Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blackburn, I want to begin by thanking you for appearing before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I believe your presence here today is significant, particularly since the last time you appeared, we really didn't have enough time for our discussions. I have the feeling it will be the same story today.
Something very important is going on in Parliament these days. A vote is coming up; it will take place next Wednesday and will deal with the legislation regarding replacement workers.
I would like to remind you that on November 5, 1990, when you were the Member of Parliament for Jonquière, again for the Conservative Party, you voted in favour of anti-scab legislation—specifically, Bill C-201 tabled by your Conservative colleague, the member for the riding of Richelieu at the time. I want to remind you of that fact because it is clear that something inspired you at the time. Surely you did not just vote mechanically back then, without believing that anti-scab legislation would be helpful, not only in Quebec, as you have already said publicly in the House of Commons, but also for all workers in Canada.
So, I would just like you to take a few moments to think about this and try and recall the reasons that prompted you at the time to vote in favour of this Bill. You still represent the riding of Jonquière—Alma, which is one of the most unionized ridings in Quebec, if not in Canada.
I find this change of opinion very surprising. You told us there is less investment in provinces where anti-scab legislation is in effect. Yet the Bloc Québécois demolished that argument, which comes from the Montreal Economic Institute and the Fraser Institute, two right-wing think tanks which, as you well know, play with the numbers until they end up saying what people want to hear, which is always favourable to employers. In any case, these figures covered the period from 1967 to 1993. So, they are not very recent and had been provided by very large corporations, when in fact, as you well know, the Quebec economy is based more on SMEs.
The second time you came, you said that anti-scab legislation offered no benefit whatsoever. That is what you said on September 22, when our NPD colleagues tabled a bill similar to Bill C-257. At the time, you said, and I quote:
There is no evidence to show that prohibiting the use of replacement workers would actually bring workers even one of the benefits that are claimed [...]
As you know, everyone in the world of work is saying that it does have benefits. People say that labour disputes don't last as long, that they are less violent, and that the return to work and the workplace atmosphere are far better. They also say that it ensures a more appropriate balance between job action by workers and pressure tactics used by employers.
Let's come back to this notion of “balance”, because we heard that term used yesterday and today in the House. That is your new argument. I heard you say that balance—and again, I am going to quote you—“[...] is the right of the employer to continue to operate his business [...]”
Minister, that is not what balance is. Balance means that the employer and the employee have the same rights. When there is a labour dispute, the employer goes without his production revenues, and the employee goes without his work income. Indeed, there is less production, and the worker has no work. That's why there is in fact a balance. Balance does not mean that the employer fills his pockets during the labour dispute while the workers go into debt and suffer psychological distress when they see other workers putting on their uniforms, going to their locker, to their workbench, doing their work and receiving a salary which is often lower than what they would receive. That is not balance, Mr. Blackburn. You used to know what it was, and I suspect you still do. I think I know why you voiced opposition to it today, but I would prefer to have you tell us yourself or let the people who are hearing us today arrive at their own conclusions.
Having said that, I would like to give you a few minutes to respond, because I really would like to know why you changed your mind. You have already changed your mind, because you once believed in this.
At one time, you made similar comments to the ones I'm making today. However, as Minister, rather than defending ideas that have stood the test of time in Quebec in your caucus and in Cabinet, it would seem that if the Conservative Party tells you it doesn't like something, you turn around and say: that's okay and that is what I'll say.
That's exactly how you are currently perceived by people all across Quebec and workers in your own riding of Jonquière. It's not very pleasant for anyone.
Perhaps you could respond to my comments.