House of Commons Hansard #293 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workplace.
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
With regard to expenditures on paper calendars by the government, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by department, agency or other government entity: what is the total amount spent on paper calendars, broken down by year?
(Return tabled)
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
With regard to Statistics Canada and specifically the incident described in the March 11, 2018, CBC story, where 587 long-form census forms were stored in the trunk of an employee's vehicle that was stolen on a weekend trip to Montreal: (a) were the completed census forms ever recovered and, if so, when; (b) were the individuals whose information was stolen notified about the incident and, if so, when and how; (c) did the Statistics Canada employee who left the forms in his trunk violate any government policies or procedures and, if so, which ones; and (d) what specific changes have been made to the manner in which census information is stored as a result of this incident?
(Return tabled)
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
With regards to the 2016 Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) changes: (a) since July 2016, how many single seniors have received the full $947 annually, broken down by years and province; (b) since July 2016, how many single seniors have a received a top up due to the 2016 changes, broken down by years and province; (c) what was the median increase for a top up in the GIS due to the 2016 changes, broken down by years and province; (d) how many single seniors are below the $8,400 income threshold, broken down by years and province; (e) how many seniors living in an economic family are below the $8,400 income threshold, broken down by years and province; (f) what is the average top up due to the 2016 changes, broken down by year and province; (g) has the government achieved its goal of improving the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors; (h) how has the government arrived at the numbers indicating that changes to the GIS will reduce poverty rates; (i) are seniors becoming low income at much faster rate than the rest of the population; (j) how many Canadian seniors have lived in poverty since 2016; (k) how many full-time employees (FTE) are working on the Seniors Price Index; and (l) has the government looked at any other method than the consumer price index to calculate the GIS and, in the affirmative, which method?
(Return tabled)
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
With regard to automatic enrollment for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS): (a) were all local Service Canada employees sent a memo regarding the automatic enrollment; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what were the details of the memo; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why not; (d) what instructions and training did Service Canada employees receive in the months leading up to the automatic roll out of the GIS; (e) as of January 2018, how many new seniors are eligible to access (i) Old Age Security (OAS), (ii) GIS; (f) of those new eligible seniors in (e), how many were automatically enrolled and what are the reasons others who are eligible were not enrolled; (g) as of January 2018, how many letters have been sent out to seniors indicating they will automatically receive (i) OAS, (ii) GIS; (h) how many seniors automatically received their (i) OAS, (ii) GIS; (i) as of January 2018, how many seniors had to manually apply to (i) OAS, (ii) GIS; (j) what were the reasons for those seniors to manually apply to (i) OAS, (ii) GIS; (k) how many eligible seniors in Canada are not enrolled in (i) OAS, (ii) GIS; (l) has the government identified the reasons for this gap in (k); (m) is the automatic enrollment expected to reduce this and by what percentage point; (n) will the government automatically enroll all seniors currently eligible for the GIS and, in the affirmative, (i) what is the timeline for implementing this, (ii) how many seniors were not aware of their eligibility to the GIS program in 2017; (o) is the automatic enrollment in function of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) information; (p) is this in correlation the previous year’s income; (q) will filling income tax be necessary to be a recipient of automatic enrollment process; (r) if any, what are the exemptions, broken down by (i) health reasons, (ii) others; (s) how many seniors are expected to not be automatic enrolled due to missing CRA information; and (t) are there any identified groups of people that will be impacted due to their missing CRA information and, in the affirmative, how will Employment and Social Development Canada address this?
(Return tabled)
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
With regard to the Speaker’s ruling of March 20, 2018, that “There is no question that the work of Members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure Members access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the Government gives priority to the media over the Members of Parliament.”: What measures have been taken by the Prime Minister`s Office and the Privy Council Office to comply with the Speaker`s admonition in his ruling?
(Return tabled)
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if a supplementary response to Question No. 1568, originally tabled on May 4, 2018, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1584 to 1594 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in accordance with Standing Order 52(2) to propose an emergency debate on the use of a central vote, in this case Treasury Board vote 40 in the main estimates 2018-19 to fund all new budget initiatives. If I could, I would just like to take a brief moment to explain the timing of this request and the importance of the debate, not just to parliamentarians but also to you, Mr. Speaker.
On the timing, the new central vote, vote 40, was proposed in the main estimates. However, we just learned a little more about it on Thursday with the minister at committee. Specifically what we learned was that he is already contemplating making changes to the form of the Appropriation Act foreseen in main estimates 2018-19. We are not exactly sure what form that is going to take.
We have learned that the minister has not committed to consulting opposition parties prior to making that change. We have also learned that he does not intend to move for a take-note debate in this House so that Parliament has the opportunity to discuss this fully prior to the tabling of the appropriations bill.
The importance of that for parliamentarians is that there is no mechanism prior to dispensing with the main estimates in committee of the whole to be able to have a full parliamentary debate. The minister, of course, mentioned opposition days and other mechanisms, but there is no routine way for that legislation to come before the House. It is a very significant change, so I think it is important that parliamentarians have the opportunity to weigh in before decisions are taken and before they are asked to grant that authority.
It is important for you, Mr. Speaker, because if the wording of that bill is not sufficient, it may create a situation where you are being asked to rule under very short time constraints. You would benefit from hearing the various point of views, both from government and the opposition parties, about the relative merits of this new mechanism so you have time to contemplate how it would work.
There are also other matters having to do with the central vote that may come to your attention in the next little while, having to do with how funding all these new budget initiatives out of one central vote affects the existing procedure for studying main estimates. Normally, proposals are brought to subject expert committees through departmental estimates. Under the new process, all these things seem to perhaps have to be studied at the government operations committee under Treasury Board. As committees start to figure out that they may not be able to study new budget initiatives in the normal way, those procedural issues may well be brought to your attention.
It is urgent that you have the opportunity to be able to hear what is on the mind of parliamentarians with respect to this new mechanism so you can prepare to make rulings on the consequences of this new mechanism for parliamentary procedure.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for explaining his request for an emergency debate. However, I do not find that it meets the strict requirements of the standing order.
Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-75—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 17, 2018 by the hon. member for Niagara Falls concerning the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Niagara Falls for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for their submissions.
The member for Niagara Falls explained that an article by the CBC was published online eight minutes after Bill C-75 was introduced, suggesting that the only way this timeline was feasible was if the news organization was given advanced access to the contents of the bill.
Underscoring the importance of the House's right of first access to bills, the member contended that it is unacceptable that members have to “play catch-up” on a public debate on government legislation that is occurring between a well-briefed media and the Minister of Justice.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told the House that no advance disclosure of the bill had occurred and the government had complied with all the rules. As a result, he believed that members were not impeded in their functions, nor was there any offence against the authority of the House.
Let me begin by noting that in this case, the right of members to be informed first as to the content of bills which are on notice is not in question. Rather, what is at issue is whether this customary privilege has been properly observed.
On June 8, 2017, I explained that the right of first access has to be balanced with other considerations, such as the complex policy development process that accompanies the drafting of a piece of legislation. I stated at page 12334 of the Debates:
The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation.
This, then, must be measured against other evidence that is provided to the Chair; in other words, is there irrefutable evidence that specific legislative details about Bill C-75, beyond what could be considered as consultative information, were purposely and prematurely divulged to the media? Weighing the evidence provided in this case, as troubling as it is, it is difficult for the Chair to draw that conclusion, particularly since some details of the article in question could have come from the summary of the bill or from background information from discussions during the consultation process.
For that same reason, I can only agree with my predecessor when he noted on April 18, 2013, at page 15610 of the Debates, when referring to a question of privilege raised in relation to the premature disclosure of government legislation:
...it is a well-established practice that the contents of a bill are kept confidential until introduced in Parliament, thus making their premature disclosure a serious matter. However, in this case, a careful reading of the arguments presented to the Chair about what transpired reveals that the concerns expressed appear to be based more on conjecture and supposition than on actual evidence.
In addition, the parliamentary secretary assured the House that the government had not, in any way, divulged the contents of the bill nor its details before its introduction in the House. Therefore, although, as I said, this is very troubling, I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this matter.
While the evidence presented may not be irrefutable in this instance, the Chair remains concerned that some members, of course, were left with the impression that they were put at a disadvantage in their ability to fulfill their duties.
When new ways, through technology or otherwise, are found to share information, it remains incumbent upon those who are responsible for legislative information to respect the primacy of Parliament by respecting the right of the House to first access. Members should never have to even so much as wonder if they were not the first to receive legislative information.
I thank all members for their attention.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-65. I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.
At the outset, I would like to say that the opposition party is in agreement with the bill, the harassment act for federally regulated workplaces, including this parliamentary precinct and indeed Parliament Hill. Several amendments were made at committee, and I will be speaking to those amendments specifically.
There are current critical movements and campaigns to empower victims of harassment, and those campaigns very sincerely reminded the world that harassment is intolerable in any circumstance.
Canada's Conservatives are proud to support Bill C-65 as it comes to the House at report stage, with our proposed amendments to ensure that complaints of harassment are dealt with in a non-partisan and timely manner. I will outline some of those amendments in a few minutes.
As representatives and leaders for Canada, it is our job to be proactive in our approach to standing against workplace harassment. I speak for myself and for members on this side of the House when I say that it is something we take very seriously within our own workplaces, because we are employers. We are employers of parliamentary staff who work not just in our Hill offices, but in our constituency offices. It is very important for us to set an example, and I believe Bill C-65 sets that example and sets a standard that all employers should follow with respect to federally regulated workplaces.
The bill focuses on three areas: preventing workplace harassment, responding to it, and supporting those who feel they have been harassed. There has been a tremendous amount of support shown for victims of harassment and bullying.
Bill C-65 went to committee, and there was a tremendous amount of work done by the committee. From speaking to our members, I know there were some issues with the bill as it came to committee, but all committee members came together to propose amendments to the bill that put a little more meat on it, considering some of the concerns that were first introduced.
I will read a quote from Manon Poirier, of the Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada. At committee, she said:
Bullying, harassment, and sexual violence have no place in today's workplace, yet according to a survey conducted for the federal government, 10% of respondents said that harassment is common in the workplace, and 44% said that while it is not frequent, it happens. Most respondents agreed that incidents are under-reported and often dealt with ineffectively.
According to a report of the Human Resources Professionals Association, one third of women and over 10% of men have been sexually harassed at work. I think all members of the House would agree that this statistic is unacceptable and cannot stand to reflect the future of Canadian workplaces. It is our intent to create and set that example.
The Conservative Party introduced an amendment to avoid political interference in political offices during harassment investigations. That was a very important amendment that was put forward to make the investigation into harassment allegations free of political interference and political influence. That is one thing that I think all members would agree was very good in terms of the amendments that were proposed. It is also important that investigations not be seen to be intertwined with the perception of political interference.
The amendment transferred from the Minister of Labour to the deputy minister, a non-partisan civil servant, investigations involving the offices of members of Parliament. Again, this will preserve the integrity of the investigation process.
Another amendment ensures that strict timelines for investigations into incidents of harassment are in place to ensure investigations are carried out in a timely manner. Our committee team introduced and supported mandatory sexual harassment training as an essential part of the bill. I know several members of the House have already participated and have been engaged in the sexual harassment training. I know my mandatory session is coming up, and I look forward to participating in that.
At committee, Greg Phillips, the president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, summed up the importance of supporting not only those who had been harassed, but also their colleagues. He stated:
... the colleagues of an employee who receives a minimal resolution are less likely to come forward with their own cases of harassment. When someone sees a very minor penalty being implemented against the employer in a harassment complaint, nobody is going to want to file a harassment complaint...That workplace then becomes a toxic environment where nobody wants to work, and if they're working on something fundamental to the government, the most qualified employees aren't going to want to go there.
That is a very important point. It is very important that those who are dealing with issues of workplace harassment, sexual or otherwise, have their voices heard. Certainly, those situations are taken seriously by the members and by the House.
As the opposition deputy whip, I and the hon. member for Milton, whose birthday it is today, have been part of the subcommittee that has worked to ensure the code of conduct for the members of the House of Commons addresses complaints of sexual harassment. We have been working very closely. I am not in a position to discuss the details of our work because we are in the draft stage of the report , but it is very important work. It is work that has dovetailed the work of the PROC committee on harassment in the workplace among members.
The discussions at committee have progressed very well. All members have acted accordingly, with an understanding of the importance of this issue, with member-on-member complaints. I think the House, once the report comes, will be very pleased, because it was a consensus-building approach to the recommendations of this report. The expectation is that the report will be coming out very soon.
The House staff who were involved in that, namely Mr. Parent and Mr. Dufresne, were instrumental in ensuring that we, as members of the committee, were effective in our mandate from PROC in dealing with that committee.
Sexual misconduct and sexual harassment have no place in Canadian society, especially within our political system if we are to provide an example. From the experience of serving the residents of my riding as a ward and city councillor, I understand that safe workplaces entail freedom from all forms of harassment. As a proud parent of four, my hope is that their workplace is as committed to preventing and addressing harassment as the House is today. Harassment is an issue that may evolve again, considering that cyberbullying, for example, is so prevalent within our society. As such, Conservative committee members also introduced and supported a mandatory review every five years.
I appreciate the work that was done at committee by not just members on our side, but on all sides, who came together to support Bill C-65. Combatting harassment is a pressing need in Parliament. Parliament and political leaders need to set the example, need to be the high bar for safe workplaces across Canada. Let Parliament Hill be the standard by which we will measure success in stopping all forms of harassment and creating a climate of respect for all.
We want to ensure that governments today and in the future focus on supporting victims as we have pledged to do. As a father, an elected official, and an employer, it is my responsibility to lead by example and to instill the qualities of a harassment-free workplace.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I would like to share a story with the member about a conversation I had with a constituent of mine last Saturday at McDonald's. She talked about how nice it was to see Parliament moving so quickly on this issue and that there had been a high sense of co-operation. In that discussion, we talked about education and how important it was with respect to dealing with issues like harassment. One of the topics focused on how important it was for Ottawa to not only work with different stakeholders but to work with school divisions in particular. We talked about this being a possible way to ensure that our young people benefited through education so we could prevent harassment going forward.
I would be interested in my colleague's comments on the importance of education and combatting harassment.
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member does spend a lot of time at McDonald's on Saturdays, talking to his constituents, and I am sure having a lot of McCafé coffee.
We have seen a heightened awareness of the issue of sexual harassment over the last six to nine months, certainly in Hollywood with respect to various celebrities and others as well. Quite a bit of education goes on in the school system in the city of Barrie. In fact, there are safe spaces for students who are part of the LGBTQ community. Therefore, we are getting to the point right now where we are educating young people on the areas of harassment, sexual or otherwise, and bullying, and we are seeing a general sense of intolerance toward it.
We have seen such things as the pink shirt campaign, for example, based on the unfortunate circumstances that happened in Nova Scotia. This has really become prevalent. Canadians are coming to their senses and certainly understanding that harassment in all forms is unacceptable.
I am glad to see that in my city, the Simcoe County District School Board has placed a significant emphasis on teaching young people that all forms of harassment are unacceptable.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank the government for moving this legislation forward. I understand that at committee there was a common cause between New Democrat and Conservative representatives in urging the government to ensure that psychological harassment was specifically included in the bill and that mental health considerations were urged by the members of the Teamsters who came to testify at committee. The labour movement has a very large capacity and a big body of experience with respect to this.
I would like to hear from my colleague the extent to which he is satisfied that the amendments proposed at committee to include mental health protection and psychological harassment are in the final bill we are debating.