I just feel it should be a level playing field. I do think that where the violence comes from, the people should be responsible. I think people should be responsible in terms of the environment. There are great words coming from both sides, but if the party is abrogating their responsibility and breaking the law, they should be held accountable, absolutely.

What's unfair about that?

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB

That makes sense to me.

What about mandatory secret ballots, so people can't be coerced by union leaders?

1:15 p.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Garth Whyte

Yes, we're in favour of that. Why not? It's supposed to be a democracy.

Why would you not have secret ballots? Well, because people can then coerce you and give you a hard time. We've seen that.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB

What are your comments on why Quebec overruled, in a sense, its own replacement worker laws?

1:15 p.m.

Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Garth Whyte

This is what I'd like the committee to pursue. I know we're hearing anecdotal information. Even I am not in a position to.... I need more time. Please spend some time looking at the department's own review of work stoppages and replacement worker issues.

I think Quebec has to modernize its laws as well. I think that's part of it.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB

In British Columbia, you must have members who are very upset about the ban on replacement workers there, and how it's affected the B.C. economy, for example. Alberta is outgrowing British Columbia and probably has a larger GDP now than B.C., and B.C. and Quebec have higher unionization rates than Alberta.

Could you comment on that?

December 5th, 2006 / 1:15 p.m.

Corinne Pohlmann Director, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Our understanding of B.C. is that the employers are not too happy about this bill either. We know that the Business Council of B.C. wanted to come and talk on this today as well, during these hearings, and basically give their approach to the situation.

Our understanding of one of the reasons why it hasn't been touched is that so many changes were brought in at once by the Liberal government that they wanted to make sure they could deal with some of the areas they felt, at that point, were more important to deal with. Those were some of the reasons why this probably wasn't touched right away.

Just recently, this past summer, we asked our members in B.C. about repealing this particular legislation, and the majority said they would like to see it repealed. So we've been moving forward on that with the B.C. government.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

That's all the time we have here. We're going to move to the next round.

Go ahead, Mr. Coderre.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Whyte on everything he has done so far. I think he should be nominated for an Oscar this year. I was very moved by what you did. You have to work a little harder on the

make my day

Someone has already won an Oscar for that. Quebec is a real breeding ground for small- and medium-size businesses.

Read my lips:

A breeding ground

means there's a lot.

We created them. The entrepreneurs of Quebec created them.

You boast quite rightly that you represent 105,000 members. That justifies your salary. The purpose of our work here is to ensure we have arguments. The number of witnesses is not the important thing. In fact, in the first motion that I amended, there was reference to flexibility. There's no knife in my back; no one can make me do anything.

We want to hear arguments. I have had eggs thrown at me by unions, and five coalitions were against me. I am not in the pocket of either the employers or the unions. It is quite simple: my job as a member of Parliament and a former minister is to ensure that we have a decent environment and that we can make decisions that promote social peace in this country.

Even if there are campaigns to vilify unions and even if people try to bring me to tears about uncle Georges, the fact is that my job as a member of Parliament is to ensure that there are the least number of strikes possible. The right to strike and employers' right to lock employees out exist, as do the rights of consumers, but first of all, there are the rights of employers and employees, which means that the situation leads to the least possible

economic fallout or social fallout possible.

That is what Bill C-257 is about. I was in Cabinet, and I know what that means. We are not going to come up with new statistics today or invent something altogether new. We are simply here to talk about the bill.

I have said from the very beginning, as the official opposition critic on labour, that it was healthy to have this type of debate and that we would be putting forward all the amendments possible so as to get the same type of system that Quebec has, where things work well, as they do in British Columbia, for example.

Are your members all unionized? We need to find out whether some of them are not unionized at all. We should not waste too much energy. It is like the situation involving my banker. He was there, and the journalist was taking notes. It looked good on television. We need to ask whether in a particular context there is a balance between workers and employers. That is the objective of the Canada Labour Code.

The objective is to ensure we avoid a 10 month-long strike. It is also to avoid the violence, but also to provide for what happens should violence occur. We also need to reach a settlement without the average people losing their jobs and at the same time allow the employer to continue making money and to have the consumer protected as well. That is what Bill C-257 is about, dear Mr. Whyte.

Do we want to have scabs or not? Do we believe at the end of the day that when somebody uses a lockout as a tool, he will use it in a way so that he can put in his scabs and it doesn't matter if the lockout lasts, because he will have exactly the same thing?

On the other hand, you don't want to create a situation for the employees, for the unions, to have a strike and say you can't have too much power, because at the end of the day it's all about balance. Do you believe...?

That's my simple question. I like to do a preamble sometimes. I've seen them doing that since the beginning and I decided to try it myself. You see, I like it; it's working. Do you believe, yes or no, that a scab...?

Let's say you're an employee yourself. You have a family. Christmas is coming--I can make people cry too. You've been on strike for six months and you see somebody who hires scabs--replacement workers is politically correct, but scabs. Do you believe it's fair, yes or no?