Debates of June 9th, 2014

Status of Women

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

moved:

That, the Second Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, presented on Thursday, February 6, 2014, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to a study on sexual harassment in the federal workplace by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. This is a study that we embarked on a while ago. It took a considerable amount of time because we took the topic of this study seriously. It is a form of violence that, sadly, too many women face in their workplaces. It is a kind of violence that we know as sexual harassment.

Like any other committee, our committee embarked on a study that we felt was very serious. We extended invitations to many witnesses who represent the range of workplaces. We did so with some concern and trepidation. The reason was that the initial aim of the study, and there is no way of denying it, was to study sexual harassment in the RCMP. That initial sense came from the serious situation that we know has existed in our national police force for some time. We have heard of numerous cases of sexual harassment aimed at women police officers. It includes a range of examples, but has also in some cases led to sexual assault.

We know that many of these RCMP officers, including former officers, have put together a class action lawsuit against the RCMP to achieve justice because of the harm that was done to them. We know the sexual harassment that they experienced, and in some cases the sexual assault, has led to mental trauma, psychological, emotional, and of course physical trauma as well.

As I rise in the House to speak to this very issue, I am reminded of interactions I have had, and my colleagues, the critic for public safety and our deputy critic for public safety, have had as well, both in and out of the committee, talking with RCMP members who have experienced sexual harassment. The irony is not lost on us that the people we depend on for our safety, our familes' safety and our communities' safety, have themselves been put in harm's way as a result of the culture that prevails in their workplace and the inaction that has existed for far too long.

Some measures have been taken in the recent year with the aim of putting an end to sexual harassment and sexual assault in the RCMP. However, what we found in the study conducted in our committee was that it is very clear that a lot more needs to be done in the RCMP, and across the federal workplace.

I would point to our supplementary report that indicates we in the NDP noted that instead of focusing on the RCMP, the committee undertook a general study of sexual harassment in the federal workplace. While we believe that this study is important in its own right, we are concerned that the gender-based violence affecting women in the RCMP has not been thoroughly examined by the committee. In fact, we only spent one meeting hearing from RCMP officials. Through the limited witness testimony we heard regarding the RCMP, we learned that there are systemic issues within the federal police force that require investigation and action.

Astonishingly, in spite of hearing this testimony, the report tabled does not include a single recommendation relating directly to the RCMP. As parliamentarians, we are responsible for the RCMP, and we find this report and subsequent recommendations to be insufficient. Therefore, it was our recommendation in our supplemental report, and it continues to be the direction, that the status of women committee move to conduct a comprehensive study on sexual harassment in the RCMP in order to complete the task of ending the widespread harassment suffered by women in our national force.

So it was that the government ensured that we would take on a much broader study. It was something we were concerned to see. We felt that in undertaking such a broad study, we had to do justice to all the women and men who are sexually harassed in the federal workplace.

We engaged 40 witnesses, who testified before the committee. People travelled from across the country. They spoke to us through teleconferencing. We heard from experts in other countries around the world. We got a very full picture of the range of challenges women, and some men, face when it comes to sexual harassment in the workplace. We also found out that, once again, the federal government is grossly inactive in addressing these issues. While some measures have been taken at the bureaucratic level, and I am thinking particularly of the Treasury Board, a lot more is needed to put an end to sexual harassment in the federal workplace.

Given the inaction of the federal government, we came up with key recommendations. They are not difficult recommendations, but they require the federal government to take some leadership, leadership it is currently not taking when it comes to ending sexual harassment in the federal workplace. For example, we recommended that Status of Women Canada work with the Government of Canada to develop a national action plan on violence against women. This national action plan would address sexual harassment and violence in the workplace.

This is not a difficult undertaking. First I put forward a motion about a year ago, motion No. 444, calling for a national action plan. It would be a comprehensive action plan, which in its current form called on the government to take various steps to prevent violence against women and to support survivors of violence. It also called on the government to invest in critical factors that we know lead to women's insecurity. We are talking about the workplace, but we know that the violence women face in the workplace contributes to the overall insecurity that too many women face in our country. In particular, we called for action when it comes to housing, education and training, shelters, counselling services, and policing.

When we talk about the workplace, we recognize that violence against women is something that exists in the form of sexual harassment, and it is something that needs to be stopped. It is not enough for departments to leave it to the Treasury Board to make some commitments to ending sexual harassment in the workplace. We need real leadership. We all know that leadership is best practised by those who know an issue well. What better department to take leadership on the issue of sexual harassment in the federal workplace than Status of Women Canada? That is why we in the NDP recommended that Status of Women Canada take the lead in working with experts to study the extent of under-reporting in the federally regulated workplace and commit to taking action immediately. Status of Women Canada is a department that has so much to provide in this area. Sadly, it is not being given the space and encouragement to take leadership in ending sexual harassment in the workplace.

The committee heard that workplace culture, particularly in male-dominated hierarchical organizations such as the Department of National Defence and the RCMP, presents a significant barrier to reporting and preventing sexual harassment and discrimination. Therefore, we in the NDP recommended that Status of Women Canada partner with federal and federally regulated workplaces to increase the number of women in managerial positions and positions of power, including by establishing benchmarks and goals to help promote a workplace reflective of a society that does not accept harassment, including sexual harassment.

We need look no further than the House to recognize the benefit when Parliament is more representative of society. We in the NDP have always been a party that has been committed to gender equality. We do not just make that commitment verbally; we make it through our practice. Canadians certainly rewarded us, and for the first time in history, the official opposition has a high percentage of women MPs, thanks to the election of 40 NDP women. We know that Canadians certainly appreciate that kind of leadership and know that when Parliament looks more like our country, the kinds of decisions we make reflect us better. Sadly, the same cannot be said about the other side of the House or the Liberal Party, where, if we take an average, only 17% of the caucus is women.

We call on departments and institutions such as the Canadian Forces and the RCMP to appoint more women to managerial positions. We are asking them to recognize how having women in leadership and decision-making positions actually helps change the culture. I would point government members to our study. We heard from experts who indicated a very strong correlation between a higher number of women in managerial positions in the public service, particularly, and lower levels of sexual harassment and harassment overall.

We also pointed to the fact that this study indicated a complete dearth of data collection when it comes to sexual harassment. This falls in line with a pattern we have seen with the government, with its cuts to Statistics Canada, its cuts to research in various departments, and basically an ignorance and a neglect of research and its importance in guiding future actions. If we do not know what the extent of a problem is, how can we strive to solve it?

The same, sadly, is the case when it comes to sexual harassment. It may be shocking for Canadians to know that there is a complete lack of data regarding the presence of sexual harassment in most federal workplaces. This was uncovered by the committee. While the public service employee survey asks about harassment in general, we found that there is no question in the survey about sexual harassment specifically. If we are not asking the question, we are not getting the data. We are talking about a problem we know exists across all departments and exists in greater numbers in certain departments and institutions, yet we have no way of tackling it effectively, because we do not know the extent of it.

We can only speculate about what percentage of harassment is sexual in nature, and we are concerned by the knowledge that harassment of all sorts is under-reported. Therefore, we in the NDP recommend that Status of Women Canada work with Statistics Canada to take the lead in establishing a framework whereby consistent data on sexual harassment can be collected by all workplaces and compared accordingly.

I will note that the government's response indicates that there will be a sub-question in the upcoming public service employee survey. While that is encouraging, having not seen the actual text of the sub-question, I certainly would not be able to comment. I hope that in devising the language for that sub-question, and frankly, it should be an entire question, given the severity of sexual harassment, I hope the question is being developed with the help of experts, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada and other labour experts who deal with sexual harassment first-hand in their work.

In conjunction with the complete absence of a question on sexual harassment and therefore a lack of information on the extent of sexual harassment in the federal workplace, we also expressed grave concern that the last time Statistics Canada undertook a national survey to collect data on violence against women in general was in 1993. I was 11 years old in 1993. It is alarming to know that in most of my lifetime we have yet to revisit this tragedy of violence against women in our country and to understand what it looks like today.

I rose in the House last week to say that even though violent crime in our country is decreasing, sexual crime, particularly against women, remains stagnant. This indicates that we have to undertake a study and understand the reality women face when it comes to violence. We need to ensure that this understanding of violence includes an understanding of violence in our workplaces. Therefore, we recommended that a follow-up survey be conducted and that Status of Women Canada use the information to establish a baseline understanding of sexual harassment in the workplace in Canada.

I have mentioned the lack of leadership, the lack of data collection, and the lack of understanding of the current state of violence against women in our country. Another theme we found to be very alarming, which I am sure will not surprise any member of this House, particularly the government member, is the strain being placed on the public service because of the major cuts of public sector workers through the budgetary cuts. The fear of job loss is creating a difficult work environment.

One of the points that was raised, and I want to particularly acknowledge the Public Service Alliance of Canada and members who work so hard fighting for public sector workers and frankly the rights of all Canadians, is that they are seeing, and are fearful, that women will be less likely to report sexual harassment because of the fear of losing their jobs in the times we live in.

Many women in the public service do not feel that their jobs are secure enough to risk reporting harassment. The committee heard that precarious employment in the public sector has grown since 20,000 have been cut from the public sector since 2006.

Therefore, we as New Democrats recommend that Status of Women Canada study the impact of job insecurity, including recent and pending budget cuts, on sexual harassment and the possible under-reporting of sexual harassment.

In conclusion, we felt compelled to write a dissenting report on this study, because we felt that the government, sadly, was showing real inaction on the issue of sexual harassment. In their response to our recommendations, we continue to see a failure to act and a failure to show leadership.

We are proud to stand up on behalf of women and men in the federal workplace, in federally regulated workplaces, calling for an immediate end to sexual harassment.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, the hon. member spoke about prevention.

I believe that the recommendations laid out in the report suggest that there are relatively simple measures that could be taken to prevent sexual harassment and to ensure that all workplaces, including government workplaces, are completely free of all forms of harassment.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. Many of the recommendations are centred around prevention. I would also like to add that measures need to be implemented and we need to acknowledge the reality of sexual harassment in federal workplaces. That is not happening right now because the government is not taking action.

In order to prevent harassment, we need to know where it is happening, what it looks like and in which department it is the most prevalent.

As I said, one aspect of prevention is changing the federal workplace culture. That includes increasing the number of women in managerial positions and positions of power. We know that can help change workplace culture.

Training programs also need to be improved. We heard that, because of cuts, the federal government was trying to impose online training as opposed to in-person training. We feel that is unacceptable.

Many other measures were mentioned during the testimony we heard as part of the study. The federal government has decided to disregard these measures, which is disappointing. We hope that the government will look at them and take action as quickly as possible.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a very good speech. I would also like to mention that we are on the same committee.

Various witnesses told us about a culture that tolerated harassment in the workplace. Women complained about it. Many witnesses said that the retaliation was worse than the sexual harassment itself. They gave us examples of retaliation that people might experience if they reported harassment. They might be ostracized, isolated in the workplace or transferred to another job outside of the organization. They might get sent on undesirable assignments or be demoted.

Is it not time for the government to show some leadership and take concrete action to eradicate this culture, especially considering that women are being encouraged to pursue positions of responsibility?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. It was a pleasure to work on this study with her and the other committee members. She is absolutely right: we need the government to show leadership so that we can change the culture and eradicate sexual harassment.

I am glad she raised a point that we heard about repeatedly during our study: retaliation can be the worst part.

We must learn from the examples people gave about departments that mishandled sexual harassment cases. We heard about people who had been harassed being punished, not those who did the harassing. That makes no sense. That has to change.

The RCMP harassment cases are shocking. Those who repeatedly committed sexual harassment were simply sent home for a few days or transferred to another posting. Unfortunately, there have been no punitive measures yet.

Over the past few months, we have started seeing some things that could deter people from sexually harassing co-workers. This is something concrete that we have to act on. We are asking the government to do so as soon as possible.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate my colleague, our party's status of women critic, on her speech.

The study was originally supposed to be on sexual harassment in the RCMP. However, the committee completely transformed the study to instead focus on sexual harassment in the federal workplace.

What can my colleague tell us about this change of topic?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

Our dissenting report starts off with that same observation. As the official opposition, we wanted to focus on sexual harassment in the RCMP, since this is a serious issue that has caused a lot of harm to women in the RCMP.

Canadians want the federal government to show some leadership. This is a spectacular example of how the government refused to show leadership and did everything it could to conduct a much broader study and avoid putting the focus on the RCMP.

It is even more shocking that we spent only one session hearing testimony from the RCMP. That is unacceptable, in light of how serious the problems are within the force. Worst of all, the committee did not make a single recommendation specifically about the RCMP.

It means nothing for the federal Conservative government to say that it supports our police officers if it does not take action and focus the study on cases of sexual harassment in the RCMP.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the House do now proceed to the orders of the day.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #188

Committees of the House

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill and to announce that the Liberals will be voting against it.

We do not like this bill at all, except for the part that deals with lost Canadians. We think that all of the other aspects of this bill are bad for Canada, so we will be voting against it.

There are two main aspects that we do not like at all. First, the Conservatives believe that the more difficult it is to get Canadian citizenship, the more valuable it is to be a Canadian. We do not think that makes sense. On the contrary, if we make it difficult for people to become citizens, they will go elsewhere, such as to Australia, the United Kingdom or the United States.

Otherwise, we in Canada are competing for people around the world with countries like Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. When the Conservatives erect barrier after barrier to make it harder for people to become citizens of this country, as they do in this bill, in no way does that increase the value of citizenship. Rather, what it does is turn people off of becoming citizens of Canada and induce them to become citizens elsewhere. Indeed, I would say this bill devalues Canadian citizenship, because while it makes it harder for newcomers to become citizens, it makes it easier for the minister to arbitrarily remove someone's Canadian citizenship. In that sense, it devalues our citizenship and makes it less durable against attack from a minister of the crown. The individual Canadian would have limited right to appeal to the courts.

We in the Liberal Party believe that we should reduce the barriers to citizenship and welcome people to this country, whereas the Conservatives would erect more barriers. Instead of welcoming newcomers with a smile, they welcome newcomers with a scowl and force them to climb all of these hurdles to achieve citizenship.

If we look at the hurdles, we see that most of them make very little sense. I would like to name a few.

First of all, until now international students have been able to claim 50% of their time as students as credit toward becoming citizens. Under this bill, the Conservatives would make that amount zero. This is foolish in the extreme. We are encouraging international students to go elsewhere. Who are better candidates to be citizens of Canada than students, who by definition are educated, have experience in this country, and presumably speak English or French? They are giving students a kick in the pants when instead we should be welcoming them to our country.

Second, they impose language tests on older newcomers. Up until now, beyond age 54, one did not have to pass a difficult language test. Now one does if one is between the ages of 54 and 65. We believe this is unnecessary. We believe many loyal Canadians who have come here and become citizens speak less than perfect English as older citizens, but I have no doubt their children and grandchildren will speak perfect English or French. We do not think that the imperfect French of the older generation has been any impediment to becoming good citizens and contributors to this country.

The third barrier, also inappropriate, is that the Conservatives have increased the length of time that people have to be residents. They have tightened the definition of “resident” so as not to allow any more time spent abroad if, for example, the person is working for a Canadian company.

In all these ways, the government has increased the barriers or the difficulties in becoming a citizen. We believe this is bad for this country, particularly in the world of 2014, when we have an aging population and are competing with many different countries around the world for new citizens.

Finally, as if that were not enough, they have increased the wait time for becoming a citizen from 16 months to 31 months, which is double, and for many people it is even longer than that.

None of these aspects of the bill are positive for this country.

For that reason, we in the Liberal Party are very pleased to vote against this bill.

The second component of our objection is, in one sense, even more serious. What I have just said is serious enough: we compete for immigrants, we need immigrants, we want to welcome immigrants. However, the second part has to do with infringing upon the Constitution by passing laws that many lawyers agree would be unconstitutional and would not be able to stand a test in the Supreme Court.

I have a letter here. I might not have too much time, but I will read a bit of it:

...removal may occur despite the fact that they have not, do not, nor wish to apply for dual nationality. A Canadian-born citizen may be removed and wake up to landing in a country which may not recognize the dual nationality and thus become stateless.

The letter, from lawyers Messrs. Galati, Slansky, and Azevedo, representing the Constitutional Rights Centre, goes on to say:

...the Federal Parliament has absolutely no constitutional authority over the citizenship of persons born in Canada, but only over “Aliens and Naturalization”.

It adds:

This aspect of C-24, in its seismic shift from the historical and constitutional understanding of the citizenship of those born in Canada, should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada...and not simply passed through Parliament....

It concludes that:

The Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. intends to take every judicial proceeding possible against Bill C-24.

In the good old days, governments assured themselves that a bill was constitutional before passing it through Parliament. Under the current government, bill after bill seems to go through Parliament with no assurance that it is constitutional, and indeed with assurances from well-reputed lawyers that it is not.

We object in principle to the arbitrary removal of citizenship from individuals for reasons that are highly questionable and to the very limited opportunity for the individual to appeal to the courts against that removal of citizenship. We object to the onus of proof regarding dual citizenship being placed not upon the government to prove that the person is a dual citizen but upon the individual to prove that he or she is not. That also is wrong.

For all of these reasons, we and many legions of lawyers across this country are convinced that the bill would fail the test of the Constitution, and well should it fail that test, because it would do things that are inconsistent with not only the Constitution of Canada but also with the spirit of this country as developed over many decades of our history.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is very long and, as the member mentioned, some measures are worse than others.

Could my colleague talk about the omnibus nature of this bill? This does not allow opposition members to fully debate this bill, which contains a number of measures that affect potential new Canadians.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of both content and procedure. I indicated that we do not like the content of this bill at all.

With regard to the procedure, I agree with my colleague. It leaves much to be desired since we have not had much time to debate the bill. Since the government is rushing Parliament, we have only a few hours to debate this bill. As a result, hundreds of legal experts who would like to share their opinions have not had much opportunity to do so.

Both the content of this bill and the procedure surrounding it are inadequate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that there has been a significant jump in the time involved for processing an application for citizenship. I can recall when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was in power the citizenship process would take roughly 12 months once a person had qualified. It now takes close to 28 months, well over two years, to process an application.

It seems to me that this legislation would change the way in which an application is processed but if the government had the political will to speed up the process, the legislation would not be required in the first place. People should not have to wait more than two years to acquire citizenship. That is being generous, especially if we look at those who meet the residency requirement where it could go well beyond four or five years.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my hon. colleague. The average processing time is now 31 months, which is two and a half years. It used to be just over one year. These are the government's own numbers.

I should add that it could add a lot more time for some individuals who have to fill out the residency questionnaire, and it is a rather arbitrary and mysterious process by which it is decided who has to fill out the questionnaire and who does not, and we do not know according to what criteria. That is another element that can impose a huge burden on individuals in terms of the time it takes.

This is a general problem across the board. We are looking at a doubling of citizenship wait times but if we look at processing time for all components of immigration, whether it is family class, parents, grandparents, children, spouses, economic immigrants, provincial nominee programs, visitors, and citizenship applicants, all have experienced dramatic, sometimes two or three times higher, processing times under the Conservative government. Perhaps departments have been starved of funds, perhaps the government does not care, perhaps it has erected new bureaucracies, we do not know all of the reasons, but across the board it is totally unacceptable. This case of doubling wait times for new citizens is terrible but it is just typical of what the government has done across the board.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Markham—Unionville was on CBC recently. He was being skeptical about the government's promise to reduce the processing time from upward of 36 months to under one year. He went on to say that it was just in time for an election year.

Is he really that cynical?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I lack the idealism of some of my NDP colleagues, so perhaps I should simply take the government at its word.

In general, members of the NDP and the Liberals, and I dare say a good chunk of the Conservatives themselves, would be skeptical at some of the more daring promises of the Conservatives when waiting times have gone up egregiously for seven years. Are they suddenly going to plummet in the one year before the election? My colleagues can believe that if they will, but I suggest it would be dangerous to indulge in such beliefs.