Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to my colleague after making a few remarks.
The Quebec government, Quebec as a whole and labour confederations would most certainly agree with the total takeover of all the labour sector. However, we cannot talk about this issue without referring once again to the Constitution, since the Privy Council in London established, in a 1925 decision, after a seven year delay, I believe, that labour relation jurisdiction belonged to the provinces, except that all businesses that, one way or another, came under more than one province would come under federal jurisdiction. That is what brought about this duplication that is causing so many problems for workers.
I would like to point out to the member that in Quebec, for instance, the act respecting occupational health and safety provides that women who find out they are pregnant and believe that their work may affect them or their child have the right to ask for a change of position. If the employer cannot transfer them to another position, they have the right to stay home with 90 per cent of their salary. The same thing applies when the mother breast-feeds her child.
You can understand that women work for businesses that come under federal jurisdiction are not allowed the same right, they say it is not fair and the whole union movement has been doing the same for years now. This goes to prove what our colleague just said, except that we cannot deal with this matter without going through the Constitution.
In my speech this morning, I have demonstrated how Bill C-11 calls for a constitutional debate.
The only way provinces disagreeing with decisions taken by the central government, by the Department of Human Resources Development under this bill, can have their way would be to sidestep this decision and manage the money themselves.
This calls for a constitutional type amendment, or the government should agree to recognize the full jurisdiction of the provinces, which it does not, even in the throne speech.
So, my question to my colleague is whether he and his party should not have chosen to criticize more than the labour relation considerations of the bill.