House of Commons Hansard #335 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workplace.

Topics

Corrections and Conditional Release ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Regina—Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Abandoned VesselsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I bring voices from coastal communities urging government action to deal with the backlog of abandoned vessels.

The petitioners call on the government for legislation that would direct the recycling and/or removal of abandoned vessels and to pilot a turn-in program modelled on the successful cash for clunkers program that different provinces use for automobiles.

It has been proven in Washington state and Oregon that the backlog of abandoned vessels that present an oil spill risk and jeopardize coastal jobs can be dealt with using a vessel turn-in program. Many other solutions in this petition would be in line with existing marine salvage businesses.

The petitioners are from Nanaimo, Duncan and other communities on Vancouver Island.

I commend this petition to the House.

Human Organ TraffickingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

October 16th, 2018 / 10 a.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to present a petition. The people who have signed this petition are concerned about the organ harvesting that is happening around the world.

In that regard, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to adopt Bill C-350 and Bill S-240 to ensure that this horrible scourge no longer takes place in Canada or around the world.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again today to table a petition on behalf of constituents from Parksville and Qualicum.

Our oceans and our freshwater waterways are all under threat right now from ocean plastics. The petitioners call on the government to develop a national strategy to combat plastic pollution. They are looking for regulations to mitigate single-use plastics and the industrial use of plastics in our waterways. These petitioners are looking for funding for beach cleanups and education campaigns.

The petitioners support my Motion No. 151 to create a national strategy to combat plastic in our waterways.

PharmacarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table another petition on the pharmacare program.

The petitioners call on the Prime Minister, the Government of Canada and all members of the House of Commons to be aware that the federal government should develop jointly with provincial and territorial partners a universal, single-payer, evidence-based and sustainable public drug plan with the purchasing power to secure best available pricing. The plan should begin with a list of essential medicines addressing priority health needs and expanding a comprehensive permanent plan that would promote the health and well-being of all Canadians.

Human Organ TraffickingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and table this petition from Canadians regarding their increasing concern over the international trafficking of human organs.

The petitioners urge the government and all parliamentarians to work to pass Bill C-350 as well as Bill S-240 in the Senate.

Human Organ TraffickingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in my hand from citizens of Canada in regard to Bill S-240 and Bill C-350. These are bills that would end the trafficking of human organs. Most Canadians would hardly believe that this goes on, but it does.

These petitioners are calling for fast passage of these two bills in order to prevent that from happening anymore.

FirearmsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two petitions today.

The first deals with firearms. Petitioners are concerned about arbitrary reclassification that affects property owners. This is a firearms issue and also a rule of law issue.

People own firearms that are arbitrarily reclassified, and that has an immediate effect on the value. Some people may have a great deal of their money wrapped up in firearms that could lose their value overnight. That could have a big effect on their well-being and their retirement.

In particular, these petitioners call on the House to remove the power of arbitrary reclassification from the RCMP and to make it the subject of decision-making higher up.

Human Organ TraffickingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with organ harvesting and international organ trafficking. The petitioners call on the House and the Senate to work for the speedy passage of Bill C-350 and Bill S-240. These bills would make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad and receive an organ for which there was not consent.

The petition also deals with the admissibility to Canada of those who have been involved in the trafficking of organs.

Human Organ TraffickingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I have to remind the hon. members that presenting petitions is not the time to tell the House what they think about a petition but to tell us in a concise form what the petitioners are calling for.

The hon. member for Provencher.

Canada Summer Jobs ProgramPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today to present a petition signed by Canadians domiciled in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Their particular concern is with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of belief. They believe these are fundamental rights that need to be recognized by the current government.

They would like to make it known to the Prime Minister that they would like him to defend their rights of conscience, belief and thought, and to remove the attestation from the Canada summer jobs program and any other government funding.

Human Organ TraffickingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Canada who have increasing concerns about the trafficking of human organs. They are asking Parliament to quickly pass Bill C-350 in the House of Commons and Bill S-240 in the Senate to limit this practice.

Trans Mountain PipelinePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this morning to present a petition from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands calling on the government to immediately halt any plans to purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline or to support its expansion.

Events may have transpired, but preventing the expansion is still a possibility to which the petitioners wish the government to turn its attention.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Thunder Bay—Superior North Ontario

Liberal

Patty Hajdu LiberalMinister of Employment

moved:

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, the House: agrees with amendments 3, 5(b), 6 and 7(a) made by the Senate;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 1 because replacing the word “means” with “includes” would result in a lack of clarity for both employees and employers;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because, in focusing on harassment and violence, it would create an imbalance relative to all of the other occupational health and safety measures under Part II of the Canada Labour Code, and, in addition, other legislation, such as the Employment Equity Act, addresses some of those issues;

proposes that amendment 4 be amended by deleting paragraph (z.163) and by renumbering paragraph (z.164) as paragraph (z.163) because the addition of proposed paragraph (z.163) would mean that a single incident of harassment and violence in a work place would be considered to be a violation of the Canada Labour Code on the part of the employer, which would undermine the framework for addressing harassment and violence that Bill C-65 seeks to establish;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 5(a) because the complaints that are investigated under the section that would be amended do not include complaints relating to an occurrence of harassment and violence;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 7(b) because this would be inconsistent with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board’s other annual reporting obligations under both the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Part I of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and because that Board would only be reporting on a small subset of cases in respect of which there are appeals, thus creating a high risk that an employee’s identity would be revealed if such statistical data were published.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-65. First, I would like to recognize both chambers for their excellent work on the bill. Bill C-65 has had careful study over the course of many meetings, and both chambers have suggested amendments that would strengthen this historic legislation. All hon. members agree it is our responsibility and duty to end workplace harassment and violence, and Bill C-65 brings us closer to that goal.

This bill will change how we perceive and put a stop to unacceptable behaviour in workplaces under federal jurisdiction, including Parliament, but its ultimate goal is so much greater.

It is my hope that Bill C-65 will become the standard and the model for other jurisdictions in the country.

We have heard for years many stories of harassment and violence in the workplace and the extent of the problem. In 2017, more women than ever before came forward to share their experiences through the #MeToo movement. The flood of stories was overwhelming. Some were shocked by what we heard and read, but too many of us were not. So many women have experienced what can no longer be denied: a systematic and widespread tolerance of workplace harassment and sexual violence.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. I believe we are having trouble with interpretation. Do we have sound? We have it now.

I will let the hon. minister continue then.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Patty Hajdu Liberal Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, sharing stories cannot be where this ends. It is time for us to take action, and we are. According to an Angus Reid poll, 52% of Canadian women say that they have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace and 28% report having experienced non-consensual sexual touching in the workplace, and 72% of respondents who experienced harassment never reported it. In fact, these behaviours have become so normalized that the discomfort women feel is normalized. Women tell us that they do not come forward because it is easier not to, because it often is not worth it. They feel embarrassed, and many fear reprisal, up to even losing their jobs. Most disappointing is that most women simply do not believe that coming forward will make any difference whatsoever in their situation or for others.

It is time for a change. All Canadians deserve a workplace that is free of harassment and violence and where unacceptable behaviour is no longer tolerated. Bill C-65 would be a tool to help achieve that goal. It is how we would send the message that unacceptable behaviour in the workplace will not be tolerated. It would move us, as a society, from outrage to action. Bill C-65 would address all types of harassment and violence. It would strengthen the Canada Labour Code to complement existing laws and policies. It would broaden the scope of legislation to include staff working right here and in constituency offices, both in this House and in the other chamber.

There are three main elements to Bill C-65: the prevention of incidents, a timely and effective response to incidents, and support for affected employees.

This is a progressive and revolutionary bill that all Canadians can be proud of. However, I am well aware that Bill C-65 applies only to federally regulated employers and employees.

My hope is that the legislation would set the example and the standard for fairness and harmony in all workplaces in Canada.

I wish to thank the other chamber for its careful study. I also thank the witnesses who shared their expertise and their experiences, many of them deeply personal, which helped inform the committee's study. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights took to heart the messages heard from these witnesses and proposed amendments to echo those voices and stories.

Many of these amendments are supported by our government. For example, we are supporting the removal of the terms “trivial”, “frivolous” and “vexatious” to describe complaints that could be refused for investigation. While these terms are commonly used in law, there is no denying that they have powerful negative connotations.

There are some amendments we are unable to support, despite the fact that we understand their intent. These concerns did not go unheard. It is the government's perspective that the amendments have already been addressed through other legislation. My hon. colleagues will speak in more detail about each of the amendments.

Rest assured that this legislation would be meaningful for Canadians. It would create better protections, safer workplaces and swifter action for employees covered by this legislation. It would also start a cultural shift that would affect all workplaces and our society. In fact, I believe that it already has.

For example, during our consultations on the regulations, the majority of stakeholders we met recognized the need to change the status quo, and most expressed their willingness to help make that happen. It is important that as a government, we lead the way, that we provide an example, and that we take our responsibility to our workers seriously. We need this legislation simply because what is in place right now is not doing the job.

Let me tell members a bit about Hilary Beaumont, a VICE News reporter. Ms. Beaumont conducted some very interesting research. She interviewed more than 40 women who work right here on the Hill, including former and current members of Parliament, lobbyists, journalists, employees and trainees. In her presentation to committee, Ms. Beaumont said that she quickly realized that female employees were much more vulnerable to harassment than their male counterparts.

The women she interviewed reported personal stories of sexist comments and touching and even sexual assault. Some women said they had been fired or had lost job opportunities after trying to report the abuses they had suffered at work, in this workplace. Some currently employed on the Hill are not even aware of how to manage and report incidents.

Ms. Beaumont discovered that existing measures are not protecting employees from harassment and violence. However, if Bill C-65 had been in place, these women would have had better support and justice, and even better, these incidents could have been prevented. That is why this bill is so important.

From the outset, each member of this House agreed on its importance, and this was apparent during the meetings of the committee of this House, which worked very hard to strengthen the bill. Out of those meetings came important amendments: adding the definition of harassment and violence to the Canada Labour Code; adding a clause that required that the provisions on harassment and violence established in Bill C-65 be re-examined every five years; requiring the minister of labour to produce, each year, a report on harassment and violence in all workplaces under federal regulation; and for the application of part 3 of the law in Parliament, providing the deputy minister with powers normally attributed to the minister to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

These changes, which have already been adopted, along with the amendments from the other chamber that we propose to accept, have created a piece of exceptionally strong legislation that we can all be sure would reach its intended goal.

I firmly believe that Bill C-65, as amended, will really change the lives of thousands of Canadians.

It would ensure better protection for employees in the public service and in federal Crown corporations.

This applies to people working for federal banks, railroads, marine transportation services and ferries, airlines and airports, and radio and television broadcasting.

Bill C-65 would also, importantly, protect political staff in this chamber and in the other one, where all too often we have heard of, and may have even witnessed, inappropriate behaviour, often to humiliate or belittle or to use power as a way to pursue intentions of assault.

I ask my hon. colleagues to support the advancement of this important bill; in fact, this historic bill. For every person who has come forward, for those who have felt that they could not come forward, let us stand up and declare together that we will not accept the status quo and that we will be responsible employers in this place. Let us be an example for Canada and for the rest of the world. We owe it to our citizens, and we owe it to the incredibly hard-working staff who serve us all, to take action now.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour for bringing forward a legislative measure of such importance to this country.

We worked together as members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The Conservative Party of Canada will support this bill. We played an active role in the committee's work.

This is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It does not give employees the option of turning to the labour minister for support. The act merely requires businesses to follow procedures.

Does the minister plan to take things further by enabling employees to file complaints with Employment and Social Development Canada, as Quebec and other legislative bodies have done, making support available to them, and having an independent individual, a departmental official, conduct investigations?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Patty Hajdu Liberal Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation is so comprehensive that at any time should someone feel that the process has not been followed, they would have the ability to come forward to the labour department.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. It is true that we worked really hard in the House and in committee. There was a great deal of co-operation. I want to thank her for this so-called historic bill, which will not eliminate bullying and violence in the workplace but is nevertheless a step in the right direction.

I would like to take advantage of my colleague's expertise and ask her a more specific question. The government rejected the addition of the following to portion of section 21 entitled “Annual Report—Board”:

The report must contain statistical data relating to harassment and violence in work places to which this Part applies, including information that is categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The report shall not contain any information that is likely to reveal the identity of a person who was involved in an occurrence of harassment and violence.

The government claimed that this addition would create a serious risk that the employee's identity would be revealed if such statistics were published.

My question is clear. The Senate amendment clearly indicates that the report would not contain “any information that is likely to reveal the identity of a person”. I would like to know what my colleague thinks. Why did the government reject the Senate amendment?

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Patty Hajdu Liberal Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the reason we respectfully disagree with amendment 7(b) is that this amendment would be inconsistent with the federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board's other annual reporting obligations under both the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and part 1 of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

It would also create a very small subset of cases in respect of which there are appeals. The challenge is that because this would be such a small subset of cases, it would take very little information to identify the identity of someone who may have been subject to those appeals. Therefore, we feel that this amendment would have the unintended consequence of potentially putting in jeopardy someone's confidentiality. Something that was repeatedly stressed in almost all the testimony we heard was that the root of this had to be the assurance of confidentiality.

Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Celina Caesar-Chavannes Liberal Whitby, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for what is a historic piece of legislation, Bill C-65. I want to add a dimension to it.

The minister mentioned that women often do not report and that their stories are often not heard. When we add intersectionality to that, either of race, disability or sexual orientation, the reporting is often a lot lower. I am wondering if the minister can elaborate on how this piece of legislation would adjust for that but also make more inclusive workplaces, not just within the federal jurisdiction but beyond that.