Marlene Jennings

[Lobbying, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric, we see people like Goldy Hyder and Tim Powers acting as Conservative government spin doctors every day. Yet they are registered and paid lobbyists who have no official position in the Conservative government.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House which government officials are briefing them and will he ban this practice in his so-called accountability act?

[Lobbying, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last November the leader of the Conservative Party told us that he ordered his political staff to leave immediately if they wanted to do any lobbying.

Six months later, 45 of them are lobbyists representing 200 companies.

Why did the Prime Minister promise one thing and allow another?

[Canada Labour Code, November 22nd, 2005]

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.

[Canada Labour Code, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to the members of the House of Commons on Bill C-380.

The protection of Canadian working women, particularly pregnant and nursing employees, is a matter the government takes extremely seriously, as I do myself.

I wish to reassure the hon. member for Shefford, Quebec and to tell him that we share his concerns for the health and well-being of pregnant and nursing women in workplaces all over Canada.

While we do share the same interest in protecting pregnant and nursing employees, we believe that the changes proposed to the Canada Labour Code in Bill C-380 are somewhat premature. This is a complex aspect of social policy and one that addresses not only occupational health and safety legislation but also workplace standards, the judgment of health professionals and personal decisions by all the women involved. If one takes into account the way federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions over labour matters are divided, along with broader national interest, the problem becomes even more complex.

Our commitment on this as a government is clearly set out in the Canada Labour Code. We need to look particularly at Parts II and III. As hon. members are already aware, Part II addresses workplace health and safety, while III addresses labour standards.

[International Trade, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today's global marketplace is evolving at a swift pace and presenting new and exciting opportunities. Other nations are seizing these opportunities. Canada needs to do the same and it needs to do it better than its competitors.

How does the government's emergence market strategy address the needs of the business community, in particular our small and medium size enterprises?

[Old Age Security Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on Bill C-301, introduced by the Bloc member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. It pertains to the monthly guaranteed income supplement .

Our country recognizes the tremendous debt that we owe our seniors. Theirs was the generation that survived the Depression.

Quebeckers deplore the atmosphere that appears to reign in this House. I personally respect dissenting opinions. I listened attentively to the Bloc member who spoke for ten minutes, without attempting to interrupt her. Another Bloc member—for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, if I am not mistaken—is constantly interrupting me, however. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to treat me with the same respect.

As I was saying, theirs was the generation that survived the Depression, went to war to protect our liberty and built the Canada and Quebec we know today.

To address their evolving needs, this government makes significant investments across a full range of seniors' programs, from health care to income security, from retirement savings to assistance for their caregivers. We currently spend about $67 billion a year on seniors-related programs.

Seniors, particularly those with lower income, are a top priority. We believe that Canada's poorest seniors deserve a better quality of life and more money in their pockets. That is why we are addressing the immediate needs of low income seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by 7%.

It is the GIS that provides low-income seniors with a fully-indexed benefit to ensure a basic level of income throughout their retirement years.

We will invest $2.7 billion, and the promised improvements will be fully in place in less than two years. The GIS will go up by more than $400 a year for a single senior and by almost $700 for a couple. Over 1.6 million seniors will benefit from the increase—most of them women.

This increase represents the biggest income hike in a generation for Canadian seniors who need it the most.

In Quebec, about one million seniors benefit from Canada's retirement income system. Half of them are low-income seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

Through Social Development Canada's outreach program, the government is helping Quebec seniors, particularly those with low incomes, become more aware of all the benefits they are entitled to.

Let me give you an example from the northern part of the province. In northern Quebec, many seniors live in small, isolated communities, posing a particular challenge to the outreach team. That is why outreach has forged a strong partnership with the regional government of Kativik. This aboriginal government oversees 14 communities from the Kuujjuag region of northern Quebec. The government's local employment officers are helping the most vulnerable citizens of this remote region apply for benefits.

By working closely with the regional government, the outreach team is helping to overcome the barriers presented by geography and, more importantly, to establish trust.

Over the past year, our outreach efforts have also focused on working with community groups. Our goal is to partner with these groups to contact Quebec seniors where they live, where they play, and where they work because there are seniors who do work even if it is just a day a month or part time.

By working with a growing team of partners, Outreach has been able to take advantage of the “multiplier effect” and reach many more seniors than it could on its own. Partners include the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, the farm women's clubs and women's centres.

Let me give you another prime example of partnership in action. Outreach has teamed up with Quebec's vocational training centres to reach the most vulnerable seniors right in their own homes.

Under this program, we are training caseworkers to understand our programs, particularly the guaranteed income supplement. Remember, these caseworkers are in direct contact with our poorest seniors, visiting them in their homes and developing close, trusting ties. They are quickly becoming one of our greatest allies in boosting awareness of our benefit programs.

To date, Outreach has conducted training sessions with 25 vocational training centres, sending more than 450 caseworkers into the field and reaching more than 4,500 seniors at home. Its success is growing as it develops new sessions to target more aboriginal communities.

The Government of Canada, through this outreach program, is making every effort to reach the seniors who may qualify for the GIS and encourage them to apply.

Through the Outreach program, the Government of Canada is making every effort to reach the seniors who may qualify for the guaranteed income supplement and encouraging them to apply.

We are also reaching out to Quebec's ethnic communities—through ethnic associations and community newspapers—to find seniors who may have fallen through the cracks. We are even taking to the airwaves, on the TV show La Belle Vie , to broadcast details of seniors' benefits across the province.

Since 2002, over 75,000 letters and personalized application forms have gone to seniors throughout Quebec, to inform them about the availability of the guaranteed income supplement. This has resulted in almost 50,000 new GIS recipients.

The federal government will continue to inform Quebec seniors of their rights to collect the GIS by attending seniors fairs and functions. What is more, we have been simplifying and will continue to simplify our application forms to make it easier for seniors to fill it out or to get help to fill it out to receive the supplement if they qualify. We want all seniors to get the benefits to which they are entitled. We all want the best quality of life for our seniors.

The Government of Canada is ensuring the necessary supports are in place, so that all seniors can live with respect and dignity. Providing seniors with income assistance is just one of the ways this government is working to strengthen Canada's social foundation.

For all these reasons and more, I cannot support Bill C-301.

If passed into law, the bill would bog down Canada's retirement income system in reams of red tape. It would create an undue burden on the system, from both a fiscal and technical perspective. And without the checks and balances found in the current application process, it would lead to increased fraud and abuse.

With respect to retroactivity, I think it is more important that this program be totally consistent with existing provincial income supplementation programs. On the issue of retroactivity for one year, there is no discrepancy between this program and the provincial programs, which are income supplementation, security or support programs.

The Bloc Québécois contends that one year retroactivity is shameful. I would like them to tell me when they made the same remark to the Government of Quebec.

[Jewish Law Students, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that the Canadian Jewish Law Students’ Association will be holding its 19th annual conference at the Château Laurier, here, in Ottawa, from January 13 to 15, 2006.

Students will gather from across Canada to explore the Jewish principle of tikkun olam, repairing the world. Prominent members of Canada's legal community will speak to law students about how they relate their work to social justice. The CJLSA has invited all members of Parliament to participate in this important conference. I know from my participation in last year's conference that this is a terrific platform with which to reach out to young Canadians.

We should never underestimate the impression that we make on law students when we talk to them about public commitment and social justice.

I urge all my hon. colleagues to support this activity.

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that you did not criticize me but a Bloc member did on the basis of false claims. It is not the first time that this has happened. That is why we already had a debate on a question of privilege. So it does not surprise me.

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am quite disturbed by the comments and observations or claims that my colleague in the Bloc just made. It is not that I have a problem with part of the motion introduced by the Conservatives, or that I am not sympathetic or favourably disposed to another part of the motion. The problem with this motion is that it contains five completely different components.

I agree with taking the necessary steps to ensure that an oral culture does not develop in the public service. But when I look at another part of this motion, which talks about making all exemptions discretionary and subject to an injury test, I have a problem with that. So this is what I spoke about for ten minutes. If I had had the time to speak for 40 minutes, I could have touched on all five components in the motion. Maybe it would have been easier if the Conservative member, instead of trying to bundle together all the recommendations of the Information Commissioner, who admits that he did not consult any of the parties that might have been interested in reforming this legislation, had taken just one of the recommendations. Then we might have had different positions.

But when he bundles several recommendations together in a single motion, I have no other choice than to concentrate on one of the components. I decided to concentrate on the exemptions because they are quite problematic. His motion implies that the existing exemptions are not discretionary, which is false. So I decided to concentrate on this. I reject his criticism and cannot accept people claiming on the basis of this choice that I am not concerned about the changing culture in the public service, which is tending toward a more oral culture. That is not true and I reject your criticism. That would have been another way of—

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for agreeing to share his time with me.

I will be voting against this motion which has been presented by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. Part of the reason is I find it is problematic and that it is precipitous of a proper process of discussion and consultation.

His motion proposes certain amendments to the Access to Information Act. We have heard members on both sides of the House, in particular the Bloc member who just asked a question of the parliamentary secretary, say that this motion virtually mirrors suggestions that were made by the Information Commissioner in the proposed legislation he brought forth at the request of the access committee.

Specifically, I intend to address the proposal that a general public interest override be provided for all exemptions in the act and the proposal that all exemptions be made discretionary and subject to an injury test. Those are exactly the recommendations that the Information Commissioner provided to the access committee in his proposed amendments to the Access to Information Act.

Indirectly, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre undoubtedly raises the issue of reform to the Access to Information Act in general. I will not bother to give background information. Everyone knows the Minister of Justice tabled a discussion paper before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Everyone knows there were previous private members' bills. One had been tabled by a former Liberal member, which was then taken up by the NDP member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre. His bill virtually mirrored the private member's bill that had been tabled by John Bryden when he was a Liberal member of Parliament. The Minister of Justice had committed to bring forth real reform to the access to information legislation. We all know that.

The question is, what is the nature of this particular motion? As I have said and as has been admitted by members of the opposition, it virtually mirrors the proposed amendments that the Information Commissioner brought before the access committee at the request of the access committee. I am a member of that committee.

The Access to Information Act states clearly that Canadians should have a right of access to government records “in accordance with the principles that...necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific”. The Access to Information Act in fact contains 12 exemptions. Let us look at what the nature of these exemptions are. Because the member's motion would make all exemptions discretionary and subject to an injury test, it is important for members to know what the act actually says now.

The act contains 12 exemptions. It also provides that certain records are indeed excluded from its reach. These excluded records, as we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, include material that is publicly available and cabinet confidences. Of the 12 exemptions, currently eight are already discretionary. Two of the 12 exemptions are mandatory but the two that are mandatory allow for discretion in certain circumstances.

For example, the exemption that protects information given to the Canadian government in confidence by the government of another country is mandatory. I think there would be, or should be, little disagreement among Canadians and members in the House that Canada has an obligation to take great care with regard to confidential information that belongs to other governments and that was provided under the seal of confidentiality to our government. However, this exemption also provides for discretion where the foreign government consents to the release of its own information. This is good sense.

Another one of the 12 exemptions is also mandatory, but it already provides for a public interest override.

The point I am trying to make in going through these 12 exemptions is that, were one simply to keep oneself to the actual motion that has been provided, one would go away from reading that motion with the impression that under the current access to information legislation all of the exemptions are mandatory, that there is no discretion with any of those mandatory exemptions. That is not the case.

To come back to my point, there is also the issue of one of the 12 exemptions which has a public interest override. That, for instance, refers to the exemption that protects confidential commercial information given to the government by a third party. Here again there should be no argument. There is no doubt that the government again has to be extremely careful with the confidential commercial information that belongs to a corporation.

At the same time, this exemption already provides for a public interest override in relation to public health, public safety or the protection of the environment. If one takes the time to read the discussion paper that the minister tabled before the access committee, the Minister of Justice raises the possibility of expanding this existing public interest override to include consumer protection.

Finally, there is one of the 12 exemptions that is mandatory and does not provide for discretion, nor does it provide for a public interest override. I would like to explain to the House and to members of the Canadian public exactly what this is.

The exemption I am referring to makes a connection between the Access to Information Act and certain confidentiality clauses in other statutes or in other laws. For example, the confidentiality clauses in our Statistics Act and the Income Tax Act are linked to this exemption that does not allow for discretion or a public interest override.

Most Canadians, and indeed most members of the House, if they stop to think and reflect on this, would agree that it makes perfectly good sense not to allow a particular government department the discretion to disclose personal information that Statistics Canada rigorously and assiduously keeps confidential.

As someone who is a taxpayer, as are all of the members of the House, because we make more money than the personal exemption so we pay taxes, we would also want to be assured that the information we provide through our annual tax statement to our federal government remain confidential.

I can remember a debate taking place in the House precisely about the opportunity for or the appropriateness of Revenue Canada, now the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, being allowed to provide some personal information to, for instance, what used to be Human Resources Canada. There was a major debate in the House about it.

Therefore, I think that when one looks at the 12 exemptions carefully, one has to admit that discretion is already allowed under the existing statutes and there is also a public interest override that exists.

I find it interesting that a member of the access to information committee, of which I am a member as well, would put forward as gospel a motion that mirrors recommendations made by the Information Commissioner when the Information Commissioner himself said on the record that he had not consulted with any stakeholders before making his recommendations.