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

[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.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the minister for trying to make our workplaces free from harassment. I would also like to tell her that we will support this bill at second reading so that it can be improved in committee.

The minister talked a lot about victims in her speech. According to this bill, victims must first go to their employer, but victims are sometimes afraid of going to their employer, since the employer may be involved in the harassment.

Can the minister assure me that she will allow these victims to go directly to the Department of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour investigator? Will she allocate the financial resources needed to ensure that victims can go to the department when they do not want to go to their employer, who may be the perpetrator?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for his support of the proposed legislation. It is important that we work together. It is reassuring to hear that we indeed have parliamentarians broadly in support of legislation that would protect the most vulnerable in our workplaces.

On the member's question, absolutely. First, victims always have the right to go to law enforcement should they have a serious incident from which they feel they need protection. Second, more than that, employers would also be required, with employees, to select a list of alternative people who employees can turn to if in fact the victimizer is their employer. Third, if the resolution cannot happen through the employer, the employer and employee would have a list of competent people they could choose as a third party to investigate should that employee not get a resolution in the first attempt. Finally, at any point in the process, the victim of violence or harassment can come directly to the Labour Department, and we have sufficient resources to manage those complaints.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very insightful speech.

We have been discussing this topic here in the House for several months, and I know that many will be listening closely to our discussions today.

I would like to ask my colleague whether workplaces will have access to new funds for training. Training is essential to changing a culture and creating a healthy workplace for all those who work in telecommunications, airports, and federally regulated workplaces. Will there be financial assistance set aside for training?

I think that training is the key to change. As I mentioned, it will support investigations into allegations of sexual harassment.

I would also like to know where this money will be coming from.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her support. It is reassuring to hear that all parties recognize we need to deal with this in a more comprehensive way.

We already are working on materials for employers to help them begin the work of training, prevention, and awareness. We have resources in place to cover the costs of doing so.

As I mentioned in my speech, through budget 2017, we have significantly added to our ability to investigate and follow up on complaints made to my department. We are very confident we have the resources we need to move forward on the legislation.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know every person deserves to be in a workplace where he or she is free from harassment and sexual violence. As leaders and a federal government, we need to be the ones who lead the way and take the first steps.

As we know, every woman who comes forward is displaying tremendous courage. It is not an easy thing to do. For that woman, perhaps a young woman at the beginning of her career, how will the legislation make it easier for her to come forward, then actually see action from the fact she has had the tremendous courage to speak up?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very important point. Oftentimes those who are victimized are the ones who have the least experience, are the most vulnerable in a workplace, and who have the least security and power. That is exactly what the legislation is meant to address.

First, it sets a framework that focuses on prevention so all people know what their rights are in a workplace and that there is a strong policy in every federally regulated workplace that gives a clear framework for employees and employers about what the code of conduct is and how to prevent this.

Second, it would ensure there would be alternative mechanisms for a person to come forward with his or her complaint, maybe not the employer if the employer is the perpetrator. We have thoughtfully included that. We know that oftentimes, especially in small workplaces, it very well might be the employer who is the perpetrator. Building the obligation of the employer to have a list of alternate people is a critical component in ensuring people come forward.

Finally, the attention we have paid to ensuring privacy is protected is another really important piece of the legislation, one that is worthy of a mention. Many times we have heard that people come forward and they are shamed and stigmatized for their experiences. They are discouraged from moving forward in their career, or may be held back or there may be significant financial consequences. Having a process that ensures privacy of the victim is critically important.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like many in the House, I have been very concerned and upset by a number of the issues that have happened over the last number of months and, to be quite frank, over the last number of years.

I listened to the minister's speech, and she was right. Both systemic and cultural change will be important. I look forward to the bill going to committee to see how we can even make it better.

One thing concerns me, because we are looking at a continuum. We know the RCMP is available, but we have legislation by our former interim leader, which has sat in the Senate for months, on judges and their training. Ultimately, people who go through the process need to have confidence they will be heard through the justice system.

Would the member offer any encouragement for the Senate to move forward on that legislation? This is another piece of this important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises an important point. People have to have confidence in the system that is put in place to protect them, and of course, the Senate has its own process and its own timelines.

We believe that education and awareness is a critical component of that, and that includes the people who are doing the investigating and the deciding on cases of harassment and sexual violence. That is why we have focused so much in our legislation on education, on ensuring that there is strong policy, that employers know their obligations, and that employees know their rights.

We look forward to working with the member and hearing her thoughts through the committee process.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is such an important day for all of us, to be coming onto the same page at this moment in time, in our country and across the world. It is critical that we put our partisan hats to the side and do the very hard work that is necessary to ensure that this workplace is zero tolerance going forward. I applaud everyone who is getting up today to be a part of this debate. It is critical.

There are many tools that are needed in order to see this legislation go forward, but certainly even beyond that, I would like the minister to consider adopting 10-day paid leave for anyone who has been a victim of any type of harassment in their workplace. It is very important that they are able to have that time to deal with the fallout they are facing. We see women across our country being victimized all over again by social media and by people. We really need to advocate for them to have that time to be able to heal.

The other piece that is very important, and we will be bringing it forward, is a clear definition. This is the basis of all of the work we are doing. I implore the minister to adopt a clear definition in the legislation so that we will know exactly what we are facing going forward.

My question is about that definition. I hope the minister will entertain the amendments that will come forward about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to those amendments, and of course we will consider them very closely. As I have said, I am open to considering any amendment that makes the legislation stronger, because, at the end of the day, I agree with my colleague. This is about setting a zero tolerance culture for harassment and violence.

In terms of why there is not a definition of harassment in the legislation, we felt it was critically important to include that in the regulations so that as we move forward with different forms of harassment, we can address those quickly and rapidly without having to turn to yet another debate about what harassment is. That is the intent. It was not in any way an attempt to limit the scope of harassment. As I said in my speech, it is the full scope, from bullying all to the way to physical violence or sexual violence.

I will briefly say that with the advent of new forms of social media, such as Snapchat, all kinds of things arise in an employee-employer situation, and we want the flexibility to be able to quickly add other forms of harassment as technology and our culture changes.

[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.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by applauding my colleague. I find it tremendously sad that we have to stand here and have this debate in 2018, trying to turn it in a different way. It needed to happen. It should have happened many, many years ago. We should not have to have an open discussion in the House of Commons, but the reality is it is necessary to have the conversation or nothing is going to change. It is about changing a culture. It is about letting all of Canada know that none of us will stand by and allow someone else to be abused or mistreated without saying something. If we are going to make a cultural change, it means each and every one of us has to do that. Otherwise, 10 years from now, my daughter and others may be standing here having the same conversation. I do not want to see that happen.

I applaud your comments and recommendations that you put forward in such a constructive way, because it is not about partisan politics. This is about changing a behaviour and making this place safer for men and women. We are focused very much on sexual harassment of women, but let us be clear that there is a lot of harassment that goes on in a variety of workplaces, this one being no different. I did two years of work on sexual harassment in the RCMP and that was not only about women, it was also about lots of men.

I assume that my colleague is going to encourage all of her colleagues to take the training to make sure that all our colleagues are made aware that they have an obligation to stand up and protect others who are being intimidated. I would like to hear her comments on that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind hon. members to address their comments and questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her career on the Hill and for being a woman who has carved a path for many of us. She has probably had to deal with much of this throughout her career as well.

I do not know of a workplace nowadays where people do not have to take some sort of sexual harassment training. It is about how we perceive sex and sexual consent in a pluralistic society and there is a wide array of how people view that. At the end of the day there is only one acceptable course of action, to normalize and define what we mean by harassment. In preparing for this speech, I found that the Ontario government has a policy on this. Many workplaces have very clear and defined policies. There is no reason that we cannot adopt that.

We talk about harassment, but we also need to talk about what consent is. I remember giving a speech on the bill that dealt with the changes in prostitution laws. My whole thesis was that we fundamentally do not understand what sexual consent is in a cohesive way in this country. I remember a journalist tweeted asking me if what I wanted was a confetti cannon. No, and that is the point. There is such a limited understanding of what constitutes appropriate behaviour and when we are confronted with something that is inappropriate, I go back to what Megan said, that the onus is on us to laugh it off or extract ourselves from the situation. There should be frameworks and behavioural codes of conduct that prevent the person who is being abused from having to defend themselves. That behaviour should not have happened to begin with and we have a broader societal obligation to prevent it from happening. That means bosses, co-workers, friends, family, everyone, and this will not change, nothing will change, until we as a society embrace that principle writ large.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very insightful speech.

We have heard a lot about training. Many members of Parliament have to take training, and I would like my colleague to make suggestions. How do we get men and women involved in changing the culture? I am not talking about ministers or parliamentary secretaries; I am talking about all of us. After all, we are all people. We get training and we can make amendments, but what are practical things we should be doing? We agree that psychological, physical, or sexual harassment, and bullying are unacceptable.

What else should we be doing, as a group, to ensure, first, that this does not happen again here, on the Hill, to our employees, and then in every federally regulated workplace?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying, and I have made the case, that this bill and the framework it presents are a step in the right direction.

In the context of the Hill, I presented a concrete example. All of our political parties here should have a formal code of conduct on the books that anybody interacting with the parties is required to be trained on and to sign off on before being able to carry the flag or do any work under our parties. That would prevent any ambiguity as to whether there was consent, or whether anything wrong actually happened.

There should be higher standards of behaviour. I look at this more from the perspective that we all know when something is wrong, like the guy who is rubbing his secretary's shoulders every day or the hug that lingers too long. We all know the hugger or the cheek kisser. We know when someone is saying something to our colleague or to us, such as, “Your hairstyle is making you look less attractive”, or about our choice of clothing, this and that. I am now at a point in this career where people get the look and they know to back off. However, I am saying that from a position of power and influence. A 22-year-old staffer who comes here does not have that power and influence; he or she needs to learn it. Frankly, I do not like spending my day giving the finger and the death glare.

My colleague's question is good, but people should use their noodle and not be jerks. They should not get hammered with a bunch of junior staffers and get in a cab with one of them and go home. That is a basic understanding of the operating principles here.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister brought up the fact that there needs to be a cultural shift in the whole country of Canada. To that point, I had introduced Motion No. 47, looking at the impacts of online sexual violence. A recent study showed that all of the top 88 videos viewed on the Internet over the last 10 years contained explicit sexual content and violence. Other studies show that 80% of the population is consuming this kind of content, and to some degree that will be lived out in real life. I was hoping to ask the minister directly what the government is going to do about that.

In a recent report from the committee on women's affairs, recommendation 5 states:

That the Government of Canada examine E-safety models or increased controls to prevent violent and degrading sexually explicit material from being accessed by youth under the age of majority and examine how violent and degrading sexually explicit material distorts young people’s ideas of consent, gender equality and healthy relationships.

I was wondering if my colleague had any comments on that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could have devoted a whole section of my speech to what the commodification of sex has done to this bad behaviour symptom, such as picking up the phone and swiping left. That is where a lot of us value sex today. In this context, we have to avoid moralizing about sexual behaviour in terms of how we deal with its appropriateness. This is the reason I said in my speech that we all have a right to our own sexual agency in this country.

To my colleague's point about the commodification of sex, we cannot ignore the fact that it has spread a bit of an environment where people think that bad behaviour is acceptable, that it is no longer as socially taboo to do some of the things that we have heard have happened. Sometimes I worry that a woman's sexual agency is being used as an excuse, such as, “She had the right to do it, and she wanted it.” Therefore, I think my colleague's question is very relevant. A lot of these issues tie into the same sphere. However, we have to stop being so prudish and so quiet about how we talk about sex, and get real about how it affects our workplace.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful way to start off the new year. We have members from all political parties talking about what is a very important issue to all Canadians. In listening to the many comments made so far this morning and this afternoon, there seems to be a great willingness to see that positive debate continue here and also at the committee stage.

My question for my colleague would be on why it is so important that when we have this debate, it is not about one party winning over another party or anything of this nature. It is looking at an issue we all hold very close to our hearts. We understand the importance of it to all Canadians.

Could the member provide her thoughts on some of the discussion, questions and answers, and speeches that have been made, where we have seen a good, healthy discussion on a very important issue to all Canadians?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. It is important to have non-partisan debate in the House. Throughout this debate, I have been thinking only of the victims, because they are the people we represent. It may be 2018, but we still need to address this issue, which remains relevant as other major allegations have recently emerged.

Parliament represents all Canadians, not just those in a particular riding. We need to lead by example. We are here to amend laws and make changes. If we are the first to break the law, what kind of example are we setting for the public?

It is important to have this debate here, because that is the whole reason we are here. We need to discuss the bill, but most of all, we need to move on and take action in a non-partisan way. All the men and women who work on or off Parliament Hill need to pledge to file a report anytime they witness wrongdoing. We need to take this training in order to change the culture and stop this kind of thing from happening again.

Changing the culture is important and is something we still need to work on in 2018, since there are still tons of examples in the news. It is vital for all men and all women to work together and commit to contributing to and participating in changing the culture.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her articulate speech. She is very well suited to address this topic. She is well versed in labour relations and she is a woman. Every member of the House can be proud of the tone of this debate.

Obviously, everyone supports good initiatives. Fortunately, my colleague took the time to conclude her speech by acknowledging the need to help people talk about this subject. She then immediately switched to the need for more definitions in the bill. I think about the #EtMaintenant movement. My own daughter has been handing out yellow hearts in bars to raise men's awareness of the situation. My colleague also touched on awareness raising in her speech. However, the definitions are crucial because without them there can be no awareness raising.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate all members who are giving non-partisan speeches today. This is a matter that affects everyone, both men and women. First and foremost it affects human beings.

In this place, we are politicians and we work on legislation. However, we must not speak just to politicians, but also to ordinary people, the men and women who work for us, of course, and those who work in the public, parapublic, and private sectors. We must change the mentality. I want to congratulate my NDP colleague for her excellent speech.

I have read the bill and I completely agree that it needs to be discussed. However, we need to take action now. This bill is a good start, but now we need to beef it up in order to make it more substantial and ensure everyone can support it.

One thing bothered me, and I am wondering if it bothered you as well. Should exemptions be defined in the bill? I think that exemptions cause a lot of confusion, and this could mean losing the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I remind members that they must address their questions or comments to the Chair and not directly to members.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[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.

[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.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that earlier the minister talked about changing the culture, and not only changing the culture in this place but changing it across Canada, in all corners. I know I introduced that, and I also introduced Motion No. 147 for the health committee to do a study on online sexual violence and how that affects men, women, and children. To her credit, the status of women committee has recently put out a report. Recommendation 5 from that report states:

That the Government of Canada examine E-safety models or increased controls to prevent violent and degrading sexually explicit material from being accessed by youth under the age of majority and examine how violent and degrading sexually explicit material distorts young people’s ideas of consent, gender equality and healthy relationships.

Does the member have an idea of what the government plans to do with this recommendation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We did a lot of work studying violence against young women and girls. Certainly cyber-violence was a large part of that, and the fact that young women and girls are subjected to unprecedented violence online. We mistakenly often call it cyber-bullying, and we need to call it out for what it really is, which is cyber-violence.

We looked at a number of models. He is correct: that model was one we recommended. The government, as part of a broader package of looking at gender-based violence in general, is taking online violence very seriously, and certainly so is the Minister of Public Safety. I cannot speak on behalf of the government, as a backbench member of Parliament, but I know it is something I have had discussions with various departments about, and it continues to be a top priority for them.

[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.

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

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

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

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

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

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

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

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the member provide some thoughts on those three words?

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

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

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

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

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[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.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the bill particularly talks about is prevention measures. It leaves it at that, and then it talks a lot about after the fact, after there is an incident of harassment or violence and those kinds of things.

If we rescue a puppy from a stream, and then we have to rescue another puppy from a stream and then another puppy from the stream, maybe we should go upstream and find out why the puppies are ending up in the stream.

One of the things I did when I was first elected was bring Motion No. 47 to examine the impact of online sexual violence on men, women, and children in Canada. That motion passed unanimously in the House of Commons. The health committee did a study on it as well. The recommendations that came out of that study were not nearly what I was looking for, but I noted that the status of women committee did a similar study as well. Recommendation 5 of the recent study by the status of women committee states:

That the Government of Canada examine E-safety models or increased controls to prevent violent and degrading sexually explicit material from being accessed by youth under age of majority and examine how violent and degrading sexually explicit material distorts young people's idea of consent, gender equality and healthy relationships.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on whether the government is going to be addressing that recommendation or how it is going to be addressing it.

[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.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's passion today in his speech, but it is going to require more from all of us than speeches in this place or the best intentions. This is going to require an incredible amount of hard work and breaking down structures that have existed for 150 years inside this House. It is going to take all of us rolling up our sleeves, digging in at the committee level, dropping our partisan hats at the door, and making sure that we are committed to making policies better for people who live and work in this place and in this city and who watch us from across the country. We really need to be committed to that.

This is not about patting each other on the back and saying that we are doing a great job. I do not want any kudos for the work we are doing here. I want not one more person to experience harassment here. That is going to take work.

One of the things it is going to take is an openness to amendments at the committee level. I have heard arguments today about the definition, something the NDP believes strongly must be part of the legislation. I understand the importance of it in the regulation, but there is no harm in making sure that we go above and beyond in this work and not do just the bare minimum.

I am hoping that the member will express today that they will be open to amendments in a non-partisan way to ensure that when we are finished with this legislation, we have done our very best and have left those partisan hats at the door so that every person going forward will benefit from this hard work.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her passion and commitment to this issue. The Government of Canada and my colleagues are no strangers to hard work. We want to work hard on this issue. We want results for people who face sexual violence in the workplace. We want a Parliament and a House of Commons where no one, now or in the future, faces unwanted sexual advances in the workplace. That requires us to be collaborative at committee. That is what we intend to do.

[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, the fact of the matter is that if people at a workplace feel not only that they may not be safe but that if something happens to them they have absolutely no recourse, because their employer has all the power, then it is no wonder that when incidents happen 80% are not reported and that we lose talented women and vulnerable employees because the system is stacked against them. This is about changing the system so that it is fair for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a woman, I am pleased today to speak to this bill. I admit that I feel a little embarrassed, not because of the bill, but because it is now January 29, 2018, and no one considered drafting this bill until now.

We have all heard rumours, but not spoken up. We have all seen certain things, but not reported them. We are a party to the legislation. We are the legislators and our own employees are not protected. It is unacceptable that, in 2018, our own employees in this place are not protected.

This is a good piece of legislation even though, as a woman, I would have preferred that it be more substantive. We often hear that women are harassed, but so are men. We are now talking about this, but some men are harassed and never file a complaint. We also have to shine a light on that.

As everyone has said throughout the day, this must not be a partisan bill. We must sit down together and have a frank, honest, and perhaps, in some respects, an upsetting discussion because we are part of the problem and of the solution.

Today I went through some papers and came across the definition of sexual harassment. We hear a lot of things and are never really sure.

Sexual harassment is not an offence under the Criminal Code in the same sense as other assaults of a sexual nature. The Criminal Code codifies criminal harassment and includes sentences for that type of harassment. Legal recourse does exist for sexual harassment in the workplace.

Honestly, I always thought that sexual harassment was included in the Criminal Code because I consider that sexual harassment and assault are crimes. They are crimes because often it is the most vulnerable who are attacked, which is unacceptable behaviour from an employer or any other person. No one should ever use their power to try to buy someone.

We have all seen things. We all know someone or know of someone who was a victim of psychological or sexual harassment. I have two daughters who are 29 and 28. I hope they are listening to me. If not, I will send them the clip. No does not mean yes. No means no. When someone enters our personal space uninvited we have the right to say no. If they do not understand that, then we will say it louder. It is time for attitudes to change.

If we want to change people's attitudes, where do we start? Where do we stop? What is now acceptable? What is no longer acceptable?

The first thing we need to realize is that sexuality is all over the place now. It is everywhere in television and videos. Even comic strips always have an element of sexuality. It has become so commonplace that people no longer know the difference between what is appropriate and what is not.

When we were little, on New Year's Day, our uncles chased us and tried to kiss us. We do not see as much of that in families nowadays, thank goodness. Nevertheless, attitudes need to change. We have to change our attitudes as legislators, but we also need to give victims more of a voice because they are the people we are talking about today. This bill is supposed to protect victims. It is supposed to protect us too, but the focus is on the victims.

Earlier, I was reading “Ensemble, contre les violences à caractère sexuel”. I have witnessed the protests. We have all, be it on television or from someone we know, heard about implicit or explicit promises to reward someone for agreeing to a sexual request. We may have heard about implicit or explicit threats of retaliation if the victim comes forward, threats that may or may not be acted upon. That is what we are speaking out against. We want to protect the people who report these crimes so they need not fear retaliation. That is extremely important.

Many people have spoken here today. As for me, I will be speaking personally, as a woman. I cannot say my name, but I can say that it is the woman, not the MP, who is speaking. The MP will speak later. I am having some trouble accepting the fact that an employee who is having a problem with an abuser is supposed to go to their employer, yet if the abuser is the employer and there is a third person in the same office but that person is only 20 years old, that third person cannot help the victim. There needs to be an independent structure to prevent this type of thing from happening. I am putting myself in the shoes of the victims who are forced to go to their abuser, who is also their employer. I think going to an abuser to say that they did something inappropriate must be the hardest thing in the world.

As I listened to everyone speak today, I was pleasantly surprised to realize that we are all on the same wavelength. This bill must be non-partisan. It must put victims first. It must be neither Liberal, nor NDP, nor Conservative. It must be a bill from the men and women who represent Canadians in every riding. I dare to hope that this bill will be so good and so non-partisan that it will be a first for Canada and will lead to other similar bills in other jurisdictions.

The important thing, in my opinion, is to craft a bill that gives victims a voice.

I commend the women and men who have found the courage to report their perpetrators, in spite of the lack of protection and resources, and especially in spite of the threat of retaliation.

The government must set an example and must do everything in its power to ensure that all employees are adequately and fairly protected across the country, in all workplaces, including the Parliament of Canada. The government must walk the talk and enact transparent, robust, fair, and equitable legislation.

More and more individuals are coming forward, and there has never been a better time to take action. However, we must be diligent, because a poorly drafted bill could hurt victims even more. We must absolutely consult victims and take their opinions into account to draft the best bill possible. Victims might prove to be a great help in putting together a bill that would protect everyone.

At the same time, parliamentary employees must enjoy the same protections as departmental employees. The burden of proof must not rest exclusively on the shoulders of victims. Victims must be given all the support they need along the way, including both psychological and financial support. It is up to us to decide. Furthermore, the committee study must not be tainted by partisanship, especially when it comes to choosing witnesses. Otherwise, if it passes as introduced, this bill will hurt victims in a number of ways. Lastly, adequate training should be mandatory for all employees and all employers.

With everything that happened last week in Canada, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, we were not all proud to be politicians. I was wishing I had another job. The good thing is that today we can stand up in the House and say loud and clear that sexual harassment must stop. It should no longer be a daily topic of conversation.

As politicians, we need to take responsibility. We also need to stop assuming that only women are affected, because it is not just women who are harassed. We also need to recognize that, and say so loud and clear.

What is more, the employees who work for us here on the Hill or in our riding offices should feel safe. This bill should not be the only one created to protect victims of crime.

I would like the vaguer aspects of the bill to be better defined. The government must provide more detailed explanations of the many exemptions set out in the bill. For example, organizations that have procedures equivalent to federal government procedures will be exempt from the federal regulations. In my opinion, that does not mean much.

I hope that the exemptions will be better defined because the more exemptions there are, the more confusing things can get. If we want a clear and transparent bill, everyone has to be able to understand it. When I say everyone, I do not just mean Canada's legislators. Ordinary Canadians should be able to read the bill and understand from it that there is someone who will speak on their behalf and that we are here to help them.

As I said earlier, I want to ensure that the government focuses on helping victims. They are the ones we are talking about here. Today, I was pleased to see everyone set partisanship aside and talk from the heart, with emotion, and especially with a bit more knowledge. It is ridiculous that we still have to talk about sexual harassment in 2018. We are dealing with old ways of doing things, and we need to rise above that today and change people's attitudes. Everyone here will agree that changing people's attitudes is not something that can be accomplished overnight. It will require some education. Every one of us can educate ourselves, but sometimes we need help in understanding our behaviour.

We are lawmakers, and we had a great debate on the bill today. Now, this bill will be sent to committee. We all know the committees of the House and how they have a tendency to partisanship. Witnesses get invited because they are Liberal, or Conservative, or NDP. That must not happen this time. The witnesses who are invited must be people who understand, who are familiar with workplaces, who know about sexual harassment and have passed legislation. For instance, Quebec has very strong legislation against sexual harassment.

We need people who are better equipped than we are to fully understand what kind of legislation we should pass here to guarantee that victims are properly protected. This is about our employees, employees working in federal workplaces, in our environment. Our environment needs to become a calm place and, above all, a place where people can report workplace abuse without fear of retaliation.

In closing, I want to say that I know Chantal is listening to us today. There is a little bit of her in this. She does not work with us, but I have met her, and I know how much good it does for her to see debates like the one we had today, untainted by partisanship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member across the way, and I appreciate that there is a desire from members in all political parties to contribute to the debate. I get a sense that, at the very least, we will have a very interesting committee discussion. I suspect we will continue to see it being dealt with in an apolitical fashion, as all parties recognize that this is the type of thing we need to move forward on.

The member across the way expressed some interest in how presenters might be invited to participate. I wish her well, along with the committee ultimately responsible, in terms of ensuring that we try to carry the momentum we are seeing in the House in a very apolitical fashion to ensure that we have the best piece of legislation so that all of us can be proud of it.

One of the aspects of the legislation, and I made reference to this earlier, is its general framework, in which the three words that come to mind are “prevent”, “respond”, and “support”: prevent incidents of harassment and violence, respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur, and support victims, survivors, and employees. Could the member comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work.

I would like the bill to be fleshed out. I find that some things are vague, and I would like them to be explained more clearly. There are the exceptions, for example. The bill contains many exceptions. I do not want the bill to have too many of them. I spoke to victims of crime for my former bill. There should not be too many exceptions because it leads to confusion, and even we will not be able to make head or tail of it.

I believe that the bill must be clear for victims and for us, in order to make the work easier for all parliamentarians. I hope that it will be. It would help if we could work well together.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

Indeed, it is nice to see everyone in the House of Commons united around a bill that we all seem to agree on.

I heard my colleague say that she would like to set limits and get rid of some exceptions. Quite often, and rightly so, I believe victims are praised for their courage and told that they will be believed. That is wonderful. Victims must be supported. However, if we were to better define the crimes in question, I think that would help make reporting them less of an act of courage. It would just be enforcing the law. I cannot help but think that a publicity campaign or information campaign needs to be defined.

I am 55 years old. When I was little, no one even talked about seat belts, and people smoked in cars with the windows closed and with kids in the car. Some things are just not done anymore. We do not throw stacks of paper in the garbage. There have been awareness campaigns.

An awareness campaign should force men to look in the mirror and realize that they need to make some changes. Could this be defined in the context of this bill? Can we expect this to be addressed in committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I completely agree. First and foremost, we need to define what we are talking about. As I said earlier, what may have been acceptable 10 years ago is no longer acceptable now. Attitudes have changed, for all kinds of reasons. We need a framework with good definitions, so that everyone is on the same page.

Sometimes, we hear sexist jokes. These do not bother me, because I have always hung around with guys, and I have learned to ignore them. However, these jokes are not acceptable to the new generation.

A definition is not only very important, but necessary. It is necessary to specifically designate what is considered sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is often confused with sexual assault. They are not at all the same thing. They are similar, but they are not the same. We need good definitions so that we, as legislators, can understand the legislation and understand what we need to do to protect victims.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to stand and say how pleased I am to see the strong support of parliamentarians across the political spectrum for this particular bill.

As a physician, I am very familiar with violence of all kinds, including workplace, domestic, and societal violence. Due to the fear, stigma, and shame associated with violence, most people do not talk to anybody but do feel safe talking to their physician. I was always a repository of all of this information and knowledge, sometimes unable to do very much about it except to advise a patient about what to do.

Today, we see full disclosure. Everyone is disclosing now, and because of that full disclosure, some people feel very safe in joining the ranks and the throng so they are not singled out. However, it does not mean the shame has gone away. It does not mean that the stigma has gone away. It does not mean that blaming the victim has gone away.

It is not enough to talk about the issue. We have to do something concrete, and who, other than this place, this Parliament, can do something concrete about this? We make laws and we create policies, and we create programs that will deal with the issue once and for all.

I believe this bill is creating—albeit some people think it should be amended, etc.—a first step to keep a promise the Liberal government made when it first came to power, that it would deal with exactly this particular workplace harassment and this particular culture in the workplace.

We need to look at this. I know people have spoken about different types of harassment and violence. I want to say that violence is not just physical and it is not only sexual. Psychological violence is rampant in the workplace, where people do things or do not do things or do not say things because of the fear of losing their job or a promotion or of reprisals by the people who are in authority in the workplace.

We need to really look at a full and comprehensive spectrum of violence. Psychological violence is as important and as damaging as actual physical violence. There is a great deal of psychological violence in the workplace.

To look at this, we need to look at an integrated approach. I think we are looking at—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I will just call the member to order momentarily. I would just draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that we were under comments and questions to the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. I did not realize the hon. member was scheduled to come up. We were still on the remaining 10 minutes.

We will get the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix to respond.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre will then have the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, having sat with my colleague on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women from 2006 to 2011, I must say that she is very knowledgeable about sexual harassment. She has long been a strong supporter of victims. I know that she will raise some good points about this bill, and I hope that, for once, they will be non-partisan.

[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.

[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, the hon. member makes a very important point. If we do not know what we are talking about, how can we deal with it properly? Then we get vague. The member is absolutely right that no one can do anything if there is vagueness and the barriers that are created by vague language. I hope that, when the committee looks at this, it will look at ways in which to strengthen the bill and make sure it works for everyone. The political will is here. All of us in this House, in every political party, are in agreement that we want to do something and we want to make it stick. We want something that is effective. Therefore, I am hoping that we will all be able to talk about this in the spirit that we have right now in this House, one of co-operation, and build not only a very strong and good bill but a set of regulations that will make this work well.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, early on in my career here, I brought forward Motion No. 47 to have the health committee do a study on the impact of online sexual violence on men, women, and children to see how online sexual violence was affecting Canadian culture. A recent study showed that the top 88 videos viewed on the Internet contained not only sexual content but violence combined with sexual content. Another study showed that a vast majority of the population is consuming this on a weekly basis.

One thing we looked at was some sort of opt-in legislation or a filter of some sort. I noticed that the status of women committee undertook a similar study. Recommendation 5 in a recent report said:

That the Government of Canada examine E-safety models or increased controls to prevent violent and degrading sexually explicit material from being accessed by youth under the age of majority and examine how violent and degrading sexually explicit material distorts young people's ideas of consent, gender equality and healthy relationships.

Does the member think this is perhaps an area to look at to prevent harassment and violence in the future: looking at what people are viewing today and how it is shaping their minds and thinking on a lot of these things?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an important point, and I am very well aware of what the status of women committee said. It is very difficult, though, to police what people do in the privacy of their own homes. I think the member is talking about underage people. There is not just legislation and police who can deal with underage children. There is parenting. There is the V-chip that can be installed to prevent kids from getting certain things on television and stop people from accessing certain things if they are underage. Parents need to take responsibility for doing this in their homes.

I know of so many young women and men who are locked in their bedrooms and are on their computers doing who knows what, and they are victims of luring and predators. We need to talk about how to deal with this. I do not know that we can legislate what people do in the privacy of their own homes, but we might want to talk about policies and programs that might give parents the tools they need to prevent their children having access to certain things that are harmful to their growing minds.

[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]

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, 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.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague was here for the last question that I asked so I will not reiterate that entirely.

One of the recommendations that came out of a recent status of women committee talked about bringing in an e-safety model, preventing access of youth who are under age, and examining how violent and degrading sexually explicit material distorts young people's ideas of consent, gender equality, and healthy relationships. I wonder if the member is familiar with what is going on in the U.K. in regard to opt-in or age verification. I know that her colleague said there is not much we can do about this. I would just ask if she is aware of what is going on in the U.K. in terms of this.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work and for offering that suggestion. This is what will happen next, I would say.

We are taking the lid off something that has gone on for so long, that has gone unreported and has created such suffering, and intergenerational suffering. The good work that is being done around the world will only help make Canada a stronger, more resilient, and safer society.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could add some further thoughts in regard to the important role the national government can play, along with the fact that what we have witnessed all day here is a sense of non-partisanship. Members from all sides of the House are looking forward to the bill ultimately going to committee. There is no political party here trying to strike one for a victory. Rather, it seems to be about the fact that this type of legislation is needed, so let us approve it and get it to committee.

Can the hon. member give her thoughts on how encouraging it is to see that support for a very important issue for all Canadians?

[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.

[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.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a two-part question. The first part is with respect to the existing processes for learning more about sexual harassment in the workplace. My staff and I have done a webinar that relates to this topic. It is training that is available to all members and their staff in the House of Commons. Have the member and his staff had an opportunity to do this, or will they?

Second, the member raised the topic of the executive, legislative, and judicial roles of this legislation potentially being harmonized within the minister and whether that is appropriate. Does the member feel that there is a particular officer of Parliament in whom this adjudicative role should reside? Does he have an opinion on it?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the training the House offers to members and their staff is very good. I encourage all members and their staff to participate in that training. It provides a good framework for the basis of a healthy and functioning office, one that will give good results and provide an environment that is safe and respectful to all individuals.

As for the adjudication of complaints, I appreciate very much the part in the legislation that allows for mediation. That is a very important part. When an individual has the freedom to engage a supervisor or an employee about a sexual harassment claim, I think that is good. However, we and our staff would be better served if there were an outside third party set up where someone could lodge a complaint. The complaint could be lodged confidentially with that third party. It could then be investigated confidentially and a response given as to whether it was a complaint suitable for mediation or it needed to be escalated through the ranks.

[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, 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.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to a bill that seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code with regard to harassment and violence.

I thank my colleague from Provencher for making valid arguments and reiterating our party's position. We support the bill at second reading. I just came from the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where we are getting ready to receive this important bill that we would like to improve.

This bill was introduced on November 7, 2017, by the government, but in light of recent events, we see that it is quite timely. In her speech today, the minister indicated that we can find a definition of harassment in the Canada Labour Code. However, we could learn from the experience and legislative expertise in Quebec on the matter.

What do we mean when we talk about psychological harassment? We must clearly define what we are talking about. According to the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, it is vexatious behaviour. It is harmful or humiliating behaviour that is displayed repeatedly or during a single and serious incident by hostile or unwanted behaviour that undermines the dignity or integrity of the employee and which has repercussions on the workplace. It may range from ridiculing the person or their work, isolating them, preventing them from speaking, making offensive or defamatory comments or gestures about or toward them, unsettling, threatening, or assaulting them, or making them suffer reprisals. The person is discriminated against, ostracized, and isolated.

We will likely consider these elements during the committee study to ensure that psychological harassment and physical violence are properly defined in the bill.

Harassment obviously has many consequences. The person might feel victimized. Their integrity was undermined, their self-worth compromised. This has a serious impact on self-esteem, leading to a loss of motivation and potentially to physical or mental health repercussions. The person sometimes tries to stay away from a workplace where there is a risk of accident or disability, for example, or where they feel ostracized. There may be personal issues. This can even lead to job loss, firing or absenteeism due to illness, not to mention financial problems.

Harassment is a serious problem in the workplace, and we must work to eliminate it as quickly as possible, because it has negative consequences not only on the victim, but on the work environment and productivity as well.

The minister has tabled a bill that will require federally regulated companies to adopt a prevention policy and to investigate and report on all cases of harassment that are brought to their attention. They will also have to provide psychological support to employees affected by harassment.

Currently, there are no sanctions in place against the employees at fault. However, recommendations may apply to the companies. Today we discussed two components, namely employees in federally regulated workplaces and political staff. However, the initial steps are the same. Once a policy is in place, the employee can go to their employer to file a complaint. If the complaint is not resolved, there is an optional mediation process. After that, the file can be assigned to an investigator, referred to as a competent person. My colleague just mentioned the importance of properly defining who would be a competent person to handle complaints.

However, as we heard today, we want the process to protect the integrity of those who feel they were assaulted, those I believe are victims, because we care about them. That is why I asked the minister this morning to ensure that anyone who at any time believes that they have been the victim of assault to be able to report it to a third party that is not the employer. We will have to discuss that in committee. In the case of employees under federal jurisdiction, the third party would be the Department of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. That is important because we do not want anyone who feels they are the victim of assault at the hands of their employer to reach out to Employment and Social Development Canada only to be told that they need to talk to their employer. That would be unfortunate. We want to protect victims, who are at the heart of the process, and ensure that the process does put obstacles in their way as they attempt to access the main resource, which is the Department of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, the third party with investigative power. That is for employees under federal jurisdiction.

The same process applies to employees of political staff. It involves becoming familiar with the policy, talking to the employer, and eventually seeking mediation or the help of an investigator or competent person. We are in a political environment, which is bound to be significant. I am pleased to see that the government is being open about the need to ensure we have an independent process in a partisan setting. We must ensure that political staff are not the victims of partisan games. Someone gave the example of an employee of a government MP who files a complaint. We must ensure that the process is independent. We are going to look at that in committee to determine the best way of going about things and to ensure that the labour minister does not end up in a conflict of interest. As members know, there are a number of commissioners who report to the House. They are independent and could play a useful role in this regard.

Those are some of the issues we would like to raise in committee. We have listed some of them. It is important to avoid any retaliation against the victims, including political staff, during the process. It is also important to properly define the notion of a competent person. This is the expert who will be appointed to investigate a given situation. Of course, we must also always take care to avoid conflicts of interest and uphold the principle of the presumption of innocence throughout the process.

All of this takes resources. The minister was pretty vague about the resources she intends to set up at Employment, Workforce Development and Labour that will be dedicated to working with businesses to raise awareness and support them in implementing harassment and violence prevention policies.

Those are our questions for the minister. This is an important and necessary step because nearly six out of ten employees in federal workplaces report having been victims of harassment. That means there is a problem and we have to take meaningful steps toward fixing it. This is a step in the right direction, and we will certainly encourage the government to draw inspiration from initiatives and expertise related to psychological harassment that are emerging across the country. As a Quebecker, I am proud to say that the Government of Quebec has been working on this issue for over a decade now. It has developed expertise that could be very useful to us as we lay the foundation following this initial step.

To sum up, this is a step in the right direction and a constructive approach that we want to implement with the government to advance this legislation, although some questions do remain that we hope to clarify at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The minister mentioned one thing that I really appreciated, namely, the need for a cultural shift, and she can definitely count on our collaboration in that regard.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, if we are looking at the incidences of sexual harassment and we take it here to the House of Commons as an example in attracting more women to politics and encouraging more women to stay in politics, how important is it that women, men, and people of minorities across the country hear that all people in the House are working together to find a solution regarding the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have to set the highest standard in society since we are looked at as models.

This tier of the issue, the harassment of staffers, has to be dealt with in a cautious and particular manner. That is why we feel we should prevent partisanship from being involved in that process.

As the member knows, regarding the conduct between parliamentarians, we already have defining rules for elected members.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues referred to more and more today is the victims and how we need to listen to them. As a Conservative, I know we are very proud of the Victims Bill of Rights that we passed. I know my colleague had something to do with that.

Particularly, I would like to mention the current Bill C-38. It spells out consecutive sentencing for human trafficking. This is a trend we see with the government. It talks a good game but when it comes to actually doing things, like standing up for victims, as we have seen with Bill C-38, the government seems to just avoid the issue altogether.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that we were the party that brought forward the victims Bill of Rights. What we want in the process and what we will be very keen on is to ensure we not double-victimizing people who may have been involved in a harassment situation. That is why we feel the independence of the third party involved in the investigation is a very important aspect.

One other issue I would like to point out is that today we have discussed parliamentary staffers and employees of the federal government, but the government also has a lot of civil servants. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of harassment mentioned by civil servants. We have a responsibility because they are the people working for the government.

We certainly have to clean our own house, which includes the civil service. As well, there are those who are working under the federal jurisdiction. This is certainly one aspect we will ask the minister about to ensure we take care of the harassment occurring within the civil service.

[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?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to harassment, there must be zero tolerance. We can draw inspiration from the mechanisms put in place to go even further than current laws and ensure that an independent third party investigates harassment cases and makes binding decisions to protect the victims.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a bill that I think all parties in the House support.

I want to probe the member's thoughts a bit on getting more women involved in politics. All of us agree that it is important to get more women elected in politics and sometimes the mechanism for that involves party leaders wanting to intervene more in local nominations, but there is push-back in terms of questions about the independence of local nominations. There is, I guess, a tension between different important values in terms of getting more representation but also the importance of the local process.

I would genuinely like to hear the member's thoughts on what the best mechanism would be for ensuring that outcome, from her perspective.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really proud that 43% of the New Democrat candidates nominated for the federal election slate in 2015 were women, and we elected a 40% female caucus. I have a lot of strong women around me today. That is borne out again and again. If political parties offer women, voters say yes to women. I believe the Conservative Party nominated 17% women and about 16% to 17% of its caucus is female, while for the Liberals it was 30% and 30%.

My colleague, the member of Parliament for Burnaby South, proposed a private member's bill that would have given incentives for political parties to nominate more gender-balanced slates. Unfortunately, a feminist Liberal government voted that down, which was very disappointing.

We are now looking to the Liberals to see what they will bring to this Parliament that might also give political parties incentives. In the meantime, they could do what the NDP does: Riding associations are not allowed to go to a nomination vote until they show that they have exhausted all equity candidate nomination possibilities.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her intensely personal speech. Her story about her godmother or her aunt who was so devoted to these issues until her last breath was really quite moving.

I can assure you that we are all happy to see that all parties and nearly everyone here welcomes this bill and realizes the critical need for it.

A few points have been addressed more than once today, including, for example, the fact that the bill does not define what needs to be regulated. The courage it takes to report this behaviour was brought up many times.

Does my colleague believe that if we came up with a clear definition of these actions, we could create better awareness campaigns that would point specifically to the exact kind of “off-colour” behaviours that we want to stop?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked a fair question. I am reminded of the words of Carleton University's Jennifer Robson, who said that harassment policies on paper do not work if workers do not have all the information and, most of all, the trust. That is up to us.

However, the member is quite right that getting as much detail as we can in here right now would make implementation and understanding much easier to get at, both from the side of the employer and from the side of the worker. We have heard concerns, for example, that the bill may not protect the privacy of the people coming forward, as much as it might, when the competent person selected as their mediator is a co-worker. It is not clear what the actual penalties for the employers would be, whether that is a federally regulated industry or, in this case, a member of Parliament. Also, it is not clear how anonymity and privacy would be protected.

There are many details we will be taking in good faith to committee, and we will try to make this as specific as possible. That is what our brothers and sisters in the labour movement have called for.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to dedicate this speech to all women who have come forward as part of the #MeToo and Time's Up movement. I want to thank them for their courage and strength. I also want to express my extreme, deep frustration that it continues to take women laying themselves bare for the public in order to agitate for change. We need to do better.

Today, I hope I am passing through the House one small part of their voices, voices that have reached out to me on social media, sending emails, and who have been thankful for those of us who are sitting in the House agitating for this change.

Women in our country are raising their voices in unison around this issue in a way we have not seen for a very long time. I am reminded of what my colleague for Nanaimo—Ladysmith mentioned of the 338 women who sat in the House in March 2017, of the power and passion they brought, of they their deep desire and hope for a political career in the House someday, which extends beyond just our seats here. It extends to everyone who works to support us in the House, right down to our pages who help support us every day. I want more than anything for all of them to be free to pursue this career and to pursue this life free of harassment. I want them to see that day come. I do not want them to have to be worried about bracing themselves to face the toxic workplace they are reading about, watching and learning about.

I came from the labour movement. I worked in an auto manufacturing facility. I was one of 15% of women in that workplace. However, being part of a union environment, having the protections, policies, and clear and very defined definitions of harassment in the workplace, went miles to ensure that everyone in that workplace understood their responsibility in doing better.

I commend those in the labour movement. They have done an incredible amount of work to eradicate this behaviour. We are not going to have to look too far for policies that work in the public, labour, and our communities because they exist. We simply need to ensure they exist here as well.

The behaviour we are talking about is not new, as has been raised by a lot my colleagues today. However, it can and must change. It is going to take all of us. To start with, there can be no more whisper campaigns in the House. There can be no more women who are warning other women about who to stay away from or who not to be alone with. That is unacceptable. It is a very deep part of our culture here. Women have been trying to protect women through these very subversive campaigns. No more to that. It has to come out to the light of day. We have to shine a light on it. We have to challenge that behaviour each and every time we see it, not just the women in the House. Every man sitting in the House has to challenge it from other men on a constant basis. Only then will we strive to create a workplace that is safe, without these hiding places and excuses for this behaviour. It is the excuses that have allowed it to continue to breed.

Earlier a colleague mentioned that some had training here throughout the years. Well, clearly it has not worked. However, I recognize this work is ongoing and will take all of us working through our lifetimes to continue to improve it, I hope, at a better pace than we have had. However, it is clear that we can and we must do better.

For people who have sat and listened to a colleague say something inappropriate and let it go by, that day is done. We can no longer do that in this place. We must challenge it. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people we represent from our ridings and on behalf of Canadians, we cannot allow this place to become a mockery or a toxic pool that is to be avoided at all costs. We are losing the best and brightest in the next generation by not showing them better. We all hope those young people will some day take over our seats, as those young women did on International Women's Day.

We have to commit not just to the legislation, which is very important. I am so happy that everyone in the House provided consensus on the motion by the MP for Berthier—Maskinongé, which she brought up earlier, in getting the bill to committee as quickly as possible. It is critical that we get to the committee level and start this very difficult work, and that we do it with our blinders off and we do it honestly. We cannot bring to the committee the excuses, the hiding places, the reasons people think this is just the way it is here. We have to throw all of that to the side and really work to challenge the structures that have existed for 150 years in this place, but certainly beyond that, as one colleague mentioned earlier, for millennia, from the beginning of time.

We have to challenge it at the smallest root, the smallest comment that goes by that we might portray as harmless and that it is just what men say in a locker room or to other men. These are not harmless. This is the beginning of harm. This is the beginning of letting these things slide by until it affects one individual so badly that his or her life is forever altered. We see that happening with women in Canada right now. We see women who are being attacked on social media because they have come forward. That is unacceptable and if anyone in the House is aware of people being attacked, we also have a responsibility to speak out and say that attacking women who come forward is not acceptable. There is due process within the laws and there is due process hopefully within our workplace with this legislation going forward, but that in no way excuses us for not speaking up when we see it. We have to take that seriously.

I know there are men here, whom I work with every day, who do not support this culture, who think it is wrong, who do not behave this way, who do not condone it, and who do not teach their sons or daughters that this is okay. It is time for those men to start speaking out. Although this is impacting women, it impacts men too. We know that this is not a gender issue. This is not for the women to fix. This is for all of us to fix together.

I would like to dig into the bill that we have before us, but before I do that I want to say that an example of how women in the House are struggling to come forward, struggling within our own parties, within this structure, to be able to call this behaviour out, is the fact that we had a Canadian Press survey done for female MPs. It was anonymous and passed through all of our whips' offices in December and we had very low participation in the survey. It was extremely low. I believe it was below 40% participation of women MPs. Because we exist in a structure where we have parties that we have loyalties to, women in this place are afraid to call this out, but women need to be brave and we need to embolden the men that we sit with as our colleagues every day to be brave as well.

The bill is an important first step, but we have to go far beyond where the bill is going and that will involve the work at committee. That will mean things like a definition. We have had some conversation about a definition today, whether the definition should be in the bill itself, or whether the definition should be part of the regulatory piece that goes along with this legislation. Defining what harassment is allows us to challenge it. Without that very basis of understanding, how can we educate people in the House as to what it is? This is the very core of the work that we should be doing in the House.

I implore the government to please look at all the amendments that come forward, by taking that partisan hat off at the door, because this is work that we are doing for the future of the House. On International Women's Day last year when 338 women sat in the House, that was more women than have actually ever sat here elected. We are doing a poor job in Canada of attracting young women and this is one of the many reasons why. We need to do better.

I ask for commitment from all of my colleagues to look at the amendments on the basis of the amendments, to put their partisanship aside, and to let us do the hard work that is necessary to change the House to a zero tolerance workplace.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

A unionized workplace with very clear protocols that explicitly define the type of behaviour that is not acceptable is a very good example. I would like her to provide other examples where this type of code is in place, setting out that this very specific type of offence is not to be committed. I would like her to tell us how helpful this would be.

Quite honestly, I was even surprised many times during her speech by the shocking statistics on workplaces where certain rules of silence exist. Am I naive or just lucky to have never heard about them? Earlier, another colleague told us that, according to a certain intern, working here was literally akin to working in a snake pit.

I would like my colleague to speak a little more about a code and the definitions of what should be added to this bill.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, labour has not done an incredible job throughout our country. I will say that the NDP is proud to have unionized staff from UFCW Local 232. They have worked very hard on anti-harassment language within the collective agreement we have. One of the questions we have is how we will now mesh what some workers on this Hill have in a collective agreement with what is now being proposed. This is an important understanding.

Also, we can draw from the collective agreements that exist across our country on the best practices that exist around harassment policy and education on that policy. I am proud to have done this in my former life for the union that I belonged to. It is incredibly important work, because no matter how many times we are educated, things are shifting and changing in our world, certainly with cyberspace, cyber-bullying, and all the things that are happening outside, which really are an extension of our workplace, according to the code.

It is quite shocking to Canadians that we do not have labour law that applies to us here on the Hill. That is quite a shock to most people in Canada. They are completely unaware of that and find it appalling that this is the only space that exists in Canada where we do not really have any laws to protect people who work here every day with us.

One of the things I can point to specifically that Unifor has is a women's advocate program. This is someone who has been specifically trained in the workplace for people to access. It is an independent person who does not provide counselling per se but who does provide connections to community partners that exist, so people can receive the help they really do need. This goes along, of course, with supporting the financial aspect of needing access to those services. It is something that has worked quite effectively. It has been lauded at the United Nations as a workplace model to challenge harassment and also to provide people with the information necessary when they really are struggling under the weight of these incidents.

[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.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is going to take an incredible amount of work and a commitment from all of us to be a part of the solution. It is not just about those of us in the House. It is about people on the Senate side. It is about people who work for us, such as our parliamentary protective services and pages in the House. It is about everyone.

The education required is extensive. I have watched the educational video that is provided by the House and I find it to be lacking. There really is not enough there. The education that happened in the union I belonged to was a 40-hour program for each person. This was a deep commitment with a yearly follow-up. It would be one day every year. Training is updated on a constant basis. The work is never done. I hope this work will improve, will become better, and will change things. Education is key.

A commitment from everyone that they will challenge this behaviour will go an incredibly long way. If we continue to sit silent and this opportunity to improve what we have currently governing us in this place passes us by, then shame on us. We will have missed an opportunity to improve the lives of Canadians. When women can focus on their work free of harassment, that work will continue to grow and we will all reap the benefits of that.

[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).

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, maybe we could see the will of the House to call it the time of adjournment so we can go to adjournment proceedings.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.