Sylvie Boucher

[Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, February 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I find it very nice every time you try to say the name of my riding because even in Quebec we have trouble saying it.

I thank my Liberal colleague across the way for his speech. I think he really misses Mr. Harper because, from hearing him speak, he talks more about Mr. Harper than about his own party. Mr. Harper is in this room today, because the Liberals miss him.

All joking aside, every time the Liberals talk about two backdoor bills, I must say it shocks me a bit. They claim to be the great defenders of workers. However, for the Liberals, there are two worlds: ministers and others. Each member here in the house is equal. When we claim to defend employees, we should treat everybody equally. The difference between them and us is that we work for real people. I have nothing against people who fight for unions. However, I do not. I will work, first and foremost, for workers.

I would like to know why you always differentiate between the elite and others.

[Ethics, January 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, when someone is found guilty of improper conduct, a sanction or fine is imposed.

In her report on the Prime Minister's family vacation, the Ethics Commissioner clearly found that he broke the law several times, including by accepting this trip offered by a so-called friend, whom he had not seen in 30 years.

The Prime Minister is not above the law; he should be setting an example. When will he do the right thing and reimburse honest taxpayers who should not have to pay for his illegal vacation?

[Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, January 30th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, we are aware of the effects of tobacco, but we know very little about the effects of cannabis.

Unfortunately, someone in my family died because he used too much cannabis. Yes, I am aware of what I said, and I will say it again. In my opinion, cannabis is more of a problem than tobacco, but both are bad for your health.

[Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, January 30th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, young Canadians are above all influenced by the education they receive. They will be exposed to cigarettes, vaping and marijuana. We cannot bury our heads in the sand. Vaping can be a gateway to whatever you want. In the case of young people, the answer is education. We are responsible for their education, as are practitioners, parents and society as a whole.

It is not enough to simply tell our kids to stop smoking or vaping. We must make them aware that there are risks involved with these behaviours. To raise awareness among young people and society as a whole, we need to educate them. Usually, when young adults are told that they should not do something, they do it. It is not enough to prohibit something, we need to explain why. We need to explain the risks so that both young people and parents understand.

I want to stress the fact that education is the answer.

[Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, January 30th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about vaping. This is interesting because vaping is often associated with the bad habit of smoking. According to some available records, it took more than 50 years for people to understand that smoking is a health hazard.

That said, having worked at Health Canada from 2011 to 2013, I want to make a distinction between vaping and cigarette smoking, which is that people can vape with nicotine or with what I call placebos, which come in fruit flavours, for example.

Vaping has been recognized as a way to reduce cigarette use. In 2016, 24 studies, including three randomized clinical trials were reviewed. Two of the trials, with a total of 662 participants, showed that people using e-cigarettes with nicotine were more likely to stop smoking for at least six months, compared with those in the control group, who received a placebo without nicotine. We have to make a distinction between the two.

I fully support Bill S-5 because we need to show people that bad habits are never a good thing. People are replacing cigarette smoking with vaping because it becomes a habit. I have never smoked, thank goodness, but my mother smoked for many years and it had become a habit for her to have something in her hands, like the pencil I am holding right now. However, since my mother now has Alzheimer's she no longer remembers that she was a smoker and has stopped smoking. I think we also need to talk about that.

Most people smoke when they are stressed. There are chronic smokers and those who only smoke socially when they are having a glass of wine or a beer, but regardless, smoking is still a bad habit.

This bill seeks to prohibit vaping in public places where smoking cigarettes is already prohibited. However, I would like a distinction to be made between vaping with nicotine, which is just as harmful as smoking since it replaces cigarettes, can be habit forming, and can damage the lungs and bronchi, and vaping fruity flavours, which is not the same thing.

The bill prohibits the sale of vaping products to young people under the age of 18. If children have access to vaping, they need to be taught that vaping can be habit forming. Not every habit is bad, but smoking and vaping with nicotine can be equally harmful.

It makes me laugh when I hear my colleagues opposite asking us whether vaping can lead young people to smoke cigarettes. We do not want to create habits among young people that could lead to more harmful habits down the road. Vaping can lead young people to smoke cigarettes, just like it can lead them to smoke pot. However, the government failed to mention that.

Today we are talking about how evil cigarettes are, although people rarely talk about marijuana, although I think marijuana is worse than cigarettes, because it directly affects children's brains. That is the topic of another debate.

It must also be said that some people think that e-cigarettes are less harmful and that they reduce exposure to leaf tobacco. If the e-cigarette contains liquid nicotine, it is just as dangerous as cigarettes. It is important to make the distinction, because nicotine is the problem. Vaping is not a problem when there is no nicotine, when the liquid is nicotine free. That is altogether different.

It is important to remember that nicotine is a drug and that it is subject to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act. Its marketing should be overseen by Health Canada based on safety, effectiveness, and quality.

I remember when the debate on vaping first began when I was working at Health Canada. At the time, it was still illegal to sell e-cigarettes in grocery stores and other stores. We wondered how these products were being sold in grocery stores, how people could just ignore it, if that was illegal and if the product was so harmful. It is unacceptable.

Now, we have a bill. I fully support this bill, but I think it needs more teeth. We need to flesh it out. If we want a good bill, we need to send it to committee so that it can be studied in depth.

I was listening to the speeches given earlier. It is true that scientists do not agree. They are all saying something different. They should work together so that we, as legislators, have a better idea of what this bill should seek to accomplish.

I will definitely be voting in favour of this bill because I think that we need to set some limits. Vaping with nicotine is what interests me the most because it is most similar to smoking. However, it is also important to remember that these products are being sold to consenting adults. It has been proven that vaping exponentially reduces the urge to smoke. I worked with a friend who smoked for 40 years. She was my assistant manager. She smoked three packs a day. That seems like a lot of cigarettes to someone like me who has never smoked. She started vaping and two months later she had quit smoking entirely, so vaping can be beneficial for some.

Now, we need to ensure that the legislation covers all aspects of vaping. In my opinion, a distinction needs to be made between vaping with liquid nicotine, which is more similar to smoking a cigarette, and vaping with flavoured liquids that do not contain any nicotine and can help people stop smoking by vaping grape-flavoured liquid or something similar. We need to be aware of that. I hope that the committee will look at that aspect. We need to consider all aspects of this bill because it is a good bill. It is a start.

It took 55 years to convince people that cigarettes were bad for their health. I hope it will not take 55 years to make them understand that vaping and marijuana are also harmful.

[Canada Labour Code, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, having sat with my colleague on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women from 2006 to 2011, I must say that she is very knowledgeable about sexual harassment. She has long been a strong supporter of victims. I know that she will raise some good points about this bill, and I hope that, for once, they will be non-partisan.

[Canada Labour Code, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I completely agree. First and foremost, we need to define what we are talking about. As I said earlier, what may have been acceptable 10 years ago is no longer acceptable now. Attitudes have changed, for all kinds of reasons. We need a framework with good definitions, so that everyone is on the same page.

Sometimes, we hear sexist jokes. These do not bother me, because I have always hung around with guys, and I have learned to ignore them. However, these jokes are not acceptable to the new generation.

A definition is not only very important, but necessary. It is necessary to specifically designate what is considered sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is often confused with sexual assault. They are not at all the same thing. They are similar, but they are not the same. We need good definitions so that we, as legislators, can understand the legislation and understand what we need to do to protect victims.

[Canada Labour Code, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work.

I would like the bill to be fleshed out. I find that some things are vague, and I would like them to be explained more clearly. There are the exceptions, for example. The bill contains many exceptions. I do not want the bill to have too many of them. I spoke to victims of crime for my former bill. There should not be too many exceptions because it leads to confusion, and even we will not be able to make head or tail of it.

I believe that the bill must be clear for victims and for us, in order to make the work easier for all parliamentarians. I hope that it will be. It would help if we could work well together.

[Canada Labour Code, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as a woman, I am pleased today to speak to this bill. I admit that I feel a little embarrassed, not because of the bill, but because it is now January 29, 2018, and no one considered drafting this bill until now.

We have all heard rumours, but not spoken up. We have all seen certain things, but not reported them. We are a party to the legislation. We are the legislators and our own employees are not protected. It is unacceptable that, in 2018, our own employees in this place are not protected.

This is a good piece of legislation even though, as a woman, I would have preferred that it be more substantive. We often hear that women are harassed, but so are men. We are now talking about this, but some men are harassed and never file a complaint. We also have to shine a light on that.

As everyone has said throughout the day, this must not be a partisan bill. We must sit down together and have a frank, honest, and perhaps, in some respects, an upsetting discussion because we are part of the problem and of the solution.

Today I went through some papers and came across the definition of sexual harassment. We hear a lot of things and are never really sure.

Sexual harassment is not an offence under the Criminal Code in the same sense as other assaults of a sexual nature. The Criminal Code codifies criminal harassment and includes sentences for that type of harassment. Legal recourse does exist for sexual harassment in the workplace.

Honestly, I always thought that sexual harassment was included in the Criminal Code because I consider that sexual harassment and assault are crimes. They are crimes because often it is the most vulnerable who are attacked, which is unacceptable behaviour from an employer or any other person. No one should ever use their power to try to buy someone.

We have all seen things. We all know someone or know of someone who was a victim of psychological or sexual harassment. I have two daughters who are 29 and 28. I hope they are listening to me. If not, I will send them the clip. No does not mean yes. No means no. When someone enters our personal space uninvited we have the right to say no. If they do not understand that, then we will say it louder. It is time for attitudes to change.

If we want to change people's attitudes, where do we start? Where do we stop? What is now acceptable? What is no longer acceptable?

The first thing we need to realize is that sexuality is all over the place now. It is everywhere in television and videos. Even comic strips always have an element of sexuality. It has become so commonplace that people no longer know the difference between what is appropriate and what is not.

When we were little, on New Year's Day, our uncles chased us and tried to kiss us. We do not see as much of that in families nowadays, thank goodness. Nevertheless, attitudes need to change. We have to change our attitudes as legislators, but we also need to give victims more of a voice because they are the people we are talking about today. This bill is supposed to protect victims. It is supposed to protect us too, but the focus is on the victims.

Earlier, I was reading “Ensemble, contre les violences à caractère sexuel”. I have witnessed the protests. We have all, be it on television or from someone we know, heard about implicit or explicit promises to reward someone for agreeing to a sexual request. We may have heard about implicit or explicit threats of retaliation if the victim comes forward, threats that may or may not be acted upon. That is what we are speaking out against. We want to protect the people who report these crimes so they need not fear retaliation. That is extremely important.

Many people have spoken here today. As for me, I will be speaking personally, as a woman. I cannot say my name, but I can say that it is the woman, not the MP, who is speaking. The MP will speak later. I am having some trouble accepting the fact that an employee who is having a problem with an abuser is supposed to go to their employer, yet if the abuser is the employer and there is a third person in the same office but that person is only 20 years old, that third person cannot help the victim. There needs to be an independent structure to prevent this type of thing from happening. I am putting myself in the shoes of the victims who are forced to go to their abuser, who is also their employer. I think going to an abuser to say that they did something inappropriate must be the hardest thing in the world.

As I listened to everyone speak today, I was pleasantly surprised to realize that we are all on the same wavelength. This bill must be non-partisan. It must put victims first. It must be neither Liberal, nor NDP, nor Conservative. It must be a bill from the men and women who represent Canadians in every riding. I dare to hope that this bill will be so good and so non-partisan that it will be a first for Canada and will lead to other similar bills in other jurisdictions.

The important thing, in my opinion, is to craft a bill that gives victims a voice.

I commend the women and men who have found the courage to report their perpetrators, in spite of the lack of protection and resources, and especially in spite of the threat of retaliation.

The government must set an example and must do everything in its power to ensure that all employees are adequately and fairly protected across the country, in all workplaces, including the Parliament of Canada. The government must walk the talk and enact transparent, robust, fair, and equitable legislation.

More and more individuals are coming forward, and there has never been a better time to take action. However, we must be diligent, because a poorly drafted bill could hurt victims even more. We must absolutely consult victims and take their opinions into account to draft the best bill possible. Victims might prove to be a great help in putting together a bill that would protect everyone.

At the same time, parliamentary employees must enjoy the same protections as departmental employees. The burden of proof must not rest exclusively on the shoulders of victims. Victims must be given all the support they need along the way, including both psychological and financial support. It is up to us to decide. Furthermore, the committee study must not be tainted by partisanship, especially when it comes to choosing witnesses. Otherwise, if it passes as introduced, this bill will hurt victims in a number of ways. Lastly, adequate training should be mandatory for all employees and all employers.

With everything that happened last week in Canada, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, we were not all proud to be politicians. I was wishing I had another job. The good thing is that today we can stand up in the House and say loud and clear that sexual harassment must stop. It should no longer be a daily topic of conversation.

As politicians, we need to take responsibility. We also need to stop assuming that only women are affected, because it is not just women who are harassed. We also need to recognize that, and say so loud and clear.

What is more, the employees who work for us here on the Hill or in our riding offices should feel safe. This bill should not be the only one created to protect victims of crime.

I would like the vaguer aspects of the bill to be better defined. The government must provide more detailed explanations of the many exemptions set out in the bill. For example, organizations that have procedures equivalent to federal government procedures will be exempt from the federal regulations. In my opinion, that does not mean much.

I hope that the exemptions will be better defined because the more exemptions there are, the more confusing things can get. If we want a clear and transparent bill, everyone has to be able to understand it. When I say everyone, I do not just mean Canada's legislators. Ordinary Canadians should be able to read the bill and understand from it that there is someone who will speak on their behalf and that we are here to help them.

As I said earlier, I want to ensure that the government focuses on helping victims. They are the ones we are talking about here. Today, I was pleased to see everyone set partisanship aside and talk from the heart, with emotion, and especially with a bit more knowledge. It is ridiculous that we still have to talk about sexual harassment in 2018. We are dealing with old ways of doing things, and we need to rise above that today and change people's attitudes. Everyone here will agree that changing people's attitudes is not something that can be accomplished overnight. It will require some education. Every one of us can educate ourselves, but sometimes we need help in understanding our behaviour.

We are lawmakers, and we had a great debate on the bill today. Now, this bill will be sent to committee. We all know the committees of the House and how they have a tendency to partisanship. Witnesses get invited because they are Liberal, or Conservative, or NDP. That must not happen this time. The witnesses who are invited must be people who understand, who are familiar with workplaces, who know about sexual harassment and have passed legislation. For instance, Quebec has very strong legislation against sexual harassment.

We need people who are better equipped than we are to fully understand what kind of legislation we should pass here to guarantee that victims are properly protected. This is about our employees, employees working in federal workplaces, in our environment. Our environment needs to become a calm place and, above all, a place where people can report workplace abuse without fear of retaliation.

In closing, I want to say that I know Chantal is listening to us today. There is a little bit of her in this. She does not work with us, but I have met her, and I know how much good it does for her to see debates like the one we had today, untainted by partisanship.

[Canada Labour Code, January 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his fine speech.

Today, I rise not as a Conservative MP, but as a woman. Members have said that they want this to be a non-partisan bill, and I hope it will stay that way, because what we are debating today is important. It is also important to change people's attitudes. As a woman and as a victim, I have a bit of a problem, and I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

Are we not putting the victim at risk by forcing them to first speak to their employer, who may also be the perpetrator?