Bill C-378

An Act amending the Canada Labour Code (complaints by former employees)

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code in order to provide a former employee with more time to make a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment and violence in the work place after they cease to be employed.

Canada Labour Code

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect the articulation that the member across the way has put on what I see as a fairly positive piece of legislation. Given her background as a former labour minister at the Province of Quebec, I would be interested in getting her perspective. I would ask for her best guesstimate.

Harassment takes many different forms in the workplace, and I suspect that, even in the province of Quebec, it gets under-reported. If she were to guess, in terms of the Quebec legislation, what percentage of those who are actually being harassed does she believe actually present themselves? It does take a great deal of courage for someone to come forward and say, “I was offended, and this is the reason, and this is how it happened, in the form of harassment.”

Does she have any sense of what kind of reporting back there is, based on the legislation, or is there a need for additional public information or advertising on the issue?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and his comments. I do indeed have the numbers. Unfortunately, I do not have them with me, but I would be happy to send my colleague the data he is looking for on complaints received, which are compiled by the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST, Quebec's labour board, which is well known in Quebec. The CNESST compiles all this information.

My colleague used the word “courage”, which is very important and stands out to me. As he said, it takes courage to make a complaint. In civil society, it takes courage for victims, in particular women, who are experiencing domestic violence, intimate partner violence or various other difficulties, to go to the police to give a statement and file a complaint.

It takes a lot of courage, but it also takes time. If the person does not have the time to do it, three months may go by without them realizing what has happened, but by then it is too bad, nothing can be done. It takes courage, but it takes time too.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I found my colleague's speech very inspiring, especially when she talked about her time as a minister in Quebec City and said that she wants to put what she did there into a bill.

I found that inspiring because I know that when she was in Quebec City, she also voted in favour of carbon pricing.

She talked about courage earlier. I think she could have the courage to bring to this Parliament what she did in Quebec City when she helped set up a carbon exchange. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am trying to put myself in the shoes of the victims who are listening to my colleague this evening as he tries to divert attention away from such an important bill, a bill that would give victims more time by extending the time limit from three months to two years. These victims hear him talk about carbon pricing while I am talking about giving victims more time.

He should be ashamed of his question and his efforts to divert—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her private member's bill.

For the NDP, it is not complicated. When a thing is good for workers, we vote for it. When it is not good for them, we vote against it. Some things are as simple as that.

To protect workers, especially women, I think it is important to give them the time they need to process and make sense of the trauma caused by situations of harassment, which can also include sexual harassment and violence. Extending the time frame will give them time to heal and recover, to get back the joy they lost and to get ready to face the system again, and maybe even the employer or manager who committed the harassment.

I think that her initiative will be extremely helpful to many workers. The NDP thanks her for this initiative in particular.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments, and I truly regret that, this evening, the four women on the Bloc Québécois benches allowed their colleague to ask a question that had so little to do with this bill. I was truly floored.

I thank my colleague from the NDP for his comments. I had the opportunity to talk with the NDP member, who hinted that the NDP members were enthusiastic about this bill. I hope that everyone, including the members from the governing party, will be willing to work together to get this bill passed. It is a good bill.

[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.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to commend the sponsor of the bill, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for introducing this private member's bill. I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and I can tell my colleague that she can count on the support of the Bloc Québécois during the study of this bill in committee.

The sponsor of the bill referred to the time when she was the Quebec minister of labour in 2018. At the time, I still had the good fortune of being the labour leader at the Centrale des syndicats du Québec. Work was done in Quebec to advance labour laws, especially at the Conseil consultatif du travail et de la main‑d'œuvre. The sponsor of the bill would surely agree that it was in our DNA to advance labour law in Quebec.

The summary of the bill being studied today is simple. It seeks to amend “the Canada Labour Code in order to provide a former employee with more time to make a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment and violence in the work place after they cease to be employed”. Currently, the employee has three months. The bill seeks to change the prescribed period to two years.

My colleague is absolutely right. Once again, Quebec has been at the forefront of labour legislation. Quebec amended its Act respecting labour standards. I, too, found it surprising that the Canada Labour Code refers to employees and former employees separately in the context of harassment and violence. Frankly, the Canada Labour Code has only recently begun to deal with these issues, unlike Quebec. I would venture to say that it is clear from looking at the Canada Labour Code that it needs some love. It is a shame that we have to make these changes one at a time, because reforming the Canada Labour Code at the federal level would correct a lot of inequities. That said, I am not going to digress from tonight's subject, which is the bill.

Quebec's Act respecting labour standards differs greatly from the Canada Labour Code. Here is what it says:

“An employee who believes they have been the victim of psychological harassment may file a complaint in writing with the Commission.” There is indeed a commission in Quebec that deals with the complaints. “Such a complaint may also be filed by a non-profit organization dedicated to the defence of employees' rights on behalf of one or more employees who consent thereto in writing.” Later on, it says, “Any complaint concerning psychological harassment must be filed within two years of the last incidence of the offending behaviour.”

I was listening to the discussions where members were talking about courage. It is exactly right that it takes courage, but it also takes means. Psychological harassment and violence in the workplace are phenomena that have been widely documented in every workplace, both unionized and not unionized, and in both the public sector and the private sector. Often, there are quite a few investigative processes to go through before a complaint can be filed, and the individual filing the complaint may struggle to cope.

Domestic violence is one thing, but we know that violence often occurs between peers. Filing a complaint is a laborious process that takes time and means. We need ways to ensure that the person filing the complaint can be sure that the process will be fair, impartial and objective. Quebec has found ways to do just that. Quebec has its Act respecting labour standards, and most collective agreements now also provide mechanisms for setting up joint workplace committees to deal with these issues. In short, once again, Quebec is a leader.

It is good that we are able to fix this. Canada has taken a small step, and now it needs to update it.

Canada ratified Convention 190 of the International Labour Organization, or ILO, in 2023. The convention officially took effect in 2024. It reads as follows, and I quote:

This Convention applies to violence and harassment in the world of work occurring in the course of, linked with or arising out of work: (a) in the workplace, including public and private spaces where they are a place of work; (b) in places where the worker is paid, takes a rest break or a meal, or uses sanitary, washing and changing facilities; (c) during work-related trips, travel, training, events or social activities; (d) through work-related communications, including those enabled by information and communication technologies; (e) in employer-provided accommodation; and (f) when commuting to and from work.

This cursory recap is simply intended to show that the conventions adopted by the ILO, a tripartite organization made up of worker, employer and government representatives, play an important role in labour law. I was pleased to accompany the Minister of Labour and Seniors when this convention was ratified. What the sponsor of Bill C‑378 is asking for is a minor correction to the Canada Labour Code, because now that the convention has been ratified, we need ways to implement it and we need to ensure that our laws reflect these measures. The relevant section of the Canada Labour Code must also ensure that we have the wherewithal to conduct reviews and analyses.

It is absolutely true to say that the last analysis report on the issue dates back to 2021. In 2023, we were at least provided with statistics on the number of incidents and the number of employees. Public servants and employees of the big banks alone account for roughly half of the complaints. That is a significant number. The fact that the time frame is only three months reflects a lack of understanding of everything that is involved in filing a complaint. It is also important to be aware of the facts.

I was pleased that Canada ratified the ILO convention. I consider it a major step forward. Now, as the saying goes, the government needs to walk the talk. The least we can do is fix the Canada Labour Code so as to create equity between employees and former employees. One day, perhaps, the definition of former employees will be removed.

With all due respect, I will say that I am pleasantly surprised that the Conservative Party suddenly seems to be siding with workers. We saw this recently with the bill on replacement workers, which passed with unanimous support. Now we are seeing it again with their sincere intention to amend the Canada Labour Code.

I remember Stephen Harper's Conservative government, whose unjust bills attacked the rights of workers, the right of association, the right of representation, the right to organize. They also attacked fundamental constitutional rights, such as the privacy of labour organizations. I am talking about two pieces of legislation.

I would say that usually in Quebec our labour law stands on its own, but, at the time, we saw some serious attacks against the union movement in Quebec, against unions that advance important issues. There were setbacks. We had to mobilize to counter these bills from the then Conservative government, and people remembered in 2015.

I hope that it is not just the election campaign that is prompting the Conservative Party's sudden pro-labour stance. The Bloc Québécois has always been pro-labour. It is in our DNA. I think the member is sincere and her intention is sincere. Naturally, we will be supporting this bill.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about an important private member's bill that seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code concerning complaints by former employees. The bill, if enacted, would mark a significant step forward in protecting the rights and dignity of workers across our nation.

As the labour critic for the New Democratic Party, I have had the privilege of advocating for the rights and well-being of workers. It is with this responsibility in mind that I address the bill, which aims to extend the protection against harassment and violence in the workplace to former employees.

Let us begin by acknowledging the harsh reality many workers face today. Harassment and violence in the workplace are not merely issues of discomfort or inconvenience. They are violations of human dignity and safety that could have profound and lasting impacts on individuals. The scars left by such experiences do not simply vanish once an employee leaves their job. The trauma can linger, affecting their mental health, their confidence and their overall well-being.

The bill would address these realities by amending the Canada Labour Code to extend the time frame in which former employees can file complaints about workplace harassment and violence. Specifically, it would allow former employees to bring forward complaints for up to two years after their employment has ended. This is a crucial change, and I want to emphasize why it is so important.

First, the amendment would recognize that the decision to report harassment or violence can be a difficult and complex one. Often, employees may feel trapped in their situation, fearing retaliation or further harm if they come forward. By extending the time frame to two years postemployment, we are giving individuals the space and the safety to report incidents when they are ready, without the immediate threat of losing their livelihood.

Second, the bill would hold employers accountable for their actions and for the environment they cultivate, even after the employee has left. It is not enough for an employer to simply let time pass and hope that issues will be forgotten. By maintaining their obligations towards former employees, employers are encouraged to address problems promptly and thoroughly, fostering a safer and more respectful workplace for everyone.

Further, the bill is a testament to basic justice and fairness. It sends a clear message that no worker should be left without recourse simply because they have moved on to another job. It affirms that their rights and dignity are worth protecting, regardless of their employment status. This aligns with the core values of the New Democratic Party, in which the fight for workers' rights is a foundation of our values. The provision, which would allow former employees to make complaints as if they were still employed, is particularly significant, because it would ensure that the full weight of the Canada Labour Code applies to these cases, providing a framework for addressing their concerns.

This is not just about extending a deadline, as we have heard from the Liberal side. It is about ensuring that the mechanisms for justice are accessible and effective for all workers. However, while the bill is a positive step, there are gaps and potential areas for improvement that we must consider, hopefully at the committee stage, to make the legislation stronger and, indeed, to strengthen it for workers.

One significant gap is the lack of specified support mechanisms for former employees who have come forward with complaints. The bill should outline access to counselling, legal advice or other support services to assist former employees through the complaint process. Enforcement and compliance are also critical areas that need strengthening. The bill must ensure real enforcement mechanisms to hold employers accountable. Clear penalties for non-compliance and measures to ensure that complaints are thoroughly investigated and resolved are essential to the bill's success.

Protection from retaliation is another vital aspect. While the bill would extend the lifetime for complaints, it should also include specific protections against retaliation for former employees who come forward. This could include protections for their professional reputation and future employment prospects. Public awareness and education are crucial for the effectiveness of the legislation. The bill should include a comprehensive plan for publicizing these extended rights and educating both current and former employees about the changes. Perhaps including the Canada Labour Congress, federations of labour and district labour councils across the country would help in this regard.

The scope of coverage is another area that I feel needs to be broadened. Hopefully that will be explored at the appropriate time. The bill focuses on harassment and violence, but it does not address other potential grievances that former employees might have, such as racial discrimination, wage theft and unfair dismissal. Expanding the scope to include a broader range of employment issues could provide more comprehensive protection.

Timeliness and efficiency in resolving complaints are also essential. The bill should ensure that the processes for handling complaints are timely and efficient. Delays in resolving complaints can prolong the distress for former employees and may discourage others from coming forward.

The responsibilities of employers need to be clearly defined. While the bill would hold employers accountable for addressing complaints, it should also specify what proactive measures employers must take to prevent harassment and violence in the first place. This could include mandatory training programs, regular reviews of workplace policies and creating a culture of respect and safety. Data collection and reporting provisions would also be valuable additions to this bill. Collecting and reporting data on complaints made by former employees can help identify trends, assess the effectiveness of the legislation and make future improvements.

As I have mentioned before, coordination with stakeholders is important, but so is coordination with provincial bodies. Coordination with provincial laws is an important consideration that I do not believe has been adequately covered in this bill. Since labour laws can vary significantly between provinces, we should look at ways to help coordinate with provincial labour laws to ensure consistent protection for all workers across Canada.

Finally, including a mechanism for regular review and feedback on the implementation of the bill could help identify any issues and make the necessary adjustments. This could involve input from workers, employers, labour organizations and other stakeholders. In my role as labour critic, I have heard from countless individuals who have experienced workplace harassment and violence. Their stories are heartbreaking and infuriating, but they are also calls to action. We must do more to protect workers and ensure that their voices are heard. This bill is a step in the right direction.

We must also recognize the broader context in which this bill would operate. I spoke it about it briefly previously, but I will say it explicitly, particularly in light of the ongoing federal Black class action lawsuit, which is a landmark legal action addressing systemic discrimination and harassment faced by Black employees within the federal public service. For decades, these workers have reported experiencing pervasive racism, barriers to advancement and a hostile work environment that undermined their dignity and professional growth.

Black employees had to create a class action lawsuit to seek the kind of justice and comprehensive redress I have been speaking about in my remarks today as a New Democrat. I think this further highlights the urgent need for legal protections and accountability measures. By extending the time frame to file complaints and holding employers accountable, I believe this bill would provide an indirect support to those aims of the class action lawsuit, which would ensure that those who have suffered long-standing discrimination would have the opportunity to seek redress and contribute to the creation of a fair and more inclusive workplace for all.

In summary, this amendment to the Canada Labour Code is a necessary and overdue measure to protect workers from the lasting impacts of harassment and violence. These are measures that New Democrats, the only labour party in the country, have been fighting for for decades. It would hold employers accountable, empower former employees and align with the NDP's fundamental principles of justice and fairness.

I am proud to support this bill going to committee, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I urge colleagues in this chamber to consider the human impact of this legislation and think about the workers who have had to suffer in silence, and who have felt powerless and abandoned. I urge members to think about the message we send them when we say that their experiences matter, that their safety and dignity are paramount. This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of basic human rights.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-378, a private member's bill born of the initiative and experience of my brilliant colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

I want to commend my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for her initiative. She is leveraging her experience in the provincial government here in the House of Commons in a noble and relevant way in order to improve Canadian labour relations.

This bill seeks to enable people who have worked and who have left their job or who have ceased to be employed to file a complaint regarding harassment or violence within two years of leaving. Right now, the deadline is just three months. In her bill, the member suggests extending the deadline to two years. This proposal is based on her experience in Quebec, which I will talk about later, but also on conclusive evidence. Harassment and violence can have long-term and even delayed effects.

I am reminded of the sad and unfortunate story of a woman who was a victim of sexual violence and did not report it immediately. It took years before she filed a complaint. Unfortunately, the case was never heard. What a sad state of affairs. In cases of violence and harassment in a professional environment, we believe that two years is how long it takes for the person to assess the consequences of what they have suffered and file a complaint. We are talking about making a complaint here. This is not about writing a blank cheque and claiming everything has been sorted out. A well-calibrated assessment process is required.

In Canada, there has been a three-month time limit in place since 2021. Various provinces have laws on this subject. In Quebec, the deadline is two years. In Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, the deadline is one year. It is six months in British Columbia. As the member so aptly put it earlier, other countries such as Belgium and France have a time limit of five or six years. In Australia, it can be as little as two years. In the U.S., in several states, the time limit is six months.

This is not new for Canada, but it is important to understand that this initiative flows from what happened in Quebec in 2018. I will elaborate on that.

Thanks to the well-deserved support, assistance and confidence of her constituents, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis served in the National Assembly for nearly 14 years. She was an MNA, a minister, an opposition MNA and a member of the government. I even had the pleasure of sitting down with her when I was a journalist and asking her some questions. We were both journalists at one time.

That being said, why am I talking about this? Because the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis is introducing this bill today thanks to her experience as minister of labour in Quebec, and all Canadians can now benefit from that experience. She took the time to work closely with employers, departmental officials, public service officials and union leaders to make sure that she was introducing a bill that would work in Quebec. It does.

In 2018, during the final days of the Couillard government, the National Assembly passed her bill unanimously. Unanimous motions in the National Assembly are not that unusual, but bills that pass unanimously are a little rarer. Everyone agreed on Bill 176 because the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis had done a serious and thorough job of it for the common good.

Today, six years later, we have a law that works. Like all legislation, it requires review, but it has stood the test of time. I would even say that it transcends partisanship. In fact, the law was created under the auspices of a government of a certain political stripe, but, for the past six years in Quebec, a government of another stripe in the National Assembly has been leading the work and leading Quebec. That is democracy.

When a bill is good, it stands the test of time and rallies the support of all parties.

Earlier, one of my Bloc Québécois colleagues referred to a completely different subject, when we are talking here about people's work. We are talking about cases of harassment and violence. This is more about human beings than about tax management. He decided to share that thought, and that is on him.

He talked about the carbon exchange. I am not passing judgment, just presenting the facts. After 10 years, we have noticed some things, even in Quebec. The Quebec environment minister himself, Benoit Charette, said that, since the carbon exchange is an exchange between two states, namely, Quebec, which has 8 million people, and California, which has 30 million people, Quebec is still paying California $230 million this year under that system. I am not passing judgment, just presenting the facts.

Someone else spoke of this subject with some judgment. His name is Sylvain Gaudreault, former member of the National Assembly for Jonquière. He is a former senior minister, a leadership candidate, and one time leader of the official opposition. I respect him a lot and hold him in high regard. Even though he supports it, he described the carbon exchange as a $230-million “flight of capital”.

If some people want to fight that battle, let them, but facts are stubborn. Quebeckers listening to us today may just be finding out that the carbon exchange, paid for with their tax dollars and all that, amounts to $230 million going to California, as the Quebec environment minister says.

One thing is sure. Since 2018, workers who have experienced an injustice in the workplace, including harassment and violence, have had a tool that allows them to file a complaint even after two years. We know that when it comes to violence and harassment, the effects are not always immediate. They can begin later. Thanks to the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Quebec workers are very fortunate to be able to use this tool, which was adopted in 2018 on the initiative of this member, who is now proposing the exact same approach to the House that has worked so well in Quebec.

What happened? The government side and the second opposition party, the NDP, are in agreement. I am very proud to be a member of the official opposition. I am very proud to be a Conservative member, and I am very proud to sit with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. She brings experience, expertise and a wealth of knowledge. Above all, she brings what she has given to Quebeckers and is sharing it with everyone. That is a good thing.

All too often, we have debates that go around in circles, that do not lead anywhere and that are more ideological and dogmatic than pragmatic. In this case, we have a golden opportunity to make progress that will benefit workers.

I know I will have another minute. I look forward to speaking for another minute when we resume this debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion 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.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for her work on this file. The government supports this legislation, and I would like to take a few moments to explain why.

Everyone deserves a healthy workplace where they feel safe. It is a basic right, yet one that many workers are denied. Harassment and violence at work still happen and no workplace is immune to them. No one should face this on the job or anywhere else. The Government of Canada must set an example, and we are. In 2021, we put in place stronger protections against workplace violence and harassment under the Canada Labour Code and its regulations. This historic piece of legislation, Bill C-65, is now better protecting workers from these harmful behaviours, which disproportionately impact women.

To continue improving protections for workers, an important part of this work is monitoring the progress of these new measures. Last year, we published our first annual report on taking action against harassment and violence in workplaces under Canadian federal jurisdiction, which covers harassment and violence reported to employers in 2021. The first report showed that not all workers experience harassment and violence in the same way or to the same degree. This information is critical. With each annual report's findings, we are able to evaluate what is working and identify improvements that will ensure workplaces are safe and healthy across the country.

When occurrences of workplace harassment and violence are reported, it is important that the investigations are truly independent. In 2021, the government set up a registry of workplace harassment and violence investigators to make it easy for employers to identify qualified investigators and better protect federally regulated employees. We currently have 75 qualified investigators listed who can be contracted by employers to lead independent investigations and make a positive difference in the workplace. In March, we launched a selection process to expand our registry of qualified investigators. These additional resources are expected to be made available by June of next year.

We are also investing in partner organization-led initiatives that will help drive culture change in federally regulated workplaces and protect workers from harm. With the workplace harassment and violence prevention fund, we are currently funding seven new multi-year projects and have funded 14 overall since 2019. The three new projects will receive $10.7 million in total funding over three years.

For instance, let us take the project from the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children at Western University. The project will see the creation of specialized resources and training for unions to inform employees of their rights and build workplaces free of harassment and violence. All of the following groups are coming together to make it happen: the subject-matter experts at the Canadian Labour Congress; francophone representatives from Quebec; and FETCO, an employers' organization comprising federally regulated firms within the transportation and communications sector.

We are also providing funding through the “workplace opportunities: removing barriers to equity” program, or WORBE, to help break down employment barriers experienced by women, indigenous people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. Currently, WORBE has a funding envelope of $3 million every year with 11 multi-year projects.

Canada also participates actively in the global effort to cultivate workplaces that are free from fear and intimidation. Earlier this year, the groundbreaking International Labour Organization convention 190 came into force in Canada. Canada played a strong leadership role in the development, adoption and advancement of this convention. It is the first-ever global agreement on ending violence and harassment at work. We joined countries around the world to protect workers and make sure that every workplace is safe and respectful. It is not just a Canadian value that we have promoted. Now it is a protected right.

We have also made progress in supporting the mental and physical health of women at work. We are improving the well-being of nearly half a million workers who may require menstrual products during their workdays by making sure these products are treated like the basic necessities they are. Since December 15, federally regulated employers are now required to provide access to free menstrual products to their employees. This is a big step toward creating a healthier and more inclusive workplace, and we are on our way to accomplishing much more.

In December 2021, we passed a bill to give workers in federally regulated private sector workplaces 10 days of paid sick leave. That bill passed with unanimous consent, because no one should ever have to choose between getting paid and getting better.

Through Bill C-59, we are proposing changes to the Canada Labour Code to create a new three-day leave for federally regulated private sector workers following a pregnancy loss. In the event of a stillbirth, employees would be entitled to take eight weeks off. For most employees, the first three days of this leave would be paid. Dealing with pregnancy loss is hard for employees who experience it and they need support. This new leave would provide employees with greater job security while they recover. It would be available to the individual who is pregnant, the spouse or common-law partner and any person who is intended to be the legal parent of the child.

As everyone can see, we have been working on many fronts to protect workers and make sure that every workplace is safe, healthy and respectful. We have made great progress, but a lot more remains to be done, whether it be through training programs, efforts to eliminate the stigma that prevents workers from speaking up or better resolution processes.

We are all in this together: employers, unions, labour experts and different levels of government. We will continue to work hand in hand to confront, prevent and eradicate harassment and violence in the workplace. When workplaces are safe, it is a win for all of us. Workers can be at their best, employers thrive and the economy benefits.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-378, an important bill. It recognizes that the impacts of workplace harassment and violence endure after employees have left a job, and extends their ability to seek recourse and accountability.

As the mental health critic for the NDP, it is important and critical that we advocate for the rights and well-being of workers, especially their mental health. This is a critical bill to ensure we work toward supporting workers who have been impacted in the workplace, so they have enough time to process their trauma and bring forward a complaint when they are ready. This is a crucial change to that and it would allow workers more time to do that by extending the period to two years.

We know that most adults spend more of their waking life at work than anywhere else. Therefore, workplaces have an essential role in the mental health of Canadians. We certainly know that here. Toxic workplaces that fail to take action to prevent or stop harassment or violence contribute to mental health problems that have an enormous cost for workers, families and Canada as a whole.

According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, 14% of employees do not think their workplace is psychologically healthy or safe at all. About 30% of short and long-term disability claims are attributed to mental health problems and illnesses. The total cost from mental health problems to the Canadian economy exceeds $50 billion annually.

In 2011, mental health problems and illnesses among working adults cost employers more than $6 billion in lost productivity from absenteeism, presenteeism and turnover. According to a study by Mental Health Research Canada, 22% of respondents report being exposed to trauma at work; 20% of respondents indicate that the nature of their job involves unavoidable risk to psychological harm; two-fifths of respondents, 38%, are still impacted by their trauma, while half, 48%, have recovered from it. Clients, 46%, co-workers, 29%, and direct managers, 27%, are the most frequent sources or workplace trauma. Twenty-seven per cent of respondents indicate that people at work do not often or always recognize the importance of protecting the physical safety of employees and 45% indicate the same about protecting the psychological safety of employees.

We know that workers face significant barriers in bringing forward complaints regarding workplace harassment and violence, including fear of reprisal, loss of their livelihood and impacts on their career trajectory. I will talk about a couple of cases in my riding, which I heard at committee as well, in a moment.

For some workers, it is only possible to come forward once they have left an unhealthy workplace. Therefore, it is essential to remove barriers for former workers to bring forward complaints. Otherwise, harassment and violence can continue unchecked at toxic workplaces. If there is no accountability, there is no push for change.

A deficiency of the bill is that it would only apply to harassment and violence, It would not allow workers to make complaints regarding other actions that may impact their psychological well-being, such as discrimination and unfair dismissal. Therefore, I am hoping that at committee consideration will be made to expand the types of complaints workers can make. However, the bill could also be improved to provide clear timelines and procedures to ensure that former employees do not have to endure prolonged stress because of delays in resolving their complaints.

I was fortunate to serve on the government operations committee for a couple of years. We were in the process of going through Bill C-290, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I had the opportunity to listen to witness testimony about workers who were subjected to terrible workplace trauma and a lot of mental health-related issues. I see my friend from the Conservative bench, who sat with me on that committee, nodding. We heard about the trauma experienced by Luc Sabourin, who worked for the government. Workers were literally torturing him. When he left, the process took a long time, and it is still taking time. Luc is still going through the process of recalling what happened to him.

Going through that process can take a long time, when people have been traumatized, to roll out the facts, to reassess, to seek professional support, to get the guidance they need, to ensure they get the counselling they need, first and foremost, and when they make a complaint, to ensure the complaint is just. We want justice here. That is what we all commit to when we walk into this place.

Another situation that surfaced in my riding over the summer, a really difficult situation, was the lack of safeguards for temporary foreign workers and the lack of recourse for them. We found out that workers at the San mill in Port Alberni were living in inhumane conditions.

I will read a quote from CHEK News that interviewed Joe Spears, who was working as the San Group's general manager of terminals. Workers were washing dishes in and drinking water from a creek. They literally had no drinking water in their accommodation. At one time 30 people were living in an Adco-style trailer. When the news media reported on it, 16 workers were living in inhumane, mouldy conditions. The sewer was running underneath and was leaching into one of the bedrooms. It was absolutely disgusting. It was a horrific scene.

The company tried to say that it was not its problem because it was not required to provide accommodation for these temporary workers under its current permit. However, it was still charging them, $350 each, to live in this trailer. I was told that the rent was going to go up to $500. We also learned that they were not paid what they had been promised, never mind the hours that they were promised. There was discrepancies left, right and centre.

These workers were enduring trauma after coming to Canada, with the lack of safeguards to protect them and the inability of government to respond to support these workers. Joe Spears, when asked by CHEK News about where they were washing their dishes, said, “This is where they chose to wash their dishes.” He went on to say, “If someone chooses to use water, maybe in Vietnam that's an acceptable practice, that's normal housekeeping.” He was alluding to the fact that these Vietnamese workers would rather use an outdoor runoff from a stream than have a running water.

It is unbelievable that a private sector company would put its employees through this trauma. Those workers were left with nowhere to go. The Salvation Army went in and protected those workers. It removed them from the site and found them temporary accommodation. However, it took a couple of months before they received their open work permits and were finally able to get a better start.

It is taking a long time to actually get the full story from these workers as more and more things are surfacing. Language barriers are contributing to the fact that we are not hearing about all the different things they endured through their working time at this mill in Port Alberni.

We have to do better to protect workers. When we look at temporary foreign workers, there is no program for the federal government to respond, to find housing for workers who have been treated poorly, and nowhere for them to get the right supports. The government supports for temporary foreign workers, when they have endured harm in the workplace, are not there.

I was disappointed with the Conservatives. They are bringing forward this bill today, and I am grateful for that, but they were nowhere to be found when this story came out. The Conservative leader was at that mill, talking about the workers and standing with the owners of the mill, but he was nowhere to be found when this terrible situation happened.

I have to bring this to the floor of the House of Commons, because we should never allow this to happen again. I am grateful for this legislation, and look forward to it getting to committee.

[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—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, now I am being heckled by a Liberal member of Parliament because I am standing up for the rights of workers. One cannot make this stuff up, and 10 minutes from now the member will be saying that the Liberals are so friendly to labour and are the ones who stand up for labour, when in fact they do not.

I just want to say once again again that I congratulate my colleague for putting forward a strong bill to protect victims, to protect workers. Conservatives will always stand for workers and victims.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this morning. This is the first time I am rising since Parliament resumed. I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleagues a good return. The session may be cut short. We shall see what the next few days and weeks bring. We are being kept in suspense. In any case, according to the media, the suspense is rather intense right now.

I truly hope, as my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said earlier, that we will be able to soften the tone a bit this fall and focus on working for the well-being of Quebeckers and Canadians. I hope we can do that. It is not easy, judging by the tone we heard all last week, but I truly hope that we can do it. I think it is possible. I think we have elevated the debate before, and I hope we can do so again.

Before I continue, I would also like to congratulate the candidates and winners of last week's two by-elections, in which I was an active participant. I commend all of the candidates. In this day and age, putting one's face on posters and wanting to work for the common good takes courage, no matter which party someone is seeking to represent. Not everyone here shares the same vision for the common good, but I think that most of us are trying to work toward that. Everyone who ran in the two by-elections did so with that goal in mind, and I commend them for that. I especially want to congratulate the two winners, the NDP candidate who won in Manitoba and, obviously, the Bloc Québécois candidate who won a great victory. We stayed up very late last Monday evening, until 2:30 in the morning, to find out the results, and the Bloc Québécois won. That is a great victory. I look forward to our new candidate's arrival in the House. He is a bright, intelligent young man who is full of ideas and who will rise in the House to strongly defend the interests and values of Quebeckers. I am sure that he will. We will see when he arrives.

I am delighted to speak to the bill tabled by my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I am fond of my colleague. I am not so fond of the Conservative Party's ideas in general, but I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I rise today in support of Bill C‑378, an important bill to protect the rights of federally regulated workers. It would extend from three months to two years the period during which a former employee may file a complaint for harassment or violence in the workplace.

As members know, the Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of workers' rights. Before the summer break, much was said about the anti-scab bill. The NDP had tabled the bill, and it was finally passed. Obviously, we supported it. In fact, over the past 30 years, the Bloc Québécois has introduced anti-scab bills 11 times. We settled this issue in Quebec 50 years ago. This happens all the time in the House. The House has debated countless bills on issues that Quebec has already dealt with. Take child care and pharmacare, for example. Quebec addressed both of those a long time ago. However, here they are still being debated. The Bloc Québécois members often feel as though we are working to help Canada catch up with Quebec. That is what we are doing most of the time.

Yes, we have always been staunch defenders of workers, and we firmly believe that this bill represents a major step forward in the fight against harassment and violence in the workplace. It is high time we recognized that victims of these kinds of incidents need more time to come forward, especially in cases where they are under tremendous psychological or physical stress.

Currently, federally regulated employees have only three months to file a complaint after leaving their job. This is simply too soon for many victims. The consequences of harassment and violence in the workplace do not disappear overnight. Too often, victims of workplace harassment or violence continue to suffer the after-effects long after they have left their job. They face emotional difficulties and mental health issues and, in many cases, are reluctant to speak out against their abusers for fear of reprisals or career stigma. This bill provides a concrete solution to that problem. Extending the time frame to two years gives victims time to heal, catch their breath and find the strength to file a complaint.

Two years is a reasonable amount of time for workers who have been unjustly treated to take the necessary steps to seek justice.

Workplace harassment and violence are not isolated problems. The Department of Employment and Social Development released a report entitled “2021 Annual Report – Taking Action Against Harassment and Violence in Work Places under Canadian Federal Jurisdiction” that revealed some alarming figures. In 2021, employees working in federally regulated industry sectors reported an absolutely staggering 4,950 occurrences of harassment and violence. The federal public service, banks and the transportation sector are among the main sectors where these incidents occur most often.

These figures unequivocally show that the fight against workplace harassment and violence is an ongoing process that is far from over. We need to strengthen protections for workers, and that includes allowing former employees to file complaints long after they leave the company.

It is also important to remember that these incidents often have serious repercussions, not only on the victims' professional lives, but also on their personal lives. The physical and psychological repercussions of workplace harassment and violence can persist long after the incident, which is why this bill is so important. It gives victims more time to come forward.

Passing this bill will send a clear message. Workers in federally regulated sectors deserve a safe and respectful work environment. The Bloc Québécois has always supported measures to protect workers and guarantee decent working conditions. We are pleased to see this bill move forward, just as we were pleased to see Bill C-58, which bans the use of scabs, pass recently. These are historic victories for workers' rights, and we must keep up the momentum.

I would also like to draw a parallel with the bill I introduced with my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, Rhéal Fortin. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I would remind the hon. member, an experienced member of the House, not to use members' names. Rather, members should be referred to by their riding name, as the member mentioned.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and I introduced a bill to limit the use of the Jordan decision for serious crimes.

These two bills share a common concern: guaranteeing access to justice for the victims. The bills try to correct flaws in the legal system, flaws that, as they stand, can deny some victims the chance to assert their rights.

In the case of Bill C‑378, the purpose is to provide victims of workplace harassment and violence with more time to make a complaint, in order to help them overcome the psychological and administrative obstacles associated with these traumatic situations.

In the case of the proposal to limit the use of the Jordan decision for serious crimes, the purpose is to prevent the accused from evading justice because of excessive court delays. Jordan sets strict deadlines for trials, and it has at times allowed individuals charged with serious crimes to be acquitted, jeopardizing the safety of the victims and the integrity of the justice system.

Both bills seek to restore balance between victims' rights and legal requirements, while preventing procedural formalities from compromising justice. By extending access to justice, in the case of Bill C‑378, and by tightening up the legal loopholes arising from the Jordan decision, these two bills share a vision of a fair, effective justice system centred on the victims' needs.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is proud to support this initiative. We hope that all members of the House can grasp the importance of this legislation to this country's workers. Indeed, there can be no justice without recognition for victims' rights, which is exactly what this bill seeks to achieve.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for her right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues' week is off to a good start.

I am delighted by what I am hearing today. Of course, I was equally delighted by what I heard during the first hour of this debate at second reading.

I am very moved to see that Bill C‑378 will probably receive unanimous support. As the bill's sponsor, I find that extremely gratifying, although the spotlight does not belong to me. It really belongs to these former workers. As things stand, they have only three months to file a complaint if they were victims of workplace harassment or violence. Three months is the blink of an eye. It is not enough.

When I was the minister responsible for labour at the Quebec National Assembly, I reviewed all of the labour standards, and I worked very hard to ensure that this aspect was reviewed and corrected in workplaces to ensure that, in Quebec at least, the time frames are the same for former employees as they are for current employees. Here, in the federal government, current employees are not held to any limitation period, unlike former employees who have only three months, which is obviously not enough time.

Unlike what the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles suggested, this is not a new-found interest for me. I am grateful for his support, of course, but he implied that the Conservatives have just developed a new-found interest in the cause of workers. That is not true at all. I can prove that this has been an ongoing interest and concern of mine over the past few years. My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon also articulated that very well. Conservative members have introduced many private members' bills in the House to greatly improve the situation of workers in federally regulated workplaces.

I am very pleased with the unanimity we have in the House. Even though our debates can sometimes get a little heated, we are also able to share a common vision and work to keep protecting employees.

The government had already included the possibility of extending the time limit by three months. In other words, the government already knew that the short time frame might be challenging for the victims who want to make a complaint. We know how long it can take for a person to realize they have been a victim of harassment or violence in the workplace. Often, in the span of three months, there is not enough time for the individual to realize they were victimized. Then the deadline expires and, ultimately, the person has no recourse. Two years is patently a reasonable amount of time.

I will close by quoting Cindy Viau, director general of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement au travail for the province of Quebec, who said the following about the two-year time limit that exists in Quebec and that I want to implement here:

In addition, at the provincial level, we note from our experience that very few people 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.

All that to say we are on the right track. We have a good objective, a common goal to protect workers from harmful workplace behaviours like harassment and violence. It is the least we can do to give a full two years' recourse to those who have left their jobs.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote, please.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest we suspend for 10 minutes and begin at 12 o'clock with Government Orders.

Sitting Suspended

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The sitting will now be suspended until noon.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:52 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The House resumed from September 23 consideration of the motion 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.

Canada Labour Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-378 under Private Members' Business.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Before getting the Table to compile the results of the vote, I want to thank our caller for such a great job but also to wish him a very happy birthday: our clerk Robert Benoit. I know I am going to pay for that.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #861

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

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

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)