House of Commons Hansard #155 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

All those in favour will please say yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

All those opposed will please say nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

I declare the motion carried.

It being 5.50 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (pregnant or nursing employees), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Lapierre Bloc Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous remarks, working women are a source of skilled labour who deserve our respect and our full attention. Those who set out on the great adventure of procreation should enjoy a status appropriate to the valuable task they are undertaking.

Unfortunately, they often feel penalized because, upon returning to their careers, they do not always return to the same working conditions they had before they left when pregnant. In particular, when they have to leave early as a precaution, either because of the workplace or because of the mother's health or that of the fetus, the professional insecurity experienced by these mothers-to-be is understandable.

That is not how it should be. And it is incumbent upon us, in this House, to change things. If we come to an agreement, Bill C-380 should allow us to take a few steps forward.

I repeat that pregnant women whose wrok is under federal jurisdiction and who need to leave their jobs earlier than expected to prevent pregnancy-related problems could opt for their provincial or Quebec legislation, instead of the federal code, in order to maximize their benefits under the system best suited to them.

Quebec's workplace health and safety commission, the CSST, allows an employee to receive her regular salary during the first five working days after stopping work. Then, for the next 14 days that would normally be worked, she is entitled to 90% of her net salary, which is paid by her employer who, in turn, will be reimbursed by the CSST.

We would like all working women to benefit from these conditions. I am talking about workers subject to the Canada Labour Code and who are not, therefore, entitled to conditions set by the CSST.

Bill C-380 is an excellent opportunity for us to correct this situation. It is clearly better to get 90% of your salary instead of the 55% provided under the EI program. It is also fairer and provides greater security. Finally, these workers would not lose a single week of vacation or parental leave because they had to go on preventive withdrawal, as they do now under the Canada Labour Code.

So I am asking the House to support Bill C-380, so that these measures benefit rather than penalize pregnant women.

I ask too that the pilot project, under which the necessary adjustments between the CSST system and the Canada Labour Code system could be made, be extended, because it was an equitable solution with regard to preventive withdrawal due to a pregnancy.

Women regulated by the Quebec or provincial labour code could chose between getting partial EI payments while receiving preventive withdrawal benefits, or only receiving the latter in order to save their EI benefits and be entitled to a longer maternity or parental leave.

Without this program, these women will not have this option. I am asking not only that it be extended, but that it be made law without further delay.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to the members of the House of Commons on Bill C-380.

The protection of Canadian working women, particularly pregnant and nursing employees, is a matter the government takes extremely seriously, as I do myself.

I wish to reassure the hon. member for Shefford, Quebec and to tell him that we share his concerns for the health and well-being of pregnant and nursing women in workplaces all over Canada.

While we do share the same interest in protecting pregnant and nursing employees, we believe that the changes proposed to the Canada Labour Code in Bill C-380 are somewhat premature. This is a complex aspect of social policy and one that addresses not only occupational health and safety legislation but also workplace standards, the judgment of health professionals and personal decisions by all the women involved. If one takes into account the way federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions over labour matters are divided, along with broader national interest, the problem becomes even more complex.

Our commitment on this as a government is clearly set out in the Canada Labour Code. We need to look particularly at Parts II and III. As hon. members are already aware, Part II addresses workplace health and safety, while III addresses labour standards.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Order, please. May we ask the hon. members who want to carry on private conversations to do it outside the House, please. I also must remind the hon. members that cellphones are definitely not acceptable within the House whether the House is in debate or whether the House is waiting for a vote.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling the members of this House to order.

Under the recent amendments to part II, an employee under federal jurisdiction who is pregnant or nursing is entitled to remove herself from the workplace, even before she has obtained a medical certificate, if she believes that her employment constitutes a risk to herself, her fetus or to her child, if she is nursing.

Such women are entitled to all the benefits and compensation attached to their employment until they obtain a medical certificate in support of their application.

Part III of the Code, which deals with labour standards, provides additional protection. A pregnant or nursing employee is entitled to be reassigned to another job or have her duties modified from the moment she knows she is pregnant until 24 weeks after the birth of the baby. The worker’s employer cannot reduce her salary because of a reassignment or a change of employment.

Part III also provides that a pregnant or nursing worker is entitled to paid leave from the time she requests a change of employment until the time the change takes effect or until she is unable to accept it for health reasons. If no reassignment or change of job is possible, the employee may take leave. During this time, the employee is also entitled to employment insurance benefits, supplemented by private insurance.

The Canada Labour Code covers a full range of measures designed to ensure a healthy, safe work environment for all pregnant or nursing mothers. In addition, it provides for leave and financial assistance to any pregnant or nursing mother who believes she is at risk at work.

We firmly believe that parts II and III of the Canada Labour Code provide adequate protection to pregnant and nursing mothers in the work place.

I assume that the concern of the hon. member for Shefford arises from the difference between employment insurance payments and the benefits provided by the Quebec system, which differs from the federal system.

The practical effect of Bill C-380 would be to create a separate system for employees under federal jurisdiction, but who are working in Quebec, and those under federal jurisdiction who are working in other regions of the country.

It would have the effect of creating regional disparities. It would, in fact, give rise to an imbalance between the possibilities granted to women working under federal jurisdiction in all parts of the country.

The Constitution and the case law establish a precise demarcation between federal and provincial jurisdiction in the field of employment.

The 14 jurisdictions in Canada determine their respective statutes and regulations after having made an evaluation of the impact and the ramifications of the existing legislation and possible changes.

Imagine the confusion that would reign between these borders if, as this bill proposes, employees or employers could decide under which jurisdiction they could choose to be protected.

The labour laws and regulations do not lend themselves to such a choice. It is up to the government, after consulting the parties to whom the laws and regulations apply, to determine the conditions that prevail in their field of jurisdiction.

The federal government obviously participates in this process insofar as part III of the Canada Labour Code is concerned. This part of the code has a direct effect on the rights and obligations of employees and employers in regard to the issue at stake in this debate.

It is certainly reasonable to expect the commission to submit its report and recommendations before we proceed with an amendment like the one proposed by the member for Shefford in his Bill C-380.

For these reasons, I really cannot support Bill C-380.

I want this to be clear for the House. I have carried a pregnancy through to term in my life and had a daughter. I have had the privilege of benefiting from the Quebec system, thanks to the CSST, the Quebec workplace health and safety commission. In fact, I had an occupational accident during my pregnancy, and my doctor gave me preventive maternity leave. In the end, three weeks later, the doctors had to do an emergency caesarian. So I am familiar with the Quebec system and I think that it is outstanding.

However, we are talking about a federal jurisdiction because we are talking about employers and employees who work in an area under federal jurisdiction. We cannot create regional disparities, as this bill would do.

I cannot support this bill, therefore, because I want to wait for the report of the commission, which is conducting consultations. I want to know what this commission's recommendations are on the issues that we are debating now. I do not think that it is healthy for the members of this House to rush the commission's report and recommendations by supporting this bill.

I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the House to study the issue seriously. If this amendment is passed, it would create regional disparity and the employees in some regions could be privileged to the detriment of those in other regions.

The worry and concern voiced by the member for Shefford are certainly praiseworthy. I believe, though, that parts II and III of the Canada Labour Code provide attractive and, most importantly, equitable protection for all pregnant or nursing women who are currently working. If changes are made to the current system on the federal level, there should be prior consultations with all the stakeholders. Who are they? They are the employees and employers who are subject to federal labour legislation.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is amusing to listen to my colleague opposite, the party of asymmetrical federalism, arguing strenuously that we cannot have regional disparity. That is exactly what asymmetrical federalism is. Maybe the member should be consistent in the principles that she tries to enunciate.

This afternoon we are debating a private member's bill, Bill C-380, put forward by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Shefford.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Canada Labour Code to allow a pregnant or nursing employee to avail herself of provincial occupational health and safety legislation. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that working conditions for pregnant or nursing women are healthy and safe both for the woman and for her unborn child.

Of course, we support the intent of this bill. It is very important to Canada that the next generation has the best possible start in life. Also, we are a country that recognizes that our birth rate is not quite keeping up with replacing our population. We have a special need and a special appreciation of families and women who are bringing forward the next generation and we want to assist them all we can.

There are two difficulties with this bill. Others have pointed them out, but I want to also lay them before members of the House.

The first difficulty with this bill is that it would give benefits to pregnant women that are not available to everyone in this country. It has a built-in inequity just because of the way the legislation is different across the country. The second problem with the bill is that it would bind the federal government without the federal government having a say in the terms and conditions it has to pay for.

This bill, as I understand it, would only apply to 10% of women. That is something we should consider.

The intent of the bill is that if a pregnant woman's employment puts her into unsafe proximity, say, of chemicals or biological agents, or puts her in physical conditions that would be a danger or a health hazard to herself as a pregnant woman or to her unborn child, that woman could ask for reassignment. The intent is also that if the woman could not be reassigned by the company that she works for, she would have some kind of recourse to leave her employment for a period of time but still would have some benefits.

Under Quebec law, women have very generous benefits in this situation and I applaud Quebec for that. It is very far-sighted and very progressive of Quebec to look after women and unborn children in this way. But the Quebec benefits are only available to provincial workers. There are women in Quebec who work under the federal labour code and the Canada Labour Code is not nearly so generous to pregnant women in regard to both the choice to be reassigned or to leave employment that is deemed to be unsafe, or to other health and safety regulations.

My colleague would like to see the same benefits that are available provincially applied to women who work in the federal area under the federal Canada Labour Code. On the face of it, that would seem to be very reasonable. The problem is no other province has the kinds of benefits available to pregnant women, allowing them to be reassigned or allowing them to leave their employment or other health and safety benefits, that are available to workers in Quebec. If we adopted the bill, only women in Quebec who work under the federal Labour Code would benefit from it.

One might ask what is wrong with that, at least somebody would benefit. The difficulty is Parliament would be passing an act which would not address the need to ensure better safety and health conditions for pregnant women and their unborn children. As members of Parliament, we have a duty to all Canadian women, not just a certain segment of women who happen to have available to them a remedy that is only available in one province.

It would be much better if Parliament amended the Canada Labour Code so all women who work in the federal sector and are subject to the code would have more generous benefits and more inclusive protection. That is something we need to discuss. That is why we would like to see the bill go to committee so amendments could be made that perhaps would benefit all Canadian women.

The government's argument is that the Labour Code is being reviewed. In our judgment that review is not wide enough or complete enough to address the issue of pregnant women who may need to have some special consideration to preserve their health and safety and the health and safety of their unborn children.

We might say that the bill would at least help a few, and that is the case. If we could help everybody by amending it, then I am sure the mover of it bill would be even happier with moving in that direction. What I would recommend is that when it goes to committee, and I hope it will, this expansion of the ambit of the bill be considered.

The second problem with the bill is the federal government would have to match the benefits available, in this case, in the province of Quebec, but it would have no say in those benefits. It would still have to pony up the money. This would be subject to some negotiation, but clearly there would have to be a match or the whole point of the bill, to bring parity to all workers, would be lost.

This is a problem in principle. It forces one level of government to live by the decisions of another level of government, in this case the provincial government, without having any say in exactly what it has to live up to even though the federal government has jurisdiction in its own area. That has been a concern. Even though this only would affect 10% of workers, who happen to be in the province of Quebec, under the Labour Code, it still in principle is a concern and that needs to be addressed also by the committee

We definitely want to see better protection and enhanced measures to ensure the health and safety of pregnant women and unborn children in Canada. I would urge the committee to take the bill and address the two issues I have raised and the concerns others have raised. Perhaps when it comes back, it will be a bill that really assists all women across the country, which would be what this Parliament would want to see.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the member for bringing this issue before the House and giving us an opportunity to talk about issues around equality for women and their unborn children.

The NDP supports the intent of the bill to amend the Labour Code to allow a pregnant or nursing employee to avail herself of provincial occupational and health and safety regulations.

When I talk about it being an equality issue, I am going to go back to the royal commission report of 1984 on equality in employment to talk about the fact that this does remain an equality issue in Canada for women. It is important to understand that when we talk about a definition of equality, then Judge Abella, now Justice Abella, said, “sometimes equality means treating people the same despite their differences and sometimes it means treating them as equals by accommodating their differences”.

She goes on to say:

Ignoring differences and refusing to accommodate them is a denial of equal access and opportunity. It is discrimination. To reduce discrimination, we must create and maintain barrier-free environments so that individuals can have genuine access free from arbitrary obstructions to demonstrate and exercise fully their potential. This may mean treating some people differently by removing the obstacles to equality of opportunity they alone face for no demonstrably justifiable reason.

This is very much an issue for women who are either pregnant or nursing in the workplace. There should not be barriers to their participation in whatever way that they are able in the workplace. When they need to withdraw from the workplace, they must be able to access adequate support systems that allow them to have a liveable kind of condition.

Justice Abella goes on to say, and I think this is a really fundamental piece of this:

For women, equality in employment means first a revised approach to the role women play in the workforce. It means taking them seriously as workers and not assuming that their primary interests lie away from the workplace. At the same time, it means acknowledging and accommodating the changing role of women in the care of the family by helping both them and their male partners to function effectively both as labour force participants and as parents.

That quote gets to the heart of this bill.

In our country we talk about the importance of children. If we are talking about the importance of children, we must be talking about the importance of their mothers. It seems when we have systems set up that do not look toward protecting pregnant women or women who are nursing their children, we have systems that are failing the children and families of our country.

One of our challenges, and I am sure this is part of the reason this has come forward, is we have an employment insurance system that fails many women. Significant numbers of women no longer qualify for employment insurance as a result of changes in 1995. We have fewer and fewer women who can even qualify for regular benefits, let alone maternity.

We have a shameful condition in our country where no matter what the unemployment rate is in any given area, women still need 600 hours of insured employment to qualify for maternity benefits. This precludes a number of women from accessing a support system when they are most in need of it.

We have provincial areas that provide a much more generous approach. We have heard others talk about regional disparities and how this somehow would not be fair. It seems to me that what we really need to be talking about is ensuring that all women have access to the kinds of progressive systems available in some of our provinces, such as Quebec.

I have heard members talk about getting the bill to committee. This would be an opportunity at committee to ensure, when we look at the bill, that we talk about all women in all provinces having access to those kinds of supports.

One thing we know is that when women are pregnant or nursing, they are very susceptible to a variety of environmental conditions and these are very important to a child's development. We often put too much pressure on women to change their behaviour in terms of pressuring them to stay in a particular job or in a particular workplace, with little attention to ensuring they have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink and that they are not exposed to pollutants that not only impact them but also their unborn children, or to have access to mothers' breast milk.

As well, in the workplace we often find employers would rather women look to leaving the workplace rather than changing the environment to make it safer for them. Women should not have to face a financial penalty for needing to withdraw from dangerous work while they are pregnant.

The Canada Labour Code does not go far enough on these issues. Although we are hearing about a commission that is examining the Canada Labour Code, we need to move faster than that. We often wait for these commission reports and then they gather dust somewhere without any substantial changes to what is happening in the actual workplace.

Although I applaud the member for Shefford looking for an alternative and seeing that many provinces have better protection for pregnant and breast feeding workers, it really raises the question about what is happening in other provinces and why women do not have access to the kinds of protections afforded in the province of Quebec.

That is why I appreciate the provisions in the bill that would provide women with almost a full replacement wage if they are pregnant or breast-feeding after pregnancy so they will not be forced to leave their jobs and suffer those financial consequences.

This brings up another subject. Many workers are not covered if they are self-employed or contract workers. Quebec is certainly moving ahead in this vein to ensure that self-employed workers do have coverage. However, currently nowhere in the rest of Canada, under the existing employment insurance system, do self-employed workers have access to maternity and paternity benefits.

The Women's Network of Prince Edward Island has been doing an extensive amount of work on this issue, closely looking at the Quebec model. Parental benefits and before that maternity benefits were never a good fit with the unemployment insurance system or as it is now called, employment insurance. Having a baby is not like losing a job or being laid off. Every parent knows that being a parent is a full time job.

Today, when we emphasize more and more the importance of early days in child development, it seems less and less sensible not to fully support parental leave for all Canadians, not just those who have met the strict eligibility requirements for employment insurance.

We have been hearing from women from all over the country about what it means for them to not have that safety net when they become pregnant. It seems to me it is a failure in the system to address this very critical need. Again, I suggest that we look to Quebec for its progressive model around providing wage replacement to self-employed workers.

The Women's Network of Prince Edward Island recommends that we extend eligibility for maternity and parental benefits by allowing self-employed individuals the option to pay into the employment insurance program. Although the Women's Network of Prince Edward Island is suggesting that it would be optional, many people feel it should not be optional and it should be part of the requirement so all women who are self-employed have access. It also recommends that the federal government extend eligibility for maternity and parental benefits by enacting a 360-hour qualification requirement regardless of regional unemployment rates.

I spoke earlier about the fact that so many women are shut out of the employment insurance system despite the fact that they pay into the system. We have women paying into a system from which they cannot collect. Many would argue that these women who are often part time seasonal workers are subsidizing the full time full year workers. They pay in but have no way of collecting.

The Women's Network of Prince Edward Island also has asked that eligibility be extended by allowing an option for parents to reach back hours over a three to five year period prior to the birth of a child.

These are all extremely important steps to take. They show, as the bill of the hon. member for Shefford does, that working women still need some action to ensure that there is equity in the workplace.

Earlier I mentioned equality and equity. I would like to close on that note. We have so many items that demonstrate women still have not achieved equality in our country. Women are still fighting for pay equity. They are still not eligible for the employment insurance benefit. We see this disparity when we talk about women who are pregnant or breast-feeding.

Equity does not mean that all people are treated the same, but that accommodations ensure that all workers have the same opportunity in the workplace. I urge all members of the House to support the bill and send it to committee for a fuller discussion.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-380 concerning preventive withdrawal.

First, I would like to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford, for introducing this excellent bill. As we know, he is an experienced unionist, a man sensitive to the interests of the workers, both men and women. He has taken it upon himself to introduce this bill to make the lives of pregnant or nursing employees easier.

In Quebec, we have a situation that does not make any sense. We have two categories of female employees. There are those covered by the Quebec labour code, who account for 90% of all female employees, while others work for enterprises under Quebec jurisdiction and are entitled to benefits from the CSST, Quebec's occupational health and safety commission, when they are pregnant and working in an inappropriate environment for them or their child to be. On presentation of a medical certificate, the organization takes steps to reassign the employee, which is the thing to do. When that is not possible, which unfortunately happens far too often, a complete mechanism is set in motion to ensure that this difficult, painful and unfortunate situation has as little impact as possible on the employee.

In Quebec, the government, in cooperation with the CSST, has put in place a mechanism to ensure that these employees start receiving immediately and with no waiting period 90% of their salary for as long as necessary. That does not prevent them from taking advantage of parental leave benefits for a total of 65 weeks.

Some 90% of workers in Quebec are in this situation. Furthermore, 8% of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code. They work for banks, airline companies, in ports, airports and telecommunication companies. Unfortunately, they have no mechanism to avail themselves of should they end up pregnant in an inadequate work environment. They receive employment insurance benefits, go through the two-week waiting period, and receive only 55% of their salary up to a maximum of $413 a week.

To punish them further, every week of their preventative withdrawal is subtracted from their 65 weeks of maternity or parental leave. That is not much of a benefit. What do you suppose happens? There are women who, financially speaking, cannot afford such a pay cut or a two-week waiting period because they had the nerve to work in an environment that was not healthy for them, their baby or their fetus.

It was for those reasons that the Bloc Québécois, through the hon. member for Shefford, introduced Bill C-380. This is not the first time the Bloc has presented this: this is the fifth time it is introducing this bill in this House. We are doing so because we truly do not want there to be two types of workers in Quebec; we want all of them to have the exact same quality of work and the same quality of family life. This absolutely must be advantageous to all women. It is not right that this difference has existed for so long. It is easy to imagine how discouraging and frustrating it must be for these women who are exposed to situations that are unhealthy to them, their baby or their fetus.

I have most certainly noticed that our NDP colleagues will support this bill. I also see that our colleagues from the Conservative Party will vote in favour of it. I am quite disappointed, however, to see that the Liberal government is going to oppose this bill for the rather odd reasons it has provided.

If the trend continues, there is a strong possibility that we will not be sitting in this House next week. If we had all voted in favour of this bill today, it could have been passed quickly. This is what we should have done, this is what the Liberals should have done. However, they decided to oppose this legislation. The vote will take place tomorrow.

The Liberals could have done a good deed and extend a helping hand to pregnant workers. It would not be that complicated because, in its present form, the bill provides that pregnant workers in a province, such as Quebec, would simply have to avail themselves, after an agreement is reached between the federal and provincial governments, of the existing remedies, if applicable. So, the Liberals could have done a good deed and extend a helping hand to female workers.

It is difficult for the Liberal government to display something it does not have, but still it could have tried to show some sensitivity towards female workers and do a good deed. It could have stopped showing contempt towards them. It could have been sensitive to the difficult situations of people who are not rich and who have limited means. Unfortunately, the government prefers to vote against this bill, under the pretence that, some day, it will amend part III of the Canada Labour Code.

The government will try to win votes by saying that it is sensitive to families, and that it has programs to help them. But if the government had really wanted to do something to help them, it would have voted in support of this bill. Today, tomorrow and the day after, women who are only getting 55% of their salary could have received 90%, like women in Quebec, where this provision is already in effect, and where we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We are not asking for changes coast to coast. We are only asking that there be no differences in Quebec—or that these differences be eliminated—so that all female workers can enjoy the same benefits. That is not very complicated.

On the eve of an election campaign, one wonders how the Liberal government can continue to claim to help families, women and workers, when it will not even support this bill. This government could straighten out the situation of working women by quickly reaching an agreement with its Quebec counterpart.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Russ Powers Liberal Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-380. I must, however, disagree with the provisions of the bill.

The member of Parliament for Shefford is suggesting an amendment to part II of the Canada Labour Code, related to pregnant or nursing mothers. The section being amended, section 132, relates to a pregnant or nursing mother who believes that continuing in her job poses a risk to her health and that of her fetus or child. In effect, the member for Shefford is suggesting that such an employee should be able to opt for coverage under the occupational health and safety legislation and related programs of the province where she works.

Certainly we know there are possible challenges facing pregnant women and nursing mothers in workplaces across Canada. There are existing protections under the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code. Part II and Part III of the Canada Labour Code already provide pregnant and nursing employees with generous benefits and strong safeguards.

For example, if a pregnant or nursing worker believes there is a risk to her health or the health of her fetus or child, she can stop work and take the necessary time, with full pay, to consult her doctor to determine if she is really at risk. If the risk is indeed of concern, the employer must modify the job or reassign the woman to another job. If the job cannot be changed or reassignment is not possible, the woman is entitled to unpaid leave with the right to return.

Let me remind the House that part III has very generous maternity provisions. An employee gets 17 weeks of maternity leave and is entitled to 37 weeks of parental leave, up to a maximum total of 52 weeks. Her benefits are fully protected and she has the right to return to the same job or a comparable one.

So it appears that Canadian women are well served by these benefits and safeguards in the workplace; however, the government is not standing pat in its evaluation of the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code. The government has agreed to study not only this issue but an entire raft of subjects that are commonly grouped together under labour standards legislation.

As members of the House know, this government is deeply committed to helping all Canadians succeed in the 21st century economy. Improving labour standards is an important part of that commitment. That is why our labour minister recently launched a full review of part III of the Canada Labour Code. This is our first sweeping review of Canada's labour standards in 40 years.

This review is a great opportunity to engage unions, employers and ordinary Canadians in addressing some of the most important issues of the day, including work-life balance, productivity, and employment relationships. With this review, we want to start a wide-ranging national conversation about what Canada's workplaces should look like in the 21st century. We want to reach out to all Canadians and hear about the workplace issues that matter most to them, their families and their communities.

Issues such as the protection of pregnant and nursing workers will certainly be carefully considered during this review. That is why I believe amending the Canada Labour Code now would be premature. It would be short-sighted to go ahead with this kind of amendment before we have a chance to review the commission's report and its recommendations.

One of my chief concerns is that this amendment seeks to short-circuit the whole policy-making process. When it comes to creating social policy in Canada, we need to take time to consider all the facts and all the views and we need to study our options before deciding on a course of action.

We need to consult broadly with all of our stakeholders, including Canadian employers and unions, labour experts, and the provinces and territories. That is how we can ensure that the deliberations in Parliament are effective in deciding the evolution of labour laws in our country.

The bill raises difficult constitutional questions and would introduce a dangerous precedent in the administration of labour law in this country. Federally regulated employees comprise 10% of the Canadian workforce in sectors of key importance to the Canadian economic infrastructure. They include, among others, workers in banks and in Canada's transportation and communications sectors. This means that 90% of Canadian workers are governed by provincial or territorial labour legislation.

In this complex world, the bill would introduce a precedent. An employee subject to the Canada Labour Code could opt for the provincial program in the province where she works if she deemed it to be more generous. Let us consider the type of world this would create, and the type of precedent this would create in the laws and regulations in federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

Imagine a country where individuals or employers for that matter could cherry-pick and choose the jurisdiction and its laws that would apply in their particular case. One could imagine the scenario, “I pick this provincial law for this protection”. However, tomorrow the person could say, “In this case, I choose the federal jurisdiction because it is better for me”.

That is certainly no way to run a federal country. This bill would provide employees with the right to choose their effective jurisdiction. Would we then allow the same option in other areas? That is the question that must be considered. I think not. Let us think of the ramifications. Serious evaluation moves us to reject this course of action.

In short, I think all Canadians would benefit if we took more time to examine the issue as we are planning to do. Let the commission that is reviewing part III of the Canada Labour Code do its job and report back to Canadians.

Once we have listened to the views of all Canadians and have the facts in hand then we can move ahead and take action. Protecting pregnant women and nursing mothers in the workplace is a top priority for all Canadians. As parliamentarians it is our job to take the time to study this important issue. It is our job to do it right.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Shefford for presenting Bill C-380.

I followed with great interest the first hour of debate on this bill. Once again, we were all able to see that the Liberal government will oppose Bill C-380. Frankly, I do not understand why this government continues to object to these essential changes to the Canada Labour Code. This attitude is unacceptable, because the bill is—and I think we clearly showed it—a significant improvement over the current situation. It simply allows pregnant or nursing workers, if they so wish, to avail themselves of the provincial legislation, instead of the federal one, so as to enjoy the benefits that best suit their needs. Currently, in Quebec, the provincial legislation is clearly the more appropriate one.

The federal government's position on this bill shows once again a distinct lack of sensitivity and political will regarding the rights of workers. I am not only thinking of the government's position on the bill before us today, but also of how it rejected many other measures that would have benefited workers.

Many examples come to mind. I am thinking, among others, of the bill on replacement workers, which was introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and defeated last spring. There is also the bill introduced by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville to prevent and stop psychological harassment in the workplace, which was also defeated on October 5. The same thing happened with Bill C-278, introduced by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

In conclusion, I think this bill can improve the plight of female workers in Quebec, and I am asking the House to support it at second reading.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my NDP and Conservative colleagues, who are supporting my bill on preventive withdrawal for working women. I want to respond to the government members. They are saying that people should trust this government because part III of the Canada Labour Code is going to be amended. Right now, I have zero confidence in this government.

We know where trust has led us with this government. It has led to the Gomery commission. How are we supposed to trust it when it talks about amending part III of the Canada Labour Code? Such amendments would ensure that pregnant workers could go on preventive withdrawal just like such workers in Quebec, instead of being in a different category.

With regard to preventive withdrawal, I heard earlier that part III of the Canada Labour Code states that, if there is a risk to a worker, supported by a medical certificate, she must be paid. They are talking here about a few days or a week. Let us not forget: a pregnancy lasts for nine months. As for modifying job functions, there is no cause for concern. An employer will not wait six months before acting because he has to pay the worker in the meantime. So he will find her a job that she can do right away, if he can, within the plant or place of work.

We must not forget, either, that we are not just talking about women working in banks. Some women are workers regulated by the Canada Labour Code, working with heavy trucks or all kinds of trucks for all kinds of transportation, be it canned food, lumber or whatever. Truck vibrations may mean that pregnant workers need to stop working right from the first day of pregnancy. So, in this particular case, there is a problem because reassignment is not possible.

Let us be clear on what preventive withdrawal means for a pregnant worker. If the employer cannot assign that worker to another position, she goes home without pay. The only pay she can get is the 25 weeks of salary that do not kick in until 15 weeks before her due date. From the first day the worker knows she is pregnant until she has her baby, she has no salary except for two or three months just before she delivers.

Do you think it is right that a worker has to take leave at her own expense to have children? This government says that we should be having a few more children and that it will help families have children. I do not think this is the right approach. I do not believe in having two people working in the same province or in the same region with two different systems. There should be one equal system for all women working in Quebec.

Let us look at the 600-hour requirement to qualify for EI. Have you ever thought that it takes half a year of work to become entitled to receive benefits for a certain period of time? We are not talking about 52 weeks nor any specific number. If a person has worked only half a year, she is entitled to just what EI allows, which is next to nothing. The government has cut back on EI so much that, today, only 46% of workers are able to qualify. It has slashed employment insurance and no one qualifies any more.

If this government were at all interested in the middle class—the people who are working—I think there would be social legislation to clearly demonstrate the government's desire to help them. I have been here a year and a half without hearing anything about that. The only thing I have heard anything about is cuts, and about giving nothing to the workers, although they are the economic motor of all business.

Yet there is nothing complicated about this. In order to regularize the situation between the two categories of women workers in Quebec, the only thing needed is political will, which would translate into the signing of an agreement with Quebec.

There is already an agreement with Quebec for all workers coming under the Canada Labour Code as far as work-related accidents are concerned. Anyone who has a work-related accident benefits from the agreement the federal government has entered into with the provincial government, and it pays for the work-related accident.

It would be just as easy to have a new agreement for pregnant workers. This would just require a bit of political courage, but that is not something to be found on the other side of this House.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

It being 6:52 p.m., the time allocated for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.