Status of Women Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It is up to the committee members to decide if they wish to bring it forward in the form of a motion or not. I deal with the motions when they come, but I think we need a process to deal with the motions we have in front of us. Many of the things we have dealt with in the past have been in the form of a motion, if you'll recall.

I know that, as you say, at the very beginning we have this lineup of things and we have bumped them as we've moved on, but one of the things I have noted about motions that have come to the committee and that we have accepted as a study is the timeliness of the things. You never know what's going to happen in three weeks' time, when suddenly everyone here feels we need to deal with something.

But your point is taken, Cathy, and we're going to sit down and look at that after we've dealt with these three motions on the table.

I'd just like to reiterate that passing the motion means that you agree to do the study. It does not necessarily mean that you agree when you will do the study. When we do our calendar, you can then place it within the calendar as a committee to decide how you prioritize it with the list of other things we have.

I hope you all have this list, because it is the number of studies that we have to do, with the timelines for each of them. This is just going to be added to that. It could go to the top, it could go to the bottom, or it could go to the middle. It'll be up to the committee to decide.

At the moment, what we need to do is vote on the motion on the table, for or against. Is there any further discussion on the actual motion?

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Chair, with respect, I have some concerns about starting a study that is affecting only one province. First and foremost, comparing anything with EI to anything that is related to workers' compensation is like trying to compare apples and oranges, since workers' compensation is solely owned within the jurisdiction of the province.

So it may be that federal workers in Quebec need to have that discussion with their workers' compensation board or directly with their legislature, but because this study would influence only a small percentage of the workers in Canada and does not influence any other province, I'm hesitant to support this.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Yes, me too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madame Demers, you'd like to respond to that...?

Did you have your hand up, Ms. Neville?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Excuse me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

But, Madam Chair, we currently receive petitions from all across Canada, not only Quebec, from men and women wanting this Quebec problem to be solved. It is important for them too. We will be tabling petitions tomorrow in the House of Commons. We tabled some last week and we will table more this week. We also tabled some before we adjourned. Petitions come in every day, from all across Canada.

[A voice]

Oh, [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

No, because you did not sign them. You were not interested.

The Canadian Labour Congress supports our position. All public service workers support our position. Air Canada workers support our position. Radio-Canada workers support our position. We have received petitions from customs workers. We have also received petitions from workers in the Department of Justice. Actually, we have received petitions from workers in every department.

So this is not a problem to be taken lightly. People are aware that 250,000 workers could be affected by the rule. We are not talking about one or two people, we are talking about 250,000.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just thinking this through. Let me just begin by saying that I agree with Ms. McLeod in terms of the need to prioritize the work and to look at it.

I'm not going to amend this motion, Madam Chair, but should it pass today, I think it's incumbent upon us to do a scan of what else is happening in other provinces across the country. It's not often that we do something that's province-specific. I'd like to see a scan incorporated into the study, however it manifests itself, of what in fact is going on in other provinces as it relates to this issue.

So it's on that basis that I would support the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right.

I notice that Madame Demers is nodding her head in consent.

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like some clarification before we start voting. If Ms. Demers is saying there are 250,000 women who are working for the federal government in Quebec, I find that disproportionate compared with the number of workers in Quebec. That would be saying that one-eighth of the people in Quebec are women working for the federal government and the percentage of those who would be influenced by this study would be a very small percentage of the women who are in their child-bearing years. So I would like to see some numbers and some clarification on that before we even vote on Ms. Neville's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Demers, would you like to clarify that, if you can, right now?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, in Quebec, 250,000 people have jobs under federal jurisdiction. We know that most federal employees are women. Actually, 63% are women. We saw the statistics right here. Just because all the employees are not women, it does not mean that the women who have a right to precautionary cessation of work, as it should be applied, should be deprived of it.

Being pregnant is not a disease. The idea of having to apply for employment insurance when one is pregnant, as if one were sick, seems to me to be antiquated and archaic. As women, we should fight for better conditions of leave for all women when their health, or that of their children, is at risk. I fully agree with Ms. Neville when she says that it should not apply in Quebec only, but everywhere. Unfortunately, the other provinces currently have no provisions like those in effect through the Commission de la santé et sécurité du travail whereby 90% of the salary is paid to pregnant women in Quebec who have to leave their employment.

However, I think it would be quite valid to do a study to see what women have to go through in the other provinces. That has a lot of merit and I support Ms. Neville's position on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Madame Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I understand Ms. Demers very well. There are advances in Quebec that are not found in other provinces. But I have to be honest and say that the idea of working on behalf of only one province makes me uncomfortable as a federal member of Parliament. I think that all women have the right to be treated the same. It may not happen in other provinces, but it may not be our job to study the issue. Employment insurance should be looking at what Quebec does compared to the other provinces. It is up to them to define precautionary cessation of work. We certainly have a role to play, but I think that the best place to send a motion like that is to employment insurance.

In any event, I feel uncomfortable voting. Though I am from Quebec and understand what goes on in Quebec very well, I find the idea of studying it here to be a little peculiar, given that we do not know what is going on in the other provinces. I think it would be more employment insurance's role to go and see people in other provinces. The idea would be to understand what happens in Quebec, where things have moved forward a great deal, and to use that as a way to change things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Ms. Neville had actually suggested that. But as you have said, given the way this motion reads, it is only speaking about Quebec.

I wondered, because Madame Demers kept nodding her head when Ms. Neville was speaking, if she would entertain an amendment, or would herself like to amend this, to reflect looking at other provinces, as both Madame Boucher and Ms. Neville have suggested.

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

I would be pleased to accept a friendly amendment on this notice of motion, Madam Chair. I have no problem with looking at what is going on in the other provinces. Women deserve better conditions anyway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I'm just trying to draft an amendment, Madam Chair.

Do I have the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, you do.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Perhaps after “travail” we could say, “that the Committee review this matter in other provinces and territories and that the Committee”.

Can I speak to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Please do.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I'm not suggesting an in-depth study. I'm really suggesting a review to see what in fact is happening in other jurisdictions. After that we can decide if we want to do anything further with the information.

I think it's important not to focus in on just one province, but to see what indeed is happening across the country.