Debates of Jan. 29th, 2018

Canada Labour Code

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

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

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

Could the member provide some thoughts on those three words?

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

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

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

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

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare to have the opportunity to support a bill that deals with an issue that affects so many people across the country and throughout the world. That is why I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-65.

As a feminist government and one that cares deeply about Canadians, we are committed to taking action on workplace harassment and sexual violence in Parliament and in federally regulated workplaces. This bill underscores the Government of Canada's strong commitment to taking action that would help create healthy, respectful workplaces for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression—heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or two spirit.

The tragic reality is that, despite our country's progress toward a modern, respectful society, we know that harassment and violence are persistent and pervasive in Canadian workplaces and that incidents often go unreported because employees fear retaliation. These behaviours can have long-term negative effects, not just for those who have experienced them but also for their families and employers as well, through lost productivity, absenteeism, and employee turnover.

Last fall, Abacus Data published a study on harassment and sexual violence in the workplace. It showed that over 10% of Canadians believe that sexual harassment is quite common in their workplace. Another 44% said that while it is not frequent, it does happen.

The recent #MeToo hashtag campaign on Twitter confirms these statistics and clearly shows how pervasive and far-reaching this problem is.

Underpinning these realities are the many power imbalances and gender norms still in our culture that have led to unacceptable tolerance of these behaviours for far too long. It is time they stopped. One of the key building blocks leading up to the tabling of this proposed legislation was listening to Canadians. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour engaged Canadians, stakeholders, and experts to gather their experiences and perspectives on these very issues. Members of Parliament and senators also consulted to ensure the government could fulfill its commitment to making Parliament a workplace free from harassment and sexual violence. This engagement of Canadians resulted in the report released last November, entitled “Harassment and sexual violence in the workplace public consultations: What We Heard”. In this report, Canadians indicated that incidents of harassment and sexual violence in the workplace are not only under-reported but also often dealt with ineffectively when they are reported.

Statistics show that approximately 80% of victims do not feel like they can report what happened, so what choice do they have?

The report found that women reported more sexual harassment and violence than men, and that visible minorities and people with disabilities reported more harassment. These discussions with stakeholders and experts provided insight on how to address these and other issues, and they informed the bill we are discussing today.

Bill C-65 proposes to amend existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code and replace the existing patchwork of laws and policies with one comprehensive approach that takes into consideration the full spectrum of harassment and violence that can occur. It would also expand the coverage to parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, House of Commons, and Library of Parliament. This would include political staff on Parliament Hill. Our staff right now are subject to some of the most antiquated provisions, where they exist, in the modern world. It is time that staff get the protection they deserve, and that is why this bill is so important.

The changes being proposed to the Canada Labour Code include expanding the current violence-prevention requirements to ensure that employers take the necessary steps to prevent and protect against both harassment and violence in the workplace; repealing less-effective sexual harassment provisions currently found in the code; ensuring that employers are required to investigate, record, and report occurrences of harassment and violence—employers would also be required to take steps to prevent and protect against occurrences of harassment of violence as well as respond to them when they occur and to offer support to employees affected by them; protecting the privacy of employees coming forward to report harassment and violence; and extending occupational health and safety coverage to exempt ministerial staff. I welcome these changes. I welcome the discipline and the responsibility and the important protections that these would afford to political staff.

As part of the new approach announced by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, our government also intends to launch an awareness campaign and to provide support to employees and employers.

This support will help them navigate the incident prevention and resolution processes and direct victims to services. We are committed to this work because, at the end of the day, this is about ensuring equal access to and enjoyment of fundamental human rights for all Canadians.

Human rights are not pieces of pie. We do not run out of human rights by serving them to everyone equally. We do not run out of human rights when they are extended to all and enjoyed by everyone. In fact, they are strengthened for all. Human rights are fundamental, inalienable, indivisible, and universal. That means they apply to everyone equally.

When people have been made vulnerable and fearful, that is when we can and must shine light on these fellow human beings, that is when we must lead to make things better, that is when we must stand up and be counted, that is when we must support each other, and that is what is at the core of this legislation. It is together that we demonstrate our solidarity and support for Canadian women, the LGBTQ2 community, and their family members and friends.

Research indicates higher rates of violent victimization and an elevated risk of harassment and sexual violence for sexual minorities, including individuals who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirited, and this includes queer people of colour. The intersectionality of gender and sexual violence must be understood. No one should face such acts of aggression and unwanted attention in the workplace or, in fact, anywhere.

That is why our government is taking a clear stand on the issue. Workplace sexual harassment and violence of any kind are unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. We must work together to eliminate such behaviours from our workplaces. No government can do that alone.

The legislation we are discussing today also aligns with the plan announced earlier this year by the Minister of Status of Women, entitled “It's Time: Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence”. The title, “It's Time”, was selected because it is time to learn more about the pervasiveness of this problem, it is time to believe survivors, and it is time to invest in effective solutions. After many years of neglect, there is a lot of work to do.

Developing this strategy was a key priority for our feminist government upon taking office, and listening to Canadians was a critical first step. As part of this engagement, approximately 300 individuals from more than 175 organizations shared their views during meetings held across Canada. The Canadian public was also invited to provide comments via email and through an online survey, in which more than 7,500 Canadians participated. In addition, the federal government created an advisory council of experts on gender-based violence and engaged with provincial and territorial colleagues to receive additional feedback to further inform the strategy. The strategy has three pillars: prevention, support for survivors and their families, and promoting responsive legal and justice systems.

Budget 2017 allotted $100.9 million over five years to implement this strategy. To support this strategy, Status of Women Canada is creating a gender-based violence knowledge centre to better align Government of Canada resources, fill gaps in evidence and data, support federal coordination and accountability on key federal actions, connect service providers with researchers and policy-makers, and lay the foundation for future action on gender-based violence. The LGBTQ2 secretariat is fully behind and proud to support this important work to combat gender and sexual-based violence.

The bottom line for Canadians is that harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable anywhere, including in the workplace. Bill C-65 sends a strong message that our government is prepared to take bold action and be part of the solution on this critical matter.

In the end, our government pledged to take action against harassment and sexual violence in federal workplaces, and that is exactly what we are doing. We expect the amendments to yield results in the short and the long term. In the short term, more people will feel safe and supported and will speak up. In the long term, there will be fewer incidents as the culture changes. I am asking my colleagues to support this bill, which will prevent harassment and sexual violence in the workplace, and foster workplaces where everyone has a fair chance to succeed today and in the future.

It is time to end gender-based violence and sexual violence in the workplace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his concern on this issue and for taking his own initiative on this matter. Let me be very clear. In the work done by Status of Women Canada and by the minister responsible for Bill C-65, prevention, support, and measures to make sure that this does not happen in the workplace to start with is exactly what we are focused on.

The status of women report talks about support, prevention, and remediation. This is also addressed in Bill C-65. That is what came out of the consultations with Canadians. After the fact, it is important that we understand how to deal with it, but let us prevent it from happening.

It is also the work of our government to make sure that men understand that sexual violence is their issue. Sexual violence against women is an issue for men and boys, not simply an issue for women. Our government is committed to making sure that we get at the root of this problem and that we are upstream, in the middle of the stream, and downstream so that girls and women can be safe.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member for Edmonton Centre builds on a theme he raised about the consequences of reduced productivity and absenteeism. Obviously, creating a regime for survivors of violence and victims of harassment is essential and the right thing to do. However, one of the trends I fear is that we are losing good people altogether.

In my own office, I am very fortunate to have incredibly talented women working for me without whom I could not do this job. I want to ask the member how the regime contemplated in Bill C-65 would help create a culture change that would ensure that the talented young women who are experiencing harassment today have faith in the system and will want to stay in these jobs and will want to contribute to the good work of government and the public service and federally regulated workplaces.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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