Diane Bourgeois

[International Aid, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lewis feels that Canada is not doing enough. An increase between 12% and 15% a year until 2015 would be necessary to meet the UN's 0.7% target. But the latest budget only provides for an 8% increase, which means that the UN target will not be met until 2035.

Will the minister recognize that, at best, even with the funding recently added, the UN target is not likely to be reached until 2028?

[International Aid, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Lewis, the former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, is baffled by the government's resistance to developing a concrete plan to meet the UN target. Regardless of what the Prime Minister may say, Canada's international aid has dropped from 0.44% of GDP in 1993 to 0.30% of GDP in 2005.

Instead of showing off with his friend Bono, will the Prime Minister recognize that, rather than increasing, Canada's international aid has in fact decreased, as compared to 1993?

[Bernard Landry, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great architects of the Parti Québécois has just stepped down from political activity.

Thanks to his determination, Quebec has the political tools to carry us into the future. His unshakeable faith in the ability of the Quebec nation to govern itself and his unconditional attachment to Quebeckers have made him a fierce proponent of sovereignty for our country, Quebec.

He fought in every battle of the past 40 years. An activist, a responsible statesman, and great democrat, Bernard Landry has plowed the fields and sowed the seeds of our future. He has laid the foundation that will lead Quebec to national independence and one day the people of Quebec will reap the benefits.

The members of the Bloc Québécois wish this great citizen and his wife a long and peaceful retirement and sincerely hope they will continue to support the people of Quebec along the path to its destiny.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond. She is right. Since the year 2000, when I became a member of Parliament, people have come to me to report cases of psychological harassment. I have several federal institutions in my area. Obviously, it was through the people who work there that I got interested in this issue of psychological harassment. I have used all the means I could to uphold the rights of the victims whose harassment has been recognized by the institution, but who have yet to win their case.

As I said, the policy is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese. The Treasury Board has used it as an incentive to encourage federal managers to try to prevent psychological harassment. This is not a bad idea. It has many positive aspects. But the managers use it however they please.

Earlier, I provided figures on the departments that do or do not implement this policy and on those that have their own. This does not make sense. There is a lack of consistency. The manager is the one who decides whether there is psychological harassment. In all the cases I mentioned earlier, and in all departments, it turned out that it was the manager who was guilty of harassment.

That being said, there is no other legislation to help people who have been waiting for a decision for five or six years. Only one aggrieved employee, Joanna Gualtieri, has received compensation of $8 million from the government, once her complaint was recognized. But the others cannot fend for themselves. With legislation, though, we could help them, and justice could be done.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to your caveat on this bill. However, we could look at the Labour Relations Board, which already has commissioners who could be given the mandate proposed in the bill. As for the representatives of the employees and the employers, in its process, the commission already calls on their services. I just wanted to remind you of that. It might not involve any spending.

Although a policy already exists in the federal public service to address psychological harassment in the workplace, the fact is its application is inconsistent, or inadequate. As a result, there is serious harm and injustice done to employees or managers who, through no fault of their own, are victims of harassment.

There are many examples of these victims who, for lack of specific measures that should be introduced by the employer, or out of fear, have not reported the harassment they have suffered and end up unjustly punished. There are also many examples of victims who have filed a complaint and had it ignored or mishandled, or have lost their job as a result.

In recent years, I have met a number of these victims and tried to help them. Having studied their cases, as well as the numerous other cases that are not yet settled, I am presenting this bill.

The present policy has been in place since 1994. There have been a few changes, but it still continues to allow unacceptable behaviour, because of incorrect enforcement and the fact that it does not ensure objectivity in handling complaints. The process is left to managers, and these are often the ones who abuse the power of their position or are unaware of what harassment really is.

At the present time, this is the process: there is a policy in place and the employee who has been harassed contacts his or her immediate superior, in order to have the complaint handled, a complaint filed in writing and in the prescribed form. But then it is that immediate superior who decides whether or not there has been harassment.

If that superior was the one guilty of the harassment, he will decide there is no case. The person then has to move up to the regional level. What does that level do to find out what happened? Contacts the immediate superior, the one who has decided the complaint of harassment was unfounded. Then the person can move on to the third level, which is the deputy minister or the department. Once again, the immediate superior will be consulted.

If the immediate superior decides that the complaint is justified, does he have the necessary expertise to handle it? Not likely.

At the present time, 40% of departments have adopted the Treasury Board policy in its entirety, in June 2001. Approximately 15% have opted for appending the policy to a document which explains the position of the department and its process for handling complaints. Only 45% of departments have chosen to distribute a distinct policy to their employees.

I am aware of some psychological harassment cases that have been dragging on for four or five years at the departments of Justice, Citizenship and Immigration, Correctional Services, National Defence, Transport, Health, Environment and Industry.

Crown corporations are also subject to the Canada Labour Code and their employees are also victims of psychological harassment, for example, Bell Canada, Canada Post, Statistics Canada, the National Capital Commission, and NAV CANADA, a former division of Air Canada.

Already here, we have an initial example of the cause of the problem: Treasury Board has set a policy that is not being applied properly. Furthermore, there is no obligation to act, no guarantee that the departments will correctly and adequately apply such a policy and that the complaint resolution process will be in the victim's best interests.

In recent years, there have been a number of studies on the impact of and harm done by psychological violence. The study by the International Labour Office is the most indepth one on the subject. It describes vertical violence, which is when a person in authority is abusive or bullies a subordinate or a peer. Such an individual, through vindictive, cruel, malicious or humiliating behaviour, seeks to belittle one or more employees. For example, bullies make life difficult for anyone able to do their job better than they can; they yell at their employees; they insist that their way is the only way; they refuse to delegate work and they take away responsibilities on the pretext that the employee is incompetent. And the list goes on.

There is also horizontal violence, which is psychological harassment by a group of an individual. As a result, a number of people join forces to persecute a specific employee by constantly criticizing them, isolating them, and spreading all kinds of rumours about them.

Managers may face horizontal harassment when they transfer to a given service or department and the employees decide that they do not want the new manager. Just like employees, managers can be victims of psychological harassment by their peers.

In the bill I introduced, psychological harassment is defined in clause 2. It means any behaviour that affects a person's dignity, is vexatious, discredits, humiliates or intimidates the person, interferes with their work, or takes the form of abuse or threats. It also includes any instance where a person feels mistreated, threatened, intimidated or abused in their work environment by vicious rumours, swear words or abusive language.

Such violence in the workplace is due to a combination of factors, including the individual in question, of course, the work environment and work organization. In talking about psychological violence, we are dealing with human beings whose behaviour and reactions are affected by changes and the work climate. Globalization, with all the changes it is bringing about, is coming really close to constituting psychological violence. It is creating added stress, with everyone trying to hold on to their jobs, going as far as discrediting someone else, if need be.

There is a thin line between management and harassment. It is difficult to know whether there is intimidation or violence in the workplace. Numerous studies show that the difference between efficient management and psychological violence is extremely subtle.

However, objective comments designed to provide constructive feedback are generally not considered as psychological violence or intimidation, but rather as tools to help employees improve their performance.

In light of this, it is essential that any harassment complaint be processed expeditiously by a qualified person.

The bill essentially draws on the existing policy. I repeat, the bill essentially draws on the existing policy. It is not that we or I oppose the policy, but it is full of holes, like Swiss cheese. It has no teeth and does not provide victims with any protection.

The bill draws on the policy, adding, in subclause 4 of clause 3, the requirement of due diligence, so that complaints are dealt with quickly. Likewise, clause 5 provides that a person will act as commissioner for the prevention of harassment in the workplace. This person should be disinterested and neutral, someone, who, because of his or her expertise and experience, knowledge of psychological harassment, may appoint, as indicated in clause 8, persons knowledgeable about this problem, to a psychological harassment complaints committee. He or she can deal with complaints, decide and order action so justice may be served. Corrective measures must be taken, and various forms of compensation put forward to ensure the victims receive justice. Subclause 2 of clause 17 gives the commissioner this latitude.

In order to ensure the impartiality of the process, the bill includes in the committee a representative of the union and of the employer. They are included because they are required under existing labour legislation to represent the victim employee. I refer here to the union. They are also included because they have a responsibility to provide employees with a workplace free of harassment. I refer to the employer.

Furthermore, as both are responsible in part for the climate of work in an organization, it is a good idea to include both in the committee. Clause 18 of the bill requires the commissioner to report to Parliament his or her activities arising from the application of this legislation. It is vital to have this independent official report to Parliament. His or her credibility and effectiveness depend on it.

It must be remembered too that parliamentarians are accountable for government's management to the public. So they should know what goes on and how employees are treated.

The bill will also help employees who are victims of harassment by enabling them to protect their health as well as their rights. While awaiting acknowledgement of the merits of their complaint by the committee, employees will be able to file a grievance or take any other recourse provided by federal statute or other legislation in effect in Canada.

Thus, any other employee witnessing a situation of psychological harassment will be required to report the situation so as not to be an accomplice to it.

Psychological harassment is a moral destruction process that can lead to mental illness or suicide. It is a serious behaviour that needs to be dealt with very quickly and cannot be ignored. This is why, under clauses 3(4) and 3(5) of the bill, any manager or supervisor who is aware of such behaviour and does not take appropriate action is liable to criminal prosecution and to a fine.

Finally, the bill amends section 15.1 of the Canada Labour Code to prohibit acts of psychological harassment and thus protect all Canadian workers employed by Crown corporations or Canadian businesses and governed by the Code.

The bill I put forward today is not a partisan bill. I want to make it clear that it is the product of consultations with a wide group of employees who have been victims of psychological harassment, whom I met on several occasions and who helped me draft it with House staff, as well as unions that want to improve the work environment within organizations.

In closing, I will say that, according to the International Labour Office, Canada is fifth among countries where psychological harassment in the workplace is most frequent. Only France and Belgium have dared propose legislation in that regard. If this bill were adopted, we would be the third country in the world to have such legislation. We would be a leader in the protection of workers' rights. Canadian workers would be guaranteed fair and equitable treatment.

What I am asking my colleagues in the House is to pass the bill at second reading so it can be considered in committee and so I can call as witnesses all the employees from all the departments who have to deal with psychological harassment.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, June 2nd, 2005]

moved that Bill C-360, an act to prevent psychological harassment in the workplace and to amend the Canada Labour Codebe read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Terrebonne Stage of the Tour du Grand Montréal, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today was the Terrebonne stage of the Tour du Grand Montréal, considered one of the most important women's cycling events in North America.

Along with our champions, Lyne Bessette and Geneviève Jeanson, over 150 young students from des Affluents school district took part in the Terrebonne stage of the Tour du Grand Montréal. It was an opportunity to compete alongside the greatest female cyclists in Quebec.

I want to congratulate the 175 volunteers who dedicated their time and energy today. Under the supervision of the Terrebonne police force and Vélo Terrebonne, this stage of the Tour du Grand Montréal winds through the magnificent scenery of Île-des-Moulins. For four years now, this event has made Terrebonne one of the top sports cities in Quebec. For one entire day, Terrebonne is the sports capital of Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois congratulates the organizers of this event in the riding of Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Sponsorship Program, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, with such an attitude, the Liberals will lose their confidence vote on May 18.

We have learned that a Liberal Party of Canada supporter, a certain Thalie Tremblay, videotaped spots promoting Liberal MPs on community television. Contrary to what you might expect, she was not paid by the Liberal Party of Canada, but rather by Public Works and Government Services Canada, with Groupaction acting as the intermediary.

Is this not one more example of dirty, illegal, Liberal money—

[Sponsorship Program, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recapitulate a bit: Liberal Party volunteers were paid with the dirty sponsorship money; the Liberal Party violated electoral legislation; the Liberal Party gave contracts to agencies that, in return, fattened the coffers of the Liberal Party. This is the Liberal Party's dirty illegal money scandal.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to keep his word, fulfill his promise and put the Liberal Party's dirty money into a trust fund today?

[Occupational Safety and Health Week, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring to the attention of the House that this is North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. The theme this year is “Equip. Educate. Empower.”

This is an opportunity to stress the importance of Quebec's expertise in occupational health, which is particularly evident in its labour legislation provisions on psychological harassment in the workplace.

This Parliament must correct the current injustice that results in there being two categories of workers in Quebec, those protected from the scourge of psychological harassment by the Quebec legislation, and those who are totally unprotected.

It is my hope that this North American Occupational Safety and Health Week will provide an opportunity for parliamentarians to grasp the full significance of the workplace psychological harassment bill introduced in this House by the Bloc Québécois.