Bill C-65 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

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

Canada Labour Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that the national government has a leadership role to play that goes even beyond the areas we regulate. Taking initiatives of this nature result in positive spinoffs in other jurisdictions.

One thing I have taken from this debate, and I commented on it earlier, is the support we are receiving. There has been all-party support for this initiative.

Could she provide her comments on that?

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think all parties in the House share a commitment to doing everything we can to end the kinds of problems about which the member has spoken. We in the official opposition are supportive of the bill. We want to see it move forward and we want to take a constructive approach. We want to look for ways to potentially improve the bill and strengthen it, if we hear of those opportunities at committee.

Does the member have any initial thoughts on possible amendments she thinks might strengthen the bill. Has she given any thought to changes that could be made, should be made to the text and the provisions themselves?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question.

With regard to any amendments that might be made, I have to say that I am not on the committee that will be studying this bill. However, it would be advisable to pass this bill.

It is unacceptable that people are being victimized. Obviously, victims of harassment in the workplace have higher absenteeism rates and are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression. This is a situation that must absolutely be prevented.

We cannot afford to lose employees in today’s job market. The unemployment rate is so low. More than 700,000 new jobs have been created in Canada in the past two years. We must make sure that all workers without exception have access to a healthy work environment. This will ensure productivity for both employees and employers.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all our colleagues today for the very moving speeches about this very important topic. I know our staff members are very busy, but I hope they are able to hear what has been said in debate so they can see how important this is and know that harassment in this workplace, in any form, is unacceptable.

I remember when I was a young woman just getting into journalism. Back 45 years ago, we were told that if we wanted to work in a man's world we had to put up with almost everything. We did, and it was wrong. It was wrong in so many ways. We all have stories over the years of things we have had to put up with, but as the saying goes, “time is up” and we must move forward.

We cannot wait for the bill to go through. We must act now. Does the member have any advice as to what we can do now in our workplaces to ensure our employees feel safe?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her question.

My hon. colleague is from the world of journalism. I am also from a traditionally male-dominated field. I was the only woman who owned a grocery store or supermarket, so I was an easy target. I, too, probably put up with comments that I should not have tolerated.

I am thinking about my daughters. We need a change in culture, whether it is for my daughters or for our female co-workers. We cannot afford to lose anyone who is involved in our society’s economic development. We cannot. All of these people must be active and find their own way. The culture needs to change.

If we as women hear unacceptable comments, we must say so and report them right away, both for ourselves and for our employees.

With respect to the date when the measures will be implemented, I would like to point out that the bill is in its second reading. The sooner we pass the bill, the clearer our message will be. We will then be able to effect change more quickly. It is very important for everyone here, but also for everyone who is watching us, everyone who works with us, and everyone who works under federal jurisdiction. We must send a clear message: these things are unacceptable and they must be reported. We must not put up with these comments.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

It is with mixed feelings that I stand to speak in the House today. On the one hand, I am deeply grieved that we even have to have this conversation right now with regard to this topic of sexual harassment. On the other hand, I am glad that we are having this conversation to bring attention to a very important matter, and my hope is that we are able to do something about it going forward.

All parties in this place agree that there is zero tolerance for sexual harassment, but if we were to pick up a newspaper or watch the newscasts at night, or if we were to read through the comments staffers from the Hill have posted to social media, we would see that there are far too many stories with regard to sexual harassment taking place in the workplace.

The issue before the House is not a partisan issue, and we must begin by agreeing not to make it so. This is an issue of power and the balance of power between an employee and an employer.

When it comes time to hire or fire, members of Parliament have complete control over this process and the staff in their offices. For every paid staffer, it is important to understand that there are a dozen interns hoping to take that job. This places employees in an extremely precarious position and makes them very vulnerable. Add to this the lack of an independent process for handling harassment allegations and it is no wonder employees can quickly find themselves in a position where they feel that they have no option but to keep silent and hope not to rock the boat. For those reasons, I welcome the initiative of the government to implement a more formal structure for preventing and responding to sexual harassment in the public workplace.

I believe it is very important for this bill to make it to committee as soon as possible, where it can be further assessed. At that stage, legislators would have the opportunity to examine it closely and make the necessary changes to strengthen it going forward.

To serve all employees and all employers well, sexual harassment must be clearly defined. That said, we must discuss whether it is better to define sexual harassment through legislation or to allow cabinet to define it through what is called regulation. Traditionally, sexual harassment has been defined in part III of the Canada Labour Code. However, clause 16 of the bill before this House would delete the legislated definition of sexual harassment from the code. In its place, the Liberals would give authority to cabinet members to define sexual harassment through part II of the Labour Code. This means that the government of the day would be empowered to define what sexual harassment is in both the House of Commons and all federally regulated workplaces, with zero input from this place, Parliament.

As a general principle, important changes like this should be enshrined within legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I hate to interrupt, but I just want to remind the hon. members that debate is taking place, and I am kind of having a hard time. Maybe it is my age. My hearing is not as good as it used to be. I am having a hard time hearing the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The hon. member for Lethbridge. The rest of the members could maybe whisper a bit more softly or take the discussion into the lobby.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a general principle, important changes like this should be enshrined in legislation. Now, it stands to reason that most Canadians, including the employers bound by the Canada Labour Code, believe that the definition of sexual harassment is something worth preserving in law and that it is the process we should be going through.

The second thing that will need to be examined by the committee is how we ensure that all employees, including those who work for government members, enjoy the full protection of this legislation.

The House of Commons is not like other federal government workplaces. This place, by design, is meant to be partisan. Democracy is best served by the official opposition skilfully testing the government's policies and bringing them to the Canadian public's attention. The ability of the opposition to do its job without fear of reprisal or retribution by the Prime Minister, or any member on that side of the House, is foundational to our democracy, which is why I am a little concerned about how this legislation would actually be applied to the House of Commons.

The bill before us would bring members of Parliament and their staff under the authority of part II of the Canada Labour Code. It is important, then, to understand how this code uniquely empowers the Liberal Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to personally initiate investigations and make compliance orders under the act.

Upon receiving a complaint from an employee or employer, it is the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour who would be authorized to conduct an investigation. Once an investigation was conducted, it would also be the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour who was authorized to issue compliance orders. This would be done, of course, through the member of Parliament who was brought forward through a complaint.

The minister also has the power to issue emergency directives to an employer and to make those orders public. We can see how devastating this could potentially be to a member's career if, in fact, a complaint was found not to hold water.

For those watching from their homes and workplaces today, let me take a moment to quickly outline the implications. An employee would have the opportunity to make a complaint directly to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. At this point, the minister could decide not to investigate if she felt that the complaint was vexatious or made in bad faith. Right away, this should raise some red flags, given the circumstances.

The question we must ask is whether Canadians can have complete confidence that the minister, behind closed doors, would impartially judge complaints when she had the power to protect her Liberal colleagues from allegations that could potentially end their careers.

What also worries me is that there would be no appeal process. Once the minister made her ruling, the complaint would simply go away. On the other hand, if the minister decided to launch an investigation, she would then have the power to enter the workplace to compel the production of documents and to force testimony from staff.

Let me be clear on this point. This legislation, as it is worded now, would grant a Liberal minister the legal right to enter an opposition MP's office to compel the office to turn over any record she deemed necessary for the investigation. This could include emails, private or personal calendar pages, social media accounts, text messages, etcetera.

The minister and her staff could be entitled to snoop through the member's data and records, which would then give them access to a ton of politically sensitive information, information that may or may not find its way into the hands of, let us say, a journalist. I am sure all members are able to see how this could be used for partisan gain. Of course, we hope not, but nevertheless, I must highlight the potential.

Even if the minister delegated the initial decision to investigate and also delegated the actual investigation, the minister would still need to sign off at the end. There would be no way for the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to completely excuse herself from the process. The question then becomes this: Could Canadians rightfully expect that the Liberal minister would treat a Conservative MP and a Liberal MP the exact same way?

Furthermore, the minister would also determine whether an order had been complied with. If, in the minister's opinion, an order was not observed, a subjective determination, I might add, she would have the power to table the order in Parliament publicly, thus shaming the member.

Finally, the minister would have the authority at any point after a complaint was made to issue an emergency compliance directive if she believed that the health of an employee was at risk. Emergency orders would be immediately tabled in the House of Commons, and made publicly known, announcing that an investigation was under way, before any facts of the situation had actually been determined.

It is hard to imagine that the minister would not be tempted to perhaps use this provision by announcing an investigation into an opposition MP, perhaps as soon as possible or when it seemed necessary or to the advantage of the party in power.

If we are serious about providing equal protection for employees of members of the government and members of the opposition and about ensuring the non-partisan application of this law, then we need to ensure that there is an arm's-length, neutral, third-party regulator put in place who will make decisions about whether a complaint is valid and about how to conduct the investigation.

One may think that no one would seriously consider using something such as sexual harassment as a tool for political advantage. I would certainly hope not, but I believe we must do everything in our power to ensure the safety of employees without risking the potential of partisan gamesmanship.

We owe it to every current and future employee of this House to get this right, including the staff of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, who, let us be really honest, is quite unlikely to investigate and prosecute herself should a complaint be made. This begs the question: Where do her employees go?

I urge my hon. colleagues to send this bill to committee, where its members can work with expert advisers to figure out how to ensure that the integrity and impartiality of this process is upheld. We owe it to the staff of the House of Commons. We owe it to the members in this place. We must address this issue with regard to sexual harassment and create a safe and secure work environment for all.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There will be five minutes for questions and comments when the House next addresses this topic.

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statements, government orders will be extended by 22 minutes.

Before question period, the hon. member for Lethbridge gave her speech and now we have a five-minute period for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke earlier this afternoon, I was quite hopeful this debate would continue to be a non-partisan. We heard amazing speeches this morning from the minister, the member for Jonquière, and the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. The member for Calgary Nose Hill gave a powerful speech this morning. Earlier we had a question for the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, which received a standing ovation from all hon. members. Thus, I am really disappointed the member for Lethbridge chose this opportunity to turn her intervention in the House into a partisan speech.

Would she clarify that a survivor coming forward has an ability to appeal to the minister who in turn can appoint the deputy minister to respond? If the employee is not satisfied, he or she can appeal to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board. The board can rule or turn it over to the Speaker who can intervene.

Would the hon. member clarify the record on the actual process that can take place?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the hon. member's question because she has swung the accusation that I am turning this into a partisan debate, when that is not at all what I did. I clearly acknowledged that this was a non-partisan issue. This is why I am raising before the House the process that the minister for labour has proposed, which is that any concern that a staff member has within the Parliament would go forward to the minister of labour. It would be up to the minister to look at that concern and decide whether to investigate it.

I do not believe that process serves the staff members of the House very well. If a staff member of the minister has a concern or a complaint to be made because of something that was done, then he or she needs a mechanism to bring his or her concern forward without fear of the minister getting involved and trying to scapegoat.

I am sorry but that question was absolutely inappropriate and based on a false premise.