Debates of May 7th, 2018

Canada Labour Code

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating that the official opposition intends to support the bill before us today at third reading stage, even though it is not perfect, to say the least. I will have an opportunity to say more about that in a few minutes.

We support the bill because harassment has no place in our workplaces and we welcome any initiative or measure that eliminates harassment and violence from our workplaces.

Members will recall that the government introduced this bill only six months ago, on November 7, 2017. That may seem a long time ago for those listening at home, but it is rather quick for a legislative process. It proves that the opposition parties and the government have shown good will in advancing a bill that tackles a societal problem. We need only think, unfortunately, of all the scandals that have come to light in recent months and years. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour that it is important to change the mentality of tolerance for these types of totally unacceptable behaviours, gestures, and actions in our workplaces.

The bill before us today, namely anact to amend the Canada Labour Code, harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, covers approximately 8% of the workers actively employed in Canada. Who does it cover? It covers federal public service employees and federally regulated employees. The other part of the bill, the part that the opposition welcomes, applies to political staffers who are currently in a grey area, a legal limbo that leaves victims of harassment even more vulnerable. The bill covers federal employees and employees in federally regulated workplaces, but it also more broadly covers Parliament Hill staffers. That is a good thing, and it is one of the reasons why we support the bill.

I will start by listing three good points about the bill that convinced us to support it and for which the government has agreed to make amendments. We would have liked to see the government go much further, because our goal as the official opposition was to make this bill put the victim first. Unfortunately, in this case, as in many other cases, the current government was not willing to go as far as we would have liked.

We are confused because there is only a single definition for the words “harassment” and “violence”, which is completely illogical. The opposition fought to ensure that the bill contains at least one definition. The unfortunate thing about this government is that the Liberals sometimes tend to not want to put a name on things, and that can create confusion. At least there is a definition now. It is not perfect, but there is a definition of harassment and violence. A colleague read that definition just a few moments ago, but I am going to read it again because it is important.

[H]arassment and violence means any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment;

Were it not for the opposition's hard work, there would be no definition in this bill, even though that is very important because the definition serves as a framework for developing the regulations and enforcing the act. It was the opposition that proposed an amendment regarding the definition.

Another amendment I will call the pièce de résistance was also made. In that regard, I would like to recognize the remarkable work of my committee colleagues. I want to recognize the work of my colleague from British Columbia, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, who also worked overtime to help move this bill quickly through the House. The young member for Battlefords—Lloydminster also did an outstanding job. We had the support of other members, particularly my colleague from Lethbridge, who proposed an amendment that made us feel a lot better about supporting this bill. The amendment I am talking about is what I would call the firewall amendment. In our democratic system, it is crucial to maintain the independence of the various branches of government. There is the executive branch, represented by the government, and the legislative branch, represented by Parliament, or the House of Commons and the Senate.

One of our main concerns about the original version of the bill was that it opened the door to government interference in the affairs of parliamentarians. It undermined the independence of parliamentarians, which is completely unacceptable. That said, we must ensure full compliance with the law when such despicable events happen in the parliamentary environment. My colleague from Lethbridge proposed a very sensible amendment that would ensure that all complaints regarding harassment or any other offence under the labour code would land on the desk of the deputy minister. This amendment was designed to prevent political interference.

We often used the same example in committee; it concerns all governments, not just the current one. If a political staffer, either male or female, says they have been the victim of harassment on the part of a minister, we must ensure that their complaint is dealt with independently, without political interference. That is what the amendment does. I would even say that it was so well worded that it also prevents people from using occupational health and safety issues to interfere in parliamentary offices. Thus, the objective has been met thanks to the amendment brought forward by my colleague from Lethbridge, and I thank the government for accepting it. It will prevent all insidious political interference in the process. That is a good thing. Thus, we now have a definition and a firewall of sorts.

Other measures were introduced through amendments that we proposed to ensure that the government focuses on supporting and helping the victims, as it promised it would. The government talks a good game, but we wanted to ensure that the small steps being taken were taken responsibly, and these amendments will certainly help with that.

As I was saying, we had some serious concerns about this bill before it was sent to committee. We were concerned about the provisions on mediation, the risks of political interference in investigations into workplace harassment, the definition of key terms, and the priority given to protecting victims and their rights. For example, according to the previous wording of the bill, a person who was a victim of harassment by their immediate supervisor had to deal directly with their harasser, meaning the very person who attacked the complainant.

Hon. members can appreciate how that might put the victim in an awkward position. An amendment was proposed to ensure that the complainant could talk to a third party. Let us not forget that this applies to all federal public service employees. Accordingly, in some cases, we could be talking about corporations or small businesses, unionized or not. It was important for us to consider these realities. That is why we proposed an amendment, which was accepted, in order to ensure that a victim does not have to go through their harasser in the event that the victim feels that the situation warrants a formal complaint.

The Conservative members of our committee also successfully introduced an amendment to establish strict deadlines for harassment investigations so they are completed in a timely fashion. This bill requires companies to adopt a harassment policy and enforce it through mediation and, when necessary, investigations by independent investigators. This bill is designed to prevent victims of harassment from being victimized twice. That is what happens when a victim of harassment gets involved in a process that ends up being a whole new nightmare when it comes to delays. We introduced provisions that will make this whole process regulation-based and not in the act itself. We will hold consultations with various stakeholders to establish timelines for the process.

Our team also introduced and supported mandatory sexual harassment training. One of the main focuses of the government's approach in this bill is prevention. If we want to eliminate harassment, we must work on prevention. Here in the House of Commons, this group of parliamentarians currently receives training on this issue. Training is key to changing mindsets. This was missing from the bill, but there is now a training component in the bill as a result of our proposed amendments. Obviously, we have to consider the realities of the labour market, but a variety of options can be put forward to make the process effective and rational.

Furthermore, an amendment was proposed to allow former employees who had claimed to be victims of harassment to file a complaint. To protect the integrity of the process, I brought up a firewall clause. All of this can be done within a reasonable time. Another important measure is that the bill could be reviewed in five years. One of my colleagues proposed this amendment.

There is one amendment to the bill that I wish had been accepted but, unfortunately, it was rejected outright by the government. We were disappointed because the amendment would have ensured that a victim could turn to the Department of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour if they thought the process was not being conducted properly. One of our ongoing concerns is that potential victims will have to jump through hoops if they must first turn to their employer to file a complaint. The employer will initially suggest mediation, then there will be an independent investigation, and, after that, recommendations will be made.

Another area where the bill is weak is in the application of sanctions if the investigator makes recommendations in a case of harassment.

When an individual believes that they have been wronged, how can they resolve the situation and move forward if, as in past cases we have seen, the employer has not fully accepted its responsibilities? Now, with this legislation, the government will be able to tell companies to do their job and apply the law. We are aware of the delays this may cause.

That is why the official opposition moved an amendment to have section 127.1(1.1) read as follows:

In the case of a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment or violence in a work place at which less than 20 employees are normally employed, the employee who believes on reasonable grounds that there has been a contravention of this Part may refer his or her complaint to the Minister in accordance with subsection (8).

I have to say, the federal government is not leading the way in addressing harassment and sexual violence. Several provinces, such as Quebec, instituted processes and mechanisms over a decade ago that allow employees to report harassment directly to the department of labour, which in Quebec is known as the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST. Sadly, this option currently does not exist in the federal government because investigators examine only the process, not the ins and outs of a particular situation. The government really missed an opportunity here. It could have addressed the unfortunate issue of harassment and violence in the workplace much more vigorously. That amendment was rejected. It was intended to give the bill more teeth and provide victims with a tool to ensure that the employer's process is carried out properly. This was regrettably a missed opportunity.

Awareness is another issue that gets little mention in the bill. We asked for mandatory training. The government says a lot of things, but it needs to provide the necessary tools. There was no mention in the minister's remarks and subsequent discussions with government colleagues of any measure for monitoring compliance with the spirit of the act by raising employee awareness, whether in the public sector, on Parliament Hill, or in the private sector.

For these reasons, we believe the bill could have been better, but as the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We therefore plan to support this bill.

I want to thank all the committee members, especially the chair, the member for Cambridge, who did his job well. He made sure the bill moved forward in a very quick and timely fashion so that we could pass this bill and send a message that the Parliament of Canada does not tolerate workplace harassment.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's remarks. As he said, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I am pleased to see the new obligations employers will have under the Canada Labour Code. I would like to reiterate that those three obligations are to prevent harassment and violence in the workplace, to intervene when harassment or violence occurs, and to support any employee who has been the victim of harassment or violence.

My colleague sits on the committee. I think it is a good thing that there will be an annual report and a five-year review. It is important that the act continue to be strengthened. We will ensure that it is reviewed every five years. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her question and her interest in this important issue.

I think that, today, all parliamentarians recognize that we need to do everything in our power to eliminate harassment. As I explained in my speech, there are additional measures that we would have liked the government to implement. In committee, we managed to ensure that the bill would be reviewed in five years. In my opinion, one aspect of the act that will need to be reviewed is the one that I talked about in my speech, and that is to ensure that Labour Canada inspectors are able to intervene and serve as an avenue for victims, which is not currently the case. Right now, employers must follow the process but that option is not made available to victims. I like what they have done in Quebec. Five years is a long way off, but as the saying goes, it is never too late to do the right thing.

It is important that the Government of Canada and Parliament send the message that we take harassment seriously and that we are putting measures in place to eliminate harassment in our workplaces.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the work we did in committee on Bill C-65. I did not think it would be possible to set partisanship aside to work on and advance a topic as important as workplace harassment, violence, and sexual harassment.

In committee, my colleague was worried that psychological harassment is not clearly defined in the bill. I would like to hear his thoughts on this and to know why this should have been included in the bill.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec for her comments. We did indeed have the opportunity to work together on improving this bill.

I would like to start by saying that the amendment supported by our party was to ensure that victims who lodge a complaint in a unionized workplace have access to a representative. It is a big deal for a victim to lodge a complaint against an organization, so it would be good to have support. We were pleased to support my colleague's amendment to this effect.

With respect to her kind words about working with Conservatives, I will say, for the third time today, as the saying goes, “try it and you'll love it”. I hope that we will have the chance to work together again on other bills.

As for her specific question, there is indeed a definition that combines two words. It is quite rare to see one definition for two different concepts. The bill is now before the House of Commons. It will go to the Senate and will be reviewed in five years. I think we should make a clear distinction between “psychological harassment” and “violence”, because the current definition does not do so. I know that my colleague agreed with me. We would be on the same side in this battle.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say how refreshing it is for us in the House to all be on the same page, to put partisanship aside, and to come up with legislation that is in the best interests of all of us. This bill is an example of that. We all agree that we have to work our best to ensure that harassment in the workplace is limited or prevented, and that people feel comfortable reporting.

In the spirit of collaboration in committee work, I would like to ask the member about an amendment that was unanimously accepted at the committee to remove the minister from any possible interference. We know the members all agreed with that, but I wonder if he could expand on the reason that this amendment was put forward and supported.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I thank my colleague opposite for it.

The committee members all wanted to eliminate political interference. That is why they unanimously agreed to the amendment proposed by my colleague from Lethbridge after a convivial discussion. It was a breakthrough because this important amendment enabled all parliamentarians to recommend supporting the bill, which does not change the rights of parliamentarians but does institute zero tolerance for sexual harassment in the workplace.

That was one bright spot for the committee. I wish there had been more on other issues that we feel are just as important, especially when it comes to victims, but we must give credit where credit is due. This amendment was agreed to unanimously, and it is without question an improvement over the original version of the bill.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

He told us a lot about the committee's work, which several opposition members contributed to. He also mentioned specific missed opportunities, amendments that would have made the bill more helpful to people dealing with the kinds of situations this bill strives to address.

As my colleague said, everyone on this side of the House, myself included, intends to support this bill. However, I would like to hear more from him about the amendments the committee could have made, amendments the Senate may consider in the future.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, a young parliamentarian with a bright future ahead of him. I had the privilege of knowing him before he became an MP. Time certainly does fly.

Indeed, it is important to call a spade a spade. We have taken a step in the right direction when it comes to definitions, but it is not enough. In order to create effective regulations, it is important to define and distinguish the difference between harassment and violence. Furthermore, as I was saying, we should always try to put ourselves in the victims' shoes. We know how hard it is for them to file a complaint. We must also protect the rights of all those involved.

The department of labour will play an active intervention role, which is currently not the case. On that point, as a result of the committee's regrettable dawdling, Canada has now fallen behind. We would like Canada to be a leader. This is a missed opportunity, but there will be other opportunities, including in the Senate, as my colleague mentioned, and during subsequent stages, to provide additional tools to eliminate harassment in our workplaces.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by paying tribute to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for the work it did on Bill C-65. I took part in that work myself. I especially want to honour my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for the tremendous efforts she put in. We worked on this bill together, and I am very proud of it. She even managed to get the committee to adopt a few of the NDP's amendments.

Bill C-65 is intended to prevent workplace harassment and violence. It is a general interest bill. This was not a partisan issue. When we were listening to the witnesses and studying the bill, our focus was on survivors. Without wanting to speak for the committee's other members, those are the people we were thinking about during the course of our study.

As I said earlier, harassment and violence, especially sexual harassment and violence, are too important an issue to allow partisan politics to creep in. I think that was something the committee members were really aware of. The bill needs to once and for all free up speech, restore confidence, and empower victims to speak out about sexual harassment without fear. Workplace harassment and violence are still widespread today, even here in Parliament, I am sad to say. That is why the NDP is going to support the principle and spirit behind Bill C-65. We are going to vote in favour of this bill when the time comes.

However, we still have some misgivings. We think Bill C-65 only partially meets its goal of strengthening the harassment and violence prevention regime. Bill C-65 does not address every concern. Far from it. Judging from the emails and calls I have received, the unions are not particularly reassured either.

Here are a few examples. On April 26, the national president of the Canadian Union of Public employees contacted me to discuss “two serious flaws in Bill C-65 that will undermine the rights of workers affected by violence or harassment in the workplace.” What flaws could be so worrisome that the union felt compelled to urge the minister to correct them immediately?

I am referring to the exclusion of health and safety committees from two steps processes. First, they are excluded from the complaint process and, second, they are excluded from the investigation process. The complaints process concerning harassment and violence and the investigation process must both continue to rely on the expertise of these committees. Excluding them makes no sense to us.

Members of health and safety committees have received training and have a finger on the pulse of the workplace. Management and employees usually have equal representation, and members are experienced, know the culture, and know what is happening on the work floor. Who better to provide solutions, investigate, and also serve the victims and provide a sense of security and confidence when a survivor comes forward as a victim of harassment, or sexual violence or harassment?

The surprising excuse given by the Liberals to justify their measure was the purported breach of victims' confidentiality if they had to take part in the investigations of these committees. In my view, this is not a valid pretext for many reasons, which I would like to outline.

First of all, the decision to bring these committees into the process came from victims themselves. This was an option offered to them. It was a possibility open to victims. I am speaking in the past tense because, unfortunately, with the amendment in effect, they will no longer have this option. It was an additional choice that was available to the victim, not a constraint that was imposed. When someone is familiar with the victim's working conditions, the victim will feel understood, and this may help. This might have helped encourage people to report such incidents.

Second, to add to my argument, to date, these joint health and safety committees have always received these complaints and have successfully carried out the harassment investigations. Their modern investigative methods have always emphasized respect for victims' privacy. By excluding these committees from the investigative process, Bill C-65 is about to eliminate decades of experience, training, and work. I really want to stress the training and work aspect that will be wasted.

That is not all. If what the Liberals really wanted to do was protect victims' privacy and confidentiality, then someone needs to explain why they opposed many of my amendments. I had the pleasure of proposing nearly 20 amendments along with my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît during the committee study of Bill C-65, but only three of them were accepted by the Liberals, and even that took some convincing. In many cases, the other amendments were not even discussed. On a number of occasions, the Liberals chose to go straight to a vote and would not even explain why they were refusing the amendments.

Among the amendments that were voted down without any explanation was a very simple proposal made by the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. Allow me to explain it. Bill C-65 seeks to exclude joint employer-employee health and safety committees from investigations for privacy reasons. The problem is that, right now, these committees still continue to provide victims with unquestionable expertise. The logical solution proposed by the witnesses was to give these committees codes of practice and a code of ethics that would guarantee the privacy of victims. Did the Liberals oppose the CSN's recommendation without any explanation out of stubbornness or because they did not understand it? It seems to me that excluding these committees from the investigation process is a serious decision. There was no shortage of witnesses who supported amending the bill. Unions, associations, and law firms all supported the amendment. A quick look at the committee transcripts is all it takes to see that they all disagreed with this exclusion.

There is more. The expertise of the joint health and safety committees spans decades, but that alone does not explain why witnesses adamantly defended keeping them in the investigative process. The other reason, which is rather important, is the exceptional diversity of the investigators who make up the joint committees. The right of joint committees to conduct investigations has until now made it possible for victims to benefit from an incredible diversity of investigators in terms of colour, religion, age, and sex. Such diversity in the profile of investigators is invaluable.

Unfortunately, it is clear that Bill C-65 has completely shelved this aspect, which is inconsistent with the recommendations of the International Labour Office. In investigations into sexual harassment, the victims will not be able to benefit from the expertise or the extreme diversity within the joint health and safety committees.

That brings us back to what I was saying earlier. Members of the joint health and safety committees come from the workplace and represent all the communities. They are people we can confide in, people we can relate to if we are victims of harassment or violence in the workplace. They can make us feel understood. Unfortunately, with the changes made to Bill C-65, victims can no longer rely on this service.

It would still have been possible to include in the bill a provision to ensure the diversity of investigators, similar to that made possible by joint committees, for all investigators. That is exactly what one of my amendments proposed. It set out that the choice of investigators, although no longer the purview of the joint committees, must reflect the diversity of Canadian society. Thus, the diversity of investigators, which until now was made possible by the joint committees, would be perpetuated even though the committees were excluded from the investigation. A balanced representation of Canadian diversity would be assured.

Apparently, the recommendation made by the UN Secretariat concerning labour was not good enough for the Liberals, because they did not let Canada adopt legislation to guarantee equality and non-discrimination in the investigators' profile. We need to remember that minorities are disproportionately affected by workplace harassment and violence. By “minority” I mean members of an ethnic or religious minority as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex workers, and migrant workers.

That is why the profile of individuals responsible for the investigation must at all costs reflect diversity. However, it seems that our legislation will not take into account national diversity in the selection of investigators, and that is very unfortunate. Those are some of the aspects that were important to me. After spending all those hours listening to and reading witnesses' recommendations, we drafted amendments that were not even debated.

I would like to move on to other aspects of the bill that are also cause for concern. There are many of them. Let us first talk about the development of employer policies on harassment and violence. Some employers said on several occasions that they did not understand exactly what was expected of them when it comes to workplace policies. They need guidance on writing and implementing their anti-harassment policies. It is important to give employers clear instructions. They are waiting for such instructions in order to determine whether they are on the right track in complying with the legislation.

Since the primary purpose of Bill C-65 is to bring about a major change in political and corporate culture when it comes to harassment, we had hoped for more from the government in this regard, but that it not currently the case. When the witnesses appeared before the committee, they expressed their concerns about the effectiveness of employer anti-harassment policies. Leading law firms Rubin Thomlison and Fogler Rubinoff came up with one solution.

In order to give employers guidance and enhance protection for employees, the witnesses recommended that the Canada Labour Code set out guidelines for what is expected of a corporate policy on harassment in the workplace. The guidelines should include information about the process for getting immediate assistance in the case of harassment and about the fundamental aspects of privacy protection and the processing of complaints. I want to point out that companies also requested such guidelines.

The NDP's amendment would kill two birds with one stone. It would help guide employers in developing their internal policies and also enhance protection for employees, who would now be covered by effective prevention policies.

That amendment also would have prevented potentially ill intentioned employers from shirking their basic harassment prevention obligations through the use of deliberately complex anti-harassment policies that ultimately end up disincentivizing victims. We are talking here about how important it is to have prevention policies. Prevention in our workplaces is vital.

Even here in Parliament, people have been talking about a change in culture for several months now. I myself am now an employer. I have staff working for my constituents in Jonquière. I am their employer, and I have a duty to ensure they have a healthy environment, a place they can work that is completely safe and free of all forms of harassment and violence. Being on the Hill, we need to attend many events and meet with a lot of people. Sometimes we have interns. Here in the House, for example, we have pages who work with us every day. We must ensure their safety and provide them with a healthy environment. Even businesses need to have clear guidelines and policies so that they too can provide proper training and a healthy environment that is free of harassment and violence.

Unfortunately, it seems the Liberals would rather leave employers guessing about how to write their internal policies because not one of them bothered to say anything about this measure, let alone come out in favour of it. I do not know why, and nobody ever explained why my amendment was rejected. I hope to find out why today.

Would it not make sense for expectations around policies, specifically anti-harassment policies, to be in the Canada Labour Code? That is another thing that is conspicuously absent from Bill C-65. Once again, there were certainly plenty of opportunities to address the problem, and plenty of witnesses who spoke in favour of such a measure. All our efforts to strengthen the prevention aspect of Bill C-65 were apparently for naught. The Liberals put forward an amendment to include a five-year review, which was not at all objectionable and was in fact more than welcome. We all recognized the importance of including a provision to review the legislation over the years. Reviewing workplace violence and harassment provisions every five years is a perfectly justifiable improvement.

What is less justifiable is that Liberals refused to support one of my amendments to make the five-year review more effective. The Liberals proposed that the department publish statistics on workplace harassment and violence every five years. This is good. It complies with almost all of the recommendations of their own report published by Employment and Social Development Canada in March 2017. I said “almost” because this report lamented the “insufficient data on workplace harassment and violence“, in particular regarding sexual harassment. The report also mentioned the need for data to be collected, in order to address this lack of data. We need data.

I have much more to say about this bill. We did a comprehensive study, we heard from many witnesses, and we also managed to keep partisanship out of the debate. As I mentioned earlier, we will support the spirit and principle of the bill for all survivors. We will also encourage people to report these situations and help maintain a workplace free from violence and harassment for workers across Canada.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all of her work on this file. I listened very carefully to her criticisms and her positive comments concerning the bill.

In my opinion, confidentiality is of the utmost importance in such matters. So, given the content of the bill, does my colleague not agree that confidentiality should be better protected, since the aim is to encourage more female and even male victims of harassment to come forward and testify?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

Confidentiality is crucial in all areas, whether they involve complaints of violence, harassment or sexual harassment or whether they are merely the issues we as members of Parliament deal with on a daily basis. That is why I do not think that removing the joint health and safety committees is justified, since we have a code of ethics. That is what was proposed, and I think it is viable.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, workers who get involved in health and safety committees receive training and learn what is going on in the workplace. They are therefore aware of possible reactions and repercussions. They are capable of discussing situations without naming names in order to effect changes in the workplace in collaboration with their employer.

Confidentiality is of the utmost importance, but it is not by removing the joint health and safety committees from the complaint and investigation processes that we will better protect it. Confidentiality is inherent to the very nature of these people’s work and their involvement. It is an important element. By removing these committees, we are depriving survivors of a crucial option in the workplace.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Jonquière for her extremely enlightening speech on how we can help survivors of workplace harassment and violence feel better and safer and encourage them to report these incidents.

She concluded her speech by talking about insufficient data and some amendments she proposed in committee to provide more information about the current state of affairs in the workplace and to improve the situation. She spoke about a lack of prevention and the importance of using updated information. Could she tell us a bit more about this?

What would she have liked to see in this respect in the bill?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, who also actively participated in the study of Bill C-65 in committee. I would like to thank her for bringing her experience to the consideration of the amendments and the clause-by-clause review of the bill.

To answer her question, we support the five-year report, since it is important to assess our methods. However, we would have liked greater openness on the issue of data. That is the problem. As the bill currently stands, employers are not required to log or report incidents. Writing reports is all well and good, but they have to be based on hard data if the situation is to improve. We need to know what happened in order to analyze the situation and also plan for the future and keep improving the system. This might not seem important, but, according to Employment and Social Development Canada, we have very little data. An improvement in this area would have allowed us to make more enlightened changes in five years.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if she does not think that it would be better to have a standardized complaint process for all types of complaints instead of having several different processes. Is it not better to have a standardized process so people know what to expect?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague once again for her very appropriate question. This very issue raised quite a few eyebrows, including among the witnesses appearing before the committee. Survivors need to feel safe. Unfortunately, in some workplaces I have seen, it is the employer who is harassing, bullying or sexually harassing employees. If survivors have no choices, and the perpetrator is the employer, what can they do?

We need to offer them this choice and abide by strict ethical guidelines on confidentiality in order to gain their trust. We want to offer every opportunity for survivors to feel safe enough to report the incident and follow through with the process. Victims of violence and harassment often feel isolated.

If people do not trust the process, we need to find another way to help them feel better and safe. Everyone benefits from greater possibilities. Survivors will feel comfortable and follow through with the process, whatever path they choose. What is important is that they have a choice. In my opinion, that is what matters with Bill C-65.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to another issue that my colleague from Jonquière mentioned in her speech. She said that the Liberals closed the door on the possibility of giving employers help to develop internal prevention policies and their own rules against workplace harassment and violence.

Shockingly, even though we are studying a bill on the prevention of harassment and violence in the workplace, the Liberals voted against that amendment without even explaining why.

What would have been the benefits of helping employers develop internal policies? If employers do not know how to address these issues, it is a little hard to establish rules that are both sound and clear for both employers and employees.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a very good point about clear rules. If we want to improve the situation, if we want training to be available, if we want to initiate cultural change, we will need clear rules and directives; simply snapping our fingers will not do.

To go back to my example from earlier, as an employer on Parliament Hill, we need to have rules and develop a code of conduct. That is what companies expect.

I said earlier, in my speech and in my answer to a question, that a report will be tabled in five years. If we do not put out clear rules, how are we to measure companies' compliance with the spirit of Bill C-65? How are they to know what to focus on?

The solution is to get on the right track. However, we need to collaborate and establish rules that companies will be able to follow. That is how we can ensure that workers get a safe work environment that is free from harassment, violence, and sexual harassment; that is the point I wish to emphasize most of all.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go on, I want to remind all hon. members of the House that, at 1:55 p.m., there will be an emergency test on all of our cell phones and computers. This is a nation-wide test. I would ask members who have a cell phone or a computer with them to turn those devices off or take them outside the House so as not to unduly disrupt proceedings.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Central Nova. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding harassment and violence, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

Bill C-65 seeks to enhance the current legislative framework that deals with harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces.

The bill proposes replacing all laws and policies with a single, comprehensive approach that covers every possible type of harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence.

It would also expand the scope of these laws and policies to cover parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament, the House of Commons, and political staffers on Parliament Hill.

As a member of the committee that reviewed the bill, I would like to take a moment to thank all members for their collaborative efforts to strengthen the proposed legislation.

At committee, members heard many compelling testimonies and debated for hours over the course of a number of meetings. For example, we heard from Vice News journalist Hilary Beaumont, author of a recent investigative report into workplace harassment on Parliament Hill.

Over the past three months, Ms. Beaumont interviewed more than 40 women who work on Parliament Hill, including current and former MPs, as well as lobbyists, journalists, staff, and interns. In her testimony, Ms. Beaumont stated that it quickly became apparent that female employees were more vulnerable to harassment than their male counterparts.

The women she interviewed told her stories about their own experiences: sexist comments, touching and even sexual assault. Some women she spoke to said that they were dismissed or lost job opportunities after trying to report workplace abuse. Some of the women interviewed who currently work on the Hill say that they would not even know how to report harassment if they had to.

In short, Mrs. Beaumont found that existing measures were simply nowhere near adequate.

That is why the bill is so important. The importance of the bill is something we have all agreed on from the start. This fact was especially apparent during many of the committee meetings where we worked tirelessly to strengthen the legislation.

From this perspective, here are the many changes that were proposed: defining harassment and violence in the Canada Labour Code; making training mandatory, meaning that employers would be required to make courses available to staff and to follow them themselves; specifically referencing preventing occurrences of harassment in the purpose of the bill; adding a section requiring that the provisions respecting harassment and violence in Bill C-65 be reviewed every five years; requiring that the Minister of Labour produce an annual report on harassment and violence in every workplace under federal jurisdiction; and, for the purposes of applying part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, giving the deputy minister powers normally given to the minister to avoid the possibility of any conflict of interest.

These amendments, among others, have since been adopted and the result is an exceptionally strong piece of legislation that we can all be proud of.

However, although the bill is a big step in the right direction, and although it is essential in order to put an end to such behaviour in workplaces under federal jurisdiction and on Parliament Hill, our government is aware that a mere law cannot totally eliminate behaviours so deeply rooted in the Canadian workplace.

We said it many times today and we will repeat it again: we need a change of culture, and we must all help bring this change about. The good news is that such a change is well under way.

The global movements on social media brought a great deal of attention to this issue and shed much-needed light on it. I am immensely impressed by the bravery of those who have shared their stories. It takes so much courage to come forward and speak out against this behaviour.

Thanks to their courage, these conversations are taking place more and more frequently, not only in the media and politics but in workplaces the world over. People are re-evaluating their actions and the repercussions they have for others. People who have had to deal with inappropriate acts in the past or who are experiencing them now feel free to speak up. This process can be very unpleasant, but that is often the case with change. In this case, it is worth it.

We all know that these behaviours can have a long-term negative impact, not only on victims and their families, but also on employers and in terms of productivity, absenteeism and employee turnover.

There are many persistent gender norms and power imbalances in our society that keep things the way they are. The consequence is that unacceptable behaviours have been tolerated for far too long. It is time that we put an end to them. It is high time for a change.

Through Bill C-65, our government is taking an important step toward building a country where all Canadians are better protected from harassment and violence in the workplace, and where those who have experienced such abuse receive the support they need.

We believe that this bill will also go a long way toward putting an end to workplace violence and harassment.

Canadians deserve nothing less than workplaces that are free from this type of behaviour and that reflect our society’s values.

I strongly encourage the members of the House of Commons to support Bill C-65 at this stage in order to give a voice to people who are vulnerable and to hold responsible those who, despite proof to the contrary, continue to believe that any form of harassment or violence in any circumstances can be acceptable.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I listened attentively. I learned that people do not even know how to file a harassment complaint, who to talk to, or what they need to do.

How will this bill help or encourage people to file complaints?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent and very pertinent question.

The answer is prevention. The bill includes prevention measures, including mandatory workplace training. This will allow employees and employers to see what is going on in the workplace. The bill has a major preventive aspect.

In addition, there are measures to help people feel safe enough to report inappropriate situations. We will implement the necessary measures in our workplaces to enable them to report inappropriate behaviours.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who, like all other members of House, works to ensure that prevention of workplace harassment and violence is increasingly front and center, that preventive measures are implemented, and that survivors can safely and confidentially report situations where they felt victimized.

However, in committee, the government excluded the joint workplace health and safety committees that enable victims, survivors, to consult experts who are familiar with the workplace and its culture, committees made up of employers, employees, and experts whose job it was to hear survivors and provide them with support. That was a very helpful option for victims, especially in small workplaces. In cases where the perpetrator is the employer, it is very difficult for employees to report situations of abuse. It was therefore reassuring to be able to deal with a joint committee. The Liberals preferred to remove the joint health and safety committees, despite the fact that unions from across the country appearing before the committee recommended that they be maintained.

Does my colleague not think that it would be a better idea to reincorporate the committees into the bill in order to help change the mindset and culture in the workplace?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague because we worked really hard in committee and everyone really did their part to help strengthen this bill.

I would like to remind him that there will be local committees and that they will have a major role to play in keeping workplaces safe and free from violence and harassment. These local committees will play a key role in this bill. That is what is being proposed to protect the confidentiality and privacy of all parties involved in an investigation of harassment or violence, and that is obviously our top priority.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to the hon. member for Central Nova, I want to remind all hon. members, once again, that there will be a national test at 1:55 p.m. If a member's cellphone, iPad, or computer is on in the House, it will ring out. I am sure none of us want to disturb the hon. member for Central Nova, as he has a very interesting debate and presentation to make. Therefore, I would ask members to either turn off their apparatus or, if they want to check it out to make sure it works, take it into another room, other than the House of Commons, and report back to us afterwards.

The hon. member for Central Nova.