Bill C-243 (Historical)

National Maternity Assistance Program Strategy Act

An Act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy

The purpose of this enactment is to provide for the development and implementation of a national maternity assistance program strategy to support women who are unable to work due to pregnancy and whose employer is unable to accommodate them by providing reassignment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good morning, everybody. We have a full slate of witnesses to go through.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 26, 2016, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act regarding maternity benefits.

I'm very pleased to be joined, via video conference, by Alicia Ibbitson, as an individual. Here in Ottawa we have the Canadian Welding Association, represented by Dan Tadic, executive director. From Union des travailleuses et travailleurs accidentés ou malades, we have Roch Lafrance, secretary general.

Also by video conference, from the University of Alberta, is Dr. Nicola Cherry, professor, department of medicine. I understand you're joined there by Jean-Michel Galarneau. I'm glad we can see both of you.

We're going to start off today with Alicia Ibbitson, who is coming to us from Chilliwack, British Columbia.

The next seven minutes are yours.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:14 p.m., pursuant to order made on Friday, March 10, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-243.

Call in the members.

[Andrew Brown]

What was proposed was simply to allow women to start maternity benefits sooner. So it would not require something new to come from her or her doctor or primary caregiver. That represents a difference from what is being proposed in Bill C-243. There's the potential that adding new requirements could slow the processing of cases.

[Andrew Brown]

I just want to note one little imprecision in that Bill C-243, as presented by Mr. Gerretsen, would allow a woman to start 15 weeks in advance if required and if a doctor agreed that the workplace were unsafe. The government has announced the flexibility to allow a woman to begin her maternity benefits up to 12 weeks in advance, period.

In terms of what's proposed in the budget, I think I can only go as far as to say that it maintains the three weeks. That would still be available after the expected date of birth. That would speak to the specific intent of maternity benefits, which is to help provide income support through leave, time off, to recover and recuperate from childbirth.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

If I understand correctly, it is currently possible for a woman to claim EI maternity benefits for eight weeks before the due date while keeping the 15 weeks of benefits. Bill C-243 sought to make it possible for women to take the full 15 weeks prior to their due date if they so wished.

In yesterday's budget, the government opted instead to allow pregnant women to claim EI maternity benefits for 12 of the 15 weeks before their due date and three weeks after the due date.

As a representative of the Department of Employment and Social Development, what is your view on that budget measure?

[Andrew Brown, Executive Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Good afternoon.

I am pleased to appear before you today as part of the committee's study of Bill C-243, a bill proposed by Mr. Mark Gerretsen, the member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands.

I am the senior director working on employment insurance policy at the Department of Employment and Social Development.

With me today is Judith Buchanan. She is the director for labour standards and the wage earner protection program, also at Employment and Social Development Canada.

I propose to provide you with a brief overview of the bill, to give you a description of key benefit and leave provisions that currently support pregnant workers, to identify some of the considerations regarding the bill's provisions, and to describe some of the recent and ongoing activities that are closely aligned with the bill.

The bill proposes the following amendments to the Employment Insurance Act: to allow pregnant workers to start receiving maternity benefits earlier than those currently available if the worker leaves a job that may pose a risk to her or to her unborn child; to mandate the Minister of Employment and Social Development, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, to conduct consultations on the prospect of developing a national maternity assistance program strategy; and to mandate reporting to Parliament on those consultations as well as ongoing reporting to Parliament.

Let me begin by describing the current benefit and leave provisions. EI maternity benefits are intended to support a woman's income when she's out of the workforce to recuperate from pregnancy and childbirth. Under the Employment Insurance Act, eligible workers may receive up to 15 weeks of maternity benefits. Those maternity benefits can start as early as eight weeks before the expected date of birth and must end no later than 17 weeks after the child is born. Depending on what suits the mother's situation, benefits can be started before or following childbirth.

EI parental benefits are intended to support parents providing care to a newborn or newly adopted child or children. Eligible parents may share up to 35 weeks of parental benefits following the birth or placement of the child for the purpose of adoption.

Federally regulated employees under the Canada Labour Code have corresponding job protected leave. Leave provisions are largely a provincial/territorial responsibility and vary across the country.

EI maternity and parental benefits are available across the country, except in Quebec. Residents of Quebec may be eligible for maternity, paternity, and parental benefits under the Quebec parental insurance plan.

In addition, the federal jurisdiction, and the Province of Quebec specifically, offer preventive withdrawal job protection for pregnant and/or nursing women related to workplace health and safety risks.

Federally regulated employees under the Canada Labour Code may request a job reassignment based on medical advice. Once the request is made, the woman may take leave with pay until the employer either accommodates her request for reassignment or confirms that they're able to do so. If a job reassignment is not provided, the woman may take an unpaid leave of absence for the duration of the risk.

In Quebec, the safe maternity experience program, Pour une maternité sans danger, provides for preventive withdrawal, as well as wage replacement, for employees under provincial jurisdiction. In 2014, there were over 35,000 claims in the province of Quebec representing 40% of live births, and approximately $228 million was paid in benefits, in addition to the benefits that were paid through the Quebec parental insurance plan.

Turning to the provisions of Bill C-243, it seeks to advance gender equality by addressing a workplace health and safety issue. First, the bill would raise awareness of this key reproductive health issue in the workplace and the importance of positive responses to promote gender equality, particularly in occupations that are traditionally dominated by men, such as the skilled trades.

Second, the EI provisions of the bill would provide flexibility to pregnant workers to begin their maternity benefits sooner and enhance income security when they're unable to be accommodated by their employer in unsafe workplace conditions.

While Bill C-243 does not provide additional weeks of maternity or parental benefits, by providing earlier access to maternity benefits, the bill is expected to result in incremental program costs.

Specifically, for an EI claimant who does not currently use all of the combined weeks of maternity and parental benefits and who starts to receive maternity benefits earlier in accordance with the bill, that claimant would be expected to receive additional weeks of benefits.

Let me also address some potential shortcomings of the bill.

First, the onus is generally on an employer to provide a safe workplace. Providing income replacement for workers during preventive withdrawal may implicitly signal to employers a reduced onus on them to address workplace health and safety issues and to identify accommodative options.

Second, allowing all 15 weeks of maternity benefits to be taken before the expected date of birth would deviate from a key policy intent for maternity benefits and leave, which includes providing mothers with time off to recuperate after childbirth. In addition, mothers could potentially exhaust their maternity benefits before the baby is born and before parental benefits could be paid, leaving a gap in income support.

Third, there are some remaining, largely minor, technical issues related to the bill. For example, it would be important that EI provisions come into force on a Sunday to align with the concept of an EI week.

Finally, I'd like to close by speaking about the alignment of recent and ongoing activities with the bill, including, of course, yesterday's budget announcement. I'll turn now to slide 5.

The government has committed to improving the flexibility of EI parental benefits and corresponding leave, and the inclusiveness of supports for caregivers. The objective is to evolve to meet the changing needs of the workers and their families in this country.

Yesterday, budget 2017 announced the government's proposal to provide more flexibility for maternity and parental benefits and more inclusive caregiving benefits to help support Canadian families. Specifically, it proposes to allow women to claim EI maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date, providing more flexibility compared to the current eight weeks, if they so choose.

I'd also like to tell you about some of the alignment of other recent activities with the bill.

Last year, between May and August, the EI Service Quality Review Panel travelled across the country and sought input on ways to improve services to EI claimants. In October and November of 2016, Minister Duclos held online consultations with Canadians to seek their views on the government's mandate commitment for more flexible parental benefits. The consultations specifically included the issue of considering earlier access to maternity benefits for pregnant workers due to workplace health and safety risks. Those consultations were also brought to the attention of provinces and territories at various levels through the Forum of Labour Market Ministers, a key forum through which the federal government maintains ongoing engagement with provinces and territories on labour market programs and issues.

Federal-provincial-territorial collaboration is important to continue building on an efficient labour market and a skilled labour force. Subsequently, the “Employment Insurance Service Quality Review Report: Making Citizens Central”, was released on February 1, 2017. Furthermore, the summary reports on the consultations with Canadians and stakeholders on maternity, parental and caregiving benefits were released on February 27 of this year. In addition, an annual report to Parliament is mandated on the operation of the EI program. Through the annual “EI Monitoring and Assessment Report”, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission reports on income supports, including maternity and parental benefits, employment supports, and service delivery.

I think you'll see that an awful lot of recent government activities are very closely aligned with the bill's objectives and with the text of the bill.

I will close there. Thank you very much for time. I look forward to your questions.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, MP Gerretsen, for coming here to deliver this presentation. I hope that the study you have done on your bill will be helpful to us in the committee.

One initial reason why cabinet opposed your bill was that, while the bill was being debated in the House from October 6 to November 4, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development was engaging Canadians and key stakeholders through online consultations on more flexible maternity, paternity, and caregiving benefits and leave provisions. Those consultations were aimed at getting the view of Canadians on how pregnant workers could be better supported, notably in situations such as those described in your Bill C-243. This study concluded that 64% of the participants would favour taking EI maternity benefits and leaving earlier than currently allowed.

Have have you looked at the conclusions of these consultations by the minister? Do they support what the bill is proposing?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for having me and for taking the opportunity to discuss my private member's bill.

I also want to take a quick opportunity to introduce you to my assistant, Steven Patterson, who has been extremely helpful on this bill from the beginning. He was still a student in fourth year at Queen's University when he started working on this bill. He has recently informed me that he is going to be moving on to go to law school. I knew that I would lose him eventually, in the fall. I feel that he has just as much right to sit at this table today as I do.

I'll keep my remarks brief, Mr. Chair, to allow as much time as possible for answers to the committee's questions. I'll first explain my rationale for introducing this bill, and then I will contribute my ideas for possible amendments given some of the events that happened in yesterday's budget.

This bill was inspired by a constituent in my community named Melodie. That is where it all began. I'll remind you quickly of Melodie's story, which highlighted a gap in the EI system and ultimately inspired me to introduce this legislation.

Melodie is a welder in my community. In mid-2014 she became pregnant, and like many expectant mothers, she consulted with her medical practitioner to ensure that she was taking all the necessary steps to have a healthy pregnancy. Upon describing the hazardous nature of her work environment to her practitioner, Melodie was told that she could no longer continue welding during her pregnancy, as the functions of her job would be unsafe and pose a significant risk to her future child.

She reached out to her employer, a well-established and highly reputable shipbuilding firm in Kingston, but ultimately they were unable to provide reassignment or modify her duties in a way that would mitigate the risk. Forced to stop working, Melodie applied for and was granted EI sickness benefits.

There are a couple of problems with this, the first being that Melodie was pregnant, but not sick. The second problem was that these 15 weeks of benefits ran out long before Melodie was eligible to officially begin her maternity leave. For two and a half months Melodie waited to receive the maternity benefits she was entitled to. This income gap led to serious financial hardship and ultimately resulted in the loss of her home and significant personal distress.

When Melodie approached my office in early 2016, we researched the issue and found that the primary source of the problem was a rule under section 22 of the EI Act that requires that a woman, regardless of her circumstances, wait until eight weeks before her expected due date before she can start receiving maternity benefits.

For women like Melodie, who are employed in occupations where it is unsafe to work at the early stages of pregnancy, this restriction can lead to long periods with absolutely no income.

Melodie's story is why I put forward this legislation. I strongly believe that no woman should be put in the position that Melodie was. In Canada in 2017, no woman should have to choose between pursuing her dream job and starting a family.

Evidence shows that women are still grossly under-represented in skilled trades, construction, engineering, science, policing, and many other professions that would be affected by this bill. My goal with this bill is to address one of the barriers to entry for women who want to enter one of these so-called non-traditional jobs. We need to think about how to level the playing field so that women have an equal opportunity to participate in all sectors of the labour force.

Mr. Chair, I was pleased to see that in budget 2017 strong measures have been included to do exactly that. Specifically, yesterday's budget proposes to allow women to claim EI maternity benefits up to 12 weeks before their due date—up from the current standard of eight weeks—if they so choose. While there are some small differences between this measure and my bill, yesterday's proposed change introduces exactly the kind of flexibility that I have been advocating for with Bill C-243.

I will now move to the second part of my remarks, which is to propose some amendments to my bill. In light of the changes proposed in budget 2017 and reflective of the fact that all members will have an opportunity to vote on that on its own, I would urge the committee to vote down the employment insurance provisions of Bill C-243, found in clauses 6 and 7.

In addition, the parliamentary legal counsel recommended that the committee adopt amendments that would amend the preamble by deleting lines 19 to 23 on page 1 and an amendment that would change the title to “An Act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy”.

Today I am submitting these amendments to the committee. I can provide them to the chair who can distribute them to the analyst or clerk. These changes would leave the first part of the bill, the national strategy, unchanged. This part calls on the Minister of Employment to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that pregnancy is not a barrier to women's full and equal participation in all aspects of the labour force. To be honest, this has always been the most important part of this bill, as the changes to EI were only intended to be a first step, and not a final solution.

The strategy will give the government a mandate to engage in broad consultations and to consider more comprehensive and long-term solutions. It specifies timelines, a list of stakeholders to consult, and clause 3 lists five basic conditions the study must cover.

In hearing from experts, I believe these are all areas that could potentially be improved by the committee.

In closing, I want to reiterate why I feel having this debate and developing a strategy is so important. Many of the discussions about gender equality in the labour force have focused on including more women as doctors, lawyers, business leaders, and politicians. While well-intentioned, I think these conversations often neglect the fact that many women like Melodie want to be construction workers, electricians, mechanics, masons, carpenters, machinists, boilermakers, or welders, to name a few.

The national strategy proposed in Bill C-243 is an opportunity to further include these women in the conversation about gender equality.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Good morning, everybody.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 26, 2016, the committee is commencing consideration of Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act (maternity benefits).

Welcome, Mr. Gerretsen. Thank you for being here. We are going to jump right into it. We'll give you 10 minutes to speak, and then we'll follow that up with questions until noon, when we will suspend for a few moments.

Then we'll come back and meet with Employment and Social Development Canada, specifically Mr. Andrew Brown, who I believe is already here. Hello. We'll give Mr. Brown 10 minutes, with a series of questions for the rest of that hour.

Just before we get started, I want to welcome MP Pam Damoff to our committee. Thank you for filling in for Mr. Long.

Mr. Gerretsen, the next 10 minutes is yours, sir.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons With Disabilities

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons With Disabilities in relation to Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act (maternity benefits).

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, the committee requests a 30-day extension to consider the bill.

Employment Insurance Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 23, 2016, by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy and amending the Employment Insurance Act (maternity benefits), standing in his name.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for having raised this important matter as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Essex, the hon. member for Cambridge, and the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for their comments.

This bill is intended to provide for the development and implementation of a national maternity assistance program strategy and to amend the Employment Insurance Act. It is the latter portion of the bill that is at issue in the present case.

The purpose of clauses 6 and 7 of the bill is to allow a pregnant woman to claim employment insurance benefits if she has obtained a certificate, completed by a medical doctor, attesting that she is unable to perform the duties of her regular or usual employment or of other suitable employment, because the job functions may pose a risk to her health or to that of her unborn child.

Under the present regime of the Employment Insurance Act, any pregnant woman could have access to pregnancy benefits for a total of 15 weeks starting, at the earliest, eight weeks before her due date. The decision on when to begin receiving benefits is entirely up to the applicant, and the act is silent as to any governing reasons or criteria. The bill would provide access to these benefits starting 15 weeks before the due date if there is a health risk due to the claimant's work environment.

In other words, the claimant, instead of claiming eight weeks of benefits before her baby was born and seven weeks after, could claim the entire 15 weeks prior to the birth of the child.

The member for Kingston and the Islands argued that Bill C-243 does not need a royal recommendation, since the effect of the bill would not result in an increase of the amount of benefits paid or an increase of the benefit period or of the number of weeks an individual is entitled to claim, nor would it change the eligibility requirements to make employment insurance benefits accessible to more claimants.

Since the bill would simply shift the existing entitlements, any cost associated with the changes would be merely operational. His central argument was that protecting maternal health is already a function of maternity benefits, and since the bill aims at achieving the same result through existing entitlements, it cannot be considered to be creating a new function.

He went on to indicate that since “applicants are already permitted to take benefits during their pregnancy, up to eight weeks prior to their due date, [it] is strong evidence that maternal health and maintaining a safe pregnancy are existing purposes of maternity benefits”.

The member for Essex, the member for Cambridge, and the member for Perth—Wellington indicated in their interventions that they supported these arguments.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the royal recommendation attached to the Employment Insurance Act covers not only the charges envisioned by the act but also the terms and conditions of each benefit. He stated that “altering when a person is eligible to receive a benefit under the Employment Insurance Act, even if the change to the benefit would not increase the overall charge, would constitute an alteration to the terms and conditions”.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 834 states that:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.

In the present case, it is clear, as the sponsor of the bill argued, that there is no increase in the overall amount of benefits. The shifting of the time period would have no bearing on the total amount of money disbursed.

However, in these matters, the cost is not the only factor. The question for the Chair is whether or not the changes proposed would significantly alter the objects, purposes, conditions, and qualifications of the benefits such that they would require a royal recommendation.

On May 8, 2008, Speaker Milliken delivered a ruling that can be found at page 5587 of Debates, on Bill C-490, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (application for supplement, retroactive payments and other amendments). While the bill clearly provided for increases in supplements, it also made changes in the manner in which people applied for benefits and the extent to which qualified persons could claim benefits retroactively. In Speaker Milliken’s view, this:

...would alter the conditions and qualifications that were originally placed on public spending on old age security payments when those benefits were approved by Parliament.

As I have reminded the House on a number of occasions, funds may only be appropriated by Parliament in the manner and, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1), for purposes covered by a royal recommendation.

In this case, Bill C-243 does not impose any new charge on the public treasury but creates a new set of conditions, relating to the safety of their workplace for their pregnancy, under which pregnant women could have access to benefits related to their pregnancy from as early as 15 weeks before the birth of their child. Though the sponsor of the bill argues otherwise, the Chair is not convinced that the current act allows spending under the circumstances, in the manner, and for the purposes he proposes. This being a circumstance not yet envisioned in the Employment Insurance Act, it infringes on the terms and conditions of the initial royal recommendation that accompanied that act and therefore requires now a new royal recommendation. This remains the case, even if the total amount of benefits stays the same.

Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Bill C-243—National Maternity Assistance Program Strategy Act

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to private member's bill, Bill C-243. I submit to you that the bill does not require a royal recommendation. I want to congratulate my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his comprehensive speech in the House last week. His arguments were persuasive and correct, in that the question before you is whether or not Bill C-243 would change the purpose or create a new function of EI maternity benefits, more specifically show that protection of the mother and her unborn child is an existing function of the current program. As it stands, outside of the province of Quebec, maternity benefits can be and are frequently used for the purpose of protecting the mother and unborn child when her work environment is hazardous. In fact, this is precisely why benefits can be taken eight weeks before the birth. This is a long-established practice.

The member for Kingston and the Islands also addressed the issue of the terms and conditions of EI maternity benefits, and showed that these terms and conditions are not relaxed by Bill C-243. There is no doubt that you have a difficult task in front of you. It is a complex topic, and parts of the bill are clearly in a grey area when it comes to royal recommendation. I urge you to carefully consider all the arguments put forward on this matter, in addition to the will of the House, which was expressed so forcefully by 231 members who supported Bill C-243.

Bill C-243—Employment Insurance Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue that was raised this week by the member for Kingston and the Islands regarding the private member's item, Bill C-243, and the reasons why, in his view, said bill would not require a royal recommendation.

In his intervention, my hon. colleague provided many arguments that dealt with the benefits, what constituted a new and distinct expenditure, and also the eligibility requirement.

On page 834, of the second edition of House of Commons Procedures and Practices, it states:

A royal recommendation fixes not only the allowable charge but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.

On page 183, of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, it states:

...an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

As with the case, when a bill proposes amendments to the Employment Insurance Act respecting the benefits provided under that act, the royal recommendation is attached not only to the charge but also to the terms and conditions of the benefits. The royal recommendation is attached to each term and condition of every benefit.

There is not a general appropriation that covers the specific objects and purposes of the benefits in the EI Act. A change to a benefit would result in a change to the terms and conditions of the provisions of the statute which governs the benefit. In other words, altering when a person is eligible to receive a benefit under the Employment Insurance Act, even if the change to the benefit would not increase the overall charge, would constitute an alteration to the terms and conditions of the benefit and thus would need to be accompanied by a new royal recommendation. I submit this is the case with respect to Bill C-243.

Bill C-243--Employment Insurance Act

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to my own experience in this particular situation in the workplace, I support the comments made by the hon. colleague and echo his position that the bill should not require a royal recommendation. Women already have the ability to begin using their maternity leave benefits while pregnant. This bill would allow them to begin using these benefits even earlier. Therefore, I do not see how this would create any new function.

While the bill may not be the ideal solution for women and their families, they need the flexibility to make the best choices for their health and well-being. They already have some flexibility, so again I do not see how granting them more flexibility would change the purpose of the maternity leave benefits.

I thank my hon. colleague for rightfully pointing out that the question before you, Mr. Speaker, is whether Bill C-243 would change the purpose of or create a new function for maternity benefits. Clearly the function already exists.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order as the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I spoke in support of my colleague's Bill C-243 at second reading, where I stated that this bill is an important first step in addressing the needs of pregnant women who work in potentially hazardous environments.

I believe this bill should move forward to the committee stage. Frankly, I was surprised to see the sponsor's own party and Prime Minister opposing this bill. They say they need to consult more before they can support the initiative. That sounds ridiculous.

Feminist agendas include expectant women. By allowing women working in dangerous jobs to begin using their maternity benefits earlier and by implementing a national maternity assistance program strategy, this bill will provide women with greater flexibility in the decision-making, and hopefully lead to implementation of a pan-Canadian strategy.

It is also important to note that employers carry the obligation of accommodation if that reflects the needs of the women who are expecting in their workplace.

I also spoke about my own experience with a high-risk pregnancy while working on an auto assembly line, and the challenges—