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

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for introducing Bill C‑378. Well done.

The bill is an exceptional piece of legislation by another Conservative MP trying to enhance the rights of workers across the country. There has actually been a long history in the current Parliament, where the NDP-Liberal government has not acted to protect workers; in fact it has been Conservative MPs who have stood up to try to make sure that workers are protected.

A number of bills have been put forward by Conservative MPs to improve the lives of workers, in addition to this fantastic bill; for example, there is Bill C-228 by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, which would actually protect workers' pensions. It has been a long-standing problem in this country that a company would go bankrupt, workers' pensions would be unsecured creditors and their pensions would disappear. In nine years of an NDP-Liberal government, no action was taken on that. It took a Conservative member of Parliament to say we need to protect workers and this has to change.

There is also Bill C-241, brought forward by the member for Essex, which would allow tradespeople to deduct their travel costs for going to work. It is common sense. If a CEO can write off the cost of their private jet, then why can a worker not write off the cost of their travel as they go out to try to earn an income. Again, during nine years of a NDP-Liberal government, this is something that had no action. A Conservative member of Parliament stood up to make that change.

I also want to mention Bill C-409, brought forward by the member of Parliament for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. We have heard a lot from the NDP, and silence from the Liberal government, about how flight attendants were ending up working, on average, 30 unpaid hours per month. The NDP-Liberal government did absolutely nothing. The New Democrats talked a bit about it and tabled petitions and other things.

However, it took a Conservative member of Parliament to put forward a bill that would change the Canada Labour Code to define what constitutes work for flight attendants so they would no longer be sitting on a plane waiting for it to back up or waiting for it to take off, and not get paid. We heard horror stories of flight attendants who would show up for work but the flight was delayed and they would be there, would time out for their shift and then go home and not be paid. It was outrageous, and the NDP-Liberal government just let that go on for the past number of years, with no action.

This brings me right back to the fantastic bill before us that has been put forward by my colleague. This is a very serious matter. People who are the victims of harassment or violence at work are victims. They have been traumatized. The Canada Labour Code was only allowing them three months after they left work to file a complaint. These are people who are vulnerable and probably are not in a position to make that decision. Once again, a Conservative member of Parliament had to step in to make that change.

The Liberal government tried to make some changes under Bill C-65, where the victim could apply to extend the three-month timeline. Imagine that: Victims would actually have to apply to extend the deadline. The burden would be on the employee to make the justification for a new deadline. They would have to file an application, explain the trauma and ask for an exemption. The Liberals thought this would well serve the victims of harassment or violence, but it actually would have done nothing of the sort. Imagine having to give deeply personal details to someone to see whether they would let them file a complaint after three months.

It was very thin gruel for the victims. Therefore I want to congratulate again my colleague for seeing the problem, coming up with the solution and making sure that people who suffer these outrageous acts would now have up to two years to file their complaint.

It is a pattern we have seen well established in Parliament, that the NDP-Liberal government talks a very good game about protecting the rights of workers, but they do not actually deliver the results that are required. Therefore it has taken a series of Conservative bills to actually make incredible differences in the lives of workers, including the bill before us here today.

I understand that there is support for the bill to pass, which is wonderful, but it always leaves me this question: After nine years of an NDP-Liberal government, why did it take so long for it to realize this was a problem? It is because the government is really not governing the country well on this and on a whole host of other issues. As opposition members, we have a limited ability to try to clean up the messes that are left by the government, and we have done that with a series of bills that actually are going to make substantial differences.

We hope that the bill before us is going to be fast-tracked through Parliament. Let us get it to committee, get it studied and get it passed. We do not have a huge amount of time in Parliament left for it to pass, so we want to make sure that the piece of legislation can go to the Senate and receive royal assent. I hope it is going to pass through committee very quickly.

I would also hope that when Bill C-409, the fairness for flight attendants act, comes up for second reading and a vote, it also goes to committee expeditiously, because it is an incredibly difficult circumstance that flight attendants have right now across the country, and labour has not really had the friendliest of governments.

There was recently a section 107 referral by the government with respect to the resolution of the rail dispute. The right to strike is constitutionally protected; the Supreme Court said that in 2015, and the NDP-Liberal government said it was going to make a referral and take away the workers' ability to go on strike. Once again we have an NDP-Liberal government that claims to be friendly for workers, but it has taken—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑378, which was introduced by our Conservative colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to thank my staff, since this is the first time that I am rising since the House resumed. Like every other MP's staff, they help us improve our work, give better speeches and better carry out our duties, but most importantly, they help us to provide very important services to our constituents when we are away from our ridings. I am talking here about my political staffers, Daniel Lavallée and Sonia St-Amand, my communications manager, Corinne Guimont, my head of representational work, Michel Kieffer, and my photography and videography manager, Vincent Yergeau. This whole team is managed by an exceptional director, Arianne Collin-Gascon. I tip my hat to them and sincerely thank them for all the work they do behind the scenes to support me in my duties.

Back to Bill C‑378, which would amend the Canada Labour Code by extending the timeframe to file a complaint for harassment or violence in a federally regulated workplace from three months to two years, even after the individual ceases to be employed. The Bloc Québécois supports this initiative to better protect workers who have suffered abuse. Extending the deadline is a significant step forward for people who may not have the strength or support they need to act quickly in the wake of incidents involving harassment or violence.

The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of workers and always will be. We believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois is delighted to see the Conservative Party suddenly taking an interest in workers. We hope that this is not just electioneering and that the Conservatives will continue to put workers first in the coming months. Let us hope that if they do come to power, they will be able to keep from targeting them in the cutbacks they plan to make.

In short, giving victims two years to report incidents of violence or harassment recognizes that victims of trauma may need more time before they are ready to file a complaint and take action. This is about respect for trauma victims. These people may, in some cases, need more time to finally be able to speak out. They often experience psychological and physical pain in the months following an incident of this kind, and they often do not have the strength to take action or defend themselves. Some may even need to seek medical attention, which obviously makes it even more difficult to file a complaint.

There have recently been some very positive developments for workers under federal jurisdiction, with the historic and unanimous vote in favour of Bill C‑58 prohibiting the use of scabs. By extending the statute of limitations, we are showing kindness and understanding towards those who have experienced these hardships. It shows concern for the victims, a sense of empathy that should always guide our decisions and legislation as legislators.

It is worth remembering that, in 2018, the government passed Bill C‑65, which strengthened the provisions on workplace harassment and violence. Updated definitions were added to control this kind of unacceptable behaviour more effectively. The definitions in question include any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that causes offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee. That encompasses all types of harassment and violence, even domestic violence.

I would now like to raise a matter of concern to me. Federal public services and Crown corporations are the sectors where incidents of harassment and violence occur the most often.

In 2023, the Department of Employment and Social Development tabled its annual report entitled “2021 Annual Report: Taking Action against Harassment and Violence in Work Places under Canadian Federal Jurisdiction”. I will talk about that later.

The Department of Employment and Social Development identified 4,950 reported incidents in 2021. The federal public sector and the banking sector alone account for nearly half of the reported cases, which is a very significant proportion. These numbers are troubling, if not alarming. That is why it is so critical that this limitation period be extended.

Before I conclude my speech, I would like to talk about an article I saw in this morning's newspaper. Maka Kotto, a former Parti Québécois minister, wrote this very moving article, which aptly summarizes what is happening in the House. He talked about the sometimes disgraceful comments and gestures that are made and the totally inappropriate attitude sometimes shown by members of the House, or certain members.

One point he made in the article was that bringing back dignified debates, where differences are expressed respectfully, is the only way to restore public confidence in our institutions. Everyone should read this article by Maka Kotto, a former Parti Québécois minister.

To wrap up, this bill is an important step toward greater justice for victims. It is time to recognize psychological wounds, which are not always obvious, and to take time to heal them. It is also time to recognize that federal workers deserve all the protection we can offer them with this legislative adjustment.

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

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation before us and its principles, I see it as a positive thing. When we take a look in terms of the government's actions, virtually from 2015, what we have witnessed is a government that understands the needs of workers in all regions of our country and has brought forward several substantial pieces of legislation in support of workers.

When the member brought forward Bill C-378, I had the opportunity to quickly go through it. I like what it is suggesting, and I suspect it would be very good to see it get to the committee stage. However, there are a number of questions that I have. Even though I might not necessarily be at the committee, and likely will not be at the committee, I appreciate the fact that the member is going to provide me with answers to some of the details that I posed in my question to her here. I say this because I believe that the bill is in the best interests of the workers.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to sit at a local restaurant that I go to on a weekly basis. Perhaps half a dozen to a dozen times, I have had individuals come to me, some of them actually in tears, talking about their work environment. More often than not, but not exclusively, it has been minority women who were subjected to a significant intimidation factor. It comes in different forms. I can speculate on some of it, and I can also report on some real-life situations, as I have had the opportunity to listen to victims and do what I could to support them. That is something that I think is important for all of us. This is the reason I posed the question to the introducer of the legislation that we have before us.

It takes a great deal of courage, and I encourage individuals who have been a victim of some form of harassment in the workplace environment to share their experience, whether it is with a family member or with members of a community in which they live or actively participate. I find that talking about it is very helpful, and I would encourage people to share those experiences. I believe, at the end of the day, that the more people share those experiences and the more we see individuals taking action, it ultimately enables more people to do likewise, and we will have better working environments throughout the nation.

We could see the legislation go to committee and, ultimately, it would come back, much like when we passed the anti-scab legislation. I will draw a comparison here and say that in Canada we have two provinces, Quebec and British Columbia, that have anti-scab legislation. The national government has now passed legislation to bring into Canada, at the federal level, anti-scab legislation. I believe that, by the federal government taking such an action, we help encourage and set a standard that will hopefully see other provincial jurisdictions do likewise. For example, the province of Manitoba is now looking at anti-scab legislation. The fact is that when we brought in the legislation, it received all-party support, which I believe speaks volumes. With Bill C-378, I think there is the potential to get all-party support for it as well.

As the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus have talked about in the past and continue to hold today, if there are ideas to the benefit of Canadians, we are prepared to entertain and look at ways in which we can support them, even if it means attempting to move amendments.

This is something we have consistently done since 2015, even on the issues we are talking about today. I think of Bill C-3, for example, which came out of the pandemic and the pressures that were being put on health care providers in particular. Many people were protesting and, in essence, in a different way, instilling in health care providers a fear of doing their job of supporting our health care system when there was a great deal of concern during the pandemic and in the days that followed. Bill C-3 dealt with that by making protests that instilled fear in individuals like health care workers illegal.

I think of Bill C-65, which mandated training about harassment and violence in the workplace. As the member before me made reference to, the government has brought in a relatively modest change, which the member is now trying to have increased from three months to up to two years. These are the types of changes that would protect the interests of the worker.

We need to take a bigger look at it and take a holistic approach to the working environment. I am not sure whether Hansard will get the tail end of my question to the member, because it was getting a little lengthy, but what I was trying to amplify is that it is important workers know their rights, and that there are many different agencies and support networks to reinforce and support them.

What I was referencing in the tail end of my question was to what degree there is a sense of public awareness and to what degree we might be doing something collectively, or the government or governments should be doing, to promote, whether through advertising or other means, the rights of workers. This is something important that needs to be taken into consideration.

With respect to the rights of workers, everyone in the workplace should have the right to be free of harassment and any sort of violence. That is really important. There is a responsibility on employers, whether it is directly through the employer or it is through the manager, to ensure that there are opportunities that are not intimidating for workers to bring things forward. When that takes place, I believe it is healthy for the entire workforce in a particular environment, especially if workers can see there is a genuine attempt to deal with an issue such that the individual who has been slighted is being listened to and the concern is being addressed.

I appreciate the member's bringing forward the legislation. I suspect it will go to committee; we will ultimately see what takes place at committee stage.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

moved that Bill C-378, An Act amending the Canada Labour Code (complaints by former employees), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to my bill, Bill C‑378, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code in respect of former employees. It is designed to give former employees two years to file a complaint about workplace harassment or violence.

First, I am going to share a bit about my background so that members can have a better understanding of my interest in this bill as well as its legitimacy. The idea of introducing a bill that would give a former employee more time, namely two years, to file a harassment complaint under the Canada Labour Code came to me quite naturally. When I was the labour minister in Quebec's National Assembly, I revamped many of Quebec's labour standards. That was in 2018, under Bill 176.

Both then and now, Quebec's labour standards make no distinction between current and former employees. The standards used to allow current and former employees alike just three months to file a complaint. We felt that this time frame failed to make adequate allowance for the time it takes victims to bring a complaint. I therefore decided to take action and extend the time frame from three months to two years.

I soon transposed the thought process I had followed within the provincial government to the federal level. After leafing through the Canada Labour Code, I realized that, unlike Quebec's labour standards, the Canadian code did draw a distinction between former and current employees. At the federal level, for example, current employees who want to make harassment complaints are not held to any limitation period. Former employees, however, have three months. This time limit for former employees dates back to 2021, when Bill C‑65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding harassment and violence, came into force.

Some might say that three months is better than nothing, but to me, that seems like far too short a time frame for a former employee to make a complaint. That is essentially what I want to focus on. Although still far too short, this three-month time frame nonetheless offers some recourse to former employees who had none prior to 2021. I want to highlight this progress, brought about by Bill C‑65. In our opinion, however, former employees deserve much more generous recourse, and I am looking forward to collaborating with all my colleagues in a non-partisan way to achieve this goal together so we can mitigate the problems Canadians face in their professional lives.

Quebec is among the most empathetic provinces, though others are close behind it, but it is still far ahead of the federal government. Let us take a moment to understand how this works elsewhere in Canada. As I said, Quebec does not make any distinction between current and former employees, and it already gives employees two years. Five other provinces do the same, but they give them one year. They are Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia gives former employees six months and has no time limit for current employees. The three other provinces, Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, do not provide former employees with any recourse. As for the territories, we did not find any data on their time frames for making a complaint.

Internationally, Canada's time frame is far less generous than those of many other countries, such as Belgium and France. In Belgium, former employees have five years to file a complaint, and the time frame can be suspended if the courts refer the matter back for internal handling. In France, the time frame is one year for contraventions punishable by fines. It increases to five years from the date of the last offence for more serious offences and can be increased to six years if the matter is taken up by a human rights tribunal or a criminal court.

In the United States, former employees have six months after the incident to file a complaint. That deadline can be extended to 10 months, if an employment discrimination law is applied by a local or government agency. In Australia, the deadline goes from six months to two years, and decision-makers are given a lot of discretion in that regard. In fact, the Australian Human Rights Commission imposes a six-month deadline but enables the president of the commission to hear complaints filed after the deadline, depending on the reasons for the delay. Again in Australia, complaints that fall under the Sex Discrimination Act can be filed up to two years after the date of the last incident.

I would like to remind the House that, here in Canada, employees have only three months to file a complaint. It is important to point out that, in some cases, complaints can be filed after the three-month deadline under Bill C‑65, which amended the Canada Labour Code in 2021. Part 2 of that legislation states the following, and I quote:

Extension

(5) On application by a former employee, the Head may, in the prescribed circumstances, extend the time period referred to in subsection (4).

The law thus allows for an extension of this three-month period, but that extension is conditional. Therefore, the burden is on the former employee to justify this application for an extension. This basically amounts to a burden of proof. They must file an application and justify it with circumstances such as trauma or a health problem. According to the application guide issued by the government, the person must provide documents such as a report from a social worker, an organization specializing in domestic violence, a police report, a doctor's note or even a solemn declaration made before a notary.

Clearly, the legislator anticipated that victims might find themselves in these kinds of circumstances and even provided for the possibility of granting more than the standard three months. In a way, the government is recognizing the potential difficulties victims may experience. Everyone can easily understand that asking for justification for a harassment complaint adds extra pressure.

The Canada Labour Code defines harassment and violence as follows:

...any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment.

A three-month time limit seems too short for such difficult experiences. Employees who were harassed may not always realize it right away. The road is a long one between experiencing harassment, realizing what happened, living through the accompanying trauma, and deciding to file a complaint. The trauma can surface long after the incident and even long after the termination of employment.

We had hoped to obtain some statistics on where things stand today. Unfortunately, and to our astonishment, this will be difficult. Apparently, the federal department responsible for compiling and publishing the annual results on workplace harassment and violence skipped some years. In fact, we have no summary for 2022 or 2023. The last report dates back to the 2021 annual report entitled “Taking action against harassment and violence in work places under Canadian federal jurisdiction”.

Honestly, it would have been extremely helpful to us and relevant to our debate today to know the number of complaints rejected because of the three-month deadline. We have no access to these data now because the necessary reports were not published and, more importantly, because the government did not think that compiling this information was important.

As I continued to look for that data, I turned to the office of the Minister of Labour and Seniors. A request was made, but we have not received a real answer to date.

Finally, I asked for the help of researchers at the Library of Parliament.

Here is what those experts told me on November 3, 2023, with regard to the reports that must be tabled by the government.

While employers are required to report the average time to complete the informal resolution process, this information was not made public in the 2021 annual report. Further, there is no requirement to collect data on the number of former employees who make complaints, nor on requests for extensions. Thus there are no statistics available on the requests for or approvals of extensions for reasons of trauma or health by former federally regulated employees.

Quite frankly, I would be extremely surprised if no complaints had been dismissed because they were submitted after the three-month deadline. I would be very surprised. Actually, I do not believe that at all. I therefore invite the government to be more rigorous and to divulge that information.

Cindy Viau, the director general of Quebec's Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement au travail told me that what was done in Quebec under my leadership corrected a shortcoming that was caused by the short time frame. She told me why we absolutely need to extend this deadline. She said:

The increased time limit at the provincial level (to two years) clearly showed how important it is for victims to have more time to take action. In our experience in recent years, the two-year time limit that was adopted seems to be much more in line with the needs of victims. We still find that a majority of victims of harassment take medical leave following the events and that the end of their employment will come close to or near their medical leave. In that sense, people who turn to our organization still find it really difficult to report within such a short period of time, 90 days. One explanation shining a light on this particular need of victims of workplace harassment emerges when we look specifically at post-traumatic stress disorder. The National Institute of Mental Health aptly summarizes the reality of people who develop this mental disorder. Symptoms generally appear within three months of the event, and although some people may recover within six months of the onset of symptoms, many will take a year or longer to recover.

In addition, at the provincial level, we note from our experience that very few people [and this is interesting] who contact us find it difficult to initiate the complaint process within the two years set out in the Act respecting labour standards. Since the time limit was changed in 2018, we have only on very rare occasions had to explain to a victim that they had missed their deadline to file a complaint.

This change that I brought about at the provincial level is recognized and appreciated. I am asking that it be transposed to the context of the Canada Labour Code for former federally regulated employees.

I will close by saying that we are making policy. We are committed to making a difference. We want to improve people's lives. I think that taking this kind of action, passing this kind of legislation, can make a difference in people's lives. At night, when my day is done, I look at myself in the mirror and think to myself, I may have changed someone's life today. That is a good thing.

International Trade

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

According to Curry's article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. MacDonald wrote, “You asked me for advice on the key question of ‘why GC Strategies’”, as the government was struggling to determine why GC Strategies was chosen. Mr. MacDonald himself said that they were still “grappling with 'who selected GC Strategies'”.

The article says, “Mr. MacDonald’s e-mail comments…suggested answers for the executives. The draft answers appeared aimed at convincing MPs that no one person was responsible for selecting [GS Strategies].” However, we know someone selected GC Strategies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To summarize, in the words of Ms. Dutt:

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

That—

Opposition Motion—Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in the Military

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour

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

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

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

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a clear and recent precedent for this extension of hours to give the House more time to do its important work. It occurred last year at this time and also the year before that. As well, in the previous Parliament, the hours of the House were extended in June 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Priorities

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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

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

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

National Defence Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada Labour Code

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a win-win for everyone.

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