Debates of May 7th, 2018

Record Suspension Program

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a study of the Record Suspension Program to: (a) examine the impact of a record suspension to help those with a criminal record reintegrate into society; (b) examine the impact of criminal record suspension fees and additional costs associated with the application process on low-income applicants; (c) identify appropriate changes to fees and service standards for record suspensions; (d) identify improvements to better support applicants for a criminal record suspension; and that the Committee present its final report and recommendations to the House within nine months of the adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, before I start, my thoughts and prayers are with my riding, Saint John—Rothesay, and the devastating flood we are continuing to experience right now.

I believe we have all made mistakes in our lives, and I do believe in second chances, when they are deserved. I would like to believe we live in a society that can forgive when such forgiveness is shown to be merited. Sometimes, often early in life, mistakes can lead to a criminal record. When a mistake is properly addressed, it is best for everyone, both the offenders and the society they live in, to move on. As a society, we need to be able to provide deserving citizens with a second chance. Unfortunately, for many Canadians, especially those in low-income situations, the criminal justice system often fails to provide this second chance.

Let me give an example provided by the Elizabeth Fry Society of Saint John. A single mother in Saint John, let us call her Susan, a young woman with an excellent work record, was offered five well-paying jobs over a six-month period. These offers were all rescinded when it was revealed that Susan had a summary offence on her record. She stole a pair of jeans in 1998, her one and only offence. Now Susan cannot find quality employment, and she cannot afford the cost of a criminal record suspension.

Intergenerational poverty is a chronic condition that affects far too many citizens in my riding. Since I was elected, I have made it my top priority to represent everyone, all citizens in my community, including and especially the most vulnerable and under-represented, the ones who need a voice, in particular people in poverty.

To address this problem, I have advocated and will continue to advocate for programs and policy changes that would help lift people out of poverty. Through programs such as the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, and the implementation of a national housing strategy, our government has made tremendous strides toward eradicating poverty in Saint John—Rothesay and across the country. However, we can still do much more.

Past offenders, who are vastly more likely to live in or come from poverty than those without criminal records, still face an often insurmountable socio-economic barrier to re-entry into the workforce and, thus, escaping poverty. A criminal record check is a prerequisite for most jobs. Indeed, in one study undertaken by the John Howard Society of Canada, 60% of respondents reported that a criminal record check was an essential prerequisite to employment at their place of work. Many past offenders, like Susan, cannot afford the $631, the cost of filing an application, although it may not seem like a lot of money to many people.

Acting on calls to action by the John Howard Society of Saint John and the Elizabeth Fry Society of Saint John, I have tabled private member's Motion No. 161, which instructs the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to undertake a review of the criminal record suspension program. This would determine how the program impacts low-income offenders at present and how it could be changed to better facilitate their reintegration into society.

Many past offenders have paid their debt to society. They are seeking to reintegrate into our communities. They are trying to give themselves and their families better futures. They ought to be able to apply for and obtain meaningful employment, regardless of their means. Past offenders who are unable to find work are much more likely to reoffend, interacting with the criminal justice system all over again. In this sense, ensuring that past offenders are enabled to apply for and obtain gainful employment is crucial. This is not only part of an effective strategy to eradicate poverty in our community; it is key to combatting crime and keeping our streets safe.

To grow our communities, create more well-paying jobs, and ensure that communities across Canada are a safe place to live for everyone, we, as a government, must do everything in our power to break down the barriers faced by those currently living in poverty.

In 2012, the previous government passed amendments to the Criminal Records Act that dramatically altered the application process for what were then called “pardons”. The term “pardon” was changed to “record suspension”. This change was clearly made in an effort to make the process more punitive.

Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, explains the difference between pardon and record suspension: “Pardon indicates that someone has moved on from where they were, not just that we're hanging it [the suspension] over your head like a big dagger about to drop down on you if we perceive you've done something wrong.”

Pardon was replaced by record suspension. The goal of record suspension, and the policies that came with it, was to be publicly tough on crime. This unexamined toughness legislation was rammed through roughshod by the previous government and imposed on an already troubled pardons system. This toughness has had unintended negative consequences on Canadian society: legally, socially, and economically.

Here is what the previous government did to the pardon process: The base fee was quadrupled to $631, and wait times for pardon eligibility were increased from three to five years for a summary offence and from five to 10 years for an indictable offence.

The results of this unexamined policy initiative, this tough-on-crime pose of the previous government, were telling. In 2011, the Parole Board of Canada received 29,829 pardon applications. After the changes were made, in 2015, it received 12,743 requests for record suspension, down by 57%. That is 17,086 fewer requests. Did crime change over those five years? I do not think so. This unfortunate policy shift actively and demonstrably discouraged Canadians, particularly low-income Canadians, such as those from Saint John—Rothesay, from seeking a pardon.

The Parole Board says that pardons are designed to support rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. This dramatic drop in requests for record suspensions is a strong warning. Current government policy on pardons is moving in the opposite direction of rehabilitation and reintegration. Those 17,086 people, the 57% drop in applicants in 2015, are not reintegrated; they are not participating in the workforce.

Former offenders are often low-income Canadians, people who are statistically much more likely to tum to crime if they cannot get a job. Approximately 3.8 million Canadians have a criminal record, but very few eligible parties apply for a record suspension. Fewer than 11% of those convicted of crimes have been granted a pardon or a record suspension. We should not be putting roadblocks in the way of reintegration and rehabilitation.

As Dr. Mary Ann Campbell, director of the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies at the University of New Brunswick, explained, pardons have an important societal function. She said that research on record suspensions indicates that individuals who are granted record suspensions typically have a very low rate, under 5%, of subsequent criminal behaviour, and that record suspensions are likely to open doors for past offenders and justice-involved persons. These doors “support their pro-social lifestyle transitions” and raise families out of poverty.

For many low-income Canadians, pursuing a record suspension is a step in the right direction. We need to look carefully at the roadblocks our current system is putting in the way of the rehabilitation and reintegration of these less fortunate citizens.

If passed, Motion No. 161 would instruct the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to undertake a study on the record suspension system in Canada, in particular on how it affects low-income applicants. The committee would be instructed to study how the system could be improved to remove barriers to the reintegration of past offenders into society. The committee would report back to the House with its findings within nine months.

A life sentence of poverty for a summary offence is an extremely unreasonable punishment, yet this is what the record suspension system as it currently stands imposes upon far too many Canadians. The stories of young adults especially, who come into my riding office, are heartbreaking regarding the barriers that the system places on them. This is especially true for women, who most often bear the burden of child care and family support costs, and tend to apply for jobs in sectors that require criminal record checks more often than do men. The barriers to employment created by the record suspension program also disproportionately impact historically marginalized groups, such as indigenous Canadians, who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

The current system of record suspension takes a terrible toll on low-income Canadians, exacerbating the difficulties of some of our most vulnerable citizens. A recent poverty round table in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, part of the federal tackling poverty together project, identified criminal records as a significant barrier to employment and a contributing factor to long-term poverty. As Dr. Campbell explained, “Individuals who have a criminal record are often blocked from adequate and meaningful employment, as many employers require criminal record checks and are reluctant to hire people with a record. By maximizing a person's opportunities for employment by suspending a criminal record for those eligible individuals, Canada is positively contributing to reductions in poverty.”

Judy Murphy of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Saint John echoes these concerns, spelling out the implications of the current record suspension system on poverty, specifically on low-income women. She said, “Saint John has the highest rates of single-parent families living in poverty with a female head of the household in Canada. Over two-thirds of incarcerated women are single mothers to children under 18 years of age. On a regular basis, we hear of women being turned down for meaningful work at decent wages because of a criminal record. The current high cost of applying for a record suspension is beyond the reach of a single mother on social assistance. The long waiting period to be eligible for applying keeps a woman out of employment and the opportunity to maintain essential workplace skills. If a woman is in a position to submit an application, the review time by the Parole Board of Canada can take between six months and two years. Although this is Saint John's story, we recognize that the barriers created by the current record suspension system are told over and over again across Canada.”

Ms. Murphy endorses this motion, adding the following: “We support the need to explore the effect of the high costs on applicants, and to create a service standard that allows a record suspension process that minimizes wait times and costs, and magnifies ease of application.”

Motion No. 161 would instruct the public safety committee to undertake this examination of the high costs on applicants, look at minimizing wait times, and examine the application process for a record suspension and its impact on low-income Canadians.

Bill Bastarache, executive director of the John Howard Society of New Brunswick, also supports Motion No. 161, giving it the following endorsement: “The John Howard Society of New Brunswick promotes effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. We greatly appreciate your commitment to identifying and addressing barriers to vulnerable populations, ensuring each citizen is provided with an opportunity to move forward.”

The current system needs to change these shortcomings. We need to give those who deserve it a real second chance. When a Canadian who has been involved with the criminal justice system is rehabilitated and reintegrated as a productive and thriving member of our society, everybody wins. We are better as a country for it, and certainly my riding of Saint John—Rothesay would be better for these changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a process question about this. Of course, not every member of Parliament, as a result of the draw, is going to be able to propose a private member's bill. Rather than putting forward a bill, the member chose to propose a motion as an instruction to a committee. The member could have proposed that motion at committee, and given that Liberals have a majority on that committee, it would no doubt have passed. Then he could have used his time slot here to propose legislative changes around the issues that he won. Instead, we have a proposal that in general asks a committee to study an issue, when the member could have put forward the changes he wants legislatively. We could have debated those, and then those would have gone for study at committee anyway.

If the member is so concerned about these issues he is talking about, why has he not proposed a study to the committee and used his opportunity to propose legislative changes, rather than probably the most minimal and non-substantive measure, which is to say that he thinks the committee should be told to study this?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Saint John—Rothesay has the highest number of people living in poverty. Child poverty is a chronic issue in my riding. People come to my office, which is right in the middle of the part of the city that has 50% to 60% child poverty and families living in poverty, day in and day out, who are looking for a break and a way out of poverty. I heard that one young lady stole a bag of diapers and the record she has prohibits her from moving forward.

To answer the member's question, we consulted with a lot of people. The Liberals feel that the best way forward is to propose Motion No. 161, debate it, study it, and have a good dialogue among all three parties. I am very comfortable moving this forward.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everything the member just said in terms of values and principles are things we can agree on, but the fact is that the Minister of Public Safety has undertaken a public consultation already on this very issue. He hired EKOS to do a study of it, as a result of which we saw that three-quarters of Canadians support proper reintegration after rehabilitation. That obviously requires some changes to the program, changes that the Conservatives proposed that increased the cost, for example, of accessing record suspensions that were once called pardons. It ensures public safety of the very people he's talking about, because since 1970, 96% of offenders who have been properly rehabilitated and then accessed these pardons have been reintegrated and did not reoffend.

Clearly, there are a multitude of things that can be achieved by having a proper record suspension or pardon system in place. However, it begs the question: If the minister has already undertaken a consultation, instead of proposing a motion to have the committee study it, with the facts before us, we know that the changes by the previous government were wrong and that the Liberals committed to fixing it, so why does the member not just fix it?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the NDP always has the solution to every problem, but to move beyond words takes process, study, and time.

I will again say that my riding of Saint John—Rothesay has the highest percentage of people living in poverty. The biggest thing I hear from family after family, person after person coming through my door, is the prohibitive cost of $631. It may not seem like a lot to a lot of people, but it is a barrier for people living in poverty. We have looked at this and talked with government. We have support and feel very comfortable that this is the right way forward. We have support from the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society that say this is the right way forward. We will go forward this way, and I am very confident that we will have a very positive result.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 161, a motion that calls for a study on the impacts of people in Canada with a criminal past who seek a record suspension.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I must say that this is not a pressing public safety or national security issue. It does not deal with the immediate concerns of gangs, guns, and violent crime, illegal border crossings, cybersecurity threats by foreign states, extremist attacks, or any kind of the myriad of crime concerns. However, while we debate the merits of the record suspension study, I have to say that my sympathies are generally not with those seeking a record suspension, but rather with the people who have been harmed by their crimes.

Record suspensions should not be something that anyone with a criminal past can get. Some crimes can and should remain forever on someone's record. The member for Saint John—Rothesay cites minor crimes committed years ago. However, it is the serious criminals and repeat offenders that are generally the concern, not one-time shoplifters. The fact is that one-time shoplifters are usually dealt with by means of alternative measures.

For the member's information, records do not prevent someone from obtaining employment. As an employer myself years back, I had many employees in my operation who had criminal records. It did not prevent them at all from working.

What we are talking about today are those with a record of a serious crime, like sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, homicide, and other violent crimes. While I appreciate that some of those convicted of these types crimes have a difficult time, a burden they have brought upon themselves in most cases, having a record creates a deterrent. It is a reminder that these crimes are not welcome in society.

As a person of faith, I do believe in forgiveness. However, it is easy to forgive when we are not the victim. Forgiveness is easy when it requires no sacrifice. It is, and continues to be, the top priority of this House to protect Canadians, ahead of political gains and party standing. I believe that the language of this motion, which focuses on the hardships of convicted criminals, once again follows the trend of the current Liberal government to be soft on criminals. It should place the consideration of victims and honest, hard-working Canadians first.

Under the previous Conservative government, record suspensions were put more in line with our values as a society. We removed the term “pardon” to reflect that this was not an elimination of their past, but rather a recognition of the efforts made by those individuals to change their criminal past and live an honest contributing life within our society.

The Conservatives also removed criminals like child predators and repeat offenders with three or more indictable offences from being eligible to receive a pardon. As the member mentioned in his speech, this issue is not about a teenager shoplifting but about record suspensions for serious criminals.

The Conservatives also made it a user-pay model, so that taxpayers did not have to cover the costs of record suspension reviews.

Finally, the number of years that people with serious criminal convictions, like violence and sexual crimes, had to demonstrate that they were rehabilitated before they could obtain a record suspension doubled. Summary conviction offences went from three years to five years. Indictable offences went from five years to 10 years. To me, this is common sense. Actions have consequences, and those who have acted in a manner that many in our society might find unforgivable have longer-lasting consequences.

As someone who has worked in law enforcement and experienced the dark side of our society and complete lack of value that some place on other humans and human life, it is hard to reconcile those experiences with the sympathies of my Liberal colleagues. Looking at how many Liberals in the government have viewed public safety to date, I cannot say that the country we are building is safer than that of our past. Rather than feeling sympathy for victims of crime and defending those who respect and honour our laws, the Liberals seem to place misguided sympathy with those who have committed the crimes.

In Bill C-75, for example, which is the new Liberal legislation to change the criminal justice system, the Minister of Justice is seeking to water down protections for clergy. Having recently withdrawn from its previous position after considerable backlash from Canadians, the government has again sought to lower or remove protections against clergy in Canada. At a time of heightened hate crimes and increased religious conflict, we are making it easier to carry out a crime against any religious group. The government is giving lighter sentences on assaults with weapons, terrorism, rioting, and corruption. I have not met a Canadian who has asked us to water down protections. That certainly was not the Liberal mandate that the government received from Canadians.

However, the Liberals are getting tougher on some, primarily on law-abiding gun owners. The new gun legislation, Bill C-71, creates more rules and red tape, and potentially criminalizes honest Canadians who have not broken the law or harmed anyone. It is a regulatory bill, not a public safety bill. It appears that the Liberals' policy is to lighten penalties on criminals, make life harder for those who follow the law, and ignore real threats to Canadians by reducing penalties for serious crimes. It is hard to reconcile how a government so obsessed with image and photo shoots could be so completely out of touch with the needs of Canadians.

Any changes to our country's criminal justice system must place victims first. Too often, victims pay the price while the system works for criminals. For those with a criminal history, it is not up to society to change for them. Actions have consequences, and we have a path laid out to rehabilitation through prison and parole systems. Criminals who have been released must take on their own rehabilitation to earn their place back into being a productive member of society. No one can earn that for them, and no one else can give it to them. As Thomas Paine once said, “That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly.” If we hand out record suspensions with ease, they are, by human nature, valued less.

I am particularly concerned of the potential risk that softer record suspension rules will have on vulnerable sectors in our society. We know that agencies all across this country ask law enforcement to perform tens of thousands of vulnerable sector checks each year on individuals seeking to work or volunteer with our society's most vulnerable, namely, our children, our disabled, and our seniors. If record suspensions become easier to obtain, if the types of crimes for which someone can have his or her record expunged are expanded, and if the time it takes to demonstrate that one's life is truly free from crime is reduced, the possibility exists for increased risk for the vulnerable to be victimized. That is unacceptable.

Therefore, I am left, when looking at this motion and the various other public safety measures the government has proposed, to ask, where is the plan? There does not appear to be a plan, and that is not appropriate for this House, which should place the protections of the innocent first.

With violent crimes affecting local communities, gang violence taking the lives of so many young Canadians, and a drug crisis that continues to tear families apart, this House has important things to consider, and I just cannot say this is a top priority. Some crimes have the ability to shake our collective feeling of security across our communities and our country. In 2014, this House was shaken by an armed assault. In 2017, in Edmonton, an ISIS-inspired terrorist attacked a police officer and tried to kill other people with a van. Just last month in Toronto, all of us witnessed the madness that killed 10 people. We were not able to save those who were killed or injured, but we certainly should not reward the perpetrators and punish the victims.

Canadians want a government that ensures criminals face the full extent of the law. The Hon. Margaret Thatcher was fond of saying, “Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become your character. And watch your character, for it becomes your destiny. What we think, we become.”

This motion tells us where the belief and attention is for the Liberal government. It is not with victims. It is not with law-abiding Canadians. It is not with police or national security. It seems to be with criminals.

I would caution my colleagues in government that their actions speak loudly to Canadians. Canadians are on the side of victims, police, and safer streets and communities, and they are on the side of families. Being on the wrong side of that will determine each of our political destinies.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that we support the motion by the member for Saint John—Rothesay, though we do want to raise a few points. We are disappointed that the Liberal government is dragging its heels on this and would rather do more studies than take action on a file that has already been studied.

I will also address a few of the points raised by my Conservative colleague who just spoke. Today we are talking about record suspension. The first thing I want to point out is that, contrary to what the member just said, record suspension is not permanent. What it does is make it easier for an individual who committed a non-violent crime, such as drug possession or something like that, to reintegrate into society and get a job. Many employers use Canadian police databases to find out if an individual has a criminal record. It can be extremely difficult for anyone with a record to get a job and reintegrate into society.

The statistics speak for themselves. The fact is that since 1970, 96% of rehabilitated offenders successfully reintegrated into society and did not reoffend. When we are looking at achieving the public safety goals the previous Conservative government claimed to want to achieve, there is nothing more important than having a program of record suspensions, or pardons as they used to be called, that works properly. After all, offenders who do not reoffend is the ultimate achievement of our justice and corrections system, and will ensure public safety by not seeing the circle of perpetual crime taking place.

That is one thing. That is without even getting into the fact that, as the member who presented the motion correctly pointed out, all too often the types of crimes we are looking at with regard to this program are being committed by people who are in difficult and desperate situations and who need the kind of support this kind of program could offer. Then, when they have paid their dues, when they have done their time and have gotten out and have been successfully rehabilitated, they can become productive and welcome members of a community once again.

The Liberals acknowledged that some of the Conservatives' changes were in need of fixing. That includes the higher cost, which is a barrier to access. The Conservative member we just heard from said that the financial burden should fall squarely on the person who committed the crime. Because of that approach, just filing an application for a record suspension, also known as a pardon, went up from $50 or $100 to $631. That does not include the cost of getting a pardon, which bears mentioning. A person who is rehabilitated, who wants to reintegrate into society, and who is looking for a job obviously does not have enough income to cover such a huge expense. That person can forget about it. Plus, the $631 fee applies regardless of the outcome of the application, which can easily be rejected.

As all members know, whenever people have dealings with the federal government, whether in the area of public safety or any other, they might tick the wrong box or forget a comma somewhere, and they will be penalized as a result. That is the kind of situation we are talking about here, except that in this case such mistakes are very expensive.

This is something we need to address as a society. By reversing the changes made by the previous government, some of the cost could be absorbed by taxpayers. Once again, this could also help us achieve some important public safety objectives.

These are all things that the Liberals recognized in the last election, which during debates about public safety issues, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness committed to fixing, so much so that the minister has done exactly what the member wants to do, which is to have the public safety committee, which I am vice-chair of, study this very issue. However, the fact is the Minister of Public Safety has already undertaken this very study to see what Canadians think, to see what the different positions are, to understand that there is support in civil society from exactly the groups that were enumerated by the sponsor of the motion earlier in his speech and in response to questions and comments.

During the minister's study of this issue, an important fact came out. Three-quarters of Canadians support easier access to record suspension in the event that the person applying has paid his or her dues, both in the literal and philosophical sense, and has been properly rehabilitated. Canadians recognize that in order to ensure public safety, we need to achieve the rehabilitation goals that our system sets out to achieve. One of the most important ways to do that and to lead to reintegration is to allow easier access to the labour market, which requires this sort of record suspension.

It is important to note, contrary to some of the fearmongering we just heard by a member bringing up the attack on Parliament Hill in 2014 and other forms of violent crimes and terrorism, that this is not what is before us. What we have before us are non-violent crimes, things like drug possession, and shoplifting has been used as an example, that lead, and rightly so in many cases, others less so, to having a criminal record.

We could have a debate another time over the criminalization of drug possession and the decriminalization of that, and the fact that the government, while legalizing marijuana has sent mixed messages about pardoning those who have criminal records, in particular, those who obtained those criminal records during the debate in this very place about the legalization of marijuana for simple possession.

Putting that aside for a moment, we are not talking about people who have committed terrorist acts. We are talking about people who have committed minor offences, who have done their time, who have paid their dues, who have been properly rehabilitated, and who have waited a period of time that is prescribed by this program to then apply, and even through that application, without any guarantee that they will seek the record suspension.

Let us put that fearmongering aside and look at the very real public safety goals that could be achieved by making a record suspension easier to access. Contrary to what the member who just spoke said, yes, a criminal record is a deterrent, but the folks we are talking about here have already been deterred because they have been rehabilitated and gone through a long and arduous process that has led them to be able to apply.

Those are the facts before us. That being said, I recognize that the minister has studied this issue, a Liberal member is proposing this motion, and this is already something that the Liberals have committed to do. Therefore, I would wonder why, instead of having another study, instead of asking a committee that is tasked with some very heavy files, with legislation, with a calendar that is completely booked for the next several months at the very least, the government would not just act and bring forward the necessary legislative change to make sure that we are achieving the very real public safety goals that can be achieved by making it easier to access this program.

Why not simply do something?

Once again, the government wants to study this situation ad nauseam. Meanwhile, there are citizens who deserve to be pardoned, who have done their time, who have paid their fines, who are rehabilitated and can now reintegrate into our society and begin contributing to our communities. It is well known that they will not reoffend, since the statistics from the past 45 years prove it. A very low rate of recidivism is the ultimate goal of our public safety system.

I therefore congratulate the member and I support his motion. I have to wonder, though, what is actually being done and, even if the committee undertakes such a study, how much longer we have to wait for the Liberal government to fulfill a commitment.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today and to lend my support to this study of the record suspension program brought forward by my colleague from Saint John—Rothesay. I thank him for doing so.

I was pleased to second this motion in the House today. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I think it is important that we have someone who feels so strongly about this issue raising it and suggesting that this study come to the committee as a priority. That is how we set our agenda. It is by having members who see what is happening in their communities and how it is touching individuals in their communities bringing that forth so we can make sure that it is a priority for us to look at in our committee. I am very grateful for that.

If this is passed, we would be looking at undertaking a study on the record suspension program. We would examine the impact of a record suspension in helping those with a criminal record reintegrate into society. We would examine the impact of criminal record suspension fees and additional costs associated with the application process on low-income applicants. We would identify appropriate changes to fees and service standards for record suspensions, and we would identify improvements to better support applicants for a criminal record suspension.

This is fairly new wording we are talking about when we are talking about record suspensions. What are we actually talking about?

Formerly, this was known as a pardon. What record suspensions do is allow people who have been convicted of criminal offences and have completed their sentences and demonstrated that they are law-abiding citizens for a prescribed number of years to have their criminal records kept separate and apart from other criminal records. They essentially remove a person's criminal record from the Canadian Police Information Centre database, known as CPIC, for short. The reason this could be important is that it would help people access employment, it would help people access education, and it would help people reintegrate into society. That is important.

I am looking at a study by EKOS that came out of a government consultation on this issue. When the government consulted with the public, the findings showed that participants said that a record suspension was a tool to help offenders move forward in their lives, and in doing so, remain productive members of society, free of criminal behaviour. If that is the goal seen by the people who were responding to the consultation, then making sure that the record suspension program works has to be considered as far as allowing people to access housing, employment, education, and the like, so that they may reintegrate into society.

One of the reasons we are discussing this today, and why it is important, is that there were many changes brought by the former government in 2010 and 2012 that made significant changes to the way the record suspension program works. For example, the period of time people convicted of indictable offences had to wait to apply for a record suspension went from five to 10 years. It was doubled. That is one part. How long do people have to wait?

Another important part is part (b) of the motion, which states, “examine the impact of criminal record suspension fees and additional costs associated with the application process on low-income applicants”. As has been mentioned by other members, the fee was quadrupled to $631. This simply made getting a record suspension unattainable for many people.

I was looking at an article in The Globe and Mail, which brought to my attention an example that stood out as far as how record suspensions can work. One of the examples was a former Yukon premier who served from 2002 to 2011. He gave an interview on record suspensions. He said:

If you're burdened with mistakes of the past on an ongoing basis, that in itself can contribute significantly towards further problems as you go through life.... It becomes a real challenge for individuals. They're shunned. Certain doors aren't open to them.

This was a former premier of Yukon, who, in 1975, was convicted of offences, and he spoke about that. The article reads:

“In my case, I went from the penitentiary to the premier's office”.... [He] rose to power as leader of the conservative Yukon Party. “And the reason I got there was because I was able to achieve that full pardon and have a clean slate in my life.”

He is someone who has experienced quite dramatic change in opportunity and in what he was able to accomplish. As I mentioned, this is one of the reasons we need to be thinking about it.

I want to highlight an organization in my community that does some great work providing opportunities for people who have criminal convictions and are exiting the penitentiary system. It is called KLINK Coffee. It is a social enterprise that works through the John Howard Society. It provides employment opportunities specifically to individuals who are leaving the penitentiary system. It is a chance for people to develop jobs skills and get the experience they need. It also sells some quite lovely coffee. I know, because we have it in our office, and it makes a good cup of coffee. As a social enterprise, it is an amazing thing.

However, we know that this is not true for all employers. Not everyone is going to be comfortable hiring someone with a criminal record. How do we make sure that people have opportunities to reintegrate, and how do we make sure that we have a fair system going forward?

I see the study as a chance for us to look at where we go from here. We know that there were significant changes made under the previous government, and we have seen the impact. We heard some statistics mentioned by my colleague about the number of applications for record suspensions. They have been drastically reduced in the past years.

Through the public consultations I mentioned, we found that people overwhelmingly supported shorter waiting periods. People suggested that the periods we have right now are too long. Another part that was flagged for us, and I will note the John Howard Society, is that the process is complicated. In fact, it creates a disincentive. It is too complicated for some people to ever be able to complete the process. This is something else we considered, specifically in part (d) of this motion, as something we should consider.

What I am looking forward to in a study is a chance to look at all these issues, to get better information, and to build on what was found in the public consultations. We could then make recommendations on how we can make a stronger system going forward.

It is a wonderful opportunity to give people a second chance, and I am very happy to be supporting this motion today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by wishing my wife a happy anniversary and thank her for seven great years. All of us in the House who are married can really appreciate the significant sacrifices our spouses make to make it possible for us to be here and do this important work. In many ways, they make greater sacrifices than we do.

I want to thank the member for Saint John—Rothesay for putting this motion forward. I had the pleasure of being in his riding last week talking to people there. I do not know if he will appreciate the fact that I visited his riding, but it is certainly a beautiful riding. I had a chance to talk to a number of not-for-profit organizations that are involved in important work on some of the issues he spoke about in his speech, including poverty alleviation.

I want to say, somewhat parenthetically, and it is very important, that much of the work being done in Saint John--Rothesay, in New Brunswick, and throughout the country around rehabilitation and poverty alleviation is done by independent civil society not-for-profit organizations. The most important work is often not done by government. It is done by these external organizations.

There is a big impact in New Brunswick because of the Canada summer jobs policy change made by the government. I met with groups who were specifically involved in the issues the member spoke about, issues around poverty, for example. They are concerned about the fact that as charitable organizations, they have a much harder time accessing those resources. A lot of those dollars are now going to for-profit companies instead of to not-for-profit organizations that might have a statement of faith or a conviction that excludes them from participating.

I know that the member's passion for these issues is genuine. I encourage him to look at what he can do and what the government can do to remove barriers to civil society organizations that are doing that work.

During a previous trip, when I was in Moncton, I was inspired to meet with people involved in Harvest House Atlantic. This is a great organization that works on rehabilitation and reintegration as well as with people who are struggling with substance abuse. This organization was founded by someone who had a previous involvement with crime. It is an organization that is no longer able to access the Canada summer jobs program as a result of the changes that have been made.

I want to make a point specifically about the process that has brought us to this discussion. The member has brought us a motion calling for the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to undertake a study. This proposal has convened debate in the House of Commons about some important issues.

My suggestion would be that if he wanted to confront the issues he is talking about, he could have, at any point, put a motion before the committee to undertake that study. His party has a majority on that committee. It sounds like his party is going to support this motion, which means that the motion will pass and the committee will undertake the study.

The member had the opportunity to put this motion forward earlier in this Parliament, and perhaps the study would have brought forward proposals for legislative changes. He could have used this opportunity to propose substantive legislative changes. If he proposed legislative changes, even in a more speculative way, that legislation, were it to pass, would still go to committee for study. There would be the same opportunity for study, but it would be a study of specific legislative proposals on the system we have in place for record suspension.

I often wonder why the government members put forward motions for study instead of actual legislative initiatives. Because of the draw, not every MP in the House will have an opportunity to bring forward substantive legislation. When members have that channel, and there are issues they are hearing about from their constituents, and they have firm convictions, rather than saying we should study it more, there is value in actually putting legislative proposals forward so we can debate the merit of those legislative proposals.

As it is, when a motion comes to the House of Commons calling on us to instruct a committee to do a study on something, we are in a a difficult position. Not knowing what is currently on the committee's agenda, not knowing what studies have already been suggested and what studies are already in progress, we are asked, as members of Parliament, to rule on the agenda of a committee. I would argue that perhaps, generally speaking, it would be more appropriate for the committee itself to rule on its own agenda and for the committee itself to weigh whether record suspensions versus other issues that may currently be before the committee is the one that should be studied. Again, the motion could be put forward at committee without needing to use up a slot in terms of a private member's motion or bill draw.

As such, when people who are not part of a committee are asked to rule on something, it is a bit of a strange inversion of what should be the process for managing the business of committees, which are traditionally thought of as masters of their own domain.

It raises the question of why the member is putting forward something that is not meant to bring about specific changes and that he could have done another way in a forum where there could be a wider airing of discussion to have the motion. The motion could have happened and gone forward much more quickly.

That said, I want to make a few substantive comments on the content of the motion on the record suspension issue, and I suspect I will continue during the second hour of debate.

This motion proposes a study on the process of record suspension. There is no harm in principle with doing a study, but we are concerned about the direction the government may want to go in trying to use this study as a basis for subsequent changes that we may disagree with.

A previous bill proposed by a Conservative government, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, made certain changes with respect to record suspension. The goal of those changes was to institute a system of greater balance. Certainly we recognize the important role that record suspension plays in allowing people to move on from that phase of their life if there is clear indication of rehabilitation, but safeguards need to be in place to ensure an appropriate balance by facilitating the protection of society and facilitating rehabilitation.

Let us be clear about what rehabilitation is all about. It is not about giving the benefits of rehabilitation before a person has clearly established that they have gone through the process of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is the process by which an individual takes responsibility for their life and chooses to pursue a different path than they have pursued in the past. In that sense, rehabilitation is associated with asking people to be responsible, to take responsibility for their actions. That is something that must be well and closely connected with what is happening in that case.

In pursuit of a greater balance with respect to the issue of record suspension, the previous Conservative government made a number of changes, such as disqualifying anyone with more than three convictions for indictable offences from ever being able to apply. Most Canadians would think that is reasonable. If someone has gone through a process and was thought to have been rehabilitated, yet has reoffended and has multiple cases of reoffending, then I would argue it is reasonable that the offence remain on their record.

There is a difference between removing a record for a one-time offence, maybe something a person did a long time ago, and removing the record of someone who has repeatedly been involved in a pattern of criminal activity. That is not to say that the person cannot be rehabilitated and it is not saying that person should not be able to access employment, but if there is a case of a repeat offence, the information should be out there, because if that person has shown a pattern in the past and maybe seemed to be rehabilitated, then we should be much more careful when it comes to how we manage that person's record.

That was a change that was made as part of Bill C-10. I think it brought greater balance and that it was reasonable. I think many Canadians would support this idea and would recognize the need for record suspension in certain cases as well as the need for balance to protect public safety.

Another change the previous Conservative government made was to forever disqualify convicted child sex offenders from being able to apply. Again, when someone is involved in a serious offence that puts a child at risk, it is reasonable for that record to be available in an ongoing way so that, for instance, an employer who might choose to hire someone who had a past event but who gave every indication of rehabilitation would still be extra careful about having that person around vulnerable people.

Having that record out there is reasonable when we are talking about child sexual offences. We do not know whether the member for Saint John—Rothesay agrees with those changes or not. He was quite critical of changes that we made and he has a motion for an open-ended study. The implication is that there was something wrong with what was done under Bill C-10. Again, the cases I have identified are relatively reasonable.

The change in terminology from “pardon” to “record suspension” is very reasonable, because it preserves the sense that there is still a record of that offence; it is just a question of whether or not that record is public.

I clearly have some concerns about the motion. I do not think the member is necessarily going about it in the most effective way. We should be very careful about the direction the member is asking us to go.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The time provided for consideration of private members' business is now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canada Labour Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up on a Monday morning, starting the parliamentary week off with a bill that has received so much support and agreement from a number of members from all parties in the House. As we wind down the parliamentary calendar, getting this level of agreement on a piece of legislation is rare, so I am going to enjoy that for the next 20 minutes.

Off the top, I want to recognize the government members on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the contribution they have made to this particular piece of legislation. Their efforts are always appreciated and welcomed, and they are very productive. The members for Toronto—Danforth and Oakville North—Burlington went above and beyond. Aside from their own committee duties, they pitched in on the HUMA committee and made huge contributions. There were a number of other members as well, but these members were there for pretty much all of the meetings. I want to recognize that.

I am pleased to participate in third reading of Bill C-65. As I said before, all parties think Bill C-65 is critical at this point in time in our country. No one can argue against the fact that harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, have no place in the workplace or, for that matter, anywhere at all. We have all heard stories that demonstrate just how detrimental and pervasive these behaviours really are. These stories have dominated the media for some time now, and many more were heard during the meetings of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-65.

There is a sort of strange story, a little weird, but it really stuck with me. It was testimony given by Dr. Sandy Hershcovis, associate professor at the University of Calgary. Dr. Hershcovis cited a recent Science magazine article describing “women on a geological expedition to Antarctica...reported that they were pelted with rocks by male colleagues, called names, had volcanic ash blown in their eyes, and were told that women should not be field geologists.” It is strange, but that one stuck with me. Many members also heard from former Parliament Hill staffer Beisan Zubi, who described the outrageously inappropriate behaviour she witnessed and in some cases was subject to herself right here on Parliament Hill. The testimony was very compelling.

What these and other stories demonstrate is that we live in a culture that tolerates workplace harassment and violence, accepts power imbalances and gender norms, and creates and reinforces inappropriate behaviours. For too long, these behaviours have been widely accepted in our society. These experiences are still too common and continue to take place in all types of workplaces. Many Canadians are still suffering because they feel they cannot speak out on this issue. They are staying silent because they feel their complaints will not be treated seriously or swept under the rug, or perhaps they fear repercussions from their employers—maybe even the loss of their jobs.

Many are in that position right now, and it is unacceptable. According to a recent Angus Reid study, 52% of Canadian women experienced workplace sexual harassment, 28% were subject to non-consensual sexual touching, and 89% took steps to avoid unwanted sexual advances. These all-too-common occurrences have had devastating and far-reaching effects.

For victims, the effects may include, among other things, an increase in stress and anxiety and a reduction in engagement and job satisfaction.

For employers, the negative effects of workplace harassment and violence can include a reduction in productivity, increased absenteeism and sick leave costs, higher turnover and legal costs, and in some cases, unwanted publicity. The bottom line is that these behaviours are bad for employees and employers, and at the end of the day, they are bad for the Canadian economy.

Our government has carried the messages of inclusiveness and fairness since we were first elected. We are committed to the fact that everyone deserves respect and dignity. All of our actions, including our policies and legislative initiatives, have those principles as a backdrop. We have made it clear from the outset that we will stand up for the rights of all Canadians, including women, people of colour, those with disabilities, and the LGBTQ2 community, as these are often the people with the least power and who are the most vulnerable in our society.

Our Prime Minister has been at the forefront of this issue, with strong and definite positions on fairness and the principle of opportunity for all, as well as on his determination to take strong action on harassment and violence. This is at the core of our values and principles in Canada. After all, we are people of diversity, but that diversity has not always been matched with compassion and consideration for others in the workplace or, for that matter, in our society. Now is the time to effect real and lasting cultural change. We are resolute in creating a social climate where people can live in an environment free of harassment and violence, and where unacceptable behaviour is denounced and condemned.

This is the backdrop to Bill C-65.

I would like to point out that our actions started well before the #MeToo movement. In 2016 and early 2017, we consulted with employers, employees, various stakeholder groups, experts, academics, and Canadians from across the country. We previously had some data on the issue. However, it was clear we needed deeper insight, not only on the extent of the problem but also on current reporting and actions taken following workplace incidents. Canadians told us that incidents were largely under-reported, and that when incidents were reported, the follow-up action was inadequate and ineffective.

Here are a few statistics I would like to share: 60% of those who responded to the online survey said that they personally had experienced harassment at their place of work, 30% said that they had experienced sexual harassment in their place of work, 21% reported that they had experienced violence in their place of work; and 3% of those who responded said that they had experienced sexual violence in their workplace. We can all agree in the House that this is unacceptable. We can, and we must, do better.

We consulted with members of Parliament and senators. They were unanimous in the belief that strong action on harassment and sexual violence should be taken and that victims should be heard and helped. That is exactly what we are aiming to achieve with this historic bill, Bill C-65. Using the most effective legislative and policy levers to address the problem, Bill C-65 would put an end to workplace harassment and violence and its consequences in federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces.

Bill C-65 would do this by requiring employers to do three things: first, prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring; second, respond effectively to these incidents; and third, support the victims and affected employees.

Let me take this opportunity to thank each member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. After careful consideration of the many points raised by witnesses, members of the committee put forward important amendments to the bill, and amendments from all parties in the House were accepted.

The committee accepted the following an amendment to add clear definition of harassment and violence in the Canada Labour Code:

...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.

Amendments also include specific reference to preventing occurrences of harassment and violence in the purpose clause of part II of the code. When it comes to training, employers would be obligated to provide it and take it.

Amendments also include more support for former employees in coming forward with complaints related to occurrences of harassment and violence, as well as provisions allowing employees to complain to someone other than their supervisor. That came out loud and clear during testimony and discussions with committee members.

The committee also sought and agreed to amendments that would ensure the harassment and violence provisions introduced in Bill C-65 would be reviewed every five years after coming into force to ensure these provisions would be current and would continue to meet the needs of workers.

To ensure the government is kept accountable and to track our progress and trends, the committee called for an annual report on harassment and violence in all federally regulated workplaces.

The committee unanimously agreed to make amendments that would give the deputy minister powers normally given to the minister to avoid the possibility of any conflict of interest when political actors were involved. This amendment in particular is a clear indicator of the collaborative efforts that went on during discussions and went into the bill before us today.

Thanks to these and other amendments, what we have before us today is a bill that we can all stand and be proud of, a historic piece of legislation that is long overdue. Our government is committed to taking action against workplace harassment and violence.

In addition to what we are doing in Canada with Bill C-65, we are also taking action against workplace harassment and violence on the international stage. We will be actively participating in the upcoming International Labour Organization, the ILO, negotiations at the international labour conference in Geneva later this month to develop new international labour standards. We will be there with our friends from the CLC, who will be making presentations at this conference as well.

These standards will help protect individuals from harassment and violence in the workplace. Canada's presidency of the 2018 G7 is an important opportunity for Canada to show global leadership and to engage our G7 counterparts on pressing global challenges, including the development and promotion of policies that prevent workplace violence and harassment.

Make no mistake, awareness is growing. We have come so far over the last year. The very fact that we are talking about it now demonstrates just how far we have come, and it is not just in Parliament.

This year's theme of the National Day of Mourning, which took place on April 28, was “Violence and Harassment - it’s not part of the job”. The National Day of Mourning is not only an opportunity for us to remember and honour all workers, men and women, who have lost their lives, been injured or fallen ill, but also an opportunity for us to renew our commitment to improving workplace health and safety to help prevent future tragedies.

More and more, people are recognizing the seriousness of the impacts of workplace harassment and violence. Many individuals are speaking out against these unacceptable behaviours and many employers are taking action as a result of the stories that are being told, but we still have a long way to go. Employers still need to do more. They need to take strong action to ensure that workplace culture does not tolerate this behaviour, respond quickly when the incidents do occur, and support the individuals affected. They must also take measures to ensure it does not happen again.

Our government is taking action for federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces, but we know the governments cannot effect change alone. We know that legislation is not enough. We have said, and my minister has been incredibly strong on this aspect, that what we need right now is a cultural shift to stop these unacceptable behaviours in the workplace. It will take us all working together to make that happen.

Changing the culture will require everyone to do their part. That means zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour anywhere and everywhere. It means all Canadians should feel safe and empowered to speak up when they see or experience something. We know that in federally regulated and parliamentary workplaces, the measures in Bill C-65 will help make these things possible, and we hope the bill will serve as an example of what it means to foster workplaces free of harassment and violence.

What is good for Canadian workers is good for Canadian business. We know that measures to prevent and effectively deal with harassment and violence directly result in increased productivity and retention of talent. It is about creating the kinds of workplaces in which the best and the brightest can thrive. Addressing harassment and violence is a big part of that.

For these reasons, we are calling for the continued support of Bill C-65 in the House. Simply put, support for the bill is the right thing to do for Canadian workers, Canadian businesses, and Canada as a whole.

With the passage of Bill C-65, we expect to see more people come forward and speak out against harassment and violence. There is no doubt there will be some uncomfortable discussions as we re-examine our behaviours and create new policies and tools to support more inclusive, safer workplaces free from harassment and violence. In the long term, we expect to see better outcomes for all employers and Canadians alike, real change and real progress in our society. Our hope is that the law will set the example and the standard for fairness and harmony in all workplaces in Canada.

Workplace harassment and violence is an issue that crosses all party lines, and we have certainly demonstrated that with Bill C-65. We are on the right path. Harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, must stop in our country, and we need to prevent it from happening in the first place.

I am confident that what we have heard to date on harassment and violence in the workplace will encourage the members of the House to continue to support this important initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, for his speech on Bill C-65, which we have started debating at third reading today.

My question has to do with the substance of the bill. All of the witnesses we heard in committee agreed that there needs to be a definition of workplace harassment and violence. Our NDP colleague proposed an amendment that would have created a broad definition, with a clear distinction between harassment and violence. Unfortunately, this amendment did not receive support, even though it would have given this bill some teeth.

Since the government did not tell us why in committee, I would like to know why the government created one definition that includes harassment and violence, even though these are two different concepts. Are they not concerned that this will create confusion in relation to other sections of the Canada Labour Code? Should the Senate not clearly review the definition of harassment and violence and separate the two?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague, who has been in the House for quite some time, for his contribution to this study and to the legislation we are debating here today.

As I said in my comments, we did arrive at a definition. As is often the case in committee, there is testimony that goes through the whole spectrum. Some witnesses felt there should not be a definition at all, but if there were, then the broader the better, and others put forward some suggestions as to what should be included in the definition.

If I could read it into the record again, the definition that was arrived at was:

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.

We wanted to make sure that the definition was broad enough. If we are too specific within the legislation, the government would be handcuffed and may have to go back to change the legislation.

When we look at this particular issue, who would have thought five years ago that cyber-bullying in the Twittersphere would become an egregious platform for attacking and harassing individuals? Things change over the course of time.

We wanted to keep the definition broad enough to provide the continuum for unacceptable behaviours. Within the definition, we included that continuum as to what is deemed unacceptable.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will support the spirit and principle of Bill C-65, a bill that every party had a hand in. It was an onerous task that required a lot of extra hours in committee. We could have spent those hours in our ridings, but we spent them here in Ottawa working on Bill C-65.

There is something that I would like to address. I am not sure whether it is a misunderstanding or a matter of stubbornness, but in the bill the Liberals completely excluded the joint workplace health and safety committees from the complaint and investigative processes. Several witnesses, including representatives from unions and law firms, told us that it was important to maintain the joint workplace safety committees. They even offered a logical solution. They argued that confidentiality would be breached upon the filing of a complaint of abuse, harassment, or sexual harassment or during an investigation. They also floated the idea of creating a code of ethics in order to truly ensure victims' confidentiality.

I would like to know why the government insisted on completely eliminating from the Canada Labour Code the interaction with the joint workplace health and safety committees, thereby shutting them out of the complaint and investigative processes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Jonquière, not just for the question but also for her hard work. As she indicated in her comments, there were additional hours and meetings held. I also want to thank the NDP for moving the motion that this piece of legislation move along with the support of the opposition parties.

With regard to the workplace committees, as testimony was being presented, we heard pros and cons on both sides of the issue. We believe that the workplace committees can play a very important and productive role when we are looking at developing prevention policy, the mandatory elements of the prevention policy, and identifying the competent persons. There was quite a bit of discussion around competent persons, and we believe that the workplace committees have a very important role within that. As well, with regard to assisting and implementing the competent persons recommendations, again, we certainly felt that was an important role, as well as in the reporting of incidents.

We want to make sure that persons feel comfortable and confident that when their concern is brought forward, it will be dealt with expeditiously, that it is going to be dealt with with a great deal of dignity, but as well confidentially. If there were any concern around that, we wanted to make sure that was put at ease by making sure the competent person would deal with that. Then that report will go back to the workplace committee. We thought that was the best way forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the parliamentary secretary for his excellent speech and for all of the work he has done to bring this bill forward.

We all know of this issue of people feeling hesitant to report the number of incidents that take place in the workplace with respect to harassment or sexual harassment. That is unfortunate. I commend the government for bringing forward this legislation, because the government is taking a proactive measure that is going to help create a safe space within which people can report.

I wonder if he could expand on the impact of Bill C-65 with respect to raising awareness and encouraging people who are experiencing harassment to come forth and report that harassment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, for her work on this particular issue. As parliamentarians, we want to make sure that we get this right. I know she has been charged with the task of pulling together an approach on behalf of our party, and she has invested a great deal of time and energy on making sure that we get that right.

It is essential to the legislation, the bill, and the issue, that people feel confident in coming forward. The one thing we heard consistently throughout the testimony was that there are a great number of incidents that are never reported to supervisors. Sometimes the supervisor is the perpetrator of the harassment. There has to be that vehicle and that opportunity to bring it forward, and that is inherent. The amendments we made in the legislation underline the fact that there is a great deal of confidentiality brought into this.