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.