Debates of Oct. 16th, 2018

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:07 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, October 15, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-79.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #897

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

Use of Props in the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today during statements by members, the member for Regina—Lewvan stood and was quite clearly displaying a delegate's badge from the most recent Saskatchewan NDP convention.

While I understand that there has traditionally been a prohibition on the use of props in the House, I also understand that on many occasions members, including me, have come in here wearing badges or buttons or ribbons signifying support for a particular charitable organization. I also understand that normally the Speaker rules on such matters, determining whether or not the badge or the prop in question caused disorder in the House.

In this particular case, I did not see any disorder in the House, although I suspect the member might have caused some disorder within the NDP caucus.

My question is whether you, Mr. Speaker, could clarify for all members of the House what you consider, in your opinion, an agreeable or approachable or appropriate badge or prop to be used by members during their statements?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan for raising this. I did not notice the badge at the time.

I would discourage members from wearing badges that convey a message, especially when they are speaking. If they are going to rise to speak, I do not think members should have a badge on.

Now having said that, members will know that during members' statements, members will occasionally wear things like a hockey jersey when they are talking about their home team, what it has done and so forth. That is acceptable to the House and has been an ongoing practice.

However, I would encourage members not to wear badges that carry messages that might be interpreted to be of a political or partisan nature.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize for my lack of caution in this case. I did not realize that my delegate badge from this past weekend's Saskatchewan NDP convention might be considered as a prop. I would be willing to table the badge.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It would appear the member is disregarding the rule against props. I would ask him not to do that.

Is the hon. Minister of Public Safety rising on a point of order?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of Saskatchewan solidarity, I think you should also put under investigation that provocative blue shirt being worn by the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

My mother is in Saskatchewan, as you know, so I will take that under advisement.

Supply Management—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 2, 2018, by the hon. member for Montcalm regarding the government's alleged disregard of a motion adopted by the House.

I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for having raised the matter, as well as the deputy government whip and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for their observations.

During his intervention, the member for Montcalm argued that the government disregarded a motion adopted unanimously by the House on September 26, 2017, that stated:

That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations.

The member feels that the concessions made with respect to access to the Canadian dairy products market in the new trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada constitute a clear disregard of the will of the House and, thus, are a grave offence to the authority of the House and constitute contempt of Parliament.

In response, the deputy government whip stated that the matter raised was more a question of debate on the facts; therefore, it could not constitute a question of privilege.

For his part, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford contended that the terms of the motion adopted on September 26, 2017, are fundamentally different in English and in French in the House of Commons' records which should be taken into account when examining the question at hand.

The House regularly adopts motions, by unanimous consent or by a simple majority, intended to allow members to express themselves on all sorts of matters. Depending on their intent, these motions take the form of a resolution or an order. Resolutions, such as the motion adopted on September 26, 2017, are intended, regardless of their precise wording, to be expressions of opinion and do not order or require that measures be taken by the government. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on pages 536 and 537:

A resolution of the House of Commons is a declaration of opinion or purpose; it does not require that any action be taken, nor is it binding. The House has frequently brought forth resolutions in order to show support for an action or outlook.

Such motions can not bind the government or prevent it from pursuing a particular course of action.

In response to a charge that the then prime minister was in contempt of Parliament for disregarding a motion to concur in a committee report that had been adopted by the House, Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on May 3, 2005, which can be found at page 5548 of Debates:

While the government can be guided by recommendations of a standing committee...the Speaker cannot compel the government to abide by the committee's recommendation nor by the House's decision on these matters.

Consequently, I cannot conclude that the matter raised constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House, and, thus, it is not a question of privilege.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed 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 Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by nine minutes.

There are six and a half minutes remaining in questions and comments following the speech of the member for Edmonton Centre.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand today and reflect on the speech my colleague from Edmonton Centre gave earlier today when he spoke about the need for a sense of belonging in the workplace, tolerance and inclusion. I am wondering if the member could tell us how Bill C-65 will change the role of workplace committees in investigating harassment allegations.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is really important about Bill C-65 is our new approach to workplace committees and their role in investigating alleged harassment in the workplace.

In the consultations that were held across the country, it was very clear that a matter of allegation of harassment or unwanted sexual touching in the workplace is so serious and such a private matter that our government has decided it is best for the individual to be able to raise this with one person in the workplace and not involve a whole workplace committee. Many people who said they were victims of workplace harassment did not bring it forward because they did not want a whole workplace committee involved in the investigation process.

It is important to note that should an alleged victim want to have someone accompany him or her in that process, the person is able to do so but that is the person's choice. It is not an automatic role and the workplace committees will not have involvement in that process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier how historic this legislation actually is. It deals with a very important social issue and it will make our workforce a happier place to be in. Perhaps the member could comment on the significance of the legislation. We had all-party support inside the chamber and even from the other place.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I became a member of Parliament, I was surprised, even shocked, at the lack of protections that were afforded to parliamentary staff both here on the Hill and in our constituency offices in terms of the safety provisions in place for them, in terms of the regime that existed for protecting people against unwanted sexual advances in the workplace.

Bill C-65 is a historic change. It is one regime. It extends to parliamentary staff both on Parliament Hill and in our constituency offices. I think it boils down to three verbs: prevent, respond, support. We are preventing incidents of harassment and violence from occurring. We are responding effectively to them when they do occur. We are supporting employees affected by harassment and violence, and protecting their privacy. That includes LGBTQ2 Canadians, indigenous Canadians, all staff in federally regulated agencies and in parliamentary offices. It is about time.

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

Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity to sit through much of the testimony when the bill went to committee, I know that the member is aware of some of the research and the testimony that has been shared. A common theme that went through the entire session was that it is important to get this done now.

I would ask the member to elaborate on why this is essential, why this piece of legislation is so significant and why it is imperative that we move this forward as a House here today.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his diligent work on this file.

It is 2018. We are living through the #MeToo movement. I want every woman, every man, every gender non-binary person who works in a Parliament Hill office or in a constituency office, and any person who works in a federally regulated agency to know that they can go to the workplace and feel safe, be safe, and should the unfortunate incident of an unwanted sexual advance happen, they know their workplace is equipped, trained, ready to respond, and able to support them so that they can get through this unwanted issue quickly, and that the preventative aspect of this is in place and that all of us receive training.

It is a historic opportunity to get something right. It is one regime. It protects Canadians. It is about time.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am honoured to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-65, which deals with workplace harassment and violence.

Violence against women is not new. While I would like to believe that in a predominantly rural riding like mine in eastern Ontario violence against women is an urban problem, we know that is not the case. Violence against women continues to be a fact of life in Canada and in rural Renfrew County.

Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam, and Anastasia Kuzyk were killed on September 22, 2015. Their killer was known to all of the women and to police for a long history of violence. He had been released from prison just shortly before the murders. The system failed these women.

On average in Canada, one woman is killed by her intimate partner every five days. The man arrested and accused of their murders had a long criminal history, including charges involving two of the three women. I am not prepared to let Carol, Nathalie, Anastasia and all the other women who have been murdered by their intimate partners die in vain. My memory of their senseless murders pushes me to speak out in this debate.

When I was first elected in 2000, I immediately recognized the transient and precarious nature of politics in general, and Parliament Hill in particular. For a female in a new political party with an evolving political culture, my position was even more precarious. Uncertainty after each election, and with the change in assignments in the ebb and flow of duties, was compounded by the hierarchical nature of Canadian politics and the fact that we serve at pleasure.

To quote one of my colleagues:

At any moment, everyone here weighs the opportunity cost of making a complaint or committing an non-acquiescent action with the threat of quiet dismissal, being overlooked for a promotion, being shuffled out of a spot, having a nomination candidate quietly run against us, or not having our nomination papers signed at all.

She went on to say:

To say that there is a power imbalance here is an understatement. Further, for all the talk of feminism and pursual of women's rights, there is not gender equality in the broader context of Parliament Hill. Women are still used as photo-op props, included for quotas or optics without having the authority of real decision-making automatically attached to their perceived utility. For that, women have to fight, and fight hard, and put up with being accused of not being a team player, or being an “insert choice of gender expletive here” when they do. That is only for those of us who are lucky enough to have built a platform and a profile that allows us to do that without those in the top tiers of power having to take a bit of damage in order to suppress our voices.

When this legislation was debated in the House of Commons previously, I did not have an opportunity to be part of this discussion. I was successfully defending my right to represent my party in the next federal election.

Bill C-65 is being supported by the Conservative Party. Today we are discussing amendments made by the other place, which allows for a re-examination of the legislation and the context in which it has been brought forward. At the time the legislation was previously in this chamber, it was presented by the government as partisan politics being set aside for a common purpose. All parliamentarians were prepared, or so I thought, to stand together and send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable and that they will not be tolerated any longer, period.

It was that implied spirit of co-operation that encouraged my party to support Bill C-65. As a long-standing female member of Parliament, I am very cognizant of my position as a role model. I am reminded of my responsibility as a positive role model by the Daughters of the Vote program.

Young women are smart enough to spot a hypocrite when they see one. All parliamentarians have a responsibility to be a positive role model, starting with the Prime Minister.

I was hopeful that Bill C-65 would not be just another example of virtue signalling by the Liberal Party, where the Prime Minister directs his attack dog Gerald Butts to throw social media mud from the political ditch he occupies while claiming to take the high road. Subsequent events have proven me wrong.

Sexual violence and harassment in the workplace are nothing new.

I was particularly encouraged by the comments made by newly elected members of Parliament on the government side, such as the member for Oakville North—Burlington, who talked about taking a stand together. She shared her personal experience of harassment and bullying on Parliament Hill when she worked as a staffer prior to seeking elected office. She made reference to the #MeToo movement, #AfterMeToo and Time's Up and to having the courage and the strength to speak out and be a positive role model. In that context, her brave words in the House of Commons and her subsequent total capitulation to the Gerald Butts, “Kokanee grope” talking points were all the greater disappointment.

The greatest disappointment in this entire discussion has been the deafening silence from the female caucus on the government benches, who have quietly condoned the Prime Minister's behaviour with their silence. Not one female Liberal MP rose to defend the female reporter who was subjected to an unwanted sexual advance by the Prime Minister in her workplace. Not one government MP rose to demand a coherent explanation of what the Prime Minister admitted to doing when he belatedly provided an apology to the young female reporter who was the subject of his unwanted advance.

Enabling bad behaviour almost guarantees that it will continue. After all, is that not the subject of Bill C-65, which is what we are discussing here today? Silence is tacit approval.

Certainly in my career as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, spanning six elections over 18 years, I have experienced sexual harassment and bullying. It would be impossible to find a woman in politics who is not expected to put up with misogynist fools like Dan Leger or the tiresome Dick Mercer, let alone similar dinosaur attitudes in their own parties.

From the time Bill C-65 passed third reading and returned from the other place with amendments, something has changed. Canadians learned something about the leader of the Liberal Party. Canadians learned that the Prime Minister admitted to groping a young woman reporter at a music festival before he sought elected office. This is a very important discovery.

Unlike the recent events in the United States during the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about alleged events before he started his professional career, the Prime Minister has avoided a rigorous examination of his inappropriate behaviour.

South of the border, the Prime Minister has been referred to as the Bill Clinton of the great white north.

The Prime Minister had an opportunity. Rather than making up one answer, the Prime Minister chose to come up with a series of tortured explanations for the groping allegation against him. Constantly changing his story, he had an opportunity to come clean with Canadians.

In the process, the Prime Minister dodged questions about the need to call an investigation on his own conduct, the way he did with Liberal MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti in his caucus, who faced similar allegations in the past and were removed from the Liberal Party.

The Prime Minister has single-handedly “terribly set back”, to quote Kathleen Finlay, founder of the Zero Now campaign to fight sexual misconduct in the workplace, progress on women's issues.

Ms. Finlay said:

He went from saying he had a good day and sort of smiling about it, and dismissing it that way...and then he went on to explain it, in a tortured explanation about different perceptions, how men and women can perceive things differently. And from where I was sitting, that just re-opened the whole “he said, she said” kind of explanation...which is something women who have suffered incidents of sexual misconduct do not want to hear.

The incident was first published in an editorial in the Creston Valley Advance, a community newspaper in British Columbia. The Prime Minister, who was in Creston to attend the Kokanee Summit festival, put on by the Columbia Brewery, admitted later to inappropriately groping the reporter while she was on assignment.

In addition to being on assignment for the Creston Valley Advance, the female reporter was also on assignment for the National Post and the Vancouver Sun. While her connection to the big city newspapers may have prompted remorse after the fact, that is a topic for a proper investigation.

The incident resurfaced online, including in a scandal magazine earlier this year. The allegation came into wider circulation the first week of June, when photos of the Creston Valley Advance editorial were widely shared on social media, and it received further comments when prominent online media outlets reported on it that same week.

The now former female reporter for the Creston Valley Advance community newspaper, the Vancouver Sun and the National Post confirmed that the Prime Minister groped her, or in his words, “inappropriately handling”, while she was on assignment at the festival.

After the incident, she wrote an unsigned editorial blasting the Prime Minister for his misconduct. The editorial did say that the Prime Minister told the female reporter that had he known the reporter was working for a national paper, he never would have been so forward.

The reporter wrote this about the Prime Minister:

...shouldn't the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn't he learn, through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn't in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is or where they are?

After the incident, the female reporter, who is not in journalism anymore, held meetings with Valerie Bourne, the then publisher, and Brian Bell, the then editor of the newspaper, and communicated her displeasure about the Prime Minister's conduct. In a statement, the female reporter said she reluctantly went public to identify herself and to confirm the incident because of numerous media requests. She would not offer any comment or take part in any discussion on the subject, she said, adding that the incident happened as reported.

This is what the Prime Minister stated on CBC Radio, on January 30, 2018, before details of the groping incident were reported in the national and international media. He stated:

I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well. This is something that I'm not new to. I've been working on issues around sexual assault for over 25 years.

My first activism and engagement was at the sexual assault centre at McGill students' society where I was one of the first male facilitators in their outreach program leading conversations—sometimes very difficult ones—on the issues of consent, communications, accountability, power dynamics.

To connect the dots, it was after the Prime Minister left university in Quebec when the groping incident occurred.

The following is from the newspaper editorial following the groping incident. It states:

It’s not a rare incident to have a young reporter, especially a female who is working for a small community newspaper, be considered an underling to their ‘more predominant’ associates and blatantly disrespected because of it. But shouldn’t the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn’t he learn through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn’t in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is, or where they are?

And what makes the fact that she was working for the Post of any relevance? Big stories break first in community newspapers after all.

It may not have been an earth-shattering find, but one thing could have been learned from the experience. Like father, like son?

That was from the Creston Valley Advance, Monday, August 14, 2000.

What are Canadians expected to take away from this incident of groping that took place between the Prime Minister and a young female reporter? First and foremost, this incident is about hypocrisy, saying one thing and applying a different set of rules to one's own behaviour. It is about believing women, until it happens, then it is deny and hope that the clock runs out on the media cycle.

It has been noted by the CBC that there is no dispute that this incident happened. In 2018, the excuse “I did not think I was doing anything wrong” does not pass the smell test. Worst of all, the Prime Minister has shown no ability to grow with the job and learn from his mistake. Women in Canada deserve better from a Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist.

What this incident has also taught Canadians is that they cannot trust the Prime Minister, when he tells the public he is doing one thing but legislatively does another. It was finally figured out by the temporary socialist government of Alberta that the current government has no intention of seeing any pipelines built, let alone the Trans Mountain pipeline. In response, the NDP in Alberta pulled its support for the scam carbon tax, which is all about getting the provinces to take the blame for raising taxes while using the environment as an excuse to raise taxes.

If dragging the government's feet on this issue somehow does not work, Bill C-69 will be sure to suffocate any resource project from going forward.

There are ethics rules for parliamentarians, versus the Prime Minister's trip to a tropical island. When the Ethics Commissioner rules that opposition members are in violation of the rules, charges are laid by the RCMP. Where are the charges against the Prime Minister for his breaches of the code of ethics for parliamentarians?

In public, the Prime Minister claims that his government is going to crack down on guns and gangs but it cranks out Bill C-71 instead, which cracks down on law-abiding citizens who are already obeying the law. Then there is Bill C-75, which would soften the penalties for gang violence, among other atrocities.

The biggest lie of all is the Prime Minister's betrayal of veterans. It was announced by the government that no Canadian Armed Forces personnel would be medically released until their benefits were in place, yet last week, not only was it confirmed that soldiers are being released without their pension amounts and benefits confirmed but that soldiers should be told to wait longer.

In the last election, the Prime Minister claimed that the problem was that there were not enough offices open to service veterans. The government went ahead and spent funds intended for veterans to open offices in government ridings, and it now tells veterans that it has just doubled the official wait time, if they even qualify.

How much is the political decision to direct shipbuilding contracts going to cost Canadians?

I had high hopes for Bill C-65. It now appears that Canadians will be disappointed, as they have been disappointed with everything else this Prime Minister has touched.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way never ceases to surprise me when she addresses legislation or other matters in the House, because she is always inclined to make it personal and to attack.

If we look at what we are debating today, it is a very progressive piece of legislation that those who are following the debate should understand is good, sound, solid legislation. It has the support of the Senate. It has the support of individuals on all sides of this House. However, once again, true to the messaging from Stephen Harper, we have targeting or attacking in a personal way, whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Attacking through character assassination is what I have made reference to in the past.

I am wondering if I could get my colleague across the way to stop the personal character assassination for today, or at least up to this point, and to maybe comment on how this bill is being received quite well among the public. In fact, what we will see is a healthier workforce as a direct result of this. Maybe she can save some of that personal character assassination for another day.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my number one fan in the House for standing and asking me a question. In fact, he was truly groping for a way to criticize me and my speech.

However, the reason we are here today is to talk about what is missing. Even though we will be supporting Bill C-65, the problem is that the bill will be passed, but one set of rules will apply to the Prime Minister and his cabinet and another set of rules for the rest of Canadians. It legislates one thing and does another. That is the point I am trying to make.

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

Mr. Speaker, I read some of the facts of what women were really experiencing, things like 60% of respondents for the “what we heard” report said that some form of harassment in the workplace had happened and nearly half of those people experienced that harassment from someone with authority over them. As a women in politics, it is very important that we in the House always be mindful of the power we have and the work we do.

One of the concerns I have is around the amendments and the lack of action, unfortunately, by the government, and that is the ability of local health and safety committees to do the work, to be part of the process. These are the committees in the workplace that really set up the training. They look at opportunities to ensure they beef up the code of conduct. There are a lot of actions and work. For this bill to take away that ability is very concerning for me. What are the member's thoughts are on that?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will have to look at the implementation, certainly the regulations, and how exactly the different aspects, with the addition of harassment and violence being two additions to many of the aspects of the code in this bill as well as the amendments, will come to pass. It is hard to say exactly how this will play out, but it will be up to our colleagues, like the one who just spoke, in the NDP together with all other parliamentarians to ensure the intent of the bill does come to pass.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague across the way from Winnipeg North was concerned about the personal attacks, but this goes to a large part of the essence of the bill. There seems to be a lot of “Do as I say, not as I do” from the government. What are the implications of the message we are sending with Bill C-69?

The intent of this bill is very important. We do want to address sexual assault and harassment in the workplace. However, as parliamentarians, it is also very important that we send the message that this applies to everyone, no matter what his or her position is, no matter if the individuals are regular parliamentarians, regular Canadians, a cabinet minister or the prime minister.

Could the member talk about why it is important that we discuss the hypocrisy of what the Liberal actions have been when it comes to these types of issues and what Bill C-65 is intended to accomplish?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure because my colleague mentioned Bill C-69 and the hypocrisy. Bill C-69 is the new legislation that would require the energy companies, any resource companies, to be more intense, spend more time and more resources in getting the proper assessments through.

I will speak to the hypocrisy to which my colleague alluded. On the one hand, the Prime Minister is saying that he wants to have this pipeline built, yet on the other hand what he is really doing at the same time is putting in legislation that would kill any pipeline, not just the one he says has been okay.

Likewise, we are concerned about Bill C-65. He is putting forth that he is trying to eliminate sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. Would Bill C-65, like the concerns of my colleague, truly accomplish what we set out to do?