Human Resources Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Could we have a quick response, please.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me remind you, once again, that I am the Minister of Labour. As a result, my responsibility extends to the whole of Canada. Quebec has anti-scab legislation. British Columbia also has such legislation. The other provinces do not want it. We should not be forcing them to pass this kind of bill because they don't want to work that way.

I also would remind you that even Ontario, which passed this kind of legislation in 1993 turned around and struck it from the books in 1995. And even though there have been many opportunities to bring it back in, Ontario still doesn't want one.

We have to consider that dimension—namely that only two provinces in ten have this kind of legislation on their books.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Blackburn.

Madam Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Blackburn, I had promised myself that I wouldn't come back to the figures you quoted earlier. I don't really want to do that, and I'm sure you understand that people probably don't want to hear me do it either. However, I feel an obligation to do it, because you have given people the figures that suit you. In fact, you quoted figures that support your own arguments, even though they are not accurate.

You talk about the length of labour disputes, but that is not what we should be talking about. We should really be talking about the number of person-days that have been lost. And, of course, we need to distinguish between workers who fall under the Quebec Labour Code and those who fall under the Canada Labour Code. That way, you'll be looking at figures that really reflect reality.

I don't want to come back to your numbers, but I do want to cite a few that are from 2002. My figures are from the Quebec Ministry of Labour. Although 7.3% of workers in Quebec worked for federally regulated employers, they were responsible for 48% of the work days lost as a result of labour disputes. That is what we should be talking about. If you want to talk about figures, those are the ones we should be talking about.

On the other hand, if you want to talk about the frequency of strike action, you may want to know about an analysis prepared by J.W. Budd in 1993, some 15 years after anti-scab legislation was passed in Quebec. After looking at more than 2,000 collective agreements in Canada, Mr. Budd concluded that there is little evidence that anti-scab legislation increases the frequency of strikes. Mr. Budd is a professor at the University of Minnesota.

I don't want to go back over everything that you said earlier. I don't even want to go back over the 1999 consensus on the Canadian replacement workers legislation that you referred to. The fact is, there was no consensus; that is not correct. A professor at Laval University actually tabled a minority report.

I also would like to talk about the Canada Labour Code. You raised a new, convoluted argument to the effect that Canada doesn't want to impose legislation on the provinces. But we are not asking you to impose legislation on the provinces; we're simply asking you to look after workers who fall within the federal government's jurisdiction. That's all. That is what showing leadership is all about, Minister. And that is what you should do.

In fact, you should be saying that federally regulated workers should take advantage of this. That is the whole purpose behind the Canada Labour Code. It is not there for workers in the provinces. Part III of the Canada Labour Code deals solely with labour standards. It states that the minimum wage is the one set by the provinces.

But I want to ask you think about something. In terms of the Labour Code, why not simply decide that the code that applies is whatever code the provinces see fit to adopt? Why don't you do that?

In Quebec, we would be very happy with this kind of development, because that would resolve our problem and all workers would be subject to anti-scab legislation. And you would continue not to demonstrate leadership. Do you really need a labour code?

Mr. Harry Arthurs has spent the last two years trying to overhaul Part III of the Canada Labour Code. On June 6, Minister, you told us that his report would be tabled in June. Now you are telling us that you haven't received it yet. Perhaps Mr. Arthurs' problem is the fact that labour is more of a responsibility of the provinces and Quebec. Perhaps that is Mr. Arthurs' problem. Why is he having trouble producing a meaningful report?

You talked about self-employed workers. They come within the purview of the provinces; so, don't get involved. I realize you're having trouble modernizing your labour standards, but there may be two issues there.

First of all, part of the problem is that it has three parts to it: Part I, Part II, and Part III. Minister, some things have to be changed at the same time. For example, federally-regulated female workers should be entitled to protective re-assignment when pregnant women find themselves working in an unhealthy environment. That involves changing Part II, with respect to health and safety, and Part III, which relates to labour standards. Both of these parts of the Code have to be worked on at the same time.

I realize that Mr. Arthurs is extremely competent and I have a lot of admiration for the work he is doing and has done in the past. However, you have essentially put blinkers on him by asking him to modernize only Part III of the Canada Labour Code.

Having said that, I would like you to think about the possibility of the federal government no longer having a labour code and your leaving this responsibility to the provinces.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Ms. Lavallée, you raise all kinds of issues in all kinds of different areas, but it would be nice if you could ask one question at a time. That way, I might actually have an opportunity to answer you, and people might be interested in hearing that answer.

But let's come back to Professor Arthurs. You know perfectly well that when the report is completed, it will be made available in both languages. What that means is that it has to be translated. It is incorrect to say that I will make the report public in English only; I want it to be translated into French and be available in both languages. When a report is extremely comprehensive, the process takes longer, and there is a need to ensure that the two versions of the report concur. That is why the report will be officially tabled on October 30, and everyone will have an opportunity to read it at that time.

I should also like to say that we were consulted in the House when the then Liberal government proposed Professor Harry Arthurs' candidacy. As a party, we agreed with that appointment. We see him as both competent and credible. Throughout the process, we have heard nothing but praise for his work. It remains to be seen what specific recommendations he will make.

I also want to say that I find it rather odd that you are insisting to such an extent that anti-scab legislation be passed. What you really want is for Canada not to work and for Quebec to separate from the rest of the country. You want to break up Canada. Perhaps that's the reason why you're trying to force us into a squabble with the other provinces. So, no, we will not force the provinces to pass anti-scab legislation if they don't want to.

I repeat: if this kind of legislation were in force in eight of the ten provinces, the debate would be quite different. But at the present time, only two provinces have such a law. Quebec has had one for 30 years. So, the other provinces have had a chance to see how things work there. Even though we believe that such a system has its advantages, the fact remains that the other provinces don't want it. Why should we force them? I think it's a matter of respecting their area of jurisdiction. I really do not believe that we're just playing with numbers here. This is serious: we're talking about Statistics Canada. Furthermore, these data have been collected for the last 20 years. So, the picture we are presenting is an accurate one.

Of course, I understand why people may have trouble following this, because you aren't using the same figures. In any case, legislation has been in place since 1999. It was passed by the House of Commons. It made it possible to strike a balance of sorts, by ensuring that when replacement workers are hired, they will not be there to undermine union representation. Furthermore, if a union believes it has suffered harm, it can file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which would immediately open an investigation. The fact is that the system works.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

As a point of clarification, Minister, it is good to see the sudden interest of our opposition members on federal issues, which is always exciting for us here. There were a couple of comments, though, made about how this legislation is useful, and we talked about the frequency of strikes and making sure it was more balanced and peaceful, with less conflict.

I do want to go back to the figures. I have before me a report, and once again it's available through Statistics Canada. I am trying to understand, from a chair's perspective, that in Quebec there have been over 45% strikes and lockouts from 2003 to 2005, as well as the largest percentage by far, as we talked about before, of days not worked--almost 2,600 days. So I'm trying to get my head around where we're at and how this legislation will actually affect some of those things.

Once again, we talked about numbers. The numbers in Quebec clearly are higher than in any other province. My question is just to clarify how that will work out.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm a federalist. I have been in politics for 25 years. I'm a proud Quebecker and I'm a proud Canadian. I will never accept any question from the chairman that looks like Quebec-bashing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Absolutely not. We're just trying to reconcile the numbers.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Quebec is normally by itself, and I will never accept that kind of question, not from him, nor from you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We already talked about the fact of where the legislation is. I want to have an understanding of how that speaks.... You have talked about other numbers, so these are numbers that are just--

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to come back to the statistics brought to our attention. According to our data, between 2003 and 2005, on average, work stoppages in Quebec lasted 47 days, compared to 38 days for Ontario. We're talking about recent data here. In addition, despite the legislation which is currently in effect in Quebec, the average length of work stoppages in that province went from 37 days between 1975 and 1977—in other words, just before the law was passed—to 47 days between 2003 and 2005. Despite that law being in place, work stoppages lasted longer. And finally, just as a basis for comparison, between 2003 and 2005, the number of work days lost in Quebec is one and a half times higher than in Ontario. Those are the figures we have. Nothing in what we have seen would indicate that anti-scab legislation would be more helpful on a Canada-wide basis and resolve the problems people have alluded to.

In fact, if you look at the first page of today's newspaper, it says that the majority of Quebeckers don't like union leaders and believe that unions have too much power in Quebec.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Come on!

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

That is the people talking, not us. Apparently only 40% of them have a favourable opinion of the leaders of central labour bodies. As for you, I'm not sure...

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

And only 17 per cent of voters in Quebec like the Conservatives. Are we going to talk about that?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

I'm not sure...

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Come on...

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

I'm not sure...

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Order.

Thank you very much for clarifying that for us.

We're going to move to the next person on the list. Five minutes, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, none of the argument you've just presented explains why you voted for and supported this bill and this principle a few years ago and now you do not. I don't buy your arguments at all. I think it's false to say that somehow you don't need to do anything because the provinces aren't ready to take some action. That's really an abdication of a federal responsibility.

However, I want to come back to the labour market partnership agreements. I know that Barb Byers from the CLC was presenting at this committee on Tuesday, and she pointed out that less than 1% of the total payroll in Canada is spent on training. So we're well below the OECD.

There was a program through the labour market partnership agreement. There was to be a commitment of $3.5 billion. There were some agreements in place. Not only has your government put that on hold, but we've seen further cuts in training and workplace initiatives, and to literacy programs as well. This is a very important area. I think both organized labour and employer groups would agree that apprenticeship training programs are critical in Canada. We are falling behind.

So I want to ask you why this program is being put on hold, and why we aren't seeing some movement to ensure that these agreements go ahead and that the financial resources are there to back them up.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind people that when we are invited to appear before Committee members, the questions that we are asked should be connected to our ministerial responsibilities. In this case, those questions should be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, Ms. Finley. I believe she will be appearing before your Committee in the very near future. When she does, she will be able to provide clarifications in relation to the questions you are asking.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

But surely, as Minister of Labour, you must have some priority or commitment about apprenticeship programs and training. You're part of that overall department. You're at the cabinet table. You're part of the government. Unless you're saying you just don't want to answer the question.... But it seems to me that this is a very important question for the labour department and the labour minister.

Are you saying--

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

--you don't want to provide information about what the government's priorities or plans are?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have a point of order here.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand that Ms. Davies has not been part of a federal cabinet, but I think it's quite clear what the minister's response was, that this is not relevant and that we will be having the Minister of Human Resources come forward.