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.

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

Thank you.

Now that this dialogue is happening and it's coming, for you, out of the shadows, sometimes there might be a little bit of fear that it might go a little bit too far. However, you have said that Bill C-65, once implemented, will actually help empower employers to be more effective when it comes to harassment and dealing with these issues. Can you expand a little bit further on that?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Minister, thank you for being here today to discuss Bill C-65. I have a number of questions for you.

First, the bill contains strong privacy protections for victims of harassment and violence. It also gives federally regulated employers and Parliament the ability to make use of a third party from the same workplace.

Now, I will fire off my questions. How are you going to manage and protect people's privacy when individuals in the same workplace will be the ones investigating the complaint to determine whether harassment or violence occurred, particularly in the case of sexual harassment or violence? Furthermore, how do you intend to protect victims?

Do victims have any recourse if their privacy is breached in the course of the investigation? If their personal information were exposed, would they have any recourse in that regard? Would individuals affected by workplace harassment or violence receive some sort of redress if their privacy were violated?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Minister.

I would point out not only that the official opposition supported Bill C-65 in the House, but also that the parties agreed to an intensive study of the bill to help fast-track it. We believe this is a necessary bill whose time has come, as you mentioned in your remarks.

You said you wanted to send a strong message to all Canadians with this legislation. For those of us in the opposition, two things matter a great deal. First of all, it's important to ensure that the process is independent, especially as regards incidents or harassment on Parliament Hill. That's one element we'd like to examine with you this afternoon, as well as with the witnesses we hear from in the course of our study.

Minister, partisanship must have no place in this process. An alleged victim must not be forced to interact with their attacker or, in this case, with the minister in question. We need assurance from you on that, and by the same token, you will be reassuring Canadians about the benefits of the bill.

Second of all, will you show that the Department of Employment and Social Development has the expertise and capacity to investigate complaints and make recommendations when the process does not work?

Let's say, that, right now, someone feels they are experiencing harassment or violence in the workplace but fears going to their employer and having to go through mediation with their attacker. Can that person take their complaint directly to the Department of Employment and Social Development? Do you have the necessary resources to support the victim and make sure that the complaint is dealt with, today and after the bill is passed?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am proud to be here with you today to speak to Bill C-65.

This bill aims to address and ultimately eliminate harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, in federally regulated workplaces.

Bill C-65 is a reflection of our government's commitment to gender equality. Women simply can't get ahead and have opportunities equal to men's in workplaces where they experience harassment or sexual violence and where this behaviour is tolerated. This bill will provide greater protections to Canadians in federally regulated workplaces, including Parliament Hill and political staff, for the very first time in our history.

Harassment and sexual violence are unfortunately not new behaviours, and while recent reports of these unacceptable behaviours have captured our attention, it's been happening for far too long, and it is definitely time to take action. Harassment and sexual violence thrive in places where we see distinct power imbalances, especially here on Parliament Hill, and that creates a culture where victims of harassment or sexual violence don't feel comfortable bringing their complaints forward. As it stands right now, victims often don't have suitable options for making their complaints heard, and they also don't have options for resolving what are often very serious and traumatic incidents.

Like many of you here today, I have heard about heartbreaking experiences from many people who feel that their complaints will never be heard, that they will not be taken seriously, or that their issue won't be resolved.

When Canadians face harassment and violence at work, whether it's bullying, threats, physical assault, or mental abuse, the effects are detrimental for those employees, of course, but they are also detrimental for employers. People who experience harassment or violence often have higher rates of absenteeism, while employers see a greater staff turnover and, of course, a loss of productivity, so ensuring Canadian workplaces are safe and healthy is really a win-win for employees and employers alike.

That's why I was so proud to see my colleagues in the House take a united stand and unanimously send Bill C-65 to this committee.

I know that members of this committee agree that this is an issue that crosses party lines and that these behaviours have gone unchecked for far too long. Bill C-65 proposes amending existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code by replacing the patchwork of laws and policies that address these issues within the federal jurisdiction and putting into place one comprehensive approach that takes the full spectrum of harassment and violence into consideration.

It would expand these policies to cover, for the first time in the history of our country, as I've said, parliamentary workplaces such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament, and the House of Commons, including political staff on Parliament Hill.

Our framework aims to prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring, to respond effectively to those incidents when they do occur, and to support victims and survivors in the process.

I want to take a moment to outline the process for a complaint to be brought forward and dealt with in parliamentary and non-parliamentary workplaces. I want to be very clear that a complaint can be made to the Department of Labour at any time if a complainant doesn't feel that the process is being followed.

First, the employer must attempt to resolve the incident when a complaint is made. This can be done in various ways, including mediation, if the parties agree. If the incident cannot be resolved, a competent person will investigate and complete a report, with recommendations. If there is still non-compliance—for example, the employer doesn't implement the recommendations made by the competent person—there are two processes that follow, one for non-parliamentary employers and employees, and one for parliamentary employers and employees.

If an employee in a non-parliamentary workplace still believes that his or her employer is non-compliant after the investigation is complete, the employee can complain to the labour program. The labour program will initiate an investigation of whether or not the process laid out in the code has been followed. If the labour program finds that the employer is contravening the code, compliance will be sought through the use of compliance and enforcement tools that are available in the Canada Labour Code. We would first seek voluntary compliance, and then if it's not successful, there are a number of compliance and enforcement tools available that include publicly naming employers who are found to be non-compliant.

Similarly, if an employee in a parliamentary workplace still believes that his or her employer is non-compliant with the code after the investigation is completed, the employee can complain to the labour program. The labour program will initiate an investigation of whether or not the process has been followed. Then the Speaker of the House will be notified when there is an investigation. If the labour program finds that the employer is contravening the code, we will first seek voluntary compliance by the employer. If that's not successful, I, as the minister, will issue a direction to the employer to comply and will notify the Speaker. He or she may intervene. If there is still non-compliance and the direction has not been appealed, the direction, including naming the employer, will be tabled in the House of Commons.

For both parliamentary and non-parliamentary employers and employees, there is an opportunity to appeal directions from the labour program with independent boards.

Our government has been clear that harassment and violence will not be tolerated. The Prime Minister has shown that he is not afraid to take action when needed.

Also, the House sent a strong message to all Canadians in February with its unanimous support of this bill at second reading.

Now the time for inaction is indeed over. Bill C-65 will ensure that workers in federally regulated sectors, including on Parliament Hill, finally have the protections they need, and it will ensure that those who are in vulnerable positions will have a voice. Everyone deserves to work in a safe workplace, and they deserve to live free from harassment and violence.

I'm very much looking forward to hearing the committee's views on how we can strengthen the legislation. Ideas were brought forward during the debate, and I look forward to discussing these further with all of you.

We know that the problem is far too big for us to solve with a bill. All Canadians will have to work together to change the culture that tolerates harassment and violence in the workplace.

By discussing this legislation, we are sending a strong message to all Canadians that indeed time is up. These behaviours need to stop. We're taking important steps to eliminate these behaviours in all federally regulated workplaces and right here on Parliament Hill.

I want to thank my colleagues, from all parties, for supporting this important legislation so far.

This committee has an incredibly important role in examining this legislation. You have an opportunity to effect real change and to send a strong message to all Canadians that harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable and will not be tolerated any longer.

I look forward to working with all of you to ensure the timely passage of Bill C-65.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, January 29, 2018, the committee is commencing consideration of Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

Today the committee will hear from the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour for one hour, and then departmental officials for the second hour.

It's my pleasure to welcome the Honourable Patty Hajdu to this committee once again. Joining her today we have Lori Sterling, deputy minister, labour program.

Welcome, both of you.

Patty, the floor is yours.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear on this matter. Inappropriate sexual behaviour of any kind is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Our government has been very clear that we are committed to a harassment-free workplace for all Canadians. We have recently tabled Bill C-65, and we have a proven track record on this matter.

Though I cannot speak to the specifics of this case, as a government we have made our approach clear on issues like these, and we will continue along this path.

Canada Post

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, harassment and bullying of any kind are unacceptable, period. My office has reached out to the individual from Winnipeg who raised these concerns. Canada Post has policies in place to address issues of harassment, and we will make sure that this policy is being followed.

Our government ran on a commitment to take action on workplace harassment in federally regulated workplaces. That is why all parties worked to get Bill C-65 to committee, which would create a more robust regime that would better address harassment and violence in the workplace, including at Canada Post.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'm sorry, I didn't catch the last couple of sentences, but I just want to add that the human resources committee is doing an extensive study on Bill C-65, and it just passed a motion to have confidential sessions as well, so that even individuals, interns, staffers, and members of Parliament can come and tell their stories. In terms of that bill, there's movement on those other fronts at this particular point.

Canada Labour Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There being no further members rising for debate, by order made earlier this day, Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, is deemed read a second time.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee).

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to raise one more thing. In the House today we are talking about our response to sexual harassment in the workplace. Bill C-65 will definitely do a lot in order to help us along that journey and make sure that individuals who come forward with allegations are heard and that action is taken.

My question is this. I am wondering if the hon. member could comment as to what measures could be taken within this place, and perhaps even within other workplaces, but giving priority to this place, that are preventive in nature to make sure that the staff who work for members of Parliament are actually free of victimization.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Essex. I am honoured in this astonishing time to be speaking to the vitally important issue of sexual harassment and violence in our public dialogue and in our workplaces.

I am going to talk about the brave young women who are coming forward, the legacy of social justice women's rights activists on whose shoulders we stand. I am going to talk about the support of my party, the NDP, for Bill C-65. I am going to affirm that no party is immune to the revelations and bad behaviour that are being reported. I am going to talk about the cost of shutting women out of politics. I am going to talk a bit about some of the changes to the bill that would help us to make it even better protection for workers.

The imperative for us to take this action as parliamentarians is fuelled by the terrible stories that we are hearing. I have a quote from a former parliamentary staffer, Beisan Zubi. She said that being a parliamentary staffer on the Hill was “a crash course in sexism and sexual harassment”. She said, “But if I’m being honest, I would have also warned them to stay away, that Parliament Hill, in my experience, was a fundamentally unsafe place for young women.” How can that be said about the Commons, the place for the people? Lauren Dobson-Hughes said, “You take your cues from people around you who are in positions of power, and if they don't think that's weird, if that didn't even momentarily give them a second glance, then you think, 'Maybe the problem is me; maybe that's just normal.'” It is not normal.

More than anything, I want to state it is a privilege for us to be in this House and to be able to make permanent change at this historic time. I want to honour the brave women who, after decades of holding these stories back, are risking themselves and their reputations and are telling their stories and ringing the alarm on deeply embedded sexism and violence in our common discourse and in our workplaces, including this workplace here. I recognize the great cost to women for coming forward. I want to say to them that I am really sorry it happened to them and that we are going to honour their bravery by doing the right thing here in this House. We recognize that we have the highest responsibility to act on the respect and importance of the words that we have been given. This is the global #MeToo movement. This is Time's Up, and time is up.

We are determined to ensure workplaces in this country are safe from sexual harassment. We know all workers everywhere deserve and are entitled to a safe and secure environment. The work before us today is to make sure there is zero tolerance for harassment and violence in our workplaces, and that when it does happen, there must be a transparent process where the complainants are confident that they will be treated with respect and privacy, and those who are accused know there is a process that will be adjudicated, and the public will have an idea about what that process is.

The labour minister's proposal, Bill C-65, amends the Canada Labour Code to include sexual violence and harassment, and it attempts to do a similar thing within parliamentary workplaces where the concern about parliamentary privilege has even prevented the Canada Labour Code from having effect in our constituency offices across the country and here on the Hill. I am very grateful to the labour movement for identifying changes that we can put in place that would improve the bill and also to my colleagues, the member for Saskatoon West, our former labour critic, and the member for Jonquière, our current labour critic, because the work by them and their staff is building our case and we are going to make this legislation even better.

I want to give thanks to the men in the NDP caucus who I serve with, as well as the members of Islands Trust Council, where I served for 12 years. I personally have had a very good experience as an elected woman in politics, maybe because Islands Trust Council had an exactly gender balanced 26-person council. Maybe that had something to do with the change in tone. However, what we are talking about today is the experience of workers and not so much about parliamentarians.

I want to acknowledge that if we can get more women into Parliament, they will change the tone. “Add women, change politics” is something we hear a lot. They will change the tone and also enact policies. We have seen across the world that by removing barriers to women's participation in public life, systems and countries protect all vulnerable people better than we do right now. We have seen this in other parts of the world. Canada is, sadly, really behind the ball on this.

The status quo policies that we have had in this Parliament have meant that the number of women elected to office has stalled out. If we could bump that number up, it might be that we would have less sexual harassment. We heard that specifically, maybe nine months ago. Daughters of the Vote was a beautiful initiative on International Women's Day, but one sister, Arezoo Najibzadeh, powerfully and symbolically left her seat empty to represent the cost of violence against women that keeps women from participating in public life and prevents them from taking their seats. Hands were raised to that sister. Both the member for Hochelaga and I saluted her efforts on that day. She is a reminder to me that we need all the diversity of voices in this House to change the country and bring proper representation.

That is the cost of keeping political staffers in an unsafe place and causing women to say that Parliament Hill is not safe for them. This is the power of social media. It makes it possible for us to transmit these stories, and it is bringing down some pretty amazing political leaders right now. Again, we are in quite a time.

I want to also acknowledge my Aunt Kim Malcolmson, who I have talked about in the House before. She was a pay equity commissioner. She was very challenging for my old grandfather. She was a hard-core feminist, a CCF-Waffle Party-Tommy Douglas aficionado. She shaped me enormously. She is in palliative care. On Friday morning, my fabulous Uncle Paul Barber told her that Patrick Brown had been forced to resign his seat, and although it was very hard for her to speak, she demanded to know more details. On Saturday, I was able to visit her in the hospital and let her know that the New Democrats were going to return to Parliament by calling out the need to act to end violence against women and sexual harassment, and at the end of the week we were going to be celebrating the two-year anniversary of the successful motion from me and the member for Jonquière in the House to legislate pay equity. I was able to let Kim know that we were coming into Parliament fighting. That was on Saturday, and yesterday she passed away.

I like to think, because she was a woman who knew she was going to Heaven, that she is looking down on this amazing time that we are living in and seeing that the work that has been done is carrying on and that the young women leaders in this country, with their deep bravery and astonishing ability to tell stories, are changing the way we will go forward with this legislation.

The labour movement is urging changes and New Democrats will be urging changes in committee. We are glad that with the new House leader of the NDP, we were able to accelerate the passage of this bill. We will debate its details and get changes as fast as we can so that we can make politics a safe place for all members of our country.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, does my hon. colleague feel we should be moving beyond just Bill C-65, looking at the big picture of what is happening in Canada, and why people are moving in this way?

We have had harassment policies in the civil service since the seventies, yet it still seems to continue. Does the member feel we should be looking at a broader picture to see why this is happening?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, ideally, one single process would be the best way we could provide a solution for what Bill C-65 is hoping to address. Under employment standards, if parliamentarians and senators fell under that legislation, we would be well served. There would be a clearly defined process whereby an independent third party would properly investigate a complaint in confidence so that the person bringing it forward would not need to feel that his or her job was threatened, and the person being accused of inappropriate behaviour would have the protection confidentiality would provide until the investigation was complete and further action required. A central agency looking after that under employment standards would be the ideal place for it.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that he was concerned about overlapping jurisdiction and rules. I have been involved in the government since 1968. I did not want to go back that far, but that is when I first started. We have had study sessions on these matters starting in the mid-seventies through the eighties, nineties, and two-thousands. I have taken a number of different courses.

Bill C-65 has to be pulled together to make it work as one unified bill. I wonder if the member would like to speak to how we can pull it all together so there is one bill respecting different agencies within the government and within industry.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, the shadow minister for employment, workforce development and labour.

I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-65, which amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1. I would like to state right from the start that I look forward to supporting the bill so as to ensure it is sent to committee for further study.

The broad themes addressed in Bill C-65 are very important, particularly in light of the recent reports that we received related to sexual misconduct and sexual harassment, both on Parliament Hill and elsewhere. It is necessary to ensure that whether in this place or anywhere in Canadian society sexual misconduct and harassment are not tolerated.

Unfortunately, we have a systemic problem in our culture where we spend so much time on rights and freedoms and not enough time on obligations and responsibilities to create safe, healthy, non-toxic workplaces. It needs to be a priority of all employers, of all members of Parliament, of all senators that our places of employment here on the Hill and in our constituencies are places where all employees feel valued, feel safe, and feel respected.

I want to reference the good work that was done by my colleague from Peace River—Westlock. His Motion No. 47, which went to the health committee, asked what the health effects of online violent pornography were to men, women, and children. That is a study that was very worthwhile. Unfortunately, the report does not really reflect the testimony that was provided by witnesses and seems to have been somewhat homogenized.

This is a bill which protects vulnerable people from exploitation, which is a noble goal. It is my hope that we in the House will achieve the goal that is set out in the bill. Despite the important objectives outlined in the bill, there are some questions that must be addressed. Sending Bill C-65 to committee will allow us to ensure that we meet the high expectations Canadians have for us as legislators as we deal with these critical issues.

We know that sexual harassment is not a new phenomenon. Unfortunately, there have always been occurrences. However, now victims are starting to speak up and out against those who use their positions of power to sexually harass those who have less power. It is important that harassment claims be dealt with appropriately and that they be seen to be dealt with appropriately. This inspires greater confidence in the systems which are in place, prevents abuses, and ultimately ensures that victims and perpetrators are both dealt with in a way that reflects the spirit of the law. We know that beyond the toll harassment can take on a victim, there are significant costs to a workplace where harassment is tolerated. Lost productivity, absenteeism, higher turnover all have an economic cost that undermines an office or a business.

By way of background, part 1 of Bill C-65 amends the Canada Labour Code to strengthen the existing framework for the prevention of harassment and violence. This includes sexual harassment and sexual violence in the workplace. Bill C-65, if passed into law, would put sexual harassment under the purview of workplace health and safety. Areas of federal jurisdiction would be under the new regime, including the federal public service. Part 2 amends the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act with respect to the application of part II of the Canada Labour Code to parliamentary employers and employees, without impacting the privileges and immunities of this place, the other place, and their members. In essence, harassment policies will be also be expanded to cover parliamentary workplaces. The bill will not change the way complaints are handled between parliamentarians. Sexual harassment complaints between members and senators will continue to be handled as they have been previously. Finally, part 3 amends a transitional provision of the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

In essence, the bill puts forward a multi-step process for dealing with complaints of harassment or violence. It aims first to prevent harassment and violence, but when it does occur, a system is to be in place for a complaint to be filed. An employer must try to resolve the complaint. If that does not work, mediation is an option. If that option fails or is bypassed, an individual identified as a competent person is to report on the incident and make recommendations to the employer, who then is required to implement the recommendations. I will not go into all the details here, but if the complaint remains unresolved, the minister of labour steps in to ensure compliance.

There are some issues I have with the bill, mostly with the lack of precision in the drafting. The first concern I would like to highlight is related to the fact that the minister of labour is given a great deal of power in the complaint process. The minister of labour is set up to be the arbiter of matters that proceed through the initial steps of the process but go unresolved. The trouble here is obvious, especially as we consider that this new regime is meant to provide protections to staff here on Parliament Hill. For example, if an individual who works within the office of a Liberal MP is harassed and he or she proceeds through the process that would be in place, he or she may find his or her situation being addressed by a colleague, maybe even a friend of the perpetrator.

The minister of labour would be in an awkward position here, to put it mildly. As anyone watching the news in the last week will realize, a sexual harassment situation arising in a political office can end a career. Are the Liberals seriously saying that the minister of labour, whether in this government or any other successive government, would be able to rightly deal with a situation of this type from an unbiased perspective, without any concern for political consequences? I doubt it.

A victim must have access to a process that is reliable and cannot be improperly interfered with. Even the perception that there could be interference calls the whole process into question. An independent third party would serve employees and employers much better here.

There are other problems within the legislation that require some further clarification as well. Throughout our time in government, Conservatives always placed a strong focus on supporting victims. It is our intention to ensure that the Liberals focus on supporting them as well through this legislation, as they have said they would. One of the concerns related to this point is the option of mediation as an avenue to solve harassment complaints.

The government must be absolutely clear about what is meant and intended with these sorts of areas of concern. The Liberals have said there would be a campaign that would focus on sexual harassment awareness. To date, there has been no mention of the cost of this campaign, where it would be targeted, or what the specific goals of the campaign would be. A campaign will not be successful unless it has defined goals and a strategy to meet them.

Similarly, there needs to be a plan for outreach to those people who have experienced sexual harassment. The plan is to help those who have been aggrieved to navigate the process of resolution and to direct victims to the support services that would be available to them. The bill needs to have an accurate costing estimate to accompany it. All Canadians have a stake in ensuring any campaign has a meaningful impact. The Liberals would do well to map out their plan for this campaign as quickly as possible to that end.

Bill C-65 also identifies a number of exemptions that need to be clarified. To give one example, there is an exemption to opt out of the regime for harassment complaints if workplaces have an equivalent regime of their own already in place. What would this look like? How would such requests be handled?

Finally, certain terms in the bill are not presently adequately defined in the law. The term “competent person” is someone a person could go to for help rendering a decision in the case of a complaint. What does a competent person look like? How would we describe a competent person? There needs to be an expansion in that part of the bill. Is it the law of contract definition of the competent person, which is someone who has the mental capacity to enter into an agreement? Is that what was meant by a competent person? Then such a person could be any individual in an office. Is it someone who has the required skills, training, experience, and other characteristics to truly be helpful? Someone in human resources or a counsellor might be more appropriate in a case like that. What does competency mean in relation to addressing complaints of sexual harassment, and for the purpose of Bill C-65?

These are all areas that could be more neatly defined to make this a better piece of legislation. Bill C-65 must be clear. It must be clear what it means. It also must be clear what it does not mean.

The intent of the bill is noble. However, it leaves many questions unanswered. I look forward to seeing the bill debated more fully at committee. I am sure that all members of Parliament, staff, and all Canadians want to see workplaces free of sexual harassment. I hope this bill, after some improvements and clarifications, will be helpful and will contribute to greater safety in the workplace.