Patty Hajdu

[Post-Secondary Education, February 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's prosperity does indeed depend on Canadians of all ages getting the experience and the education that they need to succeed. That is why we have increased the amount of support for Canada student grants by 50%. We have ensured that no graduates who apply will have to repay their Canada student loan until they are earning at least $25,000 per year. We have expanded eligibility for Canada student grants and loans for part-time students and students with dependent children. Recently we launched the skills boost plan to give adult learners the support that they need to succeed in the workplace.

By making post-secondary education more affordable for everyone, all Canadians will have that chance—

[Employment, February 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge for his tireless advocacy for accessible education.

As someone who went back to school as a single mom with two kids, I know that adult learners face many barriers to accessing further education. That is why our government has launched skills boost, which is a new plan to give learners the support they need to succeed in the workforce. Through a new $1,600 per year Canada student grant, and new flexibility for EI, going back to school will be within reach for 43,000 more Canadians.

Our government has Canadians covered no matter their circumstances.

[Employment, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Harper Conservative ideology is still alive and well under members opposite. We know that government funding should never go to undermining Canadian's rights and freedoms. While the Conservative leader's campaign manager was arranging internships for organizations that oppose women's rights, the Government of Canada will not be funding them.

Canadians expect that their government will stand up for the rights of women and the LGBTQ2 community, and we will uphold them all the way. That is exactly what this government is doing.

[Employment, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has stated that she would not tick the box to attest to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a woman's right to reproductive rights; however, we know that government funding should never go to actively undermine Canadians' rights. That is why we know, unlike the Conservatives, that organizations like the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform should not be entitled to use jobs for kids money to support their activities which—

[Employment, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, while the member opposite says that she would not attest to supporting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a woman's reproductive right to choose, we know that government funding should never go to undermine Canadians' hard-won rights and freedoms—

[Employment, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our government knows that funding should never go to pay for work that seeks to actively undermine Canadians' rights.

Unlike the Harper Conservatives who had no problem funding groups like the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, who put kids to work distributing flyers featuring graphic images of aborted fetuses, we are committed to protecting Canadians' rights. What is relevant is ensuring that taxpayers' dollars do not go to these activities. Is the member opposite saying that she is opposed to reproductive freedom?

[Employment, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, since 2015, I am very proud that our government has nearly doubled the number of summer jobs for young students all across this country. We have given more young people meaningful work experiences and the chance to enhance their resumés, contribute to their communities, and earn that money they need going forward into their next year of study. The deadline for employers to apply for the next Canada summer jobs period is February 2 and I encourage all employers, especially small businesses, to apply.

[Canada Labour Code, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to those amendments, and of course we will consider them very closely. As I have said, I am open to considering any amendment that makes the legislation stronger, because, at the end of the day, I agree with my colleague. This is about setting a zero tolerance culture for harassment and violence.

In terms of why there is not a definition of harassment in the legislation, we felt it was critically important to include that in the regulations so that as we move forward with different forms of harassment, we can address those quickly and rapidly without having to turn to yet another debate about what harassment is. That is the intent. It was not in any way an attempt to limit the scope of harassment. As I said in my speech, it is the full scope, from bullying all to the way to physical violence or sexual violence.

I will briefly say that with the advent of new forms of social media, such as Snapchat, all kinds of things arise in an employee-employer situation, and we want the flexibility to be able to quickly add other forms of harassment as technology and our culture changes.

[Canada Labour Code, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises an important point. People have to have confidence in the system that is put in place to protect them, and of course, the Senate has its own process and its own timelines.

We believe that education and awareness is a critical component of that, and that includes the people who are doing the investigating and the deciding on cases of harassment and sexual violence. That is why we have focused so much in our legislation on education, on ensuring that there is strong policy, that employers know their obligations, and that employees know their rights.

We look forward to working with the member and hearing her thoughts through the committee process.

[Canada Labour Code, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very important point. Oftentimes those who are victimized are the ones who have the least experience, are the most vulnerable in a workplace, and who have the least security and power. That is exactly what the legislation is meant to address.

First, it sets a framework that focuses on prevention so all people know what their rights are in a workplace and that there is a strong policy in every federally regulated workplace that gives a clear framework for employees and employers about what the code of conduct is and how to prevent this.

Second, it would ensure there would be alternative mechanisms for a person to come forward with his or her complaint, maybe not the employer if the employer is the perpetrator. We have thoughtfully included that. We know that oftentimes, especially in small workplaces, it very well might be the employer who is the perpetrator. Building the obligation of the employer to have a list of alternate people is a critical component in ensuring people come forward.

Finally, the attention we have paid to ensuring privacy is protected is another really important piece of the legislation, one that is worthy of a mention. Many times we have heard that people come forward and they are shamed and stigmatized for their experiences. They are discouraged from moving forward in their career, or may be held back or there may be significant financial consequences. Having a process that ensures privacy of the victim is critically important.