals from more than 175 organizations shared their views during meetings held across Canada. The Canadian public was also invited to provide comments via email and through an online survey, in which more than 7,500 Canadians participated. In addition, the federal government created an advisory council of experts on gender-based violence and engaged with provincial and territorial colleagues to receive additional feedback to further inform the strategy. The strategy has three pillars: prevention, support for survivors and their families, and promoting responsive legal and justice systems.

Budget 2017 allotted $100.9 million over five years to implement this strategy. To support this strategy, Status of Women Canada is creating a gender-based violence knowledge centre to better align Government of Canada resources, fill gaps in evidence and data, support federal coordination and accountability on key federal actions, connect service providers with researchers and policy-makers, and lay the foundation for future action on gender-based violence. The LGBTQ2 secretariat is fully behind and proud to support this important work to combat gender and sexual-based violence.

The bottom line for Canadians is that harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable anywhere, including in the workplace. Bill C-65 sends a strong message that our government is prepared to take bold action and be part of the solution on this critical matter.

In the end, our government pledged to take action against harassment and sexual violence in federal workplaces, and that is exactly what we are doing. We expect the amendments to yield results in the short and the long term. In the short term, more people will feel safe and supported and will speak up. In the long term, there will be fewer incidents as the culture changes. I am asking my colleagues to support this bill, which will prevent harassment and sexual violence in the workplace, and foster workplaces where everyone has a fair chance to succeed today and in the future.

It is time to end gender-based violence and sexual violence in the workplace.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, House Leader of the New Democratic Party]

Mr. Speaker, in a moment, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.

First, I would like to say how proud I am to rise in the House as member of Parliament for Berthier—Maskinongé and as NDP House leader.

This is my first day in this new role, and it is even more meaningful because the House leaders of all of the recognized parties are currently women. This is a historic moment, and I really look forward to working with my colleagues.

Of course, we know that today there remains still much to be done for the fight for equality, the fight against gender-based violence, and the fight for a workplace that is free from harassment and violence, in all its forms.

Today we are debating a bill that addresses harassment in our own workplace here in the House of Commons, which is in acute need of a culture overhaul from all sides. It is clear that all parties agree that the bill is a positive step in the right direction.

The motion I would like to move would send the bill directly to committee at the conclusion of today's debate. Following conversations I have had with my counterparts from all parties in the House, I believe, Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when no Member rises to speak on the second reading motion of Bill C-65, 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, or at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders today, whichever comes earlier, the Bill be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Labour

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question, her statement, and her hard work on this file.

It is important that women and men break the taboo of silence and become allies and supporters in standing up against gender violence, standing up against sexual harassment and sexual assault in workplaces, in homes, and in communities right across this country.

This is a problem that has gone on for far too long, and it is time we dealt with it, particularly here in Parliament, where we set an example for the rest of the country. That is why, with Bill C-65, we are committed to taking an important step towards improving workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill. I look forward to working with members of all parties on improving this legislation and ensuring that it moves forward.

Canada Labour Code

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am immensely pleased and honoured to rise today, and, since this is the first time I am speaking in 2018, I would like to extend greetings to my hon. colleagues who are now back in the House.

I am very enthusiastic about speaking today in support of Bill C-65.

I am deeply convinced that all Canadians breathed a sigh of relief when they learned that this bill was being introduced. Clearly, sexual harassment and violence in the workplace must end now.

Today, our government is taking the necessary steps to do just that by setting an example. I would also like to point out that all parties support this bill. There is no room for partisanship when it comes to Canadians’ fundamental rights.

In my humble opinion, this is an historic moment for Parliament. Not only will this bill govern these matters for workers under federal jurisdiction, but, more importantly, it will also send a clear message throughout the country that there is no place for such behaviour in Canada. End of story. The time has come to speak strongly and clearly, and to take action. In this respect, Bill C-65 is clearly a big step in the right direction.

The news stories of the past few weeks are a stark reminder that workplaces are still not free from sexual harassment and violence. Social media has given us a clearer idea of the scope of the problem. It is high time that we introduced legislation that will protect federal workers. The bill is intended for workers in banks, communications companies, and the air, rail and marine transportation sectors, as well as federal government employees, of course.

Studies by Abacus Data revealed that more than one in 10 Canadians say that sexual harassment in the workplace is quite common, while 44% of Canadians report it does happen, although infrequently.

Our government pledged to solve the problem, and we are now fulfilling our promise. Bill C-65 allows us to send a clear and strong message as members of Parliament.

It enables us to take a stand and say that this has to stop. Employers must clearly understand their responsibilities and take the necessary measures to eliminate this scourge on society. Sexual harassment and violence in the workplace hinder economic development and affect Canadians who are trying to join the middle class.

Although women are more likely than men to be victimized by such behaviour, visible minorities, low-income individuals, people with disabilities and members of the LGBTQ+ community are also targeted and remain more vulnerable.

Victims and their families suffer major repercussions, but so do their employers. Victims can experience stress, depression, or anxiety, and employers must manage this situation in their place of business, a situation that leads to absences, sick leave, decreased motivation, and high employee turnover. Our country really has no room for this type of behaviour. Our economy and our international reputation would gain considerably from the enactment of this bill. It is time that we took a stand once and for all.

We all know someone who has been the victim of sexual harassment or violence at work. It could be a sister, a brother, a co-worker, or a friend. It is our responsibility to take the necessary measures to eliminate this problem. Bill C-65 is certainly a key measure. It will bring about a radical change in the way we perceive employer-employee relations. I therefore ask all of my hon. colleagues to support this bill, which will usher in a new era of labour relations in Canada, and even here in Parliament.

By amending the Canada Labour Code and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, we will be joining forces to prevent harassment and violence, respond more effectively to complaints, and provide better support for victims and employers.

In conclusion, not only is this bill a good thing for society, it is indispensable.

Everyone wins with this bill, including victims, families, co-workers, and, of course, employers.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is a huge step forward for the cause, and we may soon see a truly equitable working environment for all Canadians.

This is a necessary change in culture, and I am proud to be supporting this bill today.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

The member is absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. I am heartened when I come into this place, listen to the debate, and recognize that all parties, regardless of the differences we may hold on other policies, are united on this item in particular.

This reverberates far beyond the walls of the House. When members of Parliament talk about bringing forward legislation on harassment and bullying, we are sending a message to all Canadians, to all businesses, to all workplaces that it is simply unacceptable and the culture needs to change.

By having these conversations, we will start to move the needle. It will not be easy and it will not be this one conversation that will make change. This needs to continue beyond Bill C-65. It needs to continue with respect to how we conduct ourselves both in public and with our staff. It needs to be top of mind in our conversations with constituents. We can have a strong leadership role to play across the country.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I am very honoured to have the opportunity to talk today about Bill C-65. Our government ran on a commitment to take action on workplace harassment and violence, and I am extremely proud of this first step we are taking in the House today.

All of us here in the House, no matter our political allegiances, have a unique opportunity. Today we can join forces and take a stand together. We can send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and sexual violence is unacceptable, period, and that it will not be tolerated any longer.

Sexual harassment and violence in the workplace is nothing new. Certainly in my career I have experienced sexual harassment and bullying. I think it would be difficult to find a woman who has not, to one degree or another.

I am particularly pleased that this proposed legislation would also include MP staff, which is a group I feel is particularly vulnerable because of the nature of their work on the Hill. I certainly experienced it. My first job after university was right here in this place working for a true gentleman, London West MP John Burghardt. I recall one incident in particular when, after an evening reception, a male MP made completely inappropriate sexual advances toward me. I walked out and never told anyone, including my boss, because I was fearful of the consequences to my career and to my reputation.

Sadly, little has changed since the early 1980s. The power dynamic that exists on the Hill makes it a workplace that is a perfect storm for harassment and bullying. I worry about our staff, in particular our female staff, and I echo the comments made by my colleague from Milton. If staff members have an issue, regardless of party, they should not hesitate to come to me to talk about it.

High-profile cases are dominating the headlines day after day. The problem is both pervasive and far-reaching. In fact, just more than one in 10 Canadians say that sexual harassment is “really quite common” in their workplace. Another 44% say that, while it is infrequent, it does happen. I suspect those statistics are quite low.

The hashtag movements, #MeToo, #AfterMeToo, and Time’s Up, are the result of people, women and men, who thought it was important to show the world how pervasive and common harassment and sexual violence are in our lives, and they found the courage and strength to speak up.

Make no mistake; workplace harassment and sexual violence exist not only in high-profile professions but everywhere around us. The reality is that it has always been everywhere. We just ignored it or simply looked the other way, because of fear of reprisals or being labelled a troublemaker, or because norms in the industry made us feel we had no choice.

We know that harassers and abusers have used their power and influence to indulge in behaviours that were not only thinly veiled but generally accepted by their colleagues. The difference now is that not only are survivors speaking up but we are opening our eyes and paying attention. We are talking about just how pervasive harassment and sexual violence really is, and how important it is that we do everything we can to eliminate it.

There is momentum right now, and we must take advantage of it because it gives us a unique opportunity. Our government is taking action to do just that. In November, our government released a report on what we heard during consultations on workplace harassment and sexual violence. With Bill C-65, we would take strong action to ensure that federal workplaces are free from these unacceptable behaviours.

Our government is seeking unanimous consent on this bill, and I am hopeful that this proposed legislation will be endorsed by all members. I am also hopeful that we can join forces to send a clear message to Canadians that harassment and sexual violence in the workplace or anywhere are intolerable and unacceptable. This message should come not from one political party but from all parties. We can show Canadians that we are united in our intention to put a stop to workplace harassment and violence.

When people come forward, they need to know that they will be protected and supported through strong measures and that their careers will not suffer as a result. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to put these measures in place. Canadians need to feel safe at work, regardless of where they work and for whom they work, and that applies to employers and workplaces across Canada, including the federal public service and right here on Parliament Hill.

Recently I had the privilege of visiting five corrections facilities in Edmonton and speaking with the dedicated staff who work there. The situation at Edmonton Institution for men was a cesspool of bullying, violence, and sexual harassment—an environment so toxic that the independent report said that there would be great challenges in changing the culture there. Significant steps have been taken, but the road to recovery will be challenging.

I had the opportunity to speak to some of those who had worked throughout the years in this toxic workplace. When I asked one female parole officer if she had hope that the situation would improve, she looked at me and said that I was it. As federal corrections officers, these staff would be covered by Bill C-65, and they deserve our support. We owe it to them and to employees across Canada to ensure they can go to work every day and know they will be safe from a culture of bullying and sexual harassment.

Bill C-65 would give employers the tools they need to adequately address and deal with harassment and violence, including sexual violence, in the workplace. We are also strengthening compliance and enforcement mechanisms under the Canada Labour Code in order to increase workplace health and safety, and better protect workers' rights. The use of monetary penalties and the authority to publicly name violators are just some of the changes announced to make workplaces healthy, safe, and productive places.

Bill C-65 is based on our research, on our consultation, and on what Canadians have said they need when it comes to preventing and dealing with harassment and sexual violence in the workplace.

Last year, we released the report “Harassment and Sexual Violence: What We Heard”, which summarizes a series of engagement activities we undertook with the Canadian public, unions, employers, non-governmental organizations, academics, and other experts. We made sure that a wide range of voices were heard to support evidence-based policy development and implementation, and held online public consultations as well as a series of round tables with stakeholders and experts.

Some of the findings were striking. Of the more than 1,300 people who responded to our online survey, a full 60% reported having experienced harassment, 30% said they experienced sexual harassment, 21% reported experiencing violence, and three per cent said they had experienced sexual violence. Incidents are under-reported, often due to fear of retaliation. When they are reported, incidents are not dealt with effectively. Some 41% of survey respondents stated that no attempt was made to resolve an incident they reported. Women are more likely than men to experience sexual harassment, and people with disabilities and members of visible minority groups are more likely to experience harassment than other groups.

It comes down to this: workplace harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable behaviours that have been going on for too long. Canadians want and need their government to do something about it and to lead the way. That is exactly what we are doing in Bill C-65. I am asking each of the members of Parliament in this place to rise to the occasion being presented to us today. Take a stand and show constituents that we care about making workplaces safer for everyone.

While this issue continues to make headlines, we must ensure it is not a popular movement that will fade away before any real changes are made. We need to do something now to correct the course we have been on for too long. I recently read a comment by former journalist Jennifer Mossop who stated that it is time. It is time for mutual respect and genuine and sincere public discourse to take us to the next level.

This needs to end now. Bill C-65 is going to help make that happen. Let us all support it together. It is time.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes these discussions can make us feel as though we are chatting in the lobby.

I thank my colleague for her very insightful comments. It bothers me as well, and I think this will have to be discussed in committee. The NDP has a number of amendments to make to Bill C-65. This is not about scoring points. This is about teamwork and commitments. I urge the government to work together to ensure that the NDP's proposed amendments are recognized and accepted. Often, committee members want to make amendments and work, in good faith, as a team. However, this is not what happens.

Today's discussion is quite passionate. Everyone has good intentions, but this needs to carry over into committee so that we can actually get things done. Members are talking about making commitments. I think this will be the right approach. Once again, I urge the government to consider the amendments that the NDP is going to propose, to work as a team, and then to take action.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use the opportunity given to me today to commend the Et Maintenant movement.

It is a very good initiative. People are asked to wear a yellow heart as a reminder of what needs to change and what we need to do. It is a good way to break the ice and engage in the conversation. The drive and enthusiasm of these women and their initiative reflect the desire to see a cultural shift and to prevent further complaints and court appearances. I am talking about men and women because men are also victims of psychological and sexual violence. It is important to make that clear. The Et Maintenant movement is for everyone and is a good way to initiate a change in culture.

Whenever someone wears a yellow heart, it might remind people to pay attention, to be aware, and to abide by the saying that you must know where you are coming from to know where you are going. That is also an important element of the yellow heart, which I believe is a good symbol. I hope that the movement will grow right across Canada. This is just the beginning.

With regard to Bill C-65, I want to stress that training is crucial. We must provide the information, but also train employers and employees. By talking and working together we will really make this culture shift happen.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65 to prevent harassment and violence in the workplace was introduced for first reading on November 7, 2017.

This is an extremely important piece of legislation, and we see this as a step in the right direction with respect to these crucial issues. As the new labour critic for the NDP, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-65 to address harassment and violence in the workplace.

This bill was developed in response to the many highly publicized cases of sexual assault that have occurred around the world. In the present context and in the wake of the global #MeToo and Time's Up movements, now more than ever, Canada must be a champion and a leader in ensuring that our workplaces are safe and free from harassment and violence.

Canada already has some of the best legislation in the world against sexual violence. Still, comprehensive legislation is needed to further enhance protections for workers against physical, sexual, and psychological violence in the workplace.

Psychological harassment deserves special attention. According to the International Labour Organization, psychological harassment is an increasingly common form of workplace violence. Universities and unions such as Teamsters have also spoken out against it.

Just three months ago in my riding in the Saguenay, a scandal broke at the Centre de formation professionnelle de Jonquière. Six instructors and former instructors spoke to the media about how the work environment at that teaching institution had been intolerable for over a decade. Cases of harassment and exclusion are no longer rare; they are becoming more and more common.

We know this is due to profound changes in how we organize work, in working conditions, and in management styles in recent decades. The rules governing a labour market that is now more demanding in terms of flexibility and productivity make workers more vulnerable and, in recent years, have helped enable cases of psychological harassment.

Unfortunately, Machiavelli's famous maxim “divide and conquer” seems to be the order of the day in a context where professional burnout and workplace stress and hardship have been normalized. Asking for respect and dignity at work is not a luxury, it is a fundamental right.

In addition to psychological harassment, workplace violence and harassment also merit our attention. According to the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, workplace violence and harassment, whether psychological, physical, or sexual, have become an epidemic and the impact on the daily lives and mental health of workers across the country is quite clear.

An Abacus Data survey released in November shows that close to half of Canadian women say they have experienced some form of sexual harassment at work. One in ten Canadians report that this type of harassment is quite common at their workplace and nearly half of them say they have been harassed by a person in a position of authority. Not surprisingly, low-income workers in precarious jobs, as well as racialized and queer women are more likely to be harassed at work.

Still today, those who engage in workplace harassment rarely suffer the consequences of their behaviour. For example, the director of the women's department at Unifor, Lisa Kelly, recently indicated that all too often those who point out problems and seek help continue to suffer reprisals.

That is unacceptable. Sexual, physical, psychological, or emotional harassment or violence in the workplace must not be tolerated. Our leader, Jagmeet Singh, took the same firm stand on this issue a few weeks ago when he announced his zero tolerance policy for such behaviour.

The NDP wants all working men and women in Canada to feel safe and protected from sexual, physical, and psychological violence or harassment in their workplace. That is why we support the global initiative to enhance protections against harassment and violence in the workplace. That is also why we are working with women's rights and social justice organizations to ensure that the policies that are put in place have a real impact and make the safety of all workers a priority.

Bill C-65 seeks to establish an investigative process that would allow workers and employers to better address allegations of bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment. The bill sets out two similar approaches for parliamentary and government workplaces. Once passed, this bill will apply to all federally regulated workplaces, including the banking, telecommunications, and transport sectors, which account for nearly 8% of the Canadian workforce. Whereas the Canada Labour Code currently provides for separate frameworks for dealing with workplace violence and sexual harassment, Bill C-65 would merge those labour standards. Bill C-65 would also implement strict rules to protect the privacy of victims of harassment or violence. These rules would also apply to parliamentarians, their employees, and other staff on Parliament Hill.

The NDP has always fought for better protections for workers. That is why we strongly support expanding legal provisions to reduce workplace violence and harassment, which should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Although we agree with the intent of Bill C-65, we feel it has some flaws and does not go far enough. It would require many amendments to achieve the desired results and offer the kind of protection that Canadian workers expect.

We still do not know exactly how this bill will improve the process for reporting harassment, how it will minimize harm, how it will interact with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or how it will protect the anonymity of victims of workplace harassment or violence.

It is also unclear how the implementation of Bill C-65 will be properly funded. That is why some of the bill's provisions should be studied further.

First of all, even though this bill claims to tackle harassment and violence, those terms are not defined anywhere in Bill C-65, the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, or the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1. Only sexual harassment is defined in the Canada Labour Code.

A long list of steps and processes to combat certain inappropriate behaviours is being put forward. However, there is no definition of this behaviour anywhere, which does not bode well for the government's objective of creating a model policy to deal with sexual harassment.

If the government really wants to eradicate violence and harassment, why would it rely on the regulatory process to produce these definitions instead of introducing a clear bill?

What hope does the government have of eliminating harassment and violence from the workplace if it does not clearly define the behaviour to be eliminated?

By not providing an explicit definition, the government is asking us to blindly vote for an important and yet extremely vague bill that could be subsequently amended without consultation. That is not what we want. These terms must be clearly defined for both the employer and the employees to ensure that these measures can be be implemented effectively.

Sure, definitions in bills narrow the interpretations of a particular word or anticipate potential interpretations. Sure, if we add definitions, this means that other potential or future circumstances may not be included in the bill. However, though it may be wise, in some circumstances, not to provide too many definitions, in this case, it is not legally binding if we leave the definitions of harassment and violence up to to the regulations. These definitions would ultimately be set through jurisprudence or, in some cases, by tribunals responsible for workplaces under the Canada Labour Code.

I want to bring up a second major problem. In the past, the federal government has missed—and yes, I said “missed”—opportunities to ensure that victims of physical, sexual, or psychological violence have access to leave after the incident.

Why does the government not create a 10-day paid leave for victims of workplace harassment? The government should take this opportunity to integrate a 10-day paid leave into the bill, as suggested by the majority of organizations working to end gender-based violence.

Also, will there be the necessary personnel and training to go along with the legislation?

Ten days of paid leave is not very much. Anyone who is the victim of psychological harassment, violence, or sexual harassment is affected for life. The bill should include leave for victims in order to help them in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

I would also like to add that if workplace inspectors are called upon in the process, we need to ensure that enough inspectors are available and that they receive the specialized training needed to enforce the new measures. Since they would have to lead investigations, it is important that these individuals be properly trained and capable of leading them. Since many of these cases involve prejudice, people who are not properly trained could negatively affect the investigation and cause long-term harmful effects for the victims.

Details are also needed regarding the availability and source of new funding in order to ensure that workplaces have the resources they need to provide the necessary support and investigate all allegations of sexual harassment.

Without that, the bill's effectiveness could be seriously undermined. Declaring new rights without providing resources to enforce them does absolutely nothing to enhance the protection of workers and ensure safe workplaces. The government therefore still needs to tell us how much money will be allocated to implementing these measures, especially since they will be combined with an extensive awareness campaign to challenge misconceptions and stereotypes.

Harassment and violence in the workplace must never be tolerated, but when it does occur, the process must be transparent for all parties and recourse must be clear. The legislation must give everyone involved the right to be informed of the status of their complaint. In addition, the individuals involved must be given sufficient representation, as noted by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

The current bill does not elaborate on any of that, which leaves us with some questions. What real recourse does Bill C-65 offer to victims of harassment or assault? Will workers have the right to access information about their complaint? As the national vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada said in November, in the context of allegations of sexual harassment in Hollywood and around the world, it is disappointing to see a bill on sexual harassment and violence which fails to provide a remedy for victims.

It is also not clear to us how the government plans to implement strict privacy rules while also allowing federally regulated workplaces, including Parliament, to rely on qualified persons from the same work environment to help resolve the situation. It seems obvious that the privacy of the complainant cannot be guaranteed if the so-called qualified person selected to play the role of mediator can be a colleague.

The final concern I want to raise is about how this legislation will affect the role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission with respect to the solutions it provides and the resolution of complaints that are not covered under the Canada Labour Code but are dealt with by the commission or in collective agreements. How will Bill C-65 interact with the Canadian Human Rights Act or existing collective agreement provisions such as those relating to third-party arbitration? Bill C-65 would have more teeth if it guaranteed all workers in this country the same level of protection.

I have much more to say about Bill C-65, but I see that I am running out of time. Considering everything members said at second reading, I would like to conclude by saying that, despite the many recent global initiatives encouraging people to come forward about sexual harassment, some women and men still find it difficult to speak up. The words seem to get stuck in their throats, something prevents them from reporting what they have buried so deeply inside themselves. Words, deeds, emotions, held captive. Why do so many hold back? Lack of faith in our legal system and confusion about how various types of harassment are defined have a lot to do with it. If this bill is to succeed at curbing these behaviours, it is crucial, as I said, tjat we define them.

It is up to the government to answer all of these questions quickly and find real solutions so that all Canadians can finally get the safe work environment they deserve and are entitled to.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what happens when power collides with sex? The government's response to this question and to more sexual harassment and assault allegations against politically powerful people coming to light was to schedule Bill C-65 for debate this week. The bill seeks to impose a new framework on Canadian employers, including members of Parliament, to prevent sexual harassment and assault. I suspect the bill will garner a large amount of support in the House. Its measures are laudable and it is a positive step in the right direction.

My colleagues in this place today will likely bring up aspects of the bill that they hope to see clarified and improved upon when the bill moves to the committee stage. That said, this measure, in and of itself, will not correct all the issues associated with the current state of affairs of sexual harassment and sexism on the Hill. This is not meant to be a knock against the legislation, but rather a call to action to have a more honest look at our current state of affairs on the Hill and to place an onus on all of us to do more to change the culture that allows sexual harassment to occur.

Let me set the scene. In Ottawa, in the sense of it being a nexus of power in Canada, it is an intense place. Leaders in all three branches of government, senior public servants, military leaders, the diplomatic corps, the Parliamentary Press Gallery, highly paid lobbyists, smart political staff, civil society, and business leaders all converge in one tightly confined space. They are all trying to accomplish big things. Many are assertive and ambitious. Many are highly skilled at their crafts. Many hold privileged positions of influence, and many think very highly of themselves. It is a highly tribal environment where information is a commodity and blind partisanship, conformity, loyalty, and acquiescence are often traits significantly valued above judgment, compassion, or acting with dignity.

When this context is taken and combined with prolonged or frequent absence from spouses, young guns who are both naive to the context and hungry to advance a career or a cause, journos that are chasing a scoop, people who just want to work and be left alone, and a whole bunch of workaholics who are single, or well on their way to getting there, the issue of what constitutes appropriate sexual behaviour becomes critical. Then, mix in alcohol. It is used to cope, to fit in, and as an excuse.

Further, all of us here are in precarious positions. Every time there is an election or a cabinet shuffle, everyone, all the people here, change. More importantly, this precariousness is rooted in the fact that we exist at the pleasure of our bosses, outside of the Canada Labour Code. At any moment, everyone here weighs the opportunity cost of making a complaint or committing an non-acquiescent action with the threat of quiet dismissal, being overlooked for a promotion, being shuffled out of a spot, having a nomination candidate quietly run against us, or not having our nomination papers signed at all. This is not unique to any political party, nor is the press corps immune to this either.

To say that there is a power imbalance here is an understatement. Further, for all the talk of feminism and pursual of women's rights, there is not gender equality in the broader context of Parliament Hill. Women are still used as photo-op props, included for quotas or optics without having the authority of real decision-making automatically attached to their perceived utility. For that, women have to fight, and fight hard, and put up with being accused of not being a team player, or being an “insert choice of gender expletive here” when they do. That is only for those of us who are lucky enough to have built a platform and a profile that allows us to do that without those in the top tiers of power having to take a bit of damage in order to suppress our voices.

Women are still touched. Our hair is still stroked. Our shoulders are still rubbed. We are still given hugs and cheek kisses that linger a bit too long. To fit in, we still laugh at the lewd jokes, and maybe even tell one ourselves to be considered safe to socialize with and to be considered “one of the boys”.

Further, those who dare to raise issues of harassment are labelled as man-haters. Their sexual proclivities are questioned. Speculation abounds as to whether their sexual proclivities were even the cause of their experience. They are re-victimized over and over again. These things are used to control us, to demean us, and to silence us.

Then there are those who say, “Why don't you just stand up for yourself?” This morning, my former colleague, Megan Leslie recounted a story to me about being at an event where a senior male pulled her close to him and told a story to a group while holding her around the waist. She was asked by a reporter how she could have let this happen. She responded by saying, “There were four other men there. Why did they stay silent?” That is the problem. So many of us are bystanders to harassment, leaving a woman to, in Megan's words, “extract yourself with a laugh and some good-natured ribbing, then silently cry to yourself on your way home”.

This takes me to what we need to do to change and move forward.

First, we cannot be bystanders any longer. All of us should demand that Parliament adopt a clear definition of sexual harassment, what the workplace extends to, and what consent means in the context of our workplace. Then all of us, interns, volunteers, MPs, ministers, staff, everyone, should be required to take mandatory training on how to prevent sexual harassment and also education on what sexual consent means. This training should be required to be completed on an ongoing annual basis, at a minimum.

Women here need to stand together regardless of political stripe, support each other as these claims occur, and demand that our leadership take action when they occur. Men need to call out their peers when harassment happens. MPs need to let their staff know that they have voices and that they should use them.

Using the whisper network, the gossip chain that we use to tell each other when we see something or hear something, can no longer be seen as the main way to manage incidents of harassment. It is a privileged system that does nothing to protect victims, nothing to empower them to come forward to report abuse, nothing to prevent violence, and nothing to prevent vexatious complaints from being made.

Second, we need to dispel the myths of what consensual sex means in this environment. Is it possible for a drunk staffer to give consent for sex to a senior male within their workplace organization who aggressively propositions that staffer? Within any standard workplace code of conduct, the answer to that should be unequivocally no.

Today there was a report that at one critical point within my party this was a topic for debate, and that is disgusting. In that incident, media reports say that people sat around a very senior table and argued semantics around whether action in our workplace should be taken because criminal charges were not proceeded with. Those people should be ashamed of themselves and they should have no role or influence in this or in any political party, which brings me to the next point.

For the woman at the centre of this issue there was no process for anyone to file a “formal” complaint. Think about her decision-making process for a minute, weighing job security in the context of making a complaint in an ill-defined process against someone in an environment with high media scrutiny. A raised complaint like this should have been enough to effect some sort of change.

The trend in most of the allegations that have surfaced recently is that of older men preying on younger women. Age and level of experience works as another dynamic of power that is often at play. I would ask members to try to put themselves in their shoes for a moment. A person thinks she has finally gotten her foot in the door of what she hopes to be her new career only to be met with decisions she never thought she would have to make. Does she keep quiet to save her job? Will this hurt or help her career? If she tells someone, will she ever get to work in politics again? On and on it goes. It is an impossible choice that no one should have to make.

In these terrible situations we should be managing to justice, safety, and dignity, not to successful political issues management. This is why we need to build awareness of the new support system that has been put in place to allow Hill employees who experience harassment to report and seek some form of justice without fear of reprisal.

The aim here is to afford all parties involved in these incidents due process and to drive toward an end solution that appropriately responds with censure to any incident. This system should be reviewed for efficacy and improved over time. In doing so, it should be monitored to ensure that it stays arm's length from any political party influence, remains impartial, and is transparently scoped in its operation and desired outcome.

While it is very laudable, I do not think that this system will be enough. Political parties should also adopt formal codes of conduct and reporting processes regarding what they deem appropriate behaviour when it comes to sex, sexual harassment, and consent. All candidates and political staffers should be required to sign off and adhere to this code prior to being allowed to run or work for a party.

There should be consequences for breaking this code. I would go as far as saying that this should not be voluntary, that a political party should not be recognized with official party status unless it has one of these codes on its books. Having a system like this within each political party, in addition to the process that exists on the Hill, would serve as a check and balance to ensure high standards are set and followed. It would probably be helpful if the Parliamentary Press Gallery did the same thing before credentialing its reporters.

Reporting systems and codes of conduct should enable people to know that, regardless of any other factor, they have the right to speak up for themselves and to call out harassment in the moment. We should all be able to walk confident in the fact that, if that is not possible, systems exist so that we can report concerns and get assistance in dealing with those concerns without fear of reprisal.

In the development of these codes of conduct, political actors should ensure that they do not shy away from stripping the taboo from the following questions, and should force a non-dogmatic conversation on the same: Can a direct report employee or an employee writ large truly give consent to a sexual act to their boss or to someone of a higher power influence? It is the same question, but for a reporter to a source, a lobbyist to a client or a minister, or a diplomat to a deputy minister: Should sexual relations be permissible in these situations at all? How can someone tell when a person of influence is using sexual advances or innuendo to silence or demean them as opposed to when someone legitimately wants to explore the possibility of an intimate liaison? Is there a difference, and should we even be having this conversation to begin with?

Third, we need to stop making incidents of sexism and harassment partisan question period fodder. Every time a woman gets up and pretends that her party is more virtuous than the other we set the bar back. We all need to use some judgment to create a culture that would eventually render the necessity of such a system moot.

This is where the electorate comes in. We need to collectively value guiding principles when it comes to sex and power, and ensure that the people we elect reflect the same. The electorate needs to have a zero tolerance policy as well for these types of incidents.

These principles include a recognition that we all have the right to our own sexual agency. In Canada, we have the legal right to control how and when we express our sexuality, and with whom. However, this does not mean acting in a way that removes someone else's dignity, or failing to obtain consent. Rather, it is understanding that consent can be withdrawn at any point, and that at no point is non-consensual activity legal nor is assault legal. While a certain sexual encounter might not be illegal, it does not make it right in the context of a workplace.

In practice, this means adhering to codes of conduct. It means constantly asking oneself about whether it is right to proposition someone, and question the appropriateness of the method by which it is done prior to doing so. It means seeking consent for this type of attention in and of itself. It means accepting rebukes with grace, deep respect, and love. It means accepting rebukes not with a way of seeing it as a challenge to try again.

Conversely, we need to show an understanding that consensual sexual activity does not absolve us of the societal, emotional, physical health, or financial consequences that might occur when engaging in consensual sexual behaviour. Regret for a consensual sexual liaison that occurs within the boundaries of legality and established codes of conduct does not constitute harassment or assault, and should not be used to make vexatious complaints that diminish the legitimacy of other survivors, backlog complaint systems, and unduly destroy the reputation of others.

This is yet another point that underscores the need to have functional codes of conduct with clear definitions of harassment and consent, clear reporting systems that undertake due process free of partisanship, with clear and measurable consequences that fit the severity of the incident. There are many models of best practice for these types of codes of practice in corporate Canada and in civil society. The fact that we are only starting to implement them shows how deeply entrenched the power imbalance on the Hill has been.

I cannot believe that we are having this conversation; I really cannot. Given the number of times in my career in the last six years that the number one media request in my inbox has been about someone committing some sort of indecency, or somebody trying to get a partisan comment on which party is more virtuous in terms of this, or how I feel about sexism, I am starting to say, why does just my voice have to be used on this? Why all of a sudden am I the key issue bearer? Why does every single one of my colleagues and the minister of labour have to stand up and talk about this when there are so many other issues? This should be common sense decency that we treat each other with.

We are spending the first day back on this issue. It is an important debate and I am not trying to diminish it; however, that we have to legislate this behaviour actually takes my voice away. It takes away my ability to talk about the economy or foreign affairs, or any other issue today.

The fact that there are people who feel it is within their purview to act badly, to use their power imbalance to silence and demean others is disgusting. The fact that there are people today who still look at women and the first thing they think of is political issues management is disgusting.

I do not want to make this a gender or heterosexual conversation because that would be completely misconstruing the context here. The fact that people feel they cannot report abuse or that they have to work and live with abuse says that we have not achieved gender equality, that we have not achieved some sort of utopia on feminism. Worst of all, we are sitting here with the privilege of having certain rights that other people in the world do not. I cannot imagine some woman, for example, a Yazidi sex slave survivor, watching this debate and saying, “Oh my God, are they really talking about this?”

This bill is not enough. It is a good step in the right direction, but we cannot legislate against bad behaviour. We cannot legislate against someone choosing to use their influence or power imbalance to diminish someone else. At the end of the day, we probably have to have more severe codes of conduct. It cannot just be within political parties here either. We all know that the #MeToo movement is going to head up to the press gallery, the lobbyist community, and the diplomatic corps. We have all sat here and watched these things happen. If we do not have that more difficult conversation, if we do not strip away the taboo from doing this, we are not going to fix this problem and we will be here for more years talking about what else needs to change, and I am tired of it. I do not want to sit in this place and have this conversation again. I do not want another woman coming into my office on this. This needs to stop and it needs to stop now. It is the job of every person here and every person who is listening to take on that personal responsibility of putting dignity and human rights ahead of abuse or sexual desire.

Returning to Bill C-65, the Conservative Party supports this bill and will commit to carefully analyzing it in order to provide suggestions on areas where there needs to be improvement. Sexual misconduct and sexual harassment have no place in Canadian society, especially within our political system. As Conservatives, we want to ensure that the government focuses on supporting victims, as it has pledged to do. For example, there is a concern about the option of mediation as an avenue to solve harassment complaints. The government needs to be clear about the implications of the bill in such areas of concern. We want the government to be clear on questions of funding. For example, what will the budget be on the government's campaign to raise awareness on sexual harassment? We want an effective awareness campaign and we need to know how much and where we will spend this money.

I am sure this bill will be vigorously debated at committee. I am sure many experts will come forward to talk about why this bill is important or how it does not address all the gaps. But at the end of the day, what is not going to be discussed at committee, and I am sure we will talk about this again, is the individual responsibility of all us to stop being bystanders, to stop the whisper network, to be accountable for our actions, and when we see our colleagues or someone else behaving badly, to intervene. It means that we empower our staff, that we have their backs, that they do not have to put up with this garbage anymore. It means fundamentally changing the culture on the Hill. It means the organizers of Politics and the Pen, the parliamentary press gallery dinner, and the cocktail circuit all understand that this is the breeding ground for where this stuff happens and we need to rip the band-aid off of it. We need to stop pretending that somehow this legislation is going to magically fix bad behaviour.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved that Bill C-65, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-65, introduced in November 2017. Bill C-65 demonstrates our government's commitment to eliminating harassment and violence in federal workplaces. We take this action because our government recognizes that safe workplaces, free of harassment and violence, are critical to the well-being of Canadian workers and critical to our agenda of a strong middle class. We have been powerfully reminded in Canada, and indeed around the world, that harassment and violence remain a common experience for people in the workplace; and Parliament Hill, our own workplace, is especially affected.

Parliament Hill features distinct power imbalances, which perpetuates a culture where people with a lot of power and prestige can use and have used that power to victimize the people who work so hard for us. It is a culture where people who are victims of harassment or sexual violence do not feel safe to bring those complaints forward. It is a place where these types of behaviours, abusive and harmful, are accepted and minimized and ignored. In fact, it is a place where often the victimized individual is blamed for the harassment that she herself has experienced. We are all familiar with this phrase: She brought it on herself. It is like many other workplaces across Canada, especially those that have distinct power imbalances and a lack of strong policy that protects employees from harm. As it stands right now, people who have been victims of harassment or violence do not have suitable options for having their complaints heard, nor do they have options for resolving these very serious and often traumatic events. If they do come forward, they are often unsupported to manage the complex or difficult situations that they face as a result of the harassment that they have experienced.

Time is up. Things need to change. It starts with saying emphatically that it is never okay. It is never okay for someone to take advantage of a position of power to victimize another person. It is never okay that victims—far too often women, or young workers, or people of colour, or people from the LGBTQ2 community—have been forced to stay silent and keep their trauma to themselves. This has to stop.

I have heard heart-breaking experiences from staff members in this workplace and across the federal sector who do not know where to go when they have been victimized; who, after having followed a process, have felt that they were not taken seriously; who were asked to try again with their abuser and to avoid being in a room alone with the offender. I have spoken with many who have said that, after complaining, they were shunned, that they did not feel safe setting boundaries for themselves, and that their job and their reputation were threatened by their abuser, often much older and certainly more powerful than they. I have, sadly, heard stories of significant trauma and anxiety and of people who have left workplaces—ours, in particular—because they were certain they would not have a resolution for the abuse they were experiencing.

In our workplace here on Parliament Hill, it is no coincidence that we have so many of these stories of harassment and violence. In fact, the volume of these stories is directly tied to the distinct power imbalances in our workplace, which I spoke of earlier. Therefore, it is clear that we need to create safe workplaces, including right here, so that everyone can thrive; and the first and most critical step we as a government and society must take is to support survivors. We need to believe the people who are coming forward. We need to demonstrate that we hear them, that we take them seriously, that we are their allies, and that we are committed to ending this behaviour.

The #MeToo and Time's Up movements have helped women and other survivors from around the world to bring their stories forward and shine a spotlight on harassment and sexual violence. It is our responsibility to ensure that the light does not fade. We have an opportunity to act and to end the need for women to say “me too” in the future. No woman or any person in Canada should ever have to say “me too” again. That is why we are taking action with legislation.

However, we also know that this problem is too large to solve with legislation alone. Creating safe workplaces, free of violence and harassment, will take all Canadians working together to ensure that we change a culture that does indeed tolerate this behaviour. To change an abusive culture, good leadership is critical. I am very proud to be part of a government that has been very clear that harassment and sexual violence will not be tolerated.

The Prime Minister has shown time and again that he is not afraid to take action when needed, and has clearly demonstrated that he is an ally to survivors. It is this kind of courageous leadership that sets expectations in workplaces and begins to shift power and balances. When leaders set the tone and the expectation that people are safe in their workplace, it empowers people to stand up and say that harassment and sexual violence is not okay. It empowers people to take action.

It is this kind of leadership that will break down the patriarchal culture in which we live; designed by men, for men. If we want more women to lead, to build, and to create in Canada, we have to ensure they are respected and safe. It is our job as a government to stand up for the rights of all Canadians, especially women, people of colour, and the LGBTQ2 community, often those people with the least power, so they can live and work free of harassment and violence.

It is for this reason that we introduced Bill C-65 last year, after consulting with Canadians from across the country. Canadians have told us that incidents are still vastly under-reported. They have told us that when incidents are reported, and if there is even a follow up, it is unacceptable, ineffective, and flawed. In fact, 41% of the respondents told us that no attempt was made to resolve an incident they reported.

We also consulted with members of Parliament and senators. They made it clear that we all wanted to stop harassment and sexual violence, and support survivors.

Therefore, I am hopeful we will have the support of the other parties on this very important bill.

After our consultations, it became very clear that what was in place right now to protect Canadians in federally regulated workplaces from harassment and violence and to deal with it when it did happen was simply not enough and that we needed to do better.

Parts II and III of the Canada Labour Code deal with occupational safety and health and employment standards within the federal jurisdiction. Currently no comprehensive system is in place for preventing and dealing with incidents of harassment and sexual violence. What we have instead is a patchwork of laws and policies that address these issues within the federal jurisdiction.

For example, violence is dealt with in part II of the code, which covers occupational health and safety, and applies to all federally regulated workplaces, including the public service. However, sexual harassment is dealt with in part III, or the labour standard section, of the code, which does not cover public servants, only the federally regulated private sector. On top of that, our parliamentary workplaces are not covered at all.

During our consultations, Canadians told us that we needed to treat incidents of harassment and violence as a continuum of inappropriate behaviour. This continuum should span all the way from teasing to physical abuse. Right now too many people are falling through the cracks. Too often, when they report harassment and sexual violence, nothing happens. These experiences end up serving as a deterrent for others who are considering whether they should come forward and report an incident. All employees need to be protected and every incident needs to be dealt with quickly and effectively and seen through to resolution.

Legislation will not solve this problem alone. We need a culture shift, and government plays a critical role in shifting culture. It starts with a comprehensive approach that focuses on preventing these behaviours before they happen, responding effectively when they do occur, and supporting survivors after the fact. We need a new approach to dealing with harassment and violence that will better protect employees at all federally regulated workplaces from these unacceptable behaviours.

Therefore, Bill C-65 proposes amending existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code by replacing the patchwork of law and policies that address these issues within the federal jurisdiction and putting into place one comprehensive approach that takes the full spectrum of harassment and violence into consideration. The legislation would expand these policies to cover parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament, the House of Commons, and political staff on Parliament Hill.

There are three main pillars of the legislation: first, to prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring; second, to respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur; and, third, to support victims, survivors, and employers through the process.

Protecting employees by preventing these incidents from occurring in the first place is the foundation of this bill. The amendments we are proposing will explicitly require employers to prevent incidents of harassment and violence, and protect employees from these behaviours. It is time to treat harassment and sexual violence in the workplace the same way we treat other occupational health and safety hazards.

On this subject, 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, the authority to publicly name violators, strengthened powers for inspectors, new recourse against reprisals, and improvements to the wage recovery process are just some of the changes announced to increase workplace health and safety and better protect workers' rights.

Our second pillar is focused on effectively responding to incidents if they do occur. With these proposed amendments, employers will be required to investigate, record, and report occurrences of harassment and violence.

Employees who believe they have been victims of harassment or violence or have witnessed these behaviours would be able to report the incidents to their employers and try to resolve the matters through informal means. However, if the complaint could not be resolved, the employer would be obligated to appoint a competent person to undertake an investigation. Once the competent person concluded his or her investigation and issued a report, the employer would be obligated to implement any recommendations or corrective measures set out in that report.

At any point in this process, if the employee believes that the employer has contravened any parts of the code or the regulations, he or she could file a complaint with the labour program and then labour program officials would investigate and take enforcement action if they found a contravention of the code or the regulations did occur. Details regarding the investigation would be fine tuned and set out in the regulations.

These proposed amendments will also protect the privacy of employees, encouraging those who are victimized to come forward. This is vital to the success of this bill. We know that incidents are being under-reported due to fear of reprisal and the unfair but very real stigma associated with being a victim of harassment and sexual violence.

Our third pillar would require employers to support victims who would be affected by these incidents. We would also require employers to assist those who would need help to understand the new approach. The labour program would assist with education and support for complainants.

It should be noted that the proposed legislation in no way replaces or takes precedence over the Criminal Code of Canada. Some actions and offences require law enforcement intervention, and complainants always have the right to go to the police to report incidents.

Time is up. The time for inaction is indeed over. Bill C-65 would ensure that workers in federally regulated sectors, including right here on Parliament Hill, finally have the protections they need. It would ensure that those who are in vulnerable positions have a voice. It would ensure that those who still think harassment and sexual violence are acceptable in 2018 would be held accountable.

All people deserve to work in a safe workplace and they deserve to live free from harassment or violence. I ask that all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle show their support for the bill.

[Gina Wilson]

Thank you for your question.

On November 7 the government introduced Bill C-65. We received a lot of very positive feedback on this bill because, from our perspective, all women in Canada have the right to a workplace free of harassment and sexual violence. Definitely as part of our own gender-based violence strategy, we are looking at issues like workplace harassment. That will be part of our more global approach to the gender-based violence strategy, including things like data collection and working with federal institutions like Treasury Board, the RCMP, and the Canadian Armed Forces, which are very large workplaces as well, and ensuring that those workplaces are free from harassment and discrimination.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

I have another question Ms. Wilson may be able to answer.

Could you comment on Bill C-65, which is not related to your department but rather to Employment and Social Development Canada? It does also impact women and has many major repercussions. It dramatically affects their personal and professional lives.

Could you comment on the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in workplaces? If you know, could you tell us how this bill will change the landscape?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-65, 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)