Human Resources Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

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

When the next round begins, Minister, I will present some of that evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have right now. Thank you very much, Madame Lavallée.

We're going to move to our next questioner, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, and thank you very much for coming today, Minister.

To respond to your response to my colleague from the Bloc, I think that if we accepted your point of view that because the provinces don't have certain standards or haven't done something, therefore the federal government shouldn't act, we wouldn't have a public health care system in this country. Surely the federal government is here to meet its responsibility and carry out its mandate, and one of those things is to protect workers. This anti-scab bill is dealing with a federal jurisdiction for federally regulated areas.

I'm from British Columbia. I know the positive impact this law has had in British Columbia, but I also lived through the very nasty TELUS labour dispute, and I saw what happened to those workers when it dragged on for month after month because there was nothing in federal legislation that could protect them from replacement workers. So I find your argument that somehow the federal government isn't going to do anything because the provinces aren't doing anything to be, well, to say the least, very disappointing. Then what are we here for?

I think there's disappointment overall about your government's performance in advocating for workers' rights. We just saw you reject the task force report on pay equity. Your response to that: make sure people understand what their role is. This was a two-year process. There were over 100 recommendations. They clearly laid out that we needed to have new legislation. You, as minister, have rejected that.

The termination of the Canadian Labour and Business Centre: it is unbelievable that such an operation would have to close down. The labour market partnership agreements: why has there been no disclosure or information that the program will go ahead? Even Bill C-55 is languishing in the Senate and hasn't been proclaimed yet. Why is this government not moving on it? I could go on and on and on.

To come back to the anti-scab legislation, this is before us here and now. Here is an opportunity for the federal government to show its leadership in the protection of workers' rights. It does bring industrial peace. It produces stability in the labour market, in the workplace.

So I ask you again. For what reason is your government saying that it will not support this very important piece of legislation that we believe actually will be adopted by the House? It's beyond me why your government won't support it?

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

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

I just want to say, once again, that this debate is one for the provinces to have. If eight provinces out of ten had anti-scab legislation, the situation would be completely different. We must not force the provinces to do something they don't want to do. The number of employees that fall within our jurisdiction is considerably lower than for the provinces. But when the federal government passes legislation, that has a major impact and significant implications for the other provinces. It is for that reason that we believe we should respect the will of the provinces.

I would also like to talk about some statistics. There is no evidence that replacement worker legislation results in shorter labour disputes. Between 2003 and 2005, the average work stoppage in Quebec lasted 47 days, compared to 38 in Ontario. In Quebec, it was 47 days, but in Ontario, where there is no anti-scab legislation in effect, only 38 days. That is a further example...

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There is a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

For everyone's benefit, I would ask that you supply your sources and the years you are referring to, please.

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

Yes, of course. That is what I was doing. These statistics are taken from...

[Munir Sheikh, Deputy Minister of Labour and Associate Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, Department of Human Resources and Social Development]

The Department of Human Resources and Social Development has been collecting these data going back to the early 1970s. We collect data on the number of work days lost, the number of strikes, wage settlements, and all that. These are data that we have been collecting for more than 20 years on the same technical basis as Statistics Canada collects all of their data. These data have been public, and they're available to everybody, and they've been used by many analysts.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So just to finish my point of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, that's not a point of order, actually.

We'll go back to Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

What is the argument here? On the one hand you're saying that you're not in favour of this because you have numbers that you believe show it's not necessary. On the other hand you're saying that it's a provincial area, and you're not going to jump in. To me that seems a total cop-out. We're not hearing the real reason why your government is opposed to it.

This is a federally regulated area; 15% of the workforce comes under federal jurisdiction. Why wouldn't we have these very basic labour rights in place to ensure that replacement workers aren't allowed in? This is a very basic issue, and I don't think you've addressed the principle of it yet.

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

Ms. Davies, I just want to come back to my point about the importance of achieving balance in this area. I think this is extremely important. The legislation was amended in 1999 by Parliament. That was seven years ago.

There was a consensus at the time, which was that employers can use replacement workers when a labour dispute arises, but that they must not do that with the aim of undermining union representation. If the unions feel they have suffered harm as a result, they have the option of filing a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

I would just like to come back to the numbers now. Despite the fact that this legislation is in force in Quebec, between 1975 and 1977, on average, work stoppages in that province lasted 37 days. The average went up to 47 days between 2003 and 2005. Both Statistics Canada and the Workplace Information Directorate at Human Resources and Social Development Canada have been compiling these data for twenty years now.

I repeat: it's important to remember the need to maintain balance in Canada. Only two provinces have passed anti-scab legislation: Quebec, in 1977, and British Columbia, in 1993. The other provinces don't want such legislation. And Ontario, even with the new government now in office, is not moving in that direction either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have--

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

But do you agree that this does not prevent you from using your federal mandate to make sure that workers who are under federal jurisdiction are protected? It seems to me you're using the fact that other provinces don't have this legislation as a cop-out. There's nothing to prevent you.

Again, in terms of the principle of this issue, is the federal government prepared to protect workers in federal jurisdiction from replacement workers?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have right now, Ms. Davies. Perhaps we can come back in the second round and finish that.

We're going to move to the last questioner of this round, to Ms. Yelich. Seven minutes, please.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Thank you. I'll be sharing my time.

Thank you very much, Minister, for being here today. I have a couple of questions and a couple of comments.

You have travelled quite a bit, trying to talk about the goals you have with labour. I'm interested in knowing if you've spent any time in Saskatchewan. Our mining industry is an example of working with aboriginals in the north. At Cameco and Cogema, where aboriginals have very good jobs, they have very good work practices. I would like you to use them as a case study of how well you can work when you're trying to have racism-free workplace strategies, because I think they have done that.

I think you're right to stay out of some of the provinces' jurisdictions. In Saskatchewan, I understand that's why our economy doesn't grow; many investors in the private sector do not want to invest in Saskatchewan because of our labour and our labour laws. I think it would be very worthwhile for you to study that. If the proof is there...because most companies will invest in Alberta, but they will not cross that border, even though we have as many resources and sometimes more.

Those are just a couple of things I'd like you to ponder. I did see that you travelled to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax, and yet I do think that in Saskatchewan you could probably cite examples across the board of what you need for a good labour strategy.

My main question, Minister, is to ask if you could update the members of the committee on the status of your department's racism-free workplace strategy.

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

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

During a recent trip across Canada, I did indeed have a chance to promote racism-free workplaces. I want you to know that I heard some very interesting things during that trip, which I would like to share with Committee members, if you don't mind.

According to a Statistics Canada survey, 1.8 million Canadians say they have been subject to racism during their lives, and most said that it occurred in their workplace. In addition, seven years from now, half the population of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, which are the three largest cities in Canada, will be made up of members of visible minorities. That is the new reality in Canada.

Given that new reality, racism in the workplace should be of concern to us. It is with that in mind that my first stop was Vancouver, where I went to promote racism-free workplaces.

In the different cities we visited, we explained that we will be hiring nine new staff members to go into businesses to talk about racism-free workplaces and try to promote workplaces that are both healthy and inclusive. In so doing, the debate on these issues will become public. It's important that the debate about racism not only be between two people having a chat in a corner. We have to have this debate publicly, because Canada's diversity is now a reality that we have to deal with.

When I was in Vancouver, not only did I hear about racism in the workplace and the practices put in place to try and eliminate it, but I was also told about the need to recognize immigrants' foreign credentials here in Canada. It's a serious problem for them—and that is understandable—that we don't recognize diplomas they have received abroad as engineers, doctors or skilled workers who emigrated to Canada.

What are they going to do to earn a living? Let's try and put ourselves in their position. If we emigrated to another country where our skills, our training and our diplomas were not recognized, what would we do to develop as individuals? This is a reality that our government is currently trying to address, in cooperation with the provinces, so that a solution can be found that allows immigrant workers who come to Canada to have their skills recognized.

When I got to Calgary, I saw quite a different reality. As well as talking about racism and promoting racism-free and healthy workplaces, we were looking at a situation where this city is currently experiencing an economic boom. Thirty billion dollars are going to be invested in the few years, and yet they don't have enough labour available to perform the work that needs to be done, including building new municipal infrastructure.

As Minister of Labour, I told them that the solution was not to fill airplanes with workers selected in other regions and bring them to Alberta. That just creates a problem somewhere else, which is no better. Mayor Bronconnier mentioned that what the major cities in Alberta need to deal with the economic boom there are things that might be produced in certain regions of Quebec or other regions of Canada.

The third reality I came face to face with in terms of the labour market is the current situation in Montreal. For example, at the Michelin plant, company representatives told me that 40% of their workforce will be eligible for retirement in next five years.

What are you supposed to do when 40% of the people working for a business are set to retire in the next five years or at least will be eligible to retire in the next five years? That new reality gives us food for thought: we certainly can't keep going in the same direction. At some point, we will have to allow people working for businesses to stay in the labour market longer. We'll have to take another look at the way we do things.

Finally, when I got to Halifax, I faced yet another reality. Of course, in addition to racism in the workplace, the Minister of Labour told me that contractors had come to tell him they have lost employees. One of them had told him the week before that he had lost 36 workers who had all moved to Alberta for work. As a result, he was unable to fulfill his contract, because he had lost his workforce to another province.

Just to conclude, I want to say that the world of work is ready for change. In the very near future, we will have to look at these realities and adjust our way of doing things to reflect those realities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Minister.

That's all the time we have for this round.

We're going to move to our second round, which will be five minutes for questions and answers. We'll start with Ms. Brown.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Minister.

I have three topics I would like to get answers about. I'll present them as succinctly as I can and hope you will answer as succinctly as possible.

The first one is this project review of the labour standards. I wonder if you've received the report from Harry Arthurs. I'm wondering when it will be made public, and then when will the resulting legislation to amend the Canada Labour Code be tabled? I really want yes or no, and dates if possible.

Two, do you have any plans to re-establish a federal minimum wage, and how many federally regulated workers are now receiving the relative provincial minimum wage? They are essentially workers regulated by your department.

Third, one of your desired outcomes of all the work you and your staff do is a fair and stable workplace, yet the federally regulated sector accounted for a disproportionately large share of days lost due to a work stoppage; that is, 32.5%, or almost a third, of all work stoppages happened in the federally regulated sector. How do you account for this? In my view, the federally regulated sector should be setting the tone for the rest of the country.

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

Thank you for your questions, Ms. Brown.

With respect to the Arthurs Report, as I mentioned earlier, Part III of the Labour Code, which deals with labour standards, has not undergone a comprehensive review for 40 years. It goes back to 1965.

The previous government mandated an independent commissioner, Mr. Harry Arthurs, a highly respected university professor, to carry out that analysis. Working with the other commissioners, he met with a great many union and employer stakeholders. He also asked a number of universities to prepare studies on a variety of topics.

As regards labour standards, which are under Part III of the Canada Labour Code, we know that this part of the Code addresses workplace practices in terms of hours of work, overtime, annual leave, unfair dismissal, and wage recovery. It also talks about...

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I asked a very specific question: has he received the report from Mr. Arthurs? I know who Mr. Arthurs is. Has he received it? Is he going to make it public and when? And when does he expect to have amendments to the code?

I don't want to hear all this extra material.

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

Well, you may see this as just extra material, but I don't, because other people are also listening and they should have an opportunity to find out what is in the pipeline. Labour standards affect all employers and all businesses, and therefore, this is hardly an irrelevant topic. It's a very important matter that parliamentarians will have to look at.

The report per se will be tabled on October 30. I believe this will be a great event for all Canadians, because we will have a chance to see the recommendations. In addition, it will lead to new cross-Canada consultations aimed at soliciting feedback from employers, unions and others with respect to the recommendations of the Arthurs Report.

Our job will be to achieve consensus. Based on this consensus—if it is possible to reach one—either before Christmas or shortly after the holidays, we would like to propose amendments and table legislation on labour standards. As you know, the whole question of self-employed workers is extremely important. Promoting work-life balance in workplaces across Canada is another unavoidable reality that we must consider. This is something the Arthurs Report will certainly address.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You still have 30 seconds, Ms. Brown.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

I'm sorry, I didn't get answers. I only got more and more--

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will complete the questioning.

Minister, there is one thing I would like you to clarify. As I understand it, you voted in favour of anti-scab legislation in the past. So, my question is: did you vote in favour of that legislation just to please your constituents, or were you really convinced that it was important?

Let's talk about conviction. If that was your conviction at the time, then explain to me how—because I really don't understand—from one day to the next, or one year to the next, you could suddenly have changed your mind? Having a conviction about something means that you strongly believe in it. It means that you work hard for something to happen, you defend it, you promote it, you try to convince your colleagues, and you present arguments to that end. You must have had some, unless you just wanted to please your constituents.