Bill C-343 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave)

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid leave from work for the following family-related reasons:
(a) the inability of their minor child to carry on regular activities because the child suffers a serious physical injury during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence;
(b) the disappearance of their minor child;
(c) the suicide of their spouse, common-law partner or child; or
(d) the death of their spouse, common-law partner or child during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence.
It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow these employees to receive benefits while on leave.

Bill C-471--Pay Equity Task Force Recommendation Act

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we have just listened to another specious argument by the government side against pay equity. The member is beginning to engage in debate of the bill itself with his last comment. If, of course, we do not have pay equity, even though the law is there, it is because the Conservatives have not taken the measures to implement it. However, we as the official opposition will refer our position on this in due course.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary and the hon. member. I look forward to further submissions on the matter and will take it under advisement accordingly. I do not sense a particular urgency in coming up with a ruling on this, so we might not hear until January some time.

I know the hon. parliamentary secretary would want me to take time to give due consideration to every argument he has advanced and they were lengthy.

Oral Questions

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I take my responsibilities in the House of Commons seriously and I do sincerely think I have a contribution to make to the debate in the House. Therefore, I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I was when I was told, and I did not hear this, that the Minister of National Defence, in response to my second question to him, suggested that “she adds nothing to the debate”.

For that to come from the Minister of National Defence, a minister of the Crown, is truly disappointing and it begs the question of his attitude toward women. I know there have been other circumstances where the minister has had to apologize for saying things that were not proper of a female member in the House of Commons. It was some time ago that he allegedly made remarks about another woman in the House of Commons. He subsequently apologized, even though the ruling was that the remarks he was alleged to have made could not be heard on the tape.

If you were to listen to the tape, Mr. Speaker, and I am told it was very clear, he did say, in response to my question to him, in his concluding remarks “she adds nothing to the debate”. For me it is a serious issue as I think it is for all women who serve our country, no matter what profession. I have to question that kind of attitude being displayed toward another colleague in the House of Commons, whether it be male or female. In this instance it was the Minister of National Defence in response to a very serious question I put to him on a very serious matter taking place in the House of Commons with respect to the Afghan detainee issue. Is this a pattern of the government or is it just this minister in particular?

However, I would like to have an apology from the minister. He needs to show some respect in the House of Commons toward his colleagues and, in this case, toward a woman colleague who has every right to make a contribution in the House of Commons as he does.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague's intervention requiring an apology and suggesting the Minister of National Defence is sexist in any way is outrageous. We sit here day after day. You know, Mr. Speaker, adjudicating this debate every day, the comments that come from the members opposite when the Minister of National Defence gets to his feet are absolutely outrageous. Yet the member has the unmitigated gall to stand here with her feelings hurt, suggesting that the Minister of National Defence is in some way, some fashion, some manner accusing her of something that she considers to be sexist.

This is unbelievable to me to finally have an opportunity to speak first hand with the member opposite on a debate, and this is a debate because it is certainly not a legitimate point of order, when she considers the Minister of National Defence to be sexist. It is something she should apologize for, not the Minister of National Defence.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the alleged remark was made. I recognize that the member is new in the House. I think the fact that her feelings are hurt because somebody disagreed with her comments is probably more reflective of the nature of the comment from the minister. Once she has been here a little longer, she will realize that what was said was purely a response to her remarks with no other innuendo attached to it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was also in the chamber when the Minister of National Defence made the comment that the member had nothing to offer to the debate. It was quite clearly a dismissive remark.

Standing Order 18 reads:

No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote...

I am advised that this section in our Standing Orders has not changed in its wording since Confederation. I would suggest that its interpretation is a matter of whether it is respectful. The comment made by the Minister of National Defence certainly was not respectful of the hon. member of Parliament.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am not going to hear more on this. I will look into the matter and come back to the House in due course. I thought I heard everything in question period that I could hear given the noise. I did not think anything was said that was out of order. I will look into the matter and come back to the House in due course.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order with respect to something I saw and heard during oral question period. It involved a member of the opposition, the member for Québec, and was directed at our minister responsible for the Quebec City region.

When the minister spoke, the Bloc member for Québec made inappropriate gestures and used unparliamentary language in remarks about our minister.

I was completely offended by what I saw and heard. I believe the member from Quebec owes the minister a sincere apology. I do not believe we should put up with that kind of behaviour here in this honourable place.

I am here to work very hard for this country. The minister is working very hard for the country as well and particularly for the province of Quebec. To have to put up with those kinds of remarks, which I cannot even repeat in the House, is absolutely unparliamentary.

I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to view the tape and consider what the Bloc Québécois member had to say and what she was gesturing toward the minister, and ask that she apologize to the minister as quickly as possible.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague opposite is evidently unable to relay the specific remarks of the member for Québec. I know that we are not supposed to speak about the absence of colleagues, but I will say that she is not here at present as she had to catch a flight to return to her riding.

However, in points of order, knowing what was said is necessary to determine whether remarks are unparliamentary. In the case of inappropriate gestures, the burden of proof falls on the member raising the point of order.

Therefore, I believe that you should at least wait for the member for Québec to return in order to obtain an explanation.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the gestures made by the member for Québec were so unacceptable that it would be inappropriate for me to repeat them for you. I am asking you to look at the video. If you wish, after this exchange, I could meet with you to show you the gestures she made. I can also repeat the words she used but it would be very inappropriate to use such unparliamentary language in the House. However, I am prepared to speak to you, one-on-one, after this exchange, if you wish.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. member for her diligence. We can certainly discuss this and I could also see what shows up on the video. That concludes this point of order for the time being.

Ethics

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a matter before the House and before one of its committees.

I would like to inform the House that on Tuesday evening of this week, April 20, I was advised that in April 2009 a member of my staff in Calgary, Mr. Scott Wenger, was approached by Mr. Rahim Jaffer. Their discussion involved representations by Mr. Jaffer on behalf of a company.

On my instructions, Mr. Winger has forwarded the details of those discussions and the documents relating to them to the Commissioner of Lobbying. The material was transmitted late yesterday, April 22. The same material is being transmitted today to the Ethics Commissioner.

No contract was ever awarded to the company. I was not involved in those discussions in April 2009. Nor was I aware that they took place.

As I have previously stated publicly, the only discussion I have had with Mr. Jaffer in the past one and a half years consisted of a 30 second discussion in this very building in early 2009, when I told him that I was not responsible for the administration of the so-called green funds.

I felt it was my obligation, Mr. Speaker, to so advise the House today.

Bill C-471--Royal Recommendation

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to address the issue of private member's bill, Bill C-471, standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

As the House knows, the Conservatives have raised concerns on this issue in the House arguing that the bill needs a royal recommendation. The government contends that the repeal of the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act, or PSECA for short, requires a royal recommendation because delegating jurisdiction to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to oversee public sector pay equity complaints is “essentially a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations”. We take exception to this argument on two grounds.

First, this repeal is a restoration of the status quo. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal have been charged with these precise responsibilities for nearly a quarter century. This repeal hardly constitutes a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations. They have the expertise and resources necessary to continue to undertake these responsibilities in the short term.

Second, the PSECA has not yet come into force, meaning that Bill C-471's repeal of that legislation would have limited impact on the ability of either the Public Service Labour Relations Board or the Canadian Human Rights Commission to carry out procedures relating to pay equity complaints.

The government further argues that Bill C-471 represents a cost increase to the treasury but nowhere in the 2009 budget does the government indicate that the new PSECA represents a cost savings. It is difficult to evaluate cost implications when the government provided no such information in its own policy change.

Bill C-471 calls on the Government of Canada to ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place by a specific date. The creation of statutory oversight agencies simply constitutes the creation of a framework under which a proper, proactive federal pay equity system could function. Expenditure of public moneys and liability of the Crown need not be considered in the creation of such a timeline. The framework costs nothing.

I am reminded of two rulings made in 2006 that dealt with a royal recommendation in which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled on both occasions that there was no need for a royal recommendation.

Members will remember your decision, Mr. Speaker, on Paul Martin's private member's bill, Bill C-292 regarding the Kelowna accord, where you explained:

...the Kelowna accord tabled in the House sheds light on the plan of action, but it is not clear whether the accord could be implemented through an appropriation act, through amendments to existing acts, or through the establishment of new acts. From my reading, implementation would appear to require various legislative proposals.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling dated September 27, 2006, regarding private member's Bill C-288 on the Kyoto protocol, which had been brought forward by my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier, you indicated:

Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

It would be the responsibility of the government to enact these changes in a manner that does not put a new charge on the treasury. We cannot prejudge how exactly this framework would be established. Once the government establishes the pay equity framework proposed in this bill, cost implications would become factors to consider. As this bill does not actually enact such changes, a royal recommendation is unnecessary.

Ethics

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a new point of order.

Earlier, we listened to the Minister of the Environment confess that his employee had discussions with Mr. Rahim Jaffer about project proposals. I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the environment minister submit his documentation—the documents he used, those that were submitted to him—to the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In response to the point of order raised by the member for Hull--Aylmer, it is the Chair's understanding that the minister has the right to table documents if he wishes but does not have any obligations to do so.

The hon. member for Hull--Aylmer.