Marlene Jennings

[The Environment, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, how can this minority Conservative government be so proud of its clean air act, then turn around and cut environmental programs that work? The Conservatives abolished the wind power production incentive and the renewable power production incentive. They also cut $120 million from the one-tonne challenge, $1 billion from the climate change fund and $250 million from the partnership fund. In addition, they cut the EnerGuide program.

Not only have Conservatives cut current programs that are working for the environment, they have introduced a new bill that we know will do nothing for the environment.

[Status of Women, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of women in Canada are poor, and the minority Conservative government has raised the personal exemption and increased the marginal tax rate. That affects poor women in Canada. How can this government claim that there is equality of the sexes? The Prime Minister owes some explanations to Canadian women. He should tell them the truth.

Why did the Prime Minister renege on his promise to women and has he given up on the objective of equality for 52%—

[Status of Women, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minority Conservative government is once again failing to tell Canadian women the truth.

During the last federal election campaign, the Prime Minister hypocritically committed to supporting women's human rights and he agreed that Canada has more to do to meet its international obligations to women's equality.

Will the Prime Minister please stand, tell the truth and explain why equality has disappeared from the list of goals of Status of Women when he signed a declaration vowing to protect women's rights?

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada, the official opposition, is in favour of our Constitution and of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including those that guarantee judicial rights. However, we have never claimed, as a government or as the official opposition, that we are perfect and that we would never adopt legislation that might violate an individual's constitutional rights or that the legislation is in fact constitutional but that those applying it might violate the constitutional rights and guarantees of an individual, unlike the member over there. We also do not smear people.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board would make those kinds of statements which have absolutely nothing to do with fact. It is typical of that minority Conservative government to use smoke and mirrors to mask the fact that it itself does not tell the whole truth to the Canadian people.

I would like the member to answer why, given the partial list of groups, which I named in the House today, that have raised their voices in support of the Canadian court challenges program, he would stand shoulder to shoulder with his government in claiming that the court challenges program is inherently flawed and that it encourages special interest groups to promote issues not supported by Canadians.

I would like to know which Canadians do not support a challenge based on the fact that there was a bias demonstrated by a government official in applying legislation when he or she had to render a decision that affected the lives of four Canadian children and their mother. How can that member sit there and not raise his voice in opposition to his own colleague's statement that this kind of thing is a special interest group and is based on an issue that most Canadians would not support?

I do not believe that and the groups that I listed do not believe that. The majority of Canadians are completely supportive of the fact that we need to have a government funded court challenges program to ensure that individual Canadians who see their charter rights and constitutional rights being violated, intentionally or not, are able to defend themselves and their rights.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have no information that would back up the government's statement that it is perfect and that it will adopt only legislation that is constitutionally compliant and respects the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

However, if I simply take that premise and apply good faith to it, governments can adopt legislation that does adhere to our constitution and to our Charter of Rights and Freedom but we all know that the legislation must be interpreted and applied. At times a legislation that is perfectly constitutional and in fact charter proof, is not applied properly. There is a bias on the part possibly of the agent charged with applying it. An example of that is Baker v. Canada, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 1999 2 SCR 817, which reads:

Many decisions affecting people in Canada are made by government officials who exercise considerable discretion. This judgment encourages the consideration of human rights values in such determinations.

This case was a challenge by a Jamaican born women who had worked illegally in Canada as a domestic worker for a number of years. She had four children born in Canada and after the birth of her fourth child she suffered postpartum psychosis and was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. She received treatment at a mental health facility for one year and then applied for landed immigrant status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The agent who had the responsibility of examining her application and determining whether or not to approve it, denied her application and ordered her deported. The immigration officer noted:

She will...be a tremendous strain on our social welfare systems for...the rest of her life.

The Supreme Court stated that it was deciding the case in light of the duty of fairness and the principles of natural justice which govern public officials in their everyday dealings with the public. In reviewing the fairness of the decision making process, the court found that the immigration official showed an impermissible bias against single mothers and women with a psychiatric history. That goes to show why the court challenges program is required.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for me and I know it is a sad day for my colleagues in the Liberal Party, the official opposition, but it is also a sad day for many Canadians and Quebeckers. This so-called new Canadian government, this Conservative minority government, is cutting funding to Canada's court challenges program.

[Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member from the NDP talks about hardening or making more severe penalties when the three elements of the legislation for which amendments are being proposed in Bill S-2 come as a result of unanimity among the unions that represent the workers, the governments and industry. Obviously these three principal actors, if I can use that word, came to an agreement that these were three elements in the legislation which required amendment and modification in order to better ensure the health and safety of workers who must precisely manipulate hazardous material.

Had the issue of strengthening penalties been discussed, obviously there was no agreement. I am not aware of any discussions on that particular issue. It may be something that one or more of the parties wish to discuss, and they are more than free to do so, but right now I have no indication that the penalties need to be made more severe. What is needed, however, are these three amendments.

The member spoke of 95% of the cases, demande de dérogation, and I apologize that I do not know the term in English.

The data sheets must be updated because the information is incomplete. I have not seen any evidence that the missing information places the health and safety of workers at greater risk. If that were the case, the unions would be in a very good position to lead the fight and they would have asked for more severe penalties.

I leave it to the union representatives to take up that fight.

[Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to be here in this House as Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition.

In the 38th Parliament, this bill was Bill S-40. At the time, the Liberal Party of Canada formed the government in power. The bill that is now before this House was introduced under that previous government.

This bill is crucial to occupational health and safety. As I said, it was introduced by the previous government during the 38th Parliament. Bill S-2, which is the reincarnation of that bill, amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. This act governs the activities of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, an independent, quasi-judicial government agency. The commission plays an essential role in protecting workers' health and safety and also protects trade secrets.

The commission forms part of the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, also known as WHMIS. This information system was developed jointly by unions, industry and the federal, provincial and territorial governments. This is extremely important, because it is not every day that all the parties to an issue decide of one accord on the amendments that must be made to a bill or an existing law.

The role of WHMIS is to ensure that information on hazardous products is conveyed to the workers who use those products. A list of all the hazardous ingredients in the products is therefore available, as is information on how to handle those products safely: information on health and safety, first aid in case of contact with the product, how to dispose of the product, and so on. This information is essential to protect the health and safety of workers who have to use this type of product and these hazardous materials and handle them safely in their work.

This information is provided on a data sheet or a label affixed to the product. When WHMIS was introduced, the industry stated that there were cases where the full disclosure of hazardous materials ran the risk of disclosing industrial secrets and making them available to business competitors. To ensure that Canadian industry and our economy continue to grow and that new jobs are created, it is very important that companies that create this type of product have an assurance that confidential business information will not be communicated to or made accessible to their competitors.

If the complete chemical composition of ingredients were listed on a data sheet, a competitor could use that information in unfair competition and gain an advantage. Therefore, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission intervenes by examining the claim for exemption. That means that a company can file a claim for exemption so that the list of dangerous products does not appear on the label. However, the commission still provides documentation concerning the risks and dangers of the product.

In that case, it means that the competitive advantages of a company and its industrial secrets are protected. However, at the same time, sufficient information must appear on the label or in the data sheet to ensure that the health and safety of workers who are involved in the production or handling of this type of hazardous products or materials are protected.

The commission’s mandate consists in establishing a balance between the rights of the employers and the right of employees to obtain information about the dangerous products that they handle.

When a company wants to protect information concerning dangerous ingredients within a product, it must file a claim for exemption from the requirement to disclose the information, and submit the required documentation relating to health and safety.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission determines whether it is an industrial secret and whether the information provided concerning health and safety is satisfactory.

If the information in the data sheet or on the label does not comply with the law, the commission orders changes to be made and calls for submission of a corrected data sheet.

If the corrections are not made within the required time limit, the company is subject to corrective action or the commission can simply prohibit the product.

That is very important. It is up to the commission to determine whether the hazardous materials information is sufficient to ensure the protection of the health and safety of workers who have to handle products containing that kind of hazardous materials.

If a company files a claim for exemption but fails to provide sufficient information to ensure that the health and safety of workers are protected, the commission has the authority to order corrective action or to simply ban the product in question from the market.

The claim for exemption forms have to be corrected 95% of the time because of missing information. On average, eight or nine pieces of information have to be added on each form.

In 1998, the commission undertook a renewal process designed to streamline its administrative operations and better meet the needs of stakeholders.

Many changes have been made to better meet the needs of stakeholders. Three, however, require legislative amendments, hence the need for Bill S-2, which, under the previous government, during the last parliament, was known as Bill S-40.

These three changes requiring legislative amendments correspond to the amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act contained in Bill S-2.

This act has to be amended to allow claimants to make, with a minimum of substantiating information, a declaration to the effect that the information in respect of which an exemption is claimed is indeed a trade secret.

At present, claimants are required to submit detailed documentation concerning the financial implications of the possible disclosure of the chemical components. This places an administrative burden on claimants and on the commission as well.

The majority of claims for exemption are valid. To date, only four out of 2,400 have been rejected.

Second, the amendments proposed by Bill S-2 will enable companies to voluntarily correct any safety labels the commission deems are not compliant.

Under current legislation, the commission must issue a formal order for compliance even if the claimant is completely prepared to make the necessary correction after being notified that some information is missing. Companies must then undertake a long administrative process, even if they voluntarily agree to change the health and safety label.

The second element is the amendment enabling companies to voluntarily correct safety labels, which is a good thing. I think that all of us in the House agree that this is a good thing.

If it is possible for corrections to be made voluntarily, the process can be speeded up. Workers can thus have faster access to any health and safety sheets that have been changed.

It should also be pointed out, however, that in cases of non-compliance with the rules and lack of undertaking by the claimant respecting the corrections requested, the commission can always issue an order to ensure compliance with the requirements, as exists now.

Workers’ health and safety is therefore not at all compromised by this amendment. It only speeds up the administrative process, making information accessible to workers much more quickly than the current system allows.

Third, the amendments will improve the appeal process by allowing the commission to provide the appeal boards with factual clarifications.

The appeals are heard by independent boards composed of three members who represent workers, industry and government. Up to now, 16 appeals have been heard and they would have benefited greatly from additional information from the commission. But to date the law does not allow this. The three parties concerned, that is, government, industry and workers or unions, all agree that this amendment should be made so that the commission can provide factual clarifications or information to the independent board with the authority to hear the appeals.

Representatives of industry, as well as unions in the provinces and territories, have unanimously supported the three amendments proposed in Bill S-2. The amendments to this act are very positive for the health and safety of workers and will simplify administrative procedures. There are of course significant economic impacts for companies, which will no longer have to deal with lengthy administrative procedures.

To recap, the three amendments will enable companies that have claimed an exemption to put their product on the market more quickly, while complying with health and safety requirements. In addition, workers will have access to corrections to health sheets faster since the administrative burden will be considerably reduced.

As I have already mentioned, this enables industry to access the market more quickly, while complying with the requirement to inform workers of any safety precautions to be taken.

In conclusion, I would simply say, as I have already mentioned, first that Bill S-2 is what was called Bill S-40 during the 38th Parliament. Second, these three amendments to the act have the shared support of industry, unions, the provinces and territories, and government.

I think that this is something good and that the members of this House should support it.

On that note, I conclude my remarks.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, October 16th, 2006]

Is the government totally prepared to make sure that all profits generated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation continue to be earmarked for affordable housing for Canadians?