House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 50% of the vote.
Canada Labour Code January 29th, 2018
Madam Speaker, we have to set the highest standard in society since we are looked at as models.
This tier of the issue, the harassment of staffers, has to be dealt with in a cautious and particular manner. That is why we feel we should prevent partisanship from being involved in that process.
As the member knows, regarding the conduct between parliamentarians, we already have defining rules for elected members.
Canada Labour Code January 29th, 2018
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to a bill that seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code with regard to harassment and violence.
I thank my colleague from Provencher for making valid arguments and reiterating our party's position. We support the bill at second reading. I just came from the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where we are getting ready to receive this important bill that we would like to improve.
This bill was introduced on November 7, 2017, by the government, but in light of recent events, we see that it is quite timely. In her speech today, the minister indicated that we can find a definition of harassment in the Canada Labour Code. However, we could learn from the experience and legislative expertise in Quebec on the matter.
What do we mean when we talk about psychological harassment? We must clearly define what we are talking about. According to the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, it is vexatious behaviour. It is harmful or humiliating behaviour that is displayed repeatedly or during a single and serious incident by hostile or unwanted behaviour that undermines the dignity or integrity of the employee and which has repercussions on the workplace. It may range from ridiculing the person or their work, isolating them, preventing them from speaking, making offensive or defamatory comments or gestures about or toward them, unsettling, threatening, or assaulting them, or making them suffer reprisals. The person is discriminated against, ostracized, and isolated.
We will likely consider these elements during the committee study to ensure that psychological harassment and physical violence are properly defined in the bill.
Harassment obviously has many consequences. The person might feel victimized. Their integrity was undermined, their self-worth compromised. This has a serious impact on self-esteem, leading to a loss of motivation and potentially to physical or mental health repercussions. The person sometimes tries to stay away from a workplace where there is a risk of accident or disability, for example, or where they feel ostracized. There may be personal issues. This can even lead to job loss, firing or absenteeism due to illness, not to mention financial problems.
Harassment is a serious problem in the workplace, and we must work to eliminate it as quickly as possible, because it has negative consequences not only on the victim, but on the work environment and productivity as well.
The minister has tabled a bill that will require federally regulated companies to adopt a prevention policy and to investigate and report on all cases of harassment that are brought to their attention. They will also have to provide psychological support to employees affected by harassment.
Currently, there are no sanctions in place against the employees at fault. However, recommendations may apply to the companies. Today we discussed two components, namely employees in federally regulated workplaces and political staff. However, the initial steps are the same. Once a policy is in place, the employee can go to their employer to file a complaint. If the complaint is not resolved, there is an optional mediation process. After that, the file can be assigned to an investigator, referred to as a competent person. My colleague just mentioned the importance of properly defining who would be a competent person to handle complaints.
However, as we heard today, we want the process to protect the integrity of those who feel they were assaulted, those I believe are victims, because we care about them. That is why I asked the minister this morning to ensure that anyone who at any time believes that they have been the victim of assault to be able to report it to a third party that is not the employer. We will have to discuss that in committee. In the case of employees under federal jurisdiction, the third party would be the Department of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. That is important because we do not want anyone who feels they are the victim of assault at the hands of their employer to reach out to Employment and Social Development Canada only to be told that they need to talk to their employer. That would be unfortunate. We want to protect victims, who are at the heart of the process, and ensure that the process does put obstacles in their way as they attempt to access the main resource, which is the Department of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, the third party with investigative power. That is for employees under federal jurisdiction.
The same process applies to employees of political staff. It involves becoming familiar with the policy, talking to the employer, and eventually seeking mediation or the help of an investigator or competent person. We are in a political environment, which is bound to be significant. I am pleased to see that the government is being open about the need to ensure we have an independent process in a partisan setting. We must ensure that political staff are not the victims of partisan games. Someone gave the example of an employee of a government MP who files a complaint. We must ensure that the process is independent. We are going to look at that in committee to determine the best way of going about things and to ensure that the labour minister does not end up in a conflict of interest. As members know, there are a number of commissioners who report to the House. They are independent and could play a useful role in this regard.
Those are some of the issues we would like to raise in committee. We have listed some of them. It is important to avoid any retaliation against the victims, including political staff, during the process. It is also important to properly define the notion of a competent person. This is the expert who will be appointed to investigate a given situation. Of course, we must also always take care to avoid conflicts of interest and uphold the principle of the presumption of innocence throughout the process.
All of this takes resources. The minister was pretty vague about the resources she intends to set up at Employment, Workforce Development and Labour that will be dedicated to working with businesses to raise awareness and support them in implementing harassment and violence prevention policies.
Those are our questions for the minister. This is an important and necessary step because nearly six out of ten employees in federal workplaces report having been victims of harassment. That means there is a problem and we have to take meaningful steps toward fixing it. This is a step in the right direction, and we will certainly encourage the government to draw inspiration from initiatives and expertise related to psychological harassment that are emerging across the country. As a Quebecker, I am proud to say that the Government of Quebec has been working on this issue for over a decade now. It has developed expertise that could be very useful to us as we lay the foundation following this initial step.
To sum up, this is a step in the right direction and a constructive approach that we want to implement with the government to advance this legislation, although some questions do remain that we hope to clarify at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
The minister mentioned one thing that I really appreciated, namely, the need for a cultural shift, and she can definitely count on our collaboration in that regard.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns January 29th, 2018
With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Employment and Social Development Canada since September 16, 2016: what are the (i) vendors' names, (ii) contracts' reference and file numbers, (iii) dates of the contracts, (iv) descriptions of the products or services provided, (v) delivery dates, (vi) original contracts' values, (vii) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?
Canada Labour Code January 29th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the minister for trying to make our workplaces free from harassment. I would also like to tell her that we will support this bill at second reading so that it can be improved in committee.
The minister talked a lot about victims in her speech. According to this bill, victims must first go to their employer, but victims are sometimes afraid of going to their employer, since the employer may be involved in the harassment.
Can the minister assure me that she will allow these victims to go directly to the Department of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour investigator? Will she allocate the financial resources needed to ensure that victims can go to the department when they do not want to go to their employer, who may be the perpetrator?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns December 13th, 2017
With regard to government expenditures on tickets for sporting events since September 19, 2016, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what was the (i) date of event, (ii) location, (iii) total cost, (iv) cost per ticket, (v) number of tickets, (vi) title of persons using the tickets (v) title and description of event?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns December 13th, 2017
With regard to staffing levels at the regional development agencies, broken down by agency: (a) how many full-time equivalents were employed by each agency as of (i) April 1, 2015, (ii) April 1, 2016, (iii) April 1, 2017; and (b) what is the breakdown in (a) by city or location of employment?
Questions on the Order Paper December 13th, 2017
With regard to submissions to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) of Form RC193, Service-Related Complaint, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many submissions have been received; (b) for each submission in (a), what are the details, broken down by (i) nature of the complaint, (ii) topic, (iii) date of complaint, (iv) resolution desired by the complainant, (v) actions, including internal, taken by the CRA to resolve the complaint, (vi) on what date was the complaint closed, if applicable; (c) how many complaints have been submitted that specifically relate to the rejection or review of the admissibility of a claim for the Disability Tax Credit; and (d) for each submission in (c), what are the details, broken down by (i) nature of the complaint, (ii) topic, (iii) date of complaint, (iv) resolution desired by the complainant, (v) actions, including internal, taken by the CRA to resolve the complaint, (vi) on what date was the complaint closed, if applicable?
Public Services and Procurement December 13th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his Christmas wishes, but Davie workers would like a decision on Obelix. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the Liberal defence policy saying we need two ships. That is written on page 35. We call that a naval task group. We need it for our national security. It is a way to say merry Christmas to Canada and the people of Lévis.
Public Services and Procurement December 13th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, with the serious delays in the naval strategy and the decommissioning of the Preserver and the Protecteur, even the Minister of National Defence recognizes that there is a serious operational gap. His parliamentary secretary has called for the Obelix. It says in the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the minister and on page 35 of the Liberal defence policy that the minister must maintain the capacity of the deep-sea fleet. We need two ships: the Asterix and the Obelix.
When will the Prime Minister make national security a top priority and ask the Davie shipyard to build the Obelix? Will he do so before the holidays?
Public Services and Procurement December 11th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, with the Preserver and the Protecteur out of service, there is an operational gap at the Royal Canadian Navy. We are talking about a decade. Even the Standing Committee on National Defence, on which the Liberals have the majority, has recognized this vulnerability caused by delays in the naval procurement strategy.
Our Conservative government did not hesitate. We commissioned the Asterix, which was built on time.
The Minister of National Defence is out of excuses for failing to honour his own policy and award a contract to the shipyard for the Obelix.
When will we see the Obelix?