Debates of Nov. 26th, 2009

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 2009, I asked the Minister of Labour about the fact that a number of female workers in Quebec who work under federal jurisdiction do not have access to the preventive withdrawal program, because if they do use the program, they can unfortunately not receive income. They must take leave without pay.

At the time, the minister very clearly indicated that this was not the case. A worker who had concerns about her condition, her situation or her health did not need to worry. She could simply ask to withdraw from her workplace and continue to be paid.

We looked into the situation for female workers under federal jurisdiction, and it seems as though what the minister told us was a half-truth. In fact, a female worker under federal jurisdiction can tell her employer that she is worried about her health or the health of her unborn child, and can say that she does not want to continue to work. At that time, her employer will tell her that she can withdraw from work until a doctor, an expert, can examine the issue and determine whether this is justified.

It is true that, from the time the employee withdraws until the doctor or expert reports back, she will receive her full salary and not have to worry about it. However, it does not take long for an expert or doctor to determine whether the situation is dangerous for the employee who has concerns about her health. It seems that it is not a very long process and if the employee withdraws from her place of employment for a day or two, she will receive her full salary.

The problem comes when the expert or doctor renders a decision and has determined that it is dangerous for the employee to continue working in her position and that she should be transferred to another position or go home to take care of her health. If the employer does not have another position to offer her, then she has to go home. As of that moment, she is no longer paid her salary. That is what troubles us.

How can we ensure that every woman is entitled to the same preventive withdrawal leave and the same level of safety and can go home to await the birth of her child with increased peace of mind?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide further information in response to a question raised by the hon. member for Laval.

The question raised concerned the treatment of workers under federal jurisdiction in Quebec in comparison to their provincial jurisdiction counterparts and in relation to preventative withdrawal provisions for pregnant and nursing employees, which is a very important issue.

The Canada Labour Code gives pregnant and nursing workers who believe their job creates a risk for themselves or their unborn or nursing child the right to cease work and continue to receive pay while they seek a medical opinion. This is also very important.

As we face the H1N1 pandemic, the protection of pregnant and nursing women is of particular concern. I thank the hon. member for her concern for women and for their unborn and nursing children.

If the risk is confirmed by a doctor, the pregnant or nursing worker is entitled to reassignment to another position or to modification of her current job. This duty to accommodate is set out in both the Canada Labour Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is very important legislation, and we should all be proud of the Canadian government for this legislation.

It is important to note that under labour standards legislation, both provincially regulated employees and federally regulated employees in Quebec have substantially similar rights; that is the right to be reassigned to different duties if possible, or to be granted a leave of absence if there is a danger to their health or that of their unborn or nursing child.

I also think we should put this discussion into context. Bluntly, the member has a concern that she wants to raise about women in Quebec, but while the Bloc Québécois is stuck on opposition benches, they cannot do anything for Quebeckers. Our Conservative government and our Conservative members from Quebec are delivering the goods to Quebeckers.

Our government has significantly invested in child care. We have given Canadian women raising young children a choice in child care through the universal child care benefit. We are extending maternity benefits to self-employed Canadian women. Our government brought in proactive pay equity legislation for workers in the federally regulated public sector as part of Canada's economic action plan, which has been so successful for Canada's economy, and which that member, quite frankly, voted against.

A significant concern for many women also relates to criminal justice. Conservatives on this side of the House stand up for the rights of victims rather than the rights of criminals.

Yesterday was International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I am sure all parties would agree that we need to work hard to protect women and all persons from violence. This is why our Conservative government is strengthening our justice system, focusing on the rights of victims and of law-abiding citizens rather than that of the rights of criminals. We encourage all hon. members to join with us as we strengthen our justice system to protect women.

I would invite the member to talk to her leader and the rest of her members in the Bloc Québécois to vote with this government when it comes to the rights of women and protecting the vulnerable in our society.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to listen to my colleague whom I hold in high regard.

It will come as no surprise that I think he is mostly right. Indeed, his government can act, his government can make decisions and his government can be proactive. Given that, according to him, the Bloc Québécois cannot do anything, why is the government not being proactive on this issue and ensuring that woman who want preventive withdrawal are paid, just as Quebec women are?

I think the partisan politics and the smoke and mirrors tactics need to stop. My colleague sidestepped the question in a very cavalier manner. He simply repeated what I said, but he forgot to talk about the part that is missing. What he forgot in all of this is that the women who go home from work because they cannot be transferred somewhere else have no income. Those women are left out in the cold.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one key measure put forward by a member of this Conservative government to protect women was Bill C-268, a private member's bill introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. The bill would protect women from human trafficking by introducing a mandatory minimum sentence for the trafficking of minors, a disgusting situation that even exists in Canada.

I applaud the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her work and continuous effort on this issue. She is standing up for the most vulnerable in our society and has done a lot to bring the issue of human trafficking to the attention of parliamentarians.

Unfortunately, although Bloc members talk the talk, they do not walk the walk. The member for Laval voted against Bill C-268 and I am sure she had the best intentions. I know the member and I respect her, but I do not know why the member, who speaks so passionately, would stand up against such a bill.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to elaborate on questions asked earlier about the Government of Canada's advertising program, in particular the advertising engaged with regard to the economic action plan. As we now know, very large amounts of money have been spent on government advertising. I will be the first to acknowledge that certain aspects of government advertising are very important. Educational advertising, advertising required to inform Canadians of specific programs that they can take advantage of, advertising, although it was insufficient, for H1N1 are examples of government advertising that are important and we support that.

However, as we have seen, great amounts of money, millions of dollars have been spent on advertising by the government that is rather than educational, purely self-congratulatory. I would reinforce the concern that it is taxpayer money that pays for government advertising, so in effect, taxpayers across the country have paid for millions of dollars of self-congratulatory advertising by the government.

Even worse, these millions of dollars of this self-congratulatory advertising have also blurred the image of the Government of Canada with the image, the colours and slogans associated with the Conservative Party of Canada. That is in breach of several of our federal laws and guidelines. I would list in particular the Treasury Board guidelines of communications policy, the federal identity program, that government advertising use specifically condones Government of Canada symbols. Those symbols do not include a number of the symbols, slogans and colours in particular that this advertising has included.

I have several specific questions with respect to this advertising. I will ask the hon. member opposite to keep track because there are five or six specific questions.

Was the Prime Minister's Office involved in any way in the creation of the economic action plan brand?

What direction was given by the government to communications and advertising agencies responsible for creating the brand and designing the marketing materials and strategies?

Who approved of the use of specific colours, images, slogans, look and feel aspects and other branding elements currently used in the economic action plan brand and associated marketing materials?

Who conceived of and who approved of the duplication, for example, of the cover of the 2008 Conservative Party election platform and used the exact same cover for the Government of Canada's 2009 Speech from the Throne?

Who decided that the economic action plan branded logo would use not just any blue, but out of a choice of millions of options of pigments, the exact same pigment of blue used by the Conservative Party of Canada?

What advice, if any, was received by the creators of the marketing materials and logos about the compliance of the branding elements of the economic action plan that are currently in use? If any advice was given, what was that advice in terms of compliance with the Treasury Board communication policy guidelines, the federal identity program, compliance with the Conflict of Interest Act, the Conflict of Interest Code that applies to all of us as parliamentarians and in fact any other laws that restrict conferring benefits on a political party?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to the government's record on communicating Canada's economic action plan.

This year our government undertook unprecedented action to stimulate the Canadian economy and combat the global recession. The economic action plan was and is critical to ensuring that Canadians are shielded from the worst impacts of this economic crisis.

We are implementing more than $60 billion in stimulus measures, measures that are having a positive impact right now, and Canadians need to know about them. I mention this because those actions and our communication of the economic action plan are at the heart of what we are discussing today.

The government not only has a right to inform Canadians about our economic action plan, about how to access its measures and benefits, but it is also our obligation to do so. We want Canadians to have information about all of the important measures in our economic stimulus package, some of which are available for a limited time, like the home renovation tax credit.

Through informing citizens of our actions, we also highlight our accountability for those actions. We have launched advertising campaigns, created a strong online presence, and travelled from coast to coast to coast, among many other activities, to ensure Canadians know about the support that is available.

This government has a strong set of rules in place dictating how it communicates with Canadians. The communications policy of the Government of Canada ensures that Canadians receive timely, accurate, objective and complete information about the government's policies, programs, services and initiatives.

Complementing the communications policy is the federal identity program policy. The federal identity program is about clear and consistent identification. It projects the government as a coherent, unified administration and enables Canadians to recognize at a glance where their government is at work for them.

The hon. member is concerned about advertising. On that subject, the communications policy clearly states that departments and agencies may place advertisements to inform Canadians about their rights or responsibilities, about government policies, programs, services or initiatives, or about dangers or risks to public health, safety or the environment. It also states that departments and agencies must ensure advertising campaigns are aligned with government priorities and government themes and messages.

The rules are quite clear. Departments and agencies must ensure that the design and presentation of advertisements conform to the communications policy and its procedures, as well as requirements of the federal identity program policy.

All advertising is reviewed by the Privy Council Office. Furthermore, departments and agencies must not use public funds to purchase advertising in support of a political party.

Make no mistake. In advertising the economic action plan and communicating it to Canadians, our government has followed these policies.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that this process allowed for elaboration of questions so that we could in fact obtain more in the way of answers from the government.

The hon. member has not answered a single one of my six questions. In fact he arrived here with a prepared speech. How on earth could my friend opposite have prepared answers to questions that I only came with this evening?

To say that it is an abuse of process is too strong, but it is very disappointing that I have come here this evening with a list of questions to ask of the government, and my friend opposite has arrived with a prepared speech. He has not even acknowledged that I have added questions and he has certainly not answered them.

We have no argument with the government advertising specific information that Canadians need to access programs, but what has been engaged in here—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this government is fulfilling its responsibility to inform Canadians about the important economic stimulus programs and initiatives contained in our economic action plan.

The government is meeting its commitments by reporting on the use of funds in the tabling of the supplementary estimates and in quarterly reports to Parliament on the economic action plan. The action plan website and advertising campaign further increase transparency and accountability to Canadians.

We want Canadians to have information about all the important measures in our stimulus package, like the home renovation tax credit which is only available for a limited time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is therefore deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.)