Robert-Falcon Ouellette

[Moose Hide Campaign, October 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Today, thousands of men from across Canada are in Ottawa fasting, not having food or water, to raise awareness in support of the Moose Hide Campaign. We all wear a small square of moosehide. This movement of men, both indigenous and non-indigenous, is about taking a stand against violence against women and children. Top civil servants, military generals, members of the RCMP, parliamentarians, MPs and senators are all fasting and committed to doing what we can to make Canada a better place.

Today, in the House of Commons, I introduced Bill S-215, which is a Senate public bill written by Senator Lillian Dyck. This bill amends the Criminal Code to require a court, when imposing a sentence for certain violent offences, to consider the fact that the victim is an aboriginal woman to be an aggravating circumstance. There have been many recent cases that highlight the low level of respect that some in our society have toward indigenous women, including Cindy Gladue. They seem to just not get it. This bill will go a long way to protecting indigenous women from assault.

Tapwe akwa khitwam hi hi.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, October 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, under the Conservative regime, they started mixing prisoners who should not have been mixed together. That created a very dangerous situation. My brother is a corrections officer, and the Conservatives in that situation made it extremely unsafe in the prison system, and now our government has to spend a lot of time trying to clean up the mess the Conservatives left us after a decade of darkness. It was absolutely horrific. The Conservatives talk about the rights of victims and drape themselves with the victims, but at the end of the day, they created extremely dangerous situations.

I would contend that the situation in the prison at Prince Albert, for instance, was created directly by the regressive policies the Conservatives put in place. In fact, these were so destructive of our corrections system that they created extremely dangerous situations, which led to riots and violence in the system.

We need to look for ways to make the system safer and to make it work for the people working in the correctional facilities and for the prisoners who find themselves there so they can be rehabilitated, because most of them will eventually end up back in society. We need to find ways of making the system work for Canadians, and not follow regressive policies that do not work.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2018]

moved that S-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for violent offences against aboriginal women), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a bill on behalf of Senator Lillian Dyck from the other chamber, which would recognize that indigenous women are often the subject of great violence in our society.

Today in Ottawa, thousands of men are gathering at the Shaw Centre to raise awareness about violence against indigenous women and children, and we are fasting all day long. I wear the moosehide in recognition of that.

I am very proud to introduce this bill so indigenous women across Canada will receive additional protection under the law.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[Canada Labour Code, October 16th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. We know that human memory is very different for different people. The way one person experiences something is very different from any other person. That is important when we look at harassment. As it is defined, for instance, in the military, it is not about the perpetrator but the victim. We have to understand what is occurring if there is perceived harassment or someone feels they have been wronged, or if someone has said something.

In the military I have seen violence and things done against people. Those things could be real and they could be perceived by that person, but it does not matter because they need to be treated with the utmost respect to ensure that the situation is rectified in the long term and does not occur again. At the end of day, we have to ensure that there is a safe workplace so that it accomplish its mission and mandate and is functional, with all employees working together.

[Canada Labour Code, October 16th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the issues surrounding committees, for instance, are very important. In a workplace that is too small, under 20 employees, these things obviously need to be handled with a great deal of delicacy to ensure that everyone's privacy is taken into consideration. There has to be good sense in ensuring that occurs. The bill would bring two disparate ways of doing things under one code to ensure that there is equitable treatment of everyone across the board.

[Canada Labour Code, October 16th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak to other people's experiences; I can only speak to my own. In the workplaces I have been involved in, whether in the military or the University of Manitoba, we have always tried to follow a very high code of conduct, especially at the University of Manitoba. In my time in the military there were times when we sometimes did see behaviour that was not in the best interests of the Canadian state or in accordance with the values of the Canadian people. It was unfortunate. That was early in my career. I remember joining in 1996 and seeing some of those behaviours occurring during basic training. At the University of Manitoba I know there are a lot of codes in place that attempt to get to the nature of this and try to be respectful of people in all ways.

The problem sometimes in the politically charged atmosphere of the House of Commons is precisely that. It is politically charged. The motivations of the people involved make it difficult to come to a resolution on this. That does not mean a resolution cannot happen, but it becomes very difficult, because it is not done in full respect to the people who are involved, the victims, and others who might have been involved in any incident.

[Canada Labour Code, October 16th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his speech.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[Translation]

I am very proud to be here today.

As leaders at all levels of society, as leaders in all organizations, as leaders in our communities, we have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure a harassment- and violence-free workplace. Too many women and men suffer harassment and violence in the workplace, and no one should be exempt.

I am also extremely proud to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-65, which amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, to eradicate harassment and violence from federally regulated workplaces, including the federal public service and parliamentary workplaces.

Bill C-65 draws on existing Canada Labour Code provisions pertaining to violence and sexual harassment to design a comprehensive approach that covers all forms of violence and harassment, from bullying and teasing to sexual harassment and physical violence.

This bill also applies to all health and safety protections, including measures relating to harassment and violence in parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons, and to political staff working on Parliament Hill.

There are currently two separate regimes in place to deal with issues of violence and sexual harassment under the Canada Labour Code. They each have their own requirements and mechanisms for settling disputes, which creates an imbalance in how these matters are dealt with.

The current regimes do not apply to the same workplaces. Current sexual harassment rules only apply in the federally regulated private sector and most Crown corporations, whereas rules pertaining to violence also apply to the federal public service. Neither framework applies to parliamentary employees.

Bill C-65 would create a single, integrated regime to protect all federally regulated employees against harassment and violence in the workplace. As part of the Government of Canada's strategy to combat gender-based violence, the bill proposes a new framework that will prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring, respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur and support victims of harassment and violence while also protecting their privacy. Protecting victims' privacy is extremely important.

More specifically, Bill C-65 would amend the Canada Labour Code to expand the existing violence prevention requirements in part II of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with occupational health and safety; ensure that employers take preventive action and protect employees from harassment and violence at work; and repeal the existing sexual harassment provisions in part III of the code, which deals with labour standards, to create a single integrated regime to protect federally regulated employees under part II of the code.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to require employers, through the regulatory framework and the corresponding regulations, to prevent harassment and violence. This includes ensuring that employees receive training, or even that they take the initiative themselves, and working with employees to develop a harassment and violence prevention policy.

The bill would also require employers to respond to incidents of harassment and violence, within a specified time frame; resolve the complaint and, if a resolution is not possible, designate a competent person to conduct investigations; inform the complainant and, in accordance with privacy measures, update the workplace committee on the investigation; implement the recommendations resulting from the investigation; and record and report all incidents of harassment and violence.

The bill would require employers to support employees who are victims of harassment and violence, as well as protect their privacy, which includes providing assistance and giving access to the workplace committees.

The bill will repeal the sections of the Canada Labour Code that permit exemptions to the establishment of a workplace committee, and will only allow exemptions when there is already a committee with the same health and safety responsibilities. It will broaden the scope of part II of the code to include staff of ministers' offices, who are also known as exempt staff.

The amendments to the Parliamentary Employment Staff Relations Act are extremely important. Bill C-65 would enact part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, which incorporates by reference part II of the code. The act applies to parliamentary employers and employees, without limiting in any way the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Commons and their members.

More specifically, Bill C-65 would amend the act in order to incorporate by reference the provisions concerning workplace health and safety found in part II of the code with certain changes. First, the Deputy Minister of Labour will exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the minister when a member of the Senate or House of Commons is involved. Furthermore, the application of all directions and any appeals of these directions will be undertaken when they are tabled in the House of Commons or the Senate, or both. Appeals of these directions will be referred to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

The bill would amend the act to ensure the protection of parliamentary privileges by stating that all powers, privileges and immunities conferred or imposed may be exercised as long as they do not interfere, directly or indirectly, with the business of the House of Commons or the Senate.

Bill C-65 would require annual reporting and a five-year review, which is also appreciated. More specifically, the bill's proposed amendments will require: the Minister of Labour to prepare and publish an annual report that contains statistical data relating to harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, including parliamentary workplaces; that the harassment and violence provisions introduced in the Canada Labour Code and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act by Bill C-65 be reviewed five years after coming into force and every five years after that and that the responsible minister prepare and table reports on these reviews in every House of Parliament; and that the federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board submit an annual report on its activities under part III of the PESRA and part II of the code as it applies to parliamentary workplaces and that the responsible minister table the report in each of the House of Parliament.

There are 10 Senate amendments of which four will be accepted by the government, one is to be amended and five rejected.

The amendments that are to be accepted will strengthen the legislation to prevent workplace violence or harassment. They are: amendment 3, which will provide greater certainty to those who experience workplace violence and harassment by explicitly stating that nothing in this part shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the rights provided for under the Canadian Human Rights Act; amendment 5(b), which replaces the term “trivial, frivolous, or vexatious” with the term “abuse of process” so as to eliminate negative associations regarding coming forward with complaint; amendment 6 so that the annual report prepared by the minister regarding incidents of workplace harassment and violence includes information that is categorized according to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act; and amendment 7(a), which will provide greater certainty to those coming forward with complaints, including complaints outside of harassment and violence, that Bill C-65 would not limit one's ability to take a case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Amendment 4 is to be accepted with amendments. The suggestion from the Senate is to add two paragraphs to clause 3 of the bill. We are rejecting these two amendments and renaming them. The addition of these names aligns with the intent of Bill C-65 regarding the training of designated persons to whom complaints can be made.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendment 1. Replacing the word “means” with “includes” would result in a lack of clarity for both employers and employees.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendment 2. In focusing on harassment and violence, it would create an imbalance relative to all of the other occupational health and safety measures under part II of the Canada Labour Code.

We propose that the paragraph from amendment 4 be deleted because the addition of the proposed paragraph would mean that a single incident of harassment and violence in a workplace would be considered a violation of the Canada Labour Code on the part of the employer, which would undermine the framework for addressing harassment and violence that Bill C-65 seeks to establish.

[Global Warming, October 15th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, in 2008, the Conservatives had the opportunity to bring forward a plan, and they did. It was called “turning the corner”, turning the corner into a brick wall and doing nothing for another 10 years. Another decade of darkness.

Incredibly, when we came to power upon election in 2015, we took a leadership role to tackle climate change, proudly playing a stronger role internationally to help negotiate an ambitious Paris Agreement. Unlike Prime Minister Harper, we signed the Paris Agreement and started working to come up with a national strategy to protect the environment and stop climate change. We negotiated Canada's fairest ever national climate plan, the first ever in Canadian history. Stephen Harper had 10 years to do something, but he did nothing. This is the first time anyone has ever negotiated anything related to climate change.

We worked together with the provinces and territories in December 2016 on a plan to meet or exceed our Paris Agreement commitments. Only Conservative-run provinces have not signed on or have reneged on their commitment. Manitoba originally participated, but now it has pulled out. It has reneged on its honourable word, and we are jeopardizing the work of many Canadians who have worked many years on this file, and we are jeopardizing the future for our children.

[Global Warming, October 15th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, incredibly, in Manitoba, the government had been in place for 17 years before the Conservatives came to power. I think at that point it had been an NDP government that had run out of steam, its members were fighting among themselves, and it was time for a change. It could have been anyone leading that party, but anyone would also understand that we need to be working on the climate change issue and it is simply not just burying our heads in the sand waiting for something to happen.

I think a lot of people in Manitoba were quite disappointed that the leaders of the province of Manitoba did not take the opportunity to continue to implement and move forward to honour their word that they gave all Canadians. They made their word in a throne speech. They promised Manitobans that they would do something on a price on pollution to make a difference for Manitobans, and to make a difference for our children. In fact, they did not do that. They went back on their word, they reneged on what they were supposed to be doing, and as a Manitoban, I am upset.

[Global Warming, October 15th, 2018]

Madam Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

The member for Kingston and the Islands reminded me of something that was taught to me just last week by a lady called Cindy Blackstock, who was fighting for children in Canada, indigenous children mainly, looking at children who were in care.

One of the things that Ms. Blackstock said last week in Manitoba, when she came to Winnipeg to accept the Canadian Gandhi award from the Canadian Gandhi association, was that we always needed to look at all government policy through the eyes of children to understand what the impacts would be on children. She did not believe that we did that often enough or we did not mention them enough in our speeches. She questioned how many speeches were given in which the word “children” was used. I am proud to say that the member for Kingston and the Islands used “children” in his speech, so I appreciate that.

One of the things we have in the indigenous tradition is we try to think for seven generations. Thinking about seven generations into the future is extremely important. However, my colleague for Kingston and the Islands said that we were the first generation to feel the impacts and we would be the last generation to have the chance to do something.

I believe that our children will also have the chance to do something about this, that they will have the ability to make a change in this world. It is never ever too late, even though we will see substantial changes in our climates, we will see substantial changes in the ways of life of many people around the world, not only in Canada but in other countries in developing nations. In more developed nations people will suffer greatly because of climate change, but we will always have that opportunity to try to make the world a better place.

I would like to address some of the issues that are facing Manitobans. I would like to talk about the things that have recently occurred.

In the 2016 election, the premier, or the Conservative leader at that time, ruffled some feathers in his own party by putting forward in his election platform that he would have a price on pollution. He decided to put that in his platform because he thought it was good government policy. As I had already been elected to the House, I also thought that was very good. In negotiations in 2016 into October 2017, Premier Pallister finally announced that they would put in place a price on pollution at $25 a tonne. It would also include other measures for energy efficiency, trying to save the environment.

Manitoba, also around this time, released a legal opinion that the federal government had the authority to enact this price on pollution. The government spent a lot of time negotiating that, and I was proud of our Minister of Environment who spent a lot of time on this. We were able to obtain an agricultural exemption for farmers, ensuring farmers would not be adversely affected by this.

Incredibly, just a little while ago, after a meeting with Ford and Moe, the two premiers from Ontario and Saskatchewan, the tone seemed to have changed. Instead of having a tone of wanting to working together, it became one of ideology based not on the needs of our children or the needs of this world, but on the needs of an electoral ideology and political expediency. It is strange that all Pallister talked about was his price on pollution. He knew it was very important and he talked about it. However, he then became upset when we continued to talk about a price on pollution. Perhaps the Premier of Manitoba wants the climate of Manitoba to become the climate of Costa Rica, but at the end of the day we need to ensure we have stable climates around the world for all of us.

In British Columbia, we have seen a price on pollution that is good for climate policy. In 2008, there was a charge that was introduced on gasoline. This led to a reduction by more than 10% per capita in British Columbia in the emissions released into the environment. Incredibly enough, the economy grew even though there was a price on pollution. Unfortunately, it did not continue to grow, but it was still there.

The unfortunate thing about a good climate policy is that it will have no parade. There will be no rally. There is no victory parade at the end of the day because it is not very exciting. It is not something we can stand up and say, “Here, look at this piece of paper. This is what we have done”. In fact, we often look out and it has become something very theoretical.

Sometimes, as my other colleagues from Oakville have mentioned, the fires have destroyed many communities. They have ravaged the lives of many people. That is the thing that people have failed to consider when they think about this.

The Conservatives, last year, in a motion in this House, voted to support the Paris Agreement, but incredibly enough, they are doing everything in their power to stop others from accomplishing the objectives in the Paris Agreement. From what I can hear, all the Tories want to do is make pollution free again. Canadians do not want that. Seventy-six per cent of Canadians want us working together. We need to ensure that they have to pay for pollution. From what I can tell, the Conservatives want to take money out of the pockets of Canadians so that they can make pollution free again.

There was a report that came out by an independent Conservative think tank that said that Canadian households would receive more money back in rebates than they would pay in an actual price on pollution. That was an adviser to the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, who thought that would be an equitable and perfect way for the economy to function.

We saw, last week, that Jason Kenney, the Conservative leader in Alberta, rallied against carbon taxes. This was mere days before the economist, William Nordhaus of Yale University, was named the co-recipient of this year's Nobel Prize in economics, recognizing his work establishing that implementation of a carbon price was the most effective way to fight climate change. Jason was in front of a boisterous crowd of more than 1,000, with Mr. Ford, who was also in attendance. They called that the worst idea ever. This rally was a reminder that even as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which released its report, talks about what we have to do, the world is nowhere near doing enough on reducing or mitigating climate change.

We have, in Canada, a lot of work that we need to get done and we do not need Conservatives stopping us from getting that work done. They are there and they are willing to do that. While it might be great for Premier Ford to fight climate change for his electoral base, CNN recently came out with a little study that said there would be a shortage of beer because 17% of the global crop production goes into making the barley and they would see a reduction in the yields of 3% to 17% because of climate change. I hope this will allow Premier Doug Ford to wake up, considering this will actually impact his electorate as well. There will be less beer to drink and the beer will not be a buck a beer, it will be more expensive.

There is an awful lot that our government has been doing, and I can list off four or five pages here of all the things we are doing on the environment, and maybe I will, because it is important. Let us talk about this: $5.7 billion over 12 years, including $2 billion for the low-carbon economy fund; extending tax support for clean energy until 2025 to encourage investment in a clean energy generation and promote the use of clean energy equipment; launching the $1.4 billion low-carbon energy leadership fund to help reduce emissions in provinces and territories, particularly with investments in using energy more efficiently, which saves people and businesses money; helping build a clean economy and reduce polluting greenhouse gases by launching the emerging renewable power program, which will fund projects on renewable energy technologies; spurring innovation by providing financing to support Canadian entrepreneurs of clean technology firms and attracting new business investments in sectors like clean energy, including $700 million in clean technology financing through an agreement with the Business Development Bank of Canada; and being the model for sustainability with greening government, as we are on track to reduce the government's own greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and by 80% by 2050.

This is incredible, and there are also stronger regulations. We are also doing ocean and sea protection. We are doing research and science. We on this side actually believe in science.

The list goes on about the things we are doing. It is not simply about pricing pollution. It is also about the actions we do to help the environment, to save energy, to give jobs in the economy for Canadians and to do this before any other country does this in the world. If we look at what is going on in the world, most countries are not taking enough action. Canada can be a leader but the Conservatives need to get out of the way.