Thank you very much.
I wish to thank our witnesses for their testimonies this morning. In fact, I found Ms. Monique Allard's testimony to be very moving and human. I very much appreciated it.
In that sense, Mr. Kelly-Gagnon is entirely right. We, members of Parliament, are here in Ottawa to defend our fellow citizens and the interests of all workers. This is our job.
Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, your testimony puzzles me for several reasons. I am going over the conclusions in the document you have distributed to us. You start your comments with these words:
To prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers is the equivalent of giving trade unions the abusive power to completely paralyze the nerve centres of the Canadian economy [...]
This would mean that for the last 30 years, trade unions have abused their powers and completely paralyzed the nerve centres of the Quebec economy. I do not believe that I am making a fallacious argument by making this connection. In any case, it is more or less what I was expecting.
Yesterday, I went on your website. You have written a lot of submissions over the years. I was interested in knowing which arguments against the anti-scab legislation you were going to raise today. Your website contains archives going back to 1999, and includes all of your submissions. In 2000, you wrote 12 ; in 2001, nine ; in 2002, 15; in 2003, 10; in 2004, 13; in 2005, 15; and in 2006 you produced six submissions. That is good. We will add this one today.
Since 1999, you have presented 81 submissions. I asked somebody to read all of them. In how many of them briefings do you talk about the anti-scab legislation? Only in one. Do you speak out against the act? No, not really. You touch upon this subject in a document entitled “Reactions of the Conseil du patronat du Québec on the government paper entitled Renewing the Labour Code”.
If trade unions have been abusing their power to completely paralyze the Quebec economy, you only mention this twice in the document. Once, you mentioned “anti-scab provisions” in parenthesis and in your conclusion, you talked about “Let us just consider the following provisions”. You then elaborate further on the subject. You set out eight provisions, including one regarding “anti-scab provisions”. Yet, not one single paragraph speaks out against the anti-scab law. You talk about other subjects including the notion of a dependant entrepreneur, independent workers, new wage systems, other concepts similar to these, but not once you condemn the anti-scab legislation.
Therefore, what I find strange is that the Conseil du patronat, which represents so many businesses and employers, has not defended society from the total paralysis that has griped the Quebec economy. In on of your submissions, you even wrote that “Notes for a meeting with Quebec caucus members from each party in Ottawa, November 2001”, something not to be taken lightly. But you do not talk about the anti-scab law. I was surprised: you have written 80 papers in six years, in which you devoted only two lines to the anti-scab legislation.
That said, I also looked over your other conclusions, including the following:
To prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers is to trade a well functioning federal Labour Code that nobody complains about [...]
It is wrong to say that nobody complains. Ms. Allard, who is present today, is complaining; Mr. Moreau, is certainly going to give a testimony later about Radio Nord, he is going to complain bitterly about it. Do you think that the employees of Vidéotron are happy with the provisions of the Canadian Labour Code? Never. I am not talking about Sécur or Cargill. A lot of people are complaining. Therefore, Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, your statement is unfortunately, wrong.
Next, you say:
To prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers is to set a dangerous precedent that will encourage the other provinces in Canada to follow the same model [...]
Why will that encourage other provinces to do as much? If your first conclusion is true, then the nerve centres of the Canadian economy are going to be completely paralyzed.