Debates of Oct. 16th, 2018

Canada Labour Code

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent and important question. As I have already mentioned, unions and some health and safety committees were excluded from certain steps under this bill. They were frustrated by that.

Much like my colleague, I am wondering how this bill will interact with certain collective agreement provisions, such as those relating to third party arbitration. We need to have that discussion when drafting regulations. We need to make sure that this will not undermine what is already in place and is working well. This reflection will be important. We do not yet know how we are going to sort out these two things.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and contribute to this debate today.

We are having a fairly productive debate on the legislation. The fact that it is being supported by all parties in the House is good news. It is good news that has been reported. The editorial in the Hill Times identified and applauded all members for coming together. It said “MPs from all sides of the House are getting behind this landmark legislation” and that “should be applauded.” Of course, the Hill Times is the de facto authority on what should and should not happen on the Hill, so I thank the Hill Times for that.

I have some prepared comments, but first I want to ensure this is not a silver bullet. It has been referred to as landmark legislation. I think we can agree that it has been proven necessary and it is a tremendous step forward, but so much more has to be done.

Just recently, I was able to meet with Canada building trades and we talked about women in the workforce. We talked about under-represented groups in the workforce, indigenous Canadians, women, young Canadians, persons with disabilities, and how today's workforce could better reflect today's society. We talked at great length about recruiting those groups to the building trades, but it goes beyond that.

As a party and a government, we have done some very positive things and have put programs out there that encourage those under-represented groups to engage and get the training and support they need as they develop the skills to become important and contributing members of the workforce.

However, it is important as well not only to recruit, but to retain those workers. When people invest in themselves to take that training, when a company invests in them to provide that training to have good, skilled and productive workers, then it is important that the culture around those workers is a positive and enabling culture that allows those workers to grow, prosper and be more productive. Therefore, it is not just the recruitment, but the retention of those workers is paramount. The building trades themselves have tried some very novel and progressive measures, but we still see only 4% women in those trades.

I had the opportunity to work in Fort McMurray for 10 years. For the first couple of years, I worked with LiUNA in the Great Canadian Oil Sands, now Suncor. It was an opportunity to see a part of the world that has been such a great asset to our country. The oil sands have really been a nation builder. When I think back to those days, sitting around the lunchroom table or on the shop floor, there was not a whole lot of diversity. I do not know if the culture would have been one that would have promoted or helped to nurture any type of diversity.

We are faced with a great predicament. Youth unemployment rates in the country are at a 40-year low right now. More young people are working and unemployment rates are at record lows.

This presents a whole new problem, which is where we get our workforce and how we grow our workforce. How do we make sure that those under-represented groups have the opportunity that has been denied to many, for many years? Giving them that opportunity is positive for the individual. It is positive for the company. It is positive for the Canadian economy.

We have to do what we can to make sure they are given the opportunity, that they have the skills they need to perform the job, and that the culture they work in is positive and supportive. This proposed piece of legislation takes us on a path toward helping to find that place where everybody on that shop floor or in that office space stands as an equal, is respected and is treated with dignity.

The witness list for the committee was pretty impressive. I was at most of the meetings, and one of the things I was most taken by was the testimony from those who had experienced sexual harassment and sexual assault. Their testimony was given to the committee. It was absolutely confidential. It was very compelling, moving and disturbing.

Every member around that table from all parties paid notice to this. Hopefully, those horrible situations that those witnesses shared with us will be of benefit to other Canadians as we go forward.

To get to my prepared comments, I am pleased to be among those rising today to speak to Bill C-65. As some of my hon. colleagues have mentioned, our government believes that the bill we have put before the House today is an exceptionally strong piece of proposed legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of thousands of Canadians working in federally regulated workplaces and right here in our own workplace on Parliament Hill. We also firmly believe that this proposed legislation will make a difference in the lives of many who hear our government's message of support and who feel encouraged by our refusal to tolerate these toxic, destructive behaviours any longer.

It takes a great deal of courage to come forward. We can all agree that the #MeToo and Time's Up movements have helped reduce some of the stigma associated with being a victim. We have made progress over the course of the last year, since workplace harassment and violence came into the spotlight and more people started to speak about their experiences and to speak out against these behaviours. However, there is still much work to be done.

The reality is that many individuals still fear coming forward. Some fear reprisal at work or even losing their job. Some fear embarrassment. Others fear they will not be taken seriously, or that they will be blamed. Many individuals fear all of these things, and when they weigh the risks against the benefits when deciding whether or not to come forward, they decide that it simply is not worth it, because they believe that in the end it will not make any difference anyway. That is unfortunate.

Unfortunately, history has proven that these fears are completely founded. This is why we need Bill C-65. I believe this proposed legislation is exactly what is required to help put these fears to rest once and for all, and to empower those who feel powerless in the wake of the reprehensible transgressions of others that we can no longer afford to tolerate.

It is a strong piece of legislation that has been made stronger over the course of the last year, since it was first tabled. The dedication of the members in the House and the others who contributed their careful study of the bill, as well as the generosity of the many witnesses who informed that study, have resulted in important amendments. Amendments were made as the bill passed through the chamber, and several more were proposed as it passed through the Senate.

As detailed by several of my hon. colleagues, our government supports a number of these amendments. The amendments we are accepting help us to strike a balance between what different stakeholders told us at committee. We need a strong bill that can reflect real cultural change, that provides employees with the protections and support they need, and that provides clear direction to employers on what they are required to do.

However, as mentioned, we do not support all the amendments. While all of the other chamber's proposed amendments stem from laudable goals and are certainly noble in their principle, we believe that some would be ineffective in practice, particularly those amendments that could compromise the clarity of the bill's intent. The need for such clarity was emphasized by various stakeholders, including employers and employees' representatives, time and again during the committee meetings.

I hope the Senate will consider our reasoning and understand our rationale. I truly believe that we have done our best in our role as parliamentarians to make this the strongest bill possible. We are now at a point where we must make a decision that will move the bill forward, bringing us one step closer to royal assent and ultimately implementation of this important legislation.

We need the bill in place as soon as possible. This is why I urge all in this chamber to vote in favour of the message our government intends to send back to the Senate. We cannot afford to wait any longer for the bill to be in place, and the reality is that implementation will take time. Anyone who has been in this chamber for any length of time can certainly appreciate that. Beyond the practical challenge of putting into place the regulations and completing the necessary outreach and education, it takes time to effect the kind of lasting cultural change we hope to accomplish with Bill C-65.

On another practical note, I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the bill could be amended down the road if it becomes clear that adjustments are necessary. In fact, one of the amendments our government is proposing to accept would facilitate such a course of action.

I am referring to the Senate's proposed amendment to have the minister's annual report contain statistical data related to harassment and violence categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Information that is categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under CHRA includes such information as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability and others.

The collection of this information, provided voluntarily to avoid encroaching on the privacy of those affected, will enable us to identify with greater certainty whether or not Bill C-65 is fulfilling its intended purpose. This will particularly affect individuals who generally experience higher levels of workplace harassment and violence, such as those who identify as members of the LGBTQ2 community. Any members who were in the chamber earlier today, when my colleague from Edmonton Centre gave his speech, will remember that it was pretty enlightening.

We find that certain groups and individuals continue to experience higher levels of harassment and violence. We could look at ways to better protect them in the future. What we need right now is better protections for employees in federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces and we need those protections in place as soon as possible.

With these points in mind, I once again urge everyone here today to help move this bill forward by voting in favour of the message to be sent to the other chamber. Canadians are counting on us to do this. I ask all to consider that as we go forward with the vote on this legislation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the fact that the Conservatives will be voting in support of Bill C-65. We understand how important this legislation is to send a message to Canadians that we are playing a leadership role when it comes to addressing harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.

I do want to commend again the committee and all the parties involved for accepting amendments from the different parties. I think that is what makes this legislation that much stronger.

The member talked about the amendment from the Senate that is going to ensure there are opportunities to amend this bill in the future. If a government can amend this bill in the future, our future government may do that.

An amendment brought forward by the Conservative Party puts a sunset clause on this bill which allows it to be reviewed after five years. I think that is an important component of this legislation as well. We do not know what could happen in the future in terms of cyberbullying and technology and those types of things.

I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of that clause in the legislation and why it is is important that we have an opportunity to review Bill C-65 in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of amendments brought forward. The Senate proposed 10 amendments. We accepted four outright and amended a fifth going forward. We would hope that the Senate sees the merit and the rationale why we will not support the other five. As the member for Foothills indicated, a number of amendments were from the NDP member for Jonquière.

Another amendment was put forward by the Conservative Party. I am not sure if it was the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis or if it was the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster who put forward that particular amendment. We felt that it was well reasoned, well argued and added to the legislation. At committee the vote was unanimous to accept that amendment. We think it will further enhance the legislation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon member always gives a thoughtful speech and always extends kindnesses to other members in this place who contribute to the work of the government. I also wish to commend him and the members of the committee who did the review of this policy. Based on what the member has shared with us, I think that Canada is showing that we can conduct ourselves in these kinds of reviews perhaps better than what we have seen south of the border.

I would like to raise with the member the same question that I put to one of his colleagues. I had the opportunity in the 1980s and 1990s to work with the federal governments of the day on enforcement compliance policies, particularly in the area of environmental law and agriculture. I learned from those experiences, as well as when I worked in the Yukon and overseas, that an important thing when bringing forward legislation is to also think about how to ensure compliance with the legislation. I understand there will be a review after five years.

I wonder if the member could speak to two concerns I have. I am less concerned with the behaviour in the House of Commons because there is great interest in protecting our civil service at the federal level. What I am deeply concerned about are the federally regulated entities. Of course, the federal government owns the pipeline so that entity presumably will be bound by these conditions as well.

Could the member speak to whether he thinks it is a good idea to be collecting some data or information so that we have an evidence-based decision on that five-year review and to use that information toward potentially tabling an enforcement and compliance policy for how we will actually deliver on the undertakings in this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who recently announced she would not seek re-election, will be missed in the chamber. She has always been thoughtful and well prepared in her interventions here, especially on environmental topics, but really on a broad range of things. She has been a great member of Parliament.

There has been a mishmash of policies. Debi Daviau, from PIPSC, summed it up pretty good. She liked the new bill and said that it was a major improvement. She said that public servants have a process that just does not work and that it is very difficult to address harassment through the existing mechanisms, as the process is largely internal and left to the discretion of management.

What the legislation would do is formalize a lot of the stuff that has been out there. I think it will have a significant impact on the broader workforce in this country. I was impressed that many of the people and organizations that testified during the committee's work on the bill were really ahead of where the government has been. Many of the banks have very well defined programs and policies in place, which have been part of their culture for many years. There will be some sectors that will obviously be playing catch up.

Beyond this, there is always the Canada Labour Code. We can agree that we are very fortunate that the Canada Labour Code is that safety net for all workers in this country. There are exceptions and anomalies, but by in large, the Canada Labour Code is one that allows workers in this country to go to work and feel safe, that they are going to have a good opportunity to return home at the end of the day.

Those provisions within the code would still be in place and will always be there, but the five-year provision for revision has been an excellent part of this legislation. The member mentioned what is going on south of border, and there is nothing more troubling. For Lent this year, I gave up watching CNN and screaming at the television. It is great for the soul. When we look at cyber-bullying and how the workforce has changed over the last number of years, the five-year review will be of benefit and has really enhanced this legislation.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since this bill would affect mostly federal jobs, in the member's experience in the House as a parliamentarian, would he say that these regulations would eventually trickle down to the provincial level or the private sector? How does he see this in the future protecting workers in all walks of life in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, there are some federal corporations and even some federal sectors that have been ahead of the federal government on this. They have gone out and developed their own policies around this. They know that a workforce that shows up for work and is in a safe, healthy, supportive and positive environment looks forward to going to work each day. When we see that happening, it is a productive workforce. Many of those sectors have gone forward and developed their own policies around that, but with the federal legislation, I think it would be a matter of growing and learning. As the whole issue around harassment and abuse has come to light of late, we believe the bill will have a great impact down the road.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-65. I will be sharing my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the #MeToo movement. Obviously, we still have a long way to go before we can say mission accomplished and that women are adequately protected, represented, heard, respected and defended in their workplaces and elsewhere. I say “women”, but of course I also mean the LGBTQ+ community and anyone who is harassed. In an ideal world, no one would be harassed in the workplace.

Bill C-65 applies specifically to federal workplaces. Despite the underlying good intentions of Bill C-65, which seeks to ensure that all federally regulated workplaces, including Parliament Hill, are free of harassment and sexual violence, it still has some important weak spots that will be detrimental to victims of workplace harassment.

Canada's Conservatives believe that all forms of harassment, sexual violence and discrimination are unacceptable, that all employees deserve respect and that these employees must feel safe at work. We also believe that it should be easier to report. Reporting a perpetrator is the first step in helping a harassment victim move forward and heal from a traumatic event that too often scars victims for life.

I obviously support this bill, but it is my duty to ensure that it achieves its objectives. Unfortunately, Bill C-65 does not work in favour of victims reporting harassment in the workplace. The bill is actually quite restrictive in this sense. Bill C-65 stipulates that victims must report harassment or violence in the workplace within one year after the abuse. It is inconceivable that the time frame set by the Liberal government is shorter than that of the provinces' for the same type of abuse, which is three years.

First and foremost, the government should be a national role model and set the example in protecting and respecting victims of harassment and violence in the workplace. It should not trail behind. It is completely unacceptable and inhumane to set a one-year time frame for filing a complaint, and this simply contributes to revictimizing a person after a traumatic event.

Many advocates for victims of harassment, health professionals and victims themselves have proven many times that one single year is too short a period to decide to report, and more often than not, this deadline adds to the victims' stress. Victims of harassment are usually in subordinate positions to their abusers.

Everyone in the House knows that our employees' positions are not protected, that they can be relieved of their duties on the spot, without cause or notice. That alone makes it extremely difficult for an employee to file a complaint. For one thing, to complain is to automatically risk one's job, and for another, such employees are already vulnerable on top of being traumatized by assault.

Bill C-65 gives victims one year to file a complaint, but that limitation actually discourages them from filing a complaint. One thing we know from years' worth of victims' accounts of workplace harassment and violence is that they continue to feel vulnerable during that first year after the assault. They may suffer from major health problems. It is often difficult for them to cope with what happened and confront their aggressor, to ask for and get the help they need to function from day to day so as to keep their jobs and not compromise their career prospects, and to fulfill their professional and personal obligations.

We have all heard victims of harassment tell their stories. I know some victims. Having heard their stories, how can we do anything but speak out against the one-year limitation period that makes the reporting process harder for them? Failing to speak out against it would exacerbate the problem. I absolutely cannot turn a blind eye to this.

Consequently, there must be a reasonable time frame for filing a harassment complaint, so that victims are completely protected by Bill C-65. This is not about passing a bill to ease our conscience and to say that Parliament now has a bill that protects its employees against all forms of harassment and violence in the workplace. This is about doing things right the first time, and above all, it is about not making an already trying situation even worse for victims. It is about considering victims, their well-being and their needs first before passing a bill that could obviously do them more harm than good in some respects. This bill needs to be more than symbolic. It needs to have positive effects for victims.

Since this bill also affects former employees of the House, a limitation period of at least three years to file a complaint is the minimum period that is acceptable to victims. That should also be the minimum period for filing a complaint for those who are still employees of the House.

What is more, in order to facilitate the reporting process, respect the well-being of the victim and protect the victim's job, we need to avoid imposing a limitation period on victims while they are still employees. That is a necessary change because Bill C-65 also includes the possibility of having to participate in mediation but does not contain any legislative measures to ensure that the complainant's job is protected. That is yet another thing that puts further unnecessary stress on victims.

Despite all of the movements and measures encouraging victims of harassment to report their abusers, speaking out is still a tough decision. It is our responsibility to facilitate that process as much as possible.

I will vote in favour of this bill, but I hope that the one-year limitation period will be increased. A three-year period would give victims some breathing room and alleviate unnecessary stress.

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

Madam Speaker, the potential impact of this legislation is fairly significant. I referenced in previous comments that it is somewhat historic as we try to improve the workforce and the quality of life for individuals in the workforce. It has been fairly well received by the population as a whole. We have seen good support coming from the Senate. We have all-party support in the chamber on this important legislation.

How important is it that we go beyond this to look at what provincial entities might be able to do? I think of provincial legislatures and so forth. Ottawa is playing a very strong national role, but there is also room for other stakeholders to play a role at the same time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As my colleagues know, and as I said in my preamble, we have to set an example for the rest of the country. Our legislation must not be inferior to provincial legislation, which provides for a three-year limitation period. Our legislation calls for a one-year limitation period. That is why I am asking that the limitation period be changed to three years, so that we can lead the way on this type of legislation. This is a first. It has never been done before. It is likely that 10, 15 or 20 years ago, no one would have thought that this could have such a significant impact on victims of abuse.

Today I am voting in favour of Bill C-65 and hoping that the government understands that parliamentarians do not have to be partisan and that we must become leaders on this type of bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I have a question on the matter of objectivity in situations of harassment. An hon. member in the House said that some people can experience things differently. At the same time, there is certainly an element of objectivity in certain actions. They can be acceptable or unacceptable.

Does my colleague think that it is necessary to implement an accountability mechanism should an hon. member do something that is unacceptable, even if that member is a minister or even a prime minister?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I have to say that no one, not a minister, prime minister or member, should abuse their position and harm a person's reputation, victimize a person, or touch or assault a person.

We are only human, but whether we are talking about a prime minister, a minister or a member, it is unacceptable, and no one should ever abuse their position to do this type of thing.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-65, legislation that I also had the opportunity to study as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons of Disabilities.

Throughout the study of this bill, there has been common, all-party agreement that this legislation is needed. This legislation is necessary today and it was needed yesterday. It is an unfortunate reality that sexual misconduct is pervasive in our society. This includes many workplace cultures, including our own and those that are addressed in this legislation.

The recent #MeToo movement has shone a light on this reality in a societal context, but the prevalence of this issue is not new and is much broader. For far too long, individuals, and more often women, who have been victims of sexual harassment or violence have chosen not to come forward. Some may have chosen not to report their experiences because they fear shame or even humiliation. Others may fear the repercussions of coming forward. Others may have come to this decision for other various reasons. Regardless of the reasons, the common denominator is that victims of sexual misconduct have weighed the options of reporting their experience or keeping it private and, sadly, many have found it safer or preferable not to report or share their experiences. It is not a healthy state of affairs when incidences of sexual harassment and violence are swept under the rug. When that is the norm, something is broken.

It is positive that many victims of harassment are finding the courage to come forward and to share their stories. In fact, some courageously came to committee, at HUMA, to share their stories with us as we studied the legislation. It is paramount that the response to individuals coming forward is not to leave them exposed to additional trauma or additional hurt. We need to change our culture so they feel protected and supported. A part of that change is ensuring that when someone comes forward with allegations, there is a fair system in place to address the allegations.

The existing mechanisms to deal with workplace violence and sexual harassment are insufficient and do not even cover the employees of Parliament. This legislation takes steps to regulate and create a process to address sexual harassment and violence for federally regulated workers and federal workers, including those in our own place of work here in Parliament. This is particularly important as Parliament employees are not covered by existing regulations, and we all know our workplace is not immune. In fact, there is reason to suggest that our unique work environment actually aggravates a culture of sexual misconduct and violence. When victims do not feel safe to bring complaints forward, this can create an environment where harmful and abusive behaviours of a sexual and violent nature can be normalized, minimized and ignored.

As we have studied this legislation, it has been stated repeatedly by members of all parties that sexual harassment and violence have no place in Canadian society and certainly no place in our workplace. We have repeatedly heard that we need to believe victims and to support them. It is not enough just to express it, we must practise what we are preaching. That is why the Prime Minister's hypocritical response to an allegation against him was so very disappointing. He, himself, has emphasized the importance of believing victims and he has said repeatedly that he has no tolerance for sexual misconduct. However, this past summer, when an allegation resurfaced that the Prime Minister groped a young reporter in British Columbia in 2000, that was not his response. He did not live up to his own standards.

When this story resurfaced, the Prime Minister said that he could not recall any negative interactions that day. By saying what he did, he minimized the past conduct and the experience of the individual who made the allegation.

He later dug in his heels and said, “I do not feel that I acted inappropriately in any way, but I respect the fact that someone else might have experienced that differently.” I am certain we can all agree that an individual who experienced sexual harassment or violence would indeed have a different experience.

We need to ensure that we remove the ability of a person to hide between power and prestige. We need to ensure that government is focused on supporting victims. We need to work toward safer workplaces in Canada. We need to ensure that legislation does not just have the right intent, but that there are actual teeth in the legislation. We worked hard at committee to do this.

Our Conservative team successfully introduced an amendment that transferred powers from the Minister of Labour to the deputy minister in investigations of harassment involving political offices. This amendment will prevent political interference or even the perception of it in any harassment investigations in the offices of members of Parliament.

We also successfully introduced amendments to ensure strict timelines for investigations. This amendment is so important for our goal of supporting victims. To know that if someone reports an allegation, it will be investigated and dealt with in an appropriate timeline will give victims more confidence to come forward and share their experiences.

We also introduced and supported mandatory sexual harassment training. This measure will help prevent incidents of sexual misconduct, which of course is a much better reality.

As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Training will also allow individuals to know their rights and responsibilities. Through training, we can take steps toward a change in our culture. I was very pleased that this amendment was passed at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We also introduced and supported a mandatory review of the legislation after five years. This will allow Parliament to assess if the legislation is meeting its intent.

I am proud of the work that was accomplished at committee. The legislation that passed through the chamber was a better bill. It ensured a more fair process that would be impartial and ensure consequences for sexual harassers. I am pleased the other chamber also studied this legislation, with the intent of providing a fairer system with better recourse for victims of sexual harassment and violence.

I support the government's response to the amendments proposed by the other chamber because it will make this legislation stronger and better. It will offer greater clarity and give victims greater confidence in the mechanism and systems that are being created through the legislation.

Bill C-65 is important and timely legislation. Combatting sexual misconduct is a pressing need and this bill moves us in that direction. Its passage and the subsequent creation of regulations will be positive steps. It will provide better mechanisms for those working on Parliament Hill, in the federal workforce and in federally regulated workplaces. It will give better tools and resources to those working in those related workforces. It takes steps toward changing our work culture and it can contribute to a broader cultural shift.

That said, it is important that we all recognize that a process to address sexual misconduct alone will not change our culture. I sincerely hope that in addition to supporting this legislation every member in the House also acknowledges his or her role and responsibility to be a positive change in our workplace culture and in the broader context.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the presentation by the member opposite.

Before I became a politician I used to run a large health organization and I know how important it is to have proper frameworks in place to deal with harassment, sexual harassment and violence in the workplace.

What I personally like about this particular legislation is that it would ensure that employees receive training, that employers undergo training themselves, and that it directs there be fast and timely responses to incidents of harassment and violence, and then, of course, that employees who have been subjected to harassment or violence be properly supported.

Those are critical elements, but to me the most important thing is education and awareness of what sexual harassment is and how it is perceived. These are important elements that come in early on.

Has the member opposite taken her staff through sexual harassment training? Has she herself had that training? Has she begun to develop her own office culture around this kind of bill, because those employees now fall under the definition of this legislation?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the very basis of this is the point that people should just not be jerks. People should not assault or harass others or put them in those situations.

I definitely agree that we do need to have public education, but we also have to foster a safe environment for victims so they feel they can come forward and that they will not be penalized or fired.

Leadership comes from the top. As I said in my speech, the way the Prime Minister handled the allegations against him goes against the #MeToo movement.

The fact is that people experience things differently. It is about having a conversation. My office is a very open office. We talk about things that make people uncomfortable. For example, today I talked about marijuana with my staff.

I appreciate the sentiments of the member opposite and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to answer his question.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I heard in the member's speech and that I talked about as well is how we can make the way safe for people who are facing these kinds of harassment to come through the doors and talk to people. That is really important. I recognize what the other member said about making sure there is training in place and making sure a process is in place.

Could the member tell the House what those steps would look like for the people who work in MPs' offices?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I went through the harassment training, as I am sure all members have.

It was interesting during that training to note a fact that was reiterated to us, namely that everybody experiences something differently. It is about having the opportunity for staff to come forward if they have a complaint and that we provide them with the proper channels to go through with that. It is important that we always remain mindful that everybody's experience is different and that we have to be respectful and have empathy toward those conversations and our staff.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Winnipeg Centre.

I am pleased to provide some perspective on some of the amendments proposed as part of the other chamber's consideration of Bill C-65.

The issue of workplace harassment and violence is complex. The measures required to eradicate these behaviours must take many factors into consideration. For example, women tell us that they do not come forward because they feel that it is not worth the risk or it is embarrassing. Many fear potential consequences. Perhaps most disappointing is that many simply do not believe that coming forward will make a difference.

Reporting an incident requires courage. Women fear reprisals or even losing their jobs, and the stigma associated with being a victim can make it extremely difficult to report an incident. It is clear that if people know that they can come forward without fear of being identified, it will reduce their hesitation around speaking out.

One of the key elements of this proposed legislation is support for affected employees. Privacy is integral to that support. We believe that the success of Bill C-65 is closely linked to ensuring the privacy of those involved in incidents of harassment and violence. It is with this perspective that we considered some of the other chamber's proposed amendments.

The other chamber put forward two amendments that proposed that the minister's annual report and the annual report prepared by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board contain statistical data related to harassment and violence, categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Information categorized according to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the CHRA would include information such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability and others.

Our government supports the amendment being proposed with respect to including this information in the minister's annual report. However, we do not support the amendment to the section that would apply to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board's annual report. I will explain.

The first amendment proposed relates to the annual report the Minister of Labour would publish each year providing data on incidents of harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, including parliamentary workplaces. The proposed amendment would require that the data collected from employers for the annual report by the Minister of Labour include information on whether the incident could be considered a prohibited ground of discrimination. This would provide very useful information on the nature of these incidents so that together, we could work to prevent their occurrence.

However, we also recognize that collecting this data would represent certain risks to colleagues. Perhaps the most pressing would be the risk to the privacy of the individuals providing the information. This is particularly true for smaller organizations with fewer employees, where the risk of being identified is very real. To mitigate this risk, the provision of this information would be entirely voluntary. It would be up to the employees to decide whether they felt comfortable disclosing any details about themselves that could potentially identify them down the road. We feel that this is the best approach.

We felt it was important to support acceptance of the amendment to include the data in the minister's annual report because we believe that this risk would be effectively mitigated, and because the potential benefits are significant.

The data that would be collected could be used to determine whether Bill C-65 is doing the job it is supposed to do, particularly for those who are most vulnerable to incidents of workplace harassment and violence. This data, which would cover incidents in both federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces, could be used to make adjustments if there is evidence that this is not the case.

Our government is committed to making evidence-based policy decisions. The more data we have to work with in the future, the better our ability to do just that. However, as I mentioned, we do not support the other place's proposed amendment to require that the statistical data in the board's annual report include information that is categorized on the same grounds. While we support the intention of the amendment, we do not think it would be feasible. The report that is produced by the board captures only appeals made in relation to part II of the code. Only a smaller subset of those appeals would apply to harassment and violence. These appeals would not relate to investigations of the incidents themselves, but whether or not the process to deal with the incident under the code has been followed.

Given that the report would cover only the appeals that the board hears, and these appeals would relate to the process followed, the dataset would be far too small to report according to prohibited grounds of discrimination without revealing the identities of the individuals involved. I think we would all agree that breaching privacy and in any way discouraging individuals from coming forward is the last thing we want to do.

Let me be clear. This report by the board would only capture appeals, it would not capture the total number of incidents of harassment and violence occurring in parliamentary workplaces. Those incidents would be captured in the previously mentioned minister's report.

We know that these behaviours are not exclusive to our workplaces. However, with the rise of movements such as # MeToo and # TimesUp, we are understanding where we need to act and how we need to enable people to come forward. This legislation would help to create a culture where certain behaviours are simply not tolerated.

This is what Bill C-65 would help accomplish: a profound change in culture, a culture where people work in a safe workplace, one that is free from harassment or violence. For this to happen, people need the option of reporting reprehensible behaviour without fear of retaliation. Bill C-65 would help ensure that is the case.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to our hon. colleague's speech and I appreciate what he had to say.

As I have with many of our other colleagues throughout the day, I want to ask our hon. colleague this.

Earlier this summer our Prime Minister had an opportunity to deal with an issue that was brought forth to the media with respect to something that happened about 18 years ago. Instead of actually apologizing, he shared that perhaps in certain circumstances men and women would experience that situation differently. Therefore, I would like to ask our hon. colleague this. Does he feel the same? Is it his opinion that victims of harassment and violence experience such incidents differently from the perpetrators?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-65 is trying to create a single, integrated regime that would protect federally regulated employees from harassment and violence in the workplace. We are trying to create a level playing field so that harassment and violence is reduced in the workplace, regardless of whether the employee is parliamentary staff, exempt staff, an employee of a Crown corporation or part of the federal public service.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is all very well and good, and we support these steps forward, but will there be any real money, any federal money, to support the work that will be needed to help workplaces train and support the staff who would be going through these processes?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that we ensure that victims feel supported when they come forward. Bill C-65 would ensure that victims are provided with adequate assistance and that workplace committees were put in place to help support victims.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that we have to make sure that victims of violence and harassment feel that they are going to be supported and that they are going to be believed, but leadership starts at the top. We have to make sure that the rules apply to everyone, regardless of position.

When the HUMA committee was studying this, a question was posed to the officials about whether this legislation would apply to the Prime Minister and the ministers. The answer was that they were not certain it would.

Does our hon. colleague feel that the rules should apply to all, regardless of their position?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to get to the bottom of why Bill C-65 was introduced. Research shows that harassment and violence in Canadian workplaces is persistent, and often incidents go underground, because people fear retaliation. Bill C-65 seeks to create an environment and culture that would make victims feel safe coming forward. It is extremely important for employees to come forward without fear of retaliation.