House of Commons Hansard #341 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-378, An Act amending the Canada Labour Code (complaints by former employees), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Chris Bittle LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for her work on this file. The government supports this legislation, and I would like to take a few moments to explain why.
Everyone deserves a healthy workplace where they feel safe. It is a basic right, yet one that many workers are denied. Harassment and violence at work still happen and no workplace is immune to them. No one should face this on the job or anywhere else. The Government of Canada must set an example, and we are. In 2021, we put in place stronger protections against workplace violence and harassment under the Canada Labour Code and its regulations. This historic piece of legislation, Bill C-65, is now better protecting workers from these harmful behaviours, which disproportionately impact women.
To continue improving protections for workers, an important part of this work is monitoring the progress of these new measures. Last year, we published our first annual report on taking action against harassment and violence in workplaces under Canadian federal jurisdiction, which covers harassment and violence reported to employers in 2021. The first report showed that not all workers experience harassment and violence in the same way or to the same degree. This information is critical. With each annual report's findings, we are able to evaluate what is working and identify improvements that will ensure workplaces are safe and healthy across the country.
When occurrences of workplace harassment and violence are reported, it is important that the investigations are truly independent. In 2021, the government set up a registry of workplace harassment and violence investigators to make it easy for employers to identify qualified investigators and better protect federally regulated employees. We currently have 75 qualified investigators listed who can be contracted by employers to lead independent investigations and make a positive difference in the workplace. In March, we launched a selection process to expand our registry of qualified investigators. These additional resources are expected to be made available by June of next year.
We are also investing in partner organization-led initiatives that will help drive culture change in federally regulated workplaces and protect workers from harm. With the workplace harassment and violence prevention fund, we are currently funding seven new multi-year projects and have funded 14 overall since 2019. The three new projects will receive $10.7 million in total funding over three years.
For instance, let us take the project from the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children at Western University. The project will see the creation of specialized resources and training for unions to inform employees of their rights and build workplaces free of harassment and violence. All of the following groups are coming together to make it happen: the subject-matter experts at the Canadian Labour Congress; francophone representatives from Quebec; and FETCO, an employers' organization comprising federally regulated firms within the transportation and communications sector.
We are also providing funding through the “workplace opportunities: removing barriers to equity” program, or WORBE, to help break down employment barriers experienced by women, indigenous people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. Currently, WORBE has a funding envelope of $3 million every year with 11 multi-year projects.
Canada also participates actively in the global effort to cultivate workplaces that are free from fear and intimidation. Earlier this year, the groundbreaking International Labour Organization convention 190 came into force in Canada. Canada played a strong leadership role in the development, adoption and advancement of this convention. It is the first-ever global agreement on ending violence and harassment at work. We joined countries around the world to protect workers and make sure that every workplace is safe and respectful. It is not just a Canadian value that we have promoted. Now it is a protected right.
We have also made progress in supporting the mental and physical health of women at work. We are improving the well-being of nearly half a million workers who may require menstrual products during their workdays by making sure these products are treated like the basic necessities they are. Since December 15, federally regulated employers are now required to provide access to free menstrual products to their employees. This is a big step toward creating a healthier and more inclusive workplace, and we are on our way to accomplishing much more.
In December 2021, we passed a bill to give workers in federally regulated private sector workplaces 10 days of paid sick leave. That bill passed with unanimous consent, because no one should ever have to choose between getting paid and getting better.
Through Bill C-59, we are proposing changes to the Canada Labour Code to create a new three-day leave for federally regulated private sector workers following a pregnancy loss. In the event of a stillbirth, employees would be entitled to take eight weeks off. For most employees, the first three days of this leave would be paid. Dealing with pregnancy loss is hard for employees who experience it and they need support. This new leave would provide employees with greater job security while they recover. It would be available to the individual who is pregnant, the spouse or common-law partner and any person who is intended to be the legal parent of the child.
As everyone can see, we have been working on many fronts to protect workers and make sure that every workplace is safe, healthy and respectful. We have made great progress, but a lot more remains to be done, whether it be through training programs, efforts to eliminate the stigma that prevents workers from speaking up or better resolution processes.
We are all in this together: employers, unions, labour experts and different levels of government. We will continue to work hand in hand to confront, prevent and eradicate harassment and violence in the workplace. When workplaces are safe, it is a win for all of us. Workers can be at their best, employers thrive and the economy benefits.
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑378, which was introduced by our Conservative colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.
Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to thank my staff, since this is the first time that I am rising since the House resumed. Like every other MP's staff, they help us improve our work, give better speeches and better carry out our duties, but most importantly, they help us to provide very important services to our constituents when we are away from our ridings. I am talking here about my political staffers, Daniel Lavallée and Sonia St-Amand, my communications manager, Corinne Guimont, my head of representational work, Michel Kieffer, and my photography and videography manager, Vincent Yergeau. This whole team is managed by an exceptional director, Arianne Collin-Gascon. I tip my hat to them and sincerely thank them for all the work they do behind the scenes to support me in my duties.
Back to Bill C‑378, which would amend the Canada Labour Code by extending the timeframe to file a complaint for harassment or violence in a federally regulated workplace from three months to two years, even after the individual ceases to be employed. The Bloc Québécois supports this initiative to better protect workers who have suffered abuse. Extending the deadline is a significant step forward for people who may not have the strength or support they need to act quickly in the wake of incidents involving harassment or violence.
The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of workers and always will be. We believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois is delighted to see the Conservative Party suddenly taking an interest in workers. We hope that this is not just electioneering and that the Conservatives will continue to put workers first in the coming months. Let us hope that if they do come to power, they will be able to keep from targeting them in the cutbacks they plan to make.
In short, giving victims two years to report incidents of violence or harassment recognizes that victims of trauma may need more time before they are ready to file a complaint and take action. This is about respect for trauma victims. These people may, in some cases, need more time to finally be able to speak out. They often experience psychological and physical pain in the months following an incident of this kind, and they often do not have the strength to take action or defend themselves. Some may even need to seek medical attention, which obviously makes it even more difficult to file a complaint.
There have recently been some very positive developments for workers under federal jurisdiction, with the historic and unanimous vote in favour of Bill C‑58 prohibiting the use of scabs. By extending the statute of limitations, we are showing kindness and understanding towards those who have experienced these hardships. It shows concern for the victims, a sense of empathy that should always guide our decisions and legislation as legislators.
It is worth remembering that, in 2018, the government passed Bill C‑65, which strengthened the provisions on workplace harassment and violence. Updated definitions were added to control this kind of unacceptable behaviour more effectively. The definitions in question include any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that causes offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee. That encompasses all types of harassment and violence, even domestic violence.
I would now like to raise a matter of concern to me. Federal public services and Crown corporations are the sectors where incidents of harassment and violence occur the most often.
In 2023, the Department of Employment and Social Development tabled its annual report entitled “2021 Annual Report: Taking Action against Harassment and Violence in Work Places under Canadian Federal Jurisdiction”. I will talk about that later.
The Department of Employment and Social Development identified 4,950 reported incidents in 2021. The federal public sector and the banking sector alone account for nearly half of the reported cases, which is a very significant proportion. These numbers are troubling, if not alarming. That is why it is so critical that this limitation period be extended.
Before I conclude my speech, I would like to talk about an article I saw in this morning's newspaper. Maka Kotto, a former Parti Québécois minister, wrote this very moving article, which aptly summarizes what is happening in the House. He talked about the sometimes disgraceful comments and gestures that are made and the totally inappropriate attitude sometimes shown by members of the House, or certain members.
One point he made in the article was that bringing back dignified debates, where differences are expressed respectfully, is the only way to restore public confidence in our institutions. Everyone should read this article by Maka Kotto, a former Parti Québécois minister.
To wrap up, this bill is an important step toward greater justice for victims. It is time to recognize psychological wounds, which are not always obvious, and to take time to heal them. It is also time to recognize that federal workers deserve all the protection we can offer them with this legislative adjustment.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-378, an important bill. It recognizes that the impacts of workplace harassment and violence endure after employees have left a job, and extends their ability to seek recourse and accountability.
As the mental health critic for the NDP, it is important and critical that we advocate for the rights and well-being of workers, especially their mental health. This is a critical bill to ensure we work toward supporting workers who have been impacted in the workplace, so they have enough time to process their trauma and bring forward a complaint when they are ready. This is a crucial change to that and it would allow workers more time to do that by extending the period to two years.
We know that most adults spend more of their waking life at work than anywhere else. Therefore, workplaces have an essential role in the mental health of Canadians. We certainly know that here. Toxic workplaces that fail to take action to prevent or stop harassment or violence contribute to mental health problems that have an enormous cost for workers, families and Canada as a whole.
According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, 14% of employees do not think their workplace is psychologically healthy or safe at all. About 30% of short and long-term disability claims are attributed to mental health problems and illnesses. The total cost from mental health problems to the Canadian economy exceeds $50 billion annually.
In 2011, mental health problems and illnesses among working adults cost employers more than $6 billion in lost productivity from absenteeism, presenteeism and turnover. According to a study by Mental Health Research Canada, 22% of respondents report being exposed to trauma at work; 20% of respondents indicate that the nature of their job involves unavoidable risk to psychological harm; two-fifths of respondents, 38%, are still impacted by their trauma, while half, 48%, have recovered from it. Clients, 46%, co-workers, 29%, and direct managers, 27%, are the most frequent sources or workplace trauma. Twenty-seven per cent of respondents indicate that people at work do not often or always recognize the importance of protecting the physical safety of employees and 45% indicate the same about protecting the psychological safety of employees.
We know that workers face significant barriers in bringing forward complaints regarding workplace harassment and violence, including fear of reprisal, loss of their livelihood and impacts on their career trajectory. I will talk about a couple of cases in my riding, which I heard at committee as well, in a moment.
For some workers, it is only possible to come forward once they have left an unhealthy workplace. Therefore, it is essential to remove barriers for former workers to bring forward complaints. Otherwise, harassment and violence can continue unchecked at toxic workplaces. If there is no accountability, there is no push for change.
A deficiency of the bill is that it would only apply to harassment and violence, It would not allow workers to make complaints regarding other actions that may impact their psychological well-being, such as discrimination and unfair dismissal. Therefore, I am hoping that at committee consideration will be made to expand the types of complaints workers can make. However, the bill could also be improved to provide clear timelines and procedures to ensure that former employees do not have to endure prolonged stress because of delays in resolving their complaints.
I was fortunate to serve on the government operations committee for a couple of years. We were in the process of going through Bill C-290, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I had the opportunity to listen to witness testimony about workers who were subjected to terrible workplace trauma and a lot of mental health-related issues. I see my friend from the Conservative bench, who sat with me on that committee, nodding. We heard about the trauma experienced by Luc Sabourin, who worked for the government. Workers were literally torturing him. When he left, the process took a long time, and it is still taking time. Luc is still going through the process of recalling what happened to him.
Going through that process can take a long time, when people have been traumatized, to roll out the facts, to reassess, to seek professional support, to get the guidance they need, to ensure they get the counselling they need, first and foremost, and when they make a complaint, to ensure the complaint is just. We want justice here. That is what we all commit to when we walk into this place.
Another situation that surfaced in my riding over the summer, a really difficult situation, was the lack of safeguards for temporary foreign workers and the lack of recourse for them. We found out that workers at the San mill in Port Alberni were living in inhumane conditions.
I will read a quote from CHEK News that interviewed Joe Spears, who was working as the San Group's general manager of terminals. Workers were washing dishes in and drinking water from a creek. They literally had no drinking water in their accommodation. At one time 30 people were living in an Adco-style trailer. When the news media reported on it, 16 workers were living in inhumane, mouldy conditions. The sewer was running underneath and was leaching into one of the bedrooms. It was absolutely disgusting. It was a horrific scene.
The company tried to say that it was not its problem because it was not required to provide accommodation for these temporary workers under its current permit. However, it was still charging them, $350 each, to live in this trailer. I was told that the rent was going to go up to $500. We also learned that they were not paid what they had been promised, never mind the hours that they were promised. There was discrepancies left, right and centre.
These workers were enduring trauma after coming to Canada, with the lack of safeguards to protect them and the inability of government to respond to support these workers. Joe Spears, when asked by CHEK News about where they were washing their dishes, said, “This is where they chose to wash their dishes.” He went on to say, “If someone chooses to use water, maybe in Vietnam that's an acceptable practice, that's normal housekeeping.” He was alluding to the fact that these Vietnamese workers would rather use an outdoor runoff from a stream than have a running water.
It is unbelievable that a private sector company would put its employees through this trauma. Those workers were left with nowhere to go. The Salvation Army went in and protected those workers. It removed them from the site and found them temporary accommodation. However, it took a couple of months before they received their open work permits and were finally able to get a better start.
It is taking a long time to actually get the full story from these workers as more and more things are surfacing. Language barriers are contributing to the fact that we are not hearing about all the different things they endured through their working time at this mill in Port Alberni.
We have to do better to protect workers. When we look at temporary foreign workers, there is no program for the federal government to respond, to find housing for workers who have been treated poorly, and nowhere for them to get the right supports. The government supports for temporary foreign workers, when they have endured harm in the workplace, are not there.
I was disappointed with the Conservatives. They are bringing forward this bill today, and I am grateful for that, but they were nowhere to be found when this story came out. The Conservative leader was at that mill, talking about the workers and standing with the owners of the mill, but he was nowhere to be found when this terrible situation happened.
I have to bring this to the floor of the House of Commons, because we should never allow this to happen again. I am grateful for this legislation, and look forward to it getting to committee.
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for introducing Bill C‑378. Well done.
The bill is an exceptional piece of legislation by another Conservative MP trying to enhance the rights of workers across the country. There has actually been a long history in the current Parliament, where the NDP-Liberal government has not acted to protect workers; in fact it has been Conservative MPs who have stood up to try to make sure that workers are protected.
A number of bills have been put forward by Conservative MPs to improve the lives of workers, in addition to this fantastic bill; for example, there is Bill C-228 by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, which would actually protect workers' pensions. It has been a long-standing problem in this country that a company would go bankrupt, workers' pensions would be unsecured creditors and their pensions would disappear. In nine years of an NDP-Liberal government, no action was taken on that. It took a Conservative member of Parliament to say we need to protect workers and this has to change.
There is also Bill C-241, brought forward by the member for Essex, which would allow tradespeople to deduct their travel costs for going to work. It is common sense. If a CEO can write off the cost of their private jet, then why can a worker not write off the cost of their travel as they go out to try to earn an income. Again, during nine years of a NDP-Liberal government, this is something that had no action. A Conservative member of Parliament stood up to make that change.
I also want to mention Bill C-409, brought forward by the member of Parliament for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. We have heard a lot from the NDP, and silence from the Liberal government, about how flight attendants were ending up working, on average, 30 unpaid hours per month. The NDP-Liberal government did absolutely nothing. The New Democrats talked a bit about it and tabled petitions and other things.
However, it took a Conservative member of Parliament to put forward a bill that would change the Canada Labour Code to define what constitutes work for flight attendants so they would no longer be sitting on a plane waiting for it to back up or waiting for it to take off, and not get paid. We heard horror stories of flight attendants who would show up for work but the flight was delayed and they would be there, would time out for their shift and then go home and not be paid. It was outrageous, and the NDP-Liberal government just let that go on for the past number of years, with no action.
This brings me right back to the fantastic bill before us that has been put forward by my colleague. This is a very serious matter. People who are the victims of harassment or violence at work are victims. They have been traumatized. The Canada Labour Code was only allowing them three months after they left work to file a complaint. These are people who are vulnerable and probably are not in a position to make that decision. Once again, a Conservative member of Parliament had to step in to make that change.
The Liberal government tried to make some changes under Bill C-65, where the victim could apply to extend the three-month timeline. Imagine that: Victims would actually have to apply to extend the deadline. The burden would be on the employee to make the justification for a new deadline. They would have to file an application, explain the trauma and ask for an exemption. The Liberals thought this would well serve the victims of harassment or violence, but it actually would have done nothing of the sort. Imagine having to give deeply personal details to someone to see whether they would let them file a complaint after three months.
It was very thin gruel for the victims. Therefore I want to congratulate again my colleague for seeing the problem, coming up with the solution and making sure that people who suffer these outrageous acts would now have up to two years to file their complaint.
It is a pattern we have seen well established in Parliament, that the NDP-Liberal government talks a very good game about protecting the rights of workers, but they do not actually deliver the results that are required. Therefore it has taken a series of Conservative bills to actually make incredible differences in the lives of workers, including the bill before us here today.
I understand that there is support for the bill to pass, which is wonderful, but it always leaves me this question: After nine years of an NDP-Liberal government, why did it take so long for it to realize this was a problem? It is because the government is really not governing the country well on this and on a whole host of other issues. As opposition members, we have a limited ability to try to clean up the messes that are left by the government, and we have done that with a series of bills that actually are going to make substantial differences.
We hope that the bill before us is going to be fast-tracked through Parliament. Let us get it to committee, get it studied and get it passed. We do not have a huge amount of time in Parliament left for it to pass, so we want to make sure that the piece of legislation can go to the Senate and receive royal assent. I hope it is going to pass through committee very quickly.
I would also hope that when Bill C-409, the fairness for flight attendants act, comes up for second reading and a vote, it also goes to committee expeditiously, because it is an incredibly difficult circumstance that flight attendants have right now across the country, and labour has not really had the friendliest of governments.
There was recently a section 107 referral by the government with respect to the resolution of the rail dispute. The right to strike is constitutionally protected; the Supreme Court said that in 2015, and the NDP-Liberal government said it was going to make a referral and take away the workers' ability to go on strike. Once again we have an NDP-Liberal government that claims to be friendly for workers, but it has taken—
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Speaker, now I am being heckled by a Liberal member of Parliament because I am standing up for the rights of workers. One cannot make this stuff up, and 10 minutes from now the member will be saying that the Liberals are so friendly to labour and are the ones who stand up for labour, when in fact they do not.
I just want to say once again again that I congratulate my colleague for putting forward a strong bill to protect victims, to protect workers. Conservatives will always stand for workers and victims.
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this morning. This is the first time I am rising since Parliament resumed. I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleagues a good return. The session may be cut short. We shall see what the next few days and weeks bring. We are being kept in suspense. In any case, according to the media, the suspense is rather intense right now.
I truly hope, as my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said earlier, that we will be able to soften the tone a bit this fall and focus on working for the well-being of Quebeckers and Canadians. I hope we can do that. It is not easy, judging by the tone we heard all last week, but I truly hope that we can do it. I think it is possible. I think we have elevated the debate before, and I hope we can do so again.
Before I continue, I would also like to congratulate the candidates and winners of last week's two by-elections, in which I was an active participant. I commend all of the candidates. In this day and age, putting one's face on posters and wanting to work for the common good takes courage, no matter which party someone is seeking to represent. Not everyone here shares the same vision for the common good, but I think that most of us are trying to work toward that. Everyone who ran in the two by-elections did so with that goal in mind, and I commend them for that. I especially want to congratulate the two winners, the NDP candidate who won in Manitoba and, obviously, the Bloc Québécois candidate who won a great victory. We stayed up very late last Monday evening, until 2:30 in the morning, to find out the results, and the Bloc Québécois won. That is a great victory. I look forward to our new candidate's arrival in the House. He is a bright, intelligent young man who is full of ideas and who will rise in the House to strongly defend the interests and values of Quebeckers. I am sure that he will. We will see when he arrives.
I am delighted to speak to the bill tabled by my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I am fond of my colleague. I am not so fond of the Conservative Party's ideas in general, but I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I rise today in support of Bill C‑378, an important bill to protect the rights of federally regulated workers. It would extend from three months to two years the period during which a former employee may file a complaint for harassment or violence in the workplace.
As members know, the Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of workers' rights. Before the summer break, much was said about the anti-scab bill. The NDP had tabled the bill, and it was finally passed. Obviously, we supported it. In fact, over the past 30 years, the Bloc Québécois has introduced anti-scab bills 11 times. We settled this issue in Quebec 50 years ago. This happens all the time in the House. The House has debated countless bills on issues that Quebec has already dealt with. Take child care and pharmacare, for example. Quebec addressed both of those a long time ago. However, here they are still being debated. The Bloc Québécois members often feel as though we are working to help Canada catch up with Quebec. That is what we are doing most of the time.
Yes, we have always been staunch defenders of workers, and we firmly believe that this bill represents a major step forward in the fight against harassment and violence in the workplace. It is high time we recognized that victims of these kinds of incidents need more time to come forward, especially in cases where they are under tremendous psychological or physical stress.
Currently, federally regulated employees have only three months to file a complaint after leaving their job. This is simply too soon for many victims. The consequences of harassment and violence in the workplace do not disappear overnight. Too often, victims of workplace harassment or violence continue to suffer the after-effects long after they have left their job. They face emotional difficulties and mental health issues and, in many cases, are reluctant to speak out against their abusers for fear of reprisals or career stigma. This bill provides a concrete solution to that problem. Extending the time frame to two years gives victims time to heal, catch their breath and find the strength to file a complaint.
Two years is a reasonable amount of time for workers who have been unjustly treated to take the necessary steps to seek justice.
Workplace harassment and violence are not isolated problems. The Department of Employment and Social Development released a report entitled “2021 Annual Report – Taking Action Against Harassment and Violence in Work Places under Canadian Federal Jurisdiction” that revealed some alarming figures. In 2021, employees working in federally regulated industry sectors reported an absolutely staggering 4,950 occurrences of harassment and violence. The federal public service, banks and the transportation sector are among the main sectors where these incidents occur most often.
These figures unequivocally show that the fight against workplace harassment and violence is an ongoing process that is far from over. We need to strengthen protections for workers, and that includes allowing former employees to file complaints long after they leave the company.
It is also important to remember that these incidents often have serious repercussions, not only on the victims' professional lives, but also on their personal lives. The physical and psychological repercussions of workplace harassment and violence can persist long after the incident, which is why this bill is so important. It gives victims more time to come forward.
Passing this bill will send a clear message. Workers in federally regulated sectors deserve a safe and respectful work environment. The Bloc Québécois has always supported measures to protect workers and guarantee decent working conditions. We are pleased to see this bill move forward, just as we were pleased to see Bill C-58, which bans the use of scabs, pass recently. These are historic victories for workers' rights, and we must keep up the momentum.
I would also like to draw a parallel with the bill I introduced with my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, Rhéal Fortin. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I would remind the hon. member, an experienced member of the House, not to use members' names. Rather, members should be referred to by their riding name, as the member mentioned.
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and I introduced a bill to limit the use of the Jordan decision for serious crimes.
These two bills share a common concern: guaranteeing access to justice for the victims. The bills try to correct flaws in the legal system, flaws that, as they stand, can deny some victims the chance to assert their rights.
In the case of Bill C‑378, the purpose is to provide victims of workplace harassment and violence with more time to make a complaint, in order to help them overcome the psychological and administrative obstacles associated with these traumatic situations.
In the case of the proposal to limit the use of the Jordan decision for serious crimes, the purpose is to prevent the accused from evading justice because of excessive court delays. Jordan sets strict deadlines for trials, and it has at times allowed individuals charged with serious crimes to be acquitted, jeopardizing the safety of the victims and the integrity of the justice system.
Both bills seek to restore balance between victims' rights and legal requirements, while preventing procedural formalities from compromising justice. By extending access to justice, in the case of Bill C‑378, and by tightening up the legal loopholes arising from the Jordan decision, these two bills share a vision of a fair, effective justice system centred on the victims' needs.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is proud to support this initiative. We hope that all members of the House can grasp the importance of this legislation to this country's workers. Indeed, there can be no justice without recognition for victims' rights, which is exactly what this bill seeks to achieve.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for her right of reply.
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues' week is off to a good start.
I am delighted by what I am hearing today. Of course, I was equally delighted by what I heard during the first hour of this debate at second reading.
I am very moved to see that Bill C‑378 will probably receive unanimous support. As the bill's sponsor, I find that extremely gratifying, although the spotlight does not belong to me. It really belongs to these former workers. As things stand, they have only three months to file a complaint if they were victims of workplace harassment or violence. Three months is the blink of an eye. It is not enough.
When I was the minister responsible for labour at the Quebec National Assembly, I reviewed all of the labour standards, and I worked very hard to ensure that this aspect was reviewed and corrected in workplaces to ensure that, in Quebec at least, the time frames are the same for former employees as they are for current employees. Here, in the federal government, current employees are not held to any limitation period, unlike former employees who have only three months, which is obviously not enough time.
Unlike what the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles suggested, this is not a new-found interest for me. I am grateful for his support, of course, but he implied that the Conservatives have just developed a new-found interest in the cause of workers. That is not true at all. I can prove that this has been an ongoing interest and concern of mine over the past few years. My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon also articulated that very well. Conservative members have introduced many private members' bills in the House to greatly improve the situation of workers in federally regulated workplaces.
I am very pleased with the unanimity we have in the House. Even though our debates can sometimes get a little heated, we are also able to share a common vision and work to keep protecting employees.
The government had already included the possibility of extending the time limit by three months. In other words, the government already knew that the short time frame might be challenging for the victims who want to make a complaint. We know how long it can take for a person to realize they have been a victim of harassment or violence in the workplace. Often, in the span of three months, there is not enough time for the individual to realize they were victimized. Then the deadline expires and, ultimately, the person has no recourse. Two years is patently a reasonable amount of time.
I will close by quoting Cindy Viau, director general of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement au travail for the province of Quebec, who said the following about the two-year time limit that exists in Quebec and that I want to implement here:
In addition, at the provincial level, we note from our experience that very few people who contact us find it difficult to initiate the complaint process within the two years set out in the Act respecting labour standards. Since the time limit was changed in 2018, we have only on very rare occasions had to explain to a victim that they had missed their deadline to file a complaint.
All that to say we are on the right track. We have a good objective, a common goal to protect workers from harmful workplace behaviours like harassment and violence. It is the least we can do to give a full two years' recourse to those who have left their jobs.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote, please.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest we suspend for 10 minutes and begin at 12 o'clock with Government Orders.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
The sitting will now be suspended until noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:52 a.m.)
(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)
The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what I believe to be very positive legislation. I suspect that, if we were to canvass a vast majority of Canadians, they would recognize that what the online harms act deals with is a very positive thing.
I am a bit surprised at the Conservative Party's approach to the legislation. It is important to look at the essence of what the online harms bill attempts to recognize as issues. There are two categories, if I can put it that way, of what one would classify as the harmful contact specifically being dealt with in Bill C-63. The first is intimate images communicated without consent, including sexually explicit deepfakes, and the second is content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor.
I would have thought that all members of the House would support those initiatives. I have heard Conservatives across the way talk about concerns related to them, how offended they are about the issue and the government needing to do something. Now that we have a piece of legislation before the House with which, instead of just talking about it, the Conservatives can actually do something about it.
I was very surprised to read an editorial back in July in the Winnipeg Free Press that the Conservatives not only oppose the legislation, but also, if the legislation were to pass in the House, a Conservative government would repeal it. It would repeal the law. I do not quite understand the logic behind that, and I hope that during questions and comments, a member of the Conservative Party will have the courage to explain to Canadians why Conservatives would oppose this legislation.
I will read from the Winnipeg Free Press article, an editorial that was written July 10. I want to quote the article because the Winnipeg Free Press is very much apolitical and sticks to the facts. I know the facts can be confusing to the Conservatives, but here is what it had to say:
In the current era of partisan politics, [the Conservative leader] and others should recognize it is important to recognize a good idea when it comes along, whoever might pitch it.
And this is still just an idea — the act has not passed and the regulators have not been established. Given its unrealized state, [the Conservative leader's] dismissal is premature.
A spokesperson for [the Conservative leader] said a ‘common sense Conservative government’ would repeal the act. Well, let's take a look at the situation, and determine the good sense of a such a pledge.
According to Statistics Canada, between 2014 and 2022 there were 15,630 incidents of police-reported online sexual offences against children, and 45,816 online incidents of child pornography. The overall rate of police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents in Canada has risen to 160 incidents per 100,000 children between 2014 and 2022 — a 217 per cent increase.
There were 219 reported online hate crime incidents in 2022, up from 92 four years prior. Of those cyber-related hate crimes, 82 per cent were violent.
This legislation deals with issues that are important to Canadians, and the Conservative Party is saying no. Not only are the Conservatives going to vote against it, but if it were to pass, a future “common-sense”, or I would suggest nonsense, Conservative government would repeal the law. I question why.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was trying to pose a question to the opposition about what he wants us to explain. He will get his chance to ask questions of the government when he is sitting in opposition.
The reason we do not have any confidence in Bill C-63 is that the government would be choosing the censors, and the government has failed at everything it has attempted to do. The people have lost confidence in any boards that the government has appointed, the latest being what we are hearing on SDTC.
We do have a bill, Bill C-412, that would protect children. It actually zeros in on the protection of children and proposes specific measures to take to protect them from viewing material they should not be seeing online.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I guess there are now two reasons the Conservatives are opposing the legislation. They have that far-right element, and I am going to a bit kind here, which has a tinfoil impact, where they believe in here and there, and in the stars, and that Canadian rights are being overridden. There is nothing to it.
I can assure the member opposite that she does not need to be fearful. This is not an attack on the far right. This is legislation that a vast majority of Canadians would support. Does she not realize that, by voting against the legislation, she would be voting against protecting a child? She would be voting against prohibiting sexual exploitation through the uploading of intimate pictures on the Internet.
This is legislation that would protect people in many different ways. It would protect people who have been exploited and our children. How can the Conservatives not vote for it? I hope it is not to deal with censorship, as the member opposite tries to say to justify her voting action.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member has heard about an app called Telegram. It has about a billion users, and its CEO was recently arrested in Paris. It is basically an Internet platform for the exchange of people, drugs, guns and pretty well every illicit substance we can possibly think of. I wonder whether the hon. member could address whether this particular legislation may have some effect on gaining Canadian control over those people within our jurisdiction who are on an app such as Telegram.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the legislation is a good, solid first step in addressing, in good part, many of the issues the member has just raised. When I gave some of the statistics I gave about incidents being registered with the police or police reports being filed, those numbers did not reflect the actual numbers as they did not include the incidents that go unreported.
There are so many mischievous players, not only here in Canada but also, even more so, outside of Canada. I look at this legislation as one that ultimately has nothing to do with a person's, or a Canadian's, freedoms or rights. We also have responsibilities, and as legislators, I believe we have to stand up strong to support actions, such as those Bill C-63 is proposing to do, to protect the interests of our children and victims of different forms of sexual exploitation.
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C‑63 is important. Online hate is a major problem for us politicians on a daily basis. There is also the issue of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, child pornography, hate speech and so on. It is a major issue and it needs to be tackled.
I would like to hear my colleague talk about the safeguards that are included in Bill C‑63 to ensure that no one is infringing on freedom of expression. That is always the challenge. Of course, people are spewing nonsense everywhere, and it would be nice if people would stop saying whatever comes to mind on social media. That said, we do not want to limit freedom of expression.
What kind of safeguards are included in Bill C‑63?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that that is why I focused on the two categories in which the legislation would place its attention. I believe that the two categories I referenced as examples, the circulation of non-consensual sexual pictures and child pornography, are fairly clear-cut. I believe that Canadians as a whole, in all regions of the country, would support this particular legislation.
We must have a solid starting point to move forward. Through the creation of the commission and the opportunity for us to review the legislation once it becomes law, I am sure that there would be a number of things put in place to ensure, to say the least, that rights and freedoms would be being protected. We have the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, which, I must say, was brought in by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I do not see an infringement in any fashion with respect to this legislation on a person's rights and freedoms.