SoVote

Jun/5/24 6:48:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his statement on this particular issue. I am not indigenous, but I know consultation and I know how important it is in the experiences I have had. Oftentimes, people in this country put groups of people together as one. We cannot treat all indigenous people in this country as one group. We have to listen to the variety of voices and cultures to understand how critical the issue is to them. It is not just about the physical survival of water; it is also about the spiritual value of water, which has many connotations in many different parts of our country. Consultations and listening to those expressions is important in order for indigenous people to be heard. They need to be heard and we need to give them the opportunity. It has taken a long time to get the bill to where it is. We must take the time to make sure all those voices are heard.

168 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Jun/5/24 6:49:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is currently studying the Auditor General's report 2 on the housing situation on reserves. Now we are talking about drinking water. These are obviously two necessities that are not privileges, but should be rights. We therefore agree with the principle of this bill. Yesterday, the former clerk of the Privy Council, who was also the deputy minister of indigenous affairs for several years, told us that he thought that one possible solution was to create a Crown corporation that would solve all the problems on reserves. Does my colleague really think that the solution is still in the hands of the federal government, when, year after year, it has proven that the solutions are in the hands of first nations and that they must be given self-determination so they can finally meet their needs?

144 words

Mr. Martin Shields

Jun/5/24 6:50:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely not, because I have seen innovation with housing on Siksika Nation. Its people contracted a construction company from Ontario. It builds cement houses in 30 days. They are beautiful homes from start to finish, and they are turnkey. Siksika Nation is innovative; it knows how to find solutions. We need to get out of the way and not build bureaucracy, because it has great innovation skills and can do a lot of things. We just get in its way. We want to see beautiful houses built, and the company is building phenomenal housing with cement in 30 days. It is incredible. Siksika Nation did not need us to do it; it did it itself.

117 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Jun/5/24 6:51:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were last in power, they pushed through a very unpopular bill about first nations drinking water that was not well thought out, Bill S-8. It eventually had to be repealed as a result of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit. Can the member assure the House today that the Conservatives will help make sure the bill will not go down the same path?

68 words

Mr. Martin Shields

Jun/5/24 6:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it seems as though everybody wants to sue the government in power all the time. However, I want there to be legislation that is as good as it can be so that it limits the possibility of such a challenge happening.

43 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)

Jun/5/24 6:52:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was in the 2015 election that the Liberal Prime Minister made a promise that he was going to end drinking water advisories in indigenous communities by March 2021. He was very specific. He gave a date and a timeline. Then, in 2020, as the government was approaching that self-imposed deadline, the former minister of indigenous services said that “by spring 2021, the number of [communities under long-term drinking water] advisories...could [amount] to 12”. It is three years after that promised deadline, and we have 29 long-term drinking water advisories. Twenty-seven indigenous communities across Canada do not have access to clean drinking water. I do not understand how a government that said this issue was so important and gave it a timeline to be resolved could have failed so poorly. It changed its goalpost and still has not met its goalpost. We live in a country that is blessed to be the home of 20% of the world's freshwater supply, yet the Liberal government continues to drag its feet on its fundamental obligation to indigenous communities. While reflecting on this bill, I actually realized that I have had to live under some short-term water advisories, in my time, due to natural disasters. The first time was after the 2016 forest fire that tore through Fort McMurray. Much of the community was under a boil water advisory for about a month and a half. For some some people the advisory lasted a few months. Then again, in 2020, when we had massive floods in the Fort McMurray area, we were under a boil water advisory. While it was only for a month, it was a month when people had to think twice before they brushed their teeth or before they opened their mouth in the shower. That is what people have had to live with in indigenous communities across Canada for generations as a direct result of failures from successive governments. The Neskantaga first nation, in Ontario, has had a boil water advisory since 1995. For almost 30 years, generations of children have had to grow up in that community not knowing what it was like to be able to open the tap and drink water. Those children have become adults who have taken that memory with them as they go forward. This is a failure of our country, Canada, where we have had Liberal governments, Conservative governments and a Liberal government again. The government can blame everything it wants to on all the previous governments, but the Liberals have been in power for the last nine years, and there is a community that, for almost 30 years, has not had clean drinking water. The Liberals have sat on their hands, and to me, that is not acceptable. I was in elementary school when that community last had clean drinking water. We can do better, and we must do better. That community deserves it. I sit here as a mom, and I cannot imagine the amount of extra work and stress a mother would have to go through, having to sterilize bottles simply so that she can feed her child because they happen to live under a boil water advisory. She cannot just wash her bottles in the sink. She has to instead boil the bottles to sterilize them to make sure that they are safe. Those extra steps have to be taken because the government has failed these people. It is about time that we stop and truly realize that this has been a failure. There have been a series of failures. We must do better. We can do better. Indigenous people from across Canada share stories where they have had to go through all kinds of extra trials and tribulations as a direct result of boil water advisories. In doing research about this, I read stories about people like Rebecca Wynn, a grade school teacher who has to take medication before her showers to combat the extreme skin irritation she gets from the unsafe amount of chlorine that is injected into her town water supply. She has to take pills before she showers. That is something that no person should have to do, but they have been subjected to it because the government has failed to make sure that clean drinking water is available to them. There are children who go to school and worry about whether they are going to be safe and whether it is safe to drink the water. I hope all parties can agree that this is something we can, must and should do. We cannot allow this bill to be delayed, like we have seen from the Liberal government up to this point.

790 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/5/24 6:58:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-61

It being 6:58 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 3, Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands, is deemed read a second time and referred to a committee. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

60 words

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC)

Jun/5/24 6:59:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65 Bill C-378

moved 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. She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to my bill, Bill C‑378, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code in respect of former employees. It is designed to give former employees two years to file a complaint about workplace harassment or violence. First, I am going to share a bit about my background so that members can have a better understanding of my interest in this bill as well as its legitimacy. The idea of introducing a bill that would give a former employee more time, namely two years, to file a harassment complaint under the Canada Labour Code came to me quite naturally. When I was the labour minister in Quebec's National Assembly, I revamped many of Quebec's labour standards. That was in 2018, under Bill 176. Both then and now, Quebec's labour standards make no distinction between current and former employees. The standards used to allow current and former employees alike just three months to file a complaint. We felt that this time frame failed to make adequate allowance for the time it takes victims to bring a complaint. I therefore decided to take action and extend the time frame from three months to two years. I soon transposed the thought process I had followed within the provincial government to the federal level. After leafing through the Canada Labour Code, I realized that, unlike Quebec's labour standards, the Canadian code did draw a distinction between former and current employees. At the federal level, for example, current employees who want to make harassment complaints are not held to any limitation period. Former employees, however, have three months. This time limit for former employees dates back to 2021, when Bill C‑65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding harassment and violence, came into force. Some might say that three months is better than nothing, but to me, that seems like far too short a time frame for a former employee to make a complaint. That is essentially what I want to focus on. Although still far too short, this three-month time frame nonetheless offers some recourse to former employees who had none prior to 2021. I want to highlight this progress, brought about by Bill C‑65. In our opinion, however, former employees deserve much more generous recourse, and I am looking forward to collaborating with all my colleagues in a non-partisan way to achieve this goal together so we can mitigate the problems Canadians face in their professional lives. Quebec is among the most empathetic provinces, though others are close behind it, but it is still far ahead of the federal government. Let us take a moment to understand how this works elsewhere in Canada. As I said, Quebec does not make any distinction between current and former employees, and it already gives employees two years. Five other provinces do the same, but they give them one year. They are Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia gives former employees six months and has no time limit for current employees. The three other provinces, Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, do not provide former employees with any recourse. As for the territories, we did not find any data on their time frames for making a complaint. Internationally, Canada's time frame is far less generous than those of many other countries, such as Belgium and France. In Belgium, former employees have five years to file a complaint, and the time frame can be suspended if the courts refer the matter back for internal handling. In France, the time frame is one year for contraventions punishable by fines. It increases to five years from the date of the last offence for more serious offences and can be increased to six years if the matter is taken up by a human rights tribunal or a criminal court. In the United States, former employees have six months after the incident to file a complaint. That deadline can be extended to 10 months, if an employment discrimination law is applied by a local or government agency. In Australia, the deadline goes from six months to two years, and decision-makers are given a lot of discretion in that regard. In fact, the Australian Human Rights Commission imposes a six-month deadline but enables the president of the commission to hear complaints filed after the deadline, depending on the reasons for the delay. Again in Australia, complaints that fall under the Sex Discrimination Act can be filed up to two years after the date of the last incident. I would like to remind the House that, here in Canada, employees have only three months to file a complaint. It is important to point out that, in some cases, complaints can be filed after the three-month deadline under Bill C‑65, which amended the Canada Labour Code in 2021. Part 2 of that legislation states the following, and I quote: Extension (5) On application by a former employee, the Head may, in the prescribed circumstances, extend the time period referred to in subsection (4). The law thus allows for an extension of this three-month period, but that extension is conditional. Therefore, the burden is on the former employee to justify this application for an extension. This basically amounts to a burden of proof. They must file an application and justify it with circumstances such as trauma or a health problem. According to the application guide issued by the government, the person must provide documents such as a report from a social worker, an organization specializing in domestic violence, a police report, a doctor's note or even a solemn declaration made before a notary. Clearly, the legislator anticipated that victims might find themselves in these kinds of circumstances and even provided for the possibility of granting more than the standard three months. In a way, the government is recognizing the potential difficulties victims may experience. Everyone can easily understand that asking for justification for a harassment complaint adds extra pressure. The Canada Labour Code defines harassment and violence as follows: ...any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment. A three-month time limit seems too short for such difficult experiences. Employees who were harassed may not always realize it right away. The road is a long one between experiencing harassment, realizing what happened, living through the accompanying trauma, and deciding to file a complaint. The trauma can surface long after the incident and even long after the termination of employment. We had hoped to obtain some statistics on where things stand today. Unfortunately, and to our astonishment, this will be difficult. Apparently, the federal department responsible for compiling and publishing the annual results on workplace harassment and violence skipped some years. In fact, we have no summary for 2022 or 2023. The last report dates back to the 2021 annual report entitled “Taking action against harassment and violence in work places under Canadian federal jurisdiction”. Honestly, it would have been extremely helpful to us and relevant to our debate today to know the number of complaints rejected because of the three-month deadline. We have no access to these data now because the necessary reports were not published and, more importantly, because the government did not think that compiling this information was important. As I continued to look for that data, I turned to the office of the Minister of Labour and Seniors. A request was made, but we have not received a real answer to date. Finally, I asked for the help of researchers at the Library of Parliament. Here is what those experts told me on November 3, 2023, with regard to the reports that must be tabled by the government. While employers are required to report the average time to complete the informal resolution process, this information was not made public in the 2021 annual report. Further, there is no requirement to collect data on the number of former employees who make complaints, nor on requests for extensions. Thus there are no statistics available on the requests for or approvals of extensions for reasons of trauma or health by former federally regulated employees. Quite frankly, I would be extremely surprised if no complaints had been dismissed because they were submitted after the three-month deadline. I would be very surprised. Actually, I do not believe that at all. I therefore invite the government to be more rigorous and to divulge that information. Cindy Viau, the director general of Quebec's Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement au travail told me that what was done in Quebec under my leadership corrected a shortcoming that was caused by the short time frame. She told me why we absolutely need to extend this deadline. She said: The increased time limit at the provincial level (to two years) clearly showed how important it is for victims to have more time to take action. In our experience in recent years, the two-year time limit that was adopted seems to be much more in line with the needs of victims. We still find that a majority of victims of harassment take medical leave following the events and that the end of their employment will come close to or near their medical leave. In that sense, people who turn to our organization still find it really difficult to report within such a short period of time, 90 days. One explanation shining a light on this particular need of victims of workplace harassment emerges when we look specifically at post-traumatic stress disorder. The National Institute of Mental Health aptly summarizes the reality of people who develop this mental disorder. Symptoms generally appear within three months of the event, and although some people may recover within six months of the onset of symptoms, many will take a year or longer to recover. In addition, at the provincial level, we note from our experience that very few people [and this is interesting] 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. This change that I brought about at the provincial level is recognized and appreciated. I am asking that it be transposed to the context of the Canada Labour Code for former federally regulated employees. I will close by saying that we are making policy. We are committed to making a difference. We want to improve people's lives. I think that taking this kind of action, passing this kind of legislation, can make a difference in people's lives. At night, when my day is done, I look at myself in the mirror and think to myself, I may have changed someone's life today. That is a good thing.

1908 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/5/24 7:13:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I respect the articulation that the member across the way has put on what I see as a fairly positive piece of legislation. Given her background as a former labour minister at the Province of Quebec, I would be interested in getting her perspective. I would ask for her best guesstimate. Harassment takes many different forms in the workplace, and I suspect that, even in the province of Quebec, it gets under-reported. If she were to guess, in terms of the Quebec legislation, what percentage of those who are actually being harassed does she believe actually present themselves? It does take a great deal of courage for someone to come forward and say, “I was offended, and this is the reason, and this is how it happened, in the form of harassment.” Does she have any sense of what kind of reporting back there is, based on the legislation, or is there a need for additional public information or advertising on the issue?

168 words

Mrs. Dominique Vien

Jun/5/24 7:14:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and his comments. I do indeed have the numbers. Unfortunately, I do not have them with me, but I would be happy to send my colleague the data he is looking for on complaints received, which are compiled by the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST, Quebec's labour board, which is well known in Quebec. The CNESST compiles all this information. My colleague used the word “courage”, which is very important and stands out to me. As he said, it takes courage to make a complaint. In civil society, it takes courage for victims, in particular women, who are experiencing domestic violence, intimate partner violence or various other difficulties, to go to the police to give a statement and file a complaint. It takes a lot of courage, but it also takes time. If the person does not have the time to do it, three months may go by without them realizing what has happened, but by then it is too bad, nothing can be done. It takes courage, but it takes time too.

203 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/5/24 7:16:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found my colleague's speech very inspiring, especially when she talked about her time as a minister in Quebec City and said that she wants to put what she did there into a bill. I found that inspiring because I know that when she was in Quebec City, she also voted in favour of carbon pricing. She talked about courage earlier. I think she could have the courage to bring to this Parliament what she did in Quebec City when she helped set up a carbon exchange. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

99 words

Mrs. Dominique Vien

Jun/5/24 7:16:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am trying to put myself in the shoes of the victims who are listening to my colleague this evening as he tries to divert attention away from such an important bill, a bill that would give victims more time by extending the time limit from three months to two years. These victims hear him talk about carbon pricing while I am talking about giving victims more time. He should be ashamed of his question and his efforts to divert—

83 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/5/24 7:17:22 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

9 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/5/24 7:17:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her private member's bill. For the NDP, it is not complicated. When a thing is good for workers, we vote for it. When it is not good for them, we vote against it. Some things are as simple as that. To protect workers, especially women, I think it is important to give them the time they need to process and make sense of the trauma caused by situations of harassment, which can also include sexual harassment and violence. Extending the time frame will give them time to heal and recover, to get back the joy they lost and to get ready to face the system again, and maybe even the employer or manager who committed the harassment. I think that her initiative will be extremely helpful to many workers. The NDP thanks her for this initiative in particular.

150 words

Harassment

Mrs. Dominique Vien

Jun/5/24 7:18:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments, and I truly regret that, this evening, the four women on the Bloc Québécois benches allowed their colleague to ask a question that had so little to do with this bill. I was truly floored. I thank my colleague from the NDP for his comments. I had the opportunity to talk with the NDP member, who hinted that the NDP members were enthusiastic about this bill. I hope that everyone, including the members from the governing party, will be willing to work together to get this bill passed. It is a good bill.

103 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/5/24 7:19:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65 Bill C-378 Bill C-3

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation before us and its principles, I see it as a positive thing. When we take a look in terms of the government's actions, virtually from 2015, what we have witnessed is a government that understands the needs of workers in all regions of our country and has brought forward several substantial pieces of legislation in support of workers. When the member brought forward Bill C-378, I had the opportunity to quickly go through it. I like what it is suggesting, and I suspect it would be very good to see it get to the committee stage. However, there are a number of questions that I have. Even though I might not necessarily be at the committee, and likely will not be at the committee, I appreciate the fact that the member is going to provide me with answers to some of the details that I posed in my question to her here. I say this because I believe that the bill is in the best interests of the workers. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to sit at a local restaurant that I go to on a weekly basis. Perhaps half a dozen to a dozen times, I have had individuals come to me, some of them actually in tears, talking about their work environment. More often than not, but not exclusively, it has been minority women who were subjected to a significant intimidation factor. It comes in different forms. I can speculate on some of it, and I can also report on some real-life situations, as I have had the opportunity to listen to victims and do what I could to support them. That is something that I think is important for all of us. This is the reason I posed the question to the introducer of the legislation that we have before us. It takes a great deal of courage, and I encourage individuals who have been a victim of some form of harassment in the workplace environment to share their experience, whether it is with a family member or with members of a community in which they live or actively participate. I find that talking about it is very helpful, and I would encourage people to share those experiences. I believe, at the end of the day, that the more people share those experiences and the more we see individuals taking action, it ultimately enables more people to do likewise, and we will have better working environments throughout the nation. We could see the legislation go to committee and, ultimately, it would come back, much like when we passed the anti-scab legislation. I will draw a comparison here and say that in Canada we have two provinces, Quebec and British Columbia, that have anti-scab legislation. The national government has now passed legislation to bring into Canada, at the federal level, anti-scab legislation. I believe that, by the federal government taking such an action, we help encourage and set a standard that will hopefully see other provincial jurisdictions do likewise. For example, the province of Manitoba is now looking at anti-scab legislation. The fact is that when we brought in the legislation, it received all-party support, which I believe speaks volumes. With Bill C-378, I think there is the potential to get all-party support for it as well. As the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus have talked about in the past and continue to hold today, if there are ideas to the benefit of Canadians, we are prepared to entertain and look at ways in which we can support them, even if it means attempting to move amendments. This is something we have consistently done since 2015, even on the issues we are talking about today. I think of Bill C-3, for example, which came out of the pandemic and the pressures that were being put on health care providers in particular. Many people were protesting and, in essence, in a different way, instilling in health care providers a fear of doing their job of supporting our health care system when there was a great deal of concern during the pandemic and in the days that followed. Bill C-3 dealt with that by making protests that instilled fear in individuals like health care workers illegal. I think of Bill C-65, which mandated training about harassment and violence in the workplace. As the member before me made reference to, the government has brought in a relatively modest change, which the member is now trying to have increased from three months to up to two years. These are the types of changes that would protect the interests of the worker. We need to take a bigger look at it and take a holistic approach to the working environment. I am not sure whether Hansard will get the tail end of my question to the member, because it was getting a little lengthy, but what I was trying to amplify is that it is important workers know their rights, and that there are many different agencies and support networks to reinforce and support them. What I was referencing in the tail end of my question was to what degree there is a sense of public awareness and to what degree we might be doing something collectively, or the government or governments should be doing, to promote, whether through advertising or other means, the rights of workers. This is something important that needs to be taken into consideration. With respect to the rights of workers, everyone in the workplace should have the right to be free of harassment and any sort of violence. That is really important. There is a responsibility on employers, whether it is directly through the employer or it is through the manager, to ensure that there are opportunities that are not intimidating for workers to bring things forward. When that takes place, I believe it is healthy for the entire workforce in a particular environment, especially if workers can see there is a genuine attempt to deal with an issue such that the individual who has been slighted is being listened to and the concern is being addressed. I appreciate the member's bringing forward the legislation. I suspect it will go to committee; we will ultimately see what takes place at committee stage.

1072 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Jun/5/24 7:29:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-378

Madam Speaker, first, I want to commend the sponsor of the bill, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for introducing this private member's bill. I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and I can tell my colleague that she can count on the support of the Bloc Québécois during the study of this bill in committee. The sponsor of the bill referred to the time when she was the Quebec minister of labour in 2018. At the time, I still had the good fortune of being the labour leader at the Centrale des syndicats du Québec. Work was done in Quebec to advance labour laws, especially at the Conseil consultatif du travail et de la main‑d'œuvre. The sponsor of the bill would surely agree that it was in our DNA to advance labour law in Quebec. The summary of the bill being studied today is simple. It seeks to amend “the Canada Labour Code in order to provide a former employee with more time to make a complaint relating to an occurrence of harassment and violence in the work place after they cease to be employed”. Currently, the employee has three months. The bill seeks to change the prescribed period to two years. My colleague is absolutely right. Once again, Quebec has been at the forefront of labour legislation. Quebec amended its Act respecting labour standards. I, too, found it surprising that the Canada Labour Code refers to employees and former employees separately in the context of harassment and violence. Frankly, the Canada Labour Code has only recently begun to deal with these issues, unlike Quebec. I would venture to say that it is clear from looking at the Canada Labour Code that it needs some love. It is a shame that we have to make these changes one at a time, because reforming the Canada Labour Code at the federal level would correct a lot of inequities. That said, I am not going to digress from tonight's subject, which is the bill. Quebec's Act respecting labour standards differs greatly from the Canada Labour Code. Here is what it says: “An employee who believes they have been the victim of psychological harassment may file a complaint in writing with the Commission.” There is indeed a commission in Quebec that deals with the complaints. “Such a complaint may also be filed by a non-profit organization dedicated to the defence of employees' rights on behalf of one or more employees who consent thereto in writing.” Later on, it says, “Any complaint concerning psychological harassment must be filed within two years of the last incidence of the offending behaviour.” I was listening to the discussions where members were talking about courage. It is exactly right that it takes courage, but it also takes means. Psychological harassment and violence in the workplace are phenomena that have been widely documented in every workplace, both unionized and not unionized, and in both the public sector and the private sector. Often, there are quite a few investigative processes to go through before a complaint can be filed, and the individual filing the complaint may struggle to cope. Domestic violence is one thing, but we know that violence often occurs between peers. Filing a complaint is a laborious process that takes time and means. We need ways to ensure that the person filing the complaint can be sure that the process will be fair, impartial and objective. Quebec has found ways to do just that. Quebec has its Act respecting labour standards, and most collective agreements now also provide mechanisms for setting up joint workplace committees to deal with these issues. In short, once again, Quebec is a leader. It is good that we are able to fix this. Canada has taken a small step, and now it needs to update it. Canada ratified Convention 190 of the International Labour Organization, or ILO, in 2023. The convention officially took effect in 2024. It reads as follows, and I quote: This Convention applies to violence and harassment in the world of work occurring in the course of, linked with or arising out of work: (a) in the workplace, including public and private spaces where they are a place of work; (b) in places where the worker is paid, takes a rest break or a meal, or uses sanitary, washing and changing facilities; (c) during work-related trips, travel, training, events or social activities; (d) through work-related communications, including those enabled by information and communication technologies; (e) in employer-provided accommodation; and (f) when commuting to and from work. This cursory recap is simply intended to show that the conventions adopted by the ILO, a tripartite organization made up of worker, employer and government representatives, play an important role in labour law. I was pleased to accompany the Minister of Labour and Seniors when this convention was ratified. What the sponsor of Bill C‑378 is asking for is a minor correction to the Canada Labour Code, because now that the convention has been ratified, we need ways to implement it and we need to ensure that our laws reflect these measures. The relevant section of the Canada Labour Code must also ensure that we have the wherewithal to conduct reviews and analyses. It is absolutely true to say that the last analysis report on the issue dates back to 2021. In 2023, we were at least provided with statistics on the number of incidents and the number of employees. Public servants and employees of the big banks alone account for roughly half of the complaints. That is a significant number. The fact that the time frame is only three months reflects a lack of understanding of everything that is involved in filing a complaint. It is also important to be aware of the facts. I was pleased that Canada ratified the ILO convention. I consider it a major step forward. Now, as the saying goes, the government needs to walk the talk. The least we can do is fix the Canada Labour Code so as to create equity between employees and former employees. One day, perhaps, the definition of former employees will be removed. With all due respect, I will say that I am pleasantly surprised that the Conservative Party suddenly seems to be siding with workers. We saw this recently with the bill on replacement workers, which passed with unanimous support. Now we are seeing it again with their sincere intention to amend the Canada Labour Code. I remember Stephen Harper's Conservative government, whose unjust bills attacked the rights of workers, the right of association, the right of representation, the right to organize. They also attacked fundamental constitutional rights, such as the privacy of labour organizations. I am talking about two pieces of legislation. I would say that usually in Quebec our labour law stands on its own, but, at the time, we saw some serious attacks against the union movement in Quebec, against unions that advance important issues. There were setbacks. We had to mobilize to counter these bills from the then Conservative government, and people remembered in 2015. I hope that it is not just the election campaign that is prompting the Conservative Party's sudden pro-labour stance. The Bloc Québécois has always been pro-labour. It is in our DNA. I think the member is sincere and her intention is sincere. Naturally, we will be supporting this bill.

1282 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Jun/5/24 7:39:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about an important private member's bill that seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code concerning complaints by former employees. The bill, if enacted, would mark a significant step forward in protecting the rights and dignity of workers across our nation. As the labour critic for the New Democratic Party, I have had the privilege of advocating for the rights and well-being of workers. It is with this responsibility in mind that I address the bill, which aims to extend the protection against harassment and violence in the workplace to former employees. Let us begin by acknowledging the harsh reality many workers face today. Harassment and violence in the workplace are not merely issues of discomfort or inconvenience. They are violations of human dignity and safety that could have profound and lasting impacts on individuals. The scars left by such experiences do not simply vanish once an employee leaves their job. The trauma can linger, affecting their mental health, their confidence and their overall well-being. The bill would address these realities by amending the Canada Labour Code to extend the time frame in which former employees can file complaints about workplace harassment and violence. Specifically, it would allow former employees to bring forward complaints for up to two years after their employment has ended. This is a crucial change, and I want to emphasize why it is so important. First, the amendment would recognize that the decision to report harassment or violence can be a difficult and complex one. Often, employees may feel trapped in their situation, fearing retaliation or further harm if they come forward. By extending the time frame to two years postemployment, we are giving individuals the space and the safety to report incidents when they are ready, without the immediate threat of losing their livelihood. Second, the bill would hold employers accountable for their actions and for the environment they cultivate, even after the employee has left. It is not enough for an employer to simply let time pass and hope that issues will be forgotten. By maintaining their obligations towards former employees, employers are encouraged to address problems promptly and thoroughly, fostering a safer and more respectful workplace for everyone. Further, the bill is a testament to basic justice and fairness. It sends a clear message that no worker should be left without recourse simply because they have moved on to another job. It affirms that their rights and dignity are worth protecting, regardless of their employment status. This aligns with the core values of the New Democratic Party, in which the fight for workers' rights is a foundation of our values. The provision, which would allow former employees to make complaints as if they were still employed, is particularly significant, because it would ensure that the full weight of the Canada Labour Code applies to these cases, providing a framework for addressing their concerns. This is not just about extending a deadline, as we have heard from the Liberal side. It is about ensuring that the mechanisms for justice are accessible and effective for all workers. However, while the bill is a positive step, there are gaps and potential areas for improvement that we must consider, hopefully at the committee stage, to make the legislation stronger and, indeed, to strengthen it for workers. One significant gap is the lack of specified support mechanisms for former employees who have come forward with complaints. The bill should outline access to counselling, legal advice or other support services to assist former employees through the complaint process. Enforcement and compliance are also critical areas that need strengthening. The bill must ensure real enforcement mechanisms to hold employers accountable. Clear penalties for non-compliance and measures to ensure that complaints are thoroughly investigated and resolved are essential to the bill's success. Protection from retaliation is another vital aspect. While the bill would extend the lifetime for complaints, it should also include specific protections against retaliation for former employees who come forward. This could include protections for their professional reputation and future employment prospects. Public awareness and education are crucial for the effectiveness of the legislation. The bill should include a comprehensive plan for publicizing these extended rights and educating both current and former employees about the changes. Perhaps including the Canada Labour Congress, federations of labour and district labour councils across the country would help in this regard. The scope of coverage is another area that I feel needs to be broadened. Hopefully that will be explored at the appropriate time. The bill focuses on harassment and violence, but it does not address other potential grievances that former employees might have, such as racial discrimination, wage theft and unfair dismissal. Expanding the scope to include a broader range of employment issues could provide more comprehensive protection. Timeliness and efficiency in resolving complaints are also essential. The bill should ensure that the processes for handling complaints are timely and efficient. Delays in resolving complaints can prolong the distress for former employees and may discourage others from coming forward. The responsibilities of employers need to be clearly defined. While the bill would hold employers accountable for addressing complaints, it should also specify what proactive measures employers must take to prevent harassment and violence in the first place. This could include mandatory training programs, regular reviews of workplace policies and creating a culture of respect and safety. Data collection and reporting provisions would also be valuable additions to this bill. Collecting and reporting data on complaints made by former employees can help identify trends, assess the effectiveness of the legislation and make future improvements. As I have mentioned before, coordination with stakeholders is important, but so is coordination with provincial bodies. Coordination with provincial laws is an important consideration that I do not believe has been adequately covered in this bill. Since labour laws can vary significantly between provinces, we should look at ways to help coordinate with provincial labour laws to ensure consistent protection for all workers across Canada. Finally, including a mechanism for regular review and feedback on the implementation of the bill could help identify any issues and make the necessary adjustments. This could involve input from workers, employers, labour organizations and other stakeholders. In my role as labour critic, I have heard from countless individuals who have experienced workplace harassment and violence. Their stories are heartbreaking and infuriating, but they are also calls to action. We must do more to protect workers and ensure that their voices are heard. This bill is a step in the right direction. We must also recognize the broader context in which this bill would operate. I spoke it about it briefly previously, but I will say it explicitly, particularly in light of the ongoing federal Black class action lawsuit, which is a landmark legal action addressing systemic discrimination and harassment faced by Black employees within the federal public service. For decades, these workers have reported experiencing pervasive racism, barriers to advancement and a hostile work environment that undermined their dignity and professional growth. Black employees had to create a class action lawsuit to seek the kind of justice and comprehensive redress I have been speaking about in my remarks today as a New Democrat. I think this further highlights the urgent need for legal protections and accountability measures. By extending the time frame to file complaints and holding employers accountable, I believe this bill would provide an indirect support to those aims of the class action lawsuit, which would ensure that those who have suffered long-standing discrimination would have the opportunity to seek redress and contribute to the creation of a fair and more inclusive workplace for all. In summary, this amendment to the Canada Labour Code is a necessary and overdue measure to protect workers from the lasting impacts of harassment and violence. These are measures that New Democrats, the only labour party in the country, have been fighting for for decades. It would hold employers accountable, empower former employees and align with the NDP's fundamental principles of justice and fairness. I am proud to support this bill going to committee, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I urge colleagues in this chamber to consider the human impact of this legislation and think about the workers who have had to suffer in silence, and who have felt powerless and abandoned. I urge members to think about the message we send them when we say that their experiences matter, that their safety and dignity are paramount. This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of basic human rights.

1443 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Jun/5/24 7:49:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-378

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-378, a private member's bill born of the initiative and experience of my brilliant colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. I want to commend my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for her initiative. She is leveraging her experience in the provincial government here in the House of Commons in a noble and relevant way in order to improve Canadian labour relations. This bill seeks to enable people who have worked and who have left their job or who have ceased to be employed to file a complaint regarding harassment or violence within two years of leaving. Right now, the deadline is just three months. In her bill, the member suggests extending the deadline to two years. This proposal is based on her experience in Quebec, which I will talk about later, but also on conclusive evidence. Harassment and violence can have long-term and even delayed effects. I am reminded of the sad and unfortunate story of a woman who was a victim of sexual violence and did not report it immediately. It took years before she filed a complaint. Unfortunately, the case was never heard. What a sad state of affairs. In cases of violence and harassment in a professional environment, we believe that two years is how long it takes for the person to assess the consequences of what they have suffered and file a complaint. We are talking about making a complaint here. This is not about writing a blank cheque and claiming everything has been sorted out. A well-calibrated assessment process is required. In Canada, there has been a three-month time limit in place since 2021. Various provinces have laws on this subject. In Quebec, the deadline is two years. In Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, the deadline is one year. It is six months in British Columbia. As the member so aptly put it earlier, other countries such as Belgium and France have a time limit of five or six years. In Australia, it can be as little as two years. In the U.S., in several states, the time limit is six months. This is not new for Canada, but it is important to understand that this initiative flows from what happened in Quebec in 2018. I will elaborate on that. Thanks to the well-deserved support, assistance and confidence of her constituents, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis served in the National Assembly for nearly 14 years. She was an MNA, a minister, an opposition MNA and a member of the government. I even had the pleasure of sitting down with her when I was a journalist and asking her some questions. We were both journalists at one time. That being said, why am I talking about this? Because the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis is introducing this bill today thanks to her experience as minister of labour in Quebec, and all Canadians can now benefit from that experience. She took the time to work closely with employers, departmental officials, public service officials and union leaders to make sure that she was introducing a bill that would work in Quebec. It does. In 2018, during the final days of the Couillard government, the National Assembly passed her bill unanimously. Unanimous motions in the National Assembly are not that unusual, but bills that pass unanimously are a little rarer. Everyone agreed on Bill 176 because the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis had done a serious and thorough job of it for the common good. Today, six years later, we have a law that works. Like all legislation, it requires review, but it has stood the test of time. I would even say that it transcends partisanship. In fact, the law was created under the auspices of a government of a certain political stripe, but, for the past six years in Quebec, a government of another stripe in the National Assembly has been leading the work and leading Quebec. That is democracy. When a bill is good, it stands the test of time and rallies the support of all parties. Earlier, one of my Bloc Québécois colleagues referred to a completely different subject, when we are talking here about people's work. We are talking about cases of harassment and violence. This is more about human beings than about tax management. He decided to share that thought, and that is on him. He talked about the carbon exchange. I am not passing judgment, just presenting the facts. After 10 years, we have noticed some things, even in Quebec. The Quebec environment minister himself, Benoit Charette, said that, since the carbon exchange is an exchange between two states, namely, Quebec, which has 8 million people, and California, which has 30 million people, Quebec is still paying California $230 million this year under that system. I am not passing judgment, just presenting the facts. Someone else spoke of this subject with some judgment. His name is Sylvain Gaudreault, former member of the National Assembly for Jonquière. He is a former senior minister, a leadership candidate, and one time leader of the official opposition. I respect him a lot and hold him in high regard. Even though he supports it, he described the carbon exchange as a $230-million “flight of capital”. If some people want to fight that battle, let them, but facts are stubborn. Quebeckers listening to us today may just be finding out that the carbon exchange, paid for with their tax dollars and all that, amounts to $230 million going to California, as the Quebec environment minister says. One thing is sure. Since 2018, workers who have experienced an injustice in the workplace, including harassment and violence, have had a tool that allows them to file a complaint even after two years. We know that when it comes to violence and harassment, the effects are not always immediate. They can begin later. Thanks to the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Quebec workers are very fortunate to be able to use this tool, which was adopted in 2018 on the initiative of this member, who is now proposing the exact same approach to the House that has worked so well in Quebec. What happened? The government side and the second opposition party, the NDP, are in agreement. I am very proud to be a member of the official opposition. I am very proud to be a Conservative member, and I am very proud to sit with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. She brings experience, expertise and a wealth of knowledge. Above all, she brings what she has given to Quebeckers and is sharing it with everyone. That is a good thing. All too often, we have debates that go around in circles, that do not lead anywhere and that are more ideological and dogmatic than pragmatic. In this case, we have a golden opportunity to make progress that will benefit workers. I know I will have another minute. I look forward to speaking for another minute when we resume this debate.

1242 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/5/24 7:58:06 p.m.
Watch

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

30 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 325