Debates of March 11th, 2009

Replacement Workers

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this motion.

The issue of replacement workers is a contentious one. It is something that has been going on for quite some time. I did a bit of checking and there have been 12 private members' bills on this subject since 2000. Obviously it is not going to go away very easily. It is something that we need to take seriously.

In 1999 there was a review of part I of the Canada Labour Code and the Sims report was issued. There were some negotiations that took place at the time.

I looked at Quebec and B.C. which have bans on replacement workers and take into account essential services. I specifically wanted to focus on Quebec because this motion is from a Quebec member. I specifically wanted to focus on the Quebec structure.

I looked at the legislation, and basically it prohibits the use of outside workers, contractors, other employees, for example those not on strike, employees who cross the picket line, and managers from another establishment, unless employees of that establishment belong to the unit involved in the work stoppage. These are some of the prohibitions.

Another section deals with what we are discussing tonight to some degree, and that is the exceptions to the prohibition, employees performing designated essential services. This definition is always very difficult to arrive at. It is critical because depending on how one defines it, it has different connotations. Striking workers must be reinstated at the end of the work stoppage, which if I am not mistaken is part of the current Canada Labour Code, as well. These are not all aspects but are certainly the major points of the Quebec legislation.

The Canada Labour Code was revamped in 1999 as a result of the Sims report on part I of the labour code. At that time, most things were agreed on. The replacement worker provisions were a contentious issue between labour and management, and no agreement was reached. To this day it continues to be a contentious issue. I know that labour and unions would like this to be changed, and of course the employer side has a different opinion.

Under the current labour code, there is no general ban on the use of replacement workers, as I understand it, but it is an unfair labour practice for employers to use replacement workers to attempt to undermine the union's representational capacity, for example, to attempt to break the union. There is some aspect of protection. Obviously there is protection of the workers and protection of the union in not trying to undermine the unions.

At the end of a work stoppage, striking employees must be reinstated in preference to any replacement workers. I mentioned this earlier with respect to the Quebec model. Under the labour code, retaliation upon an employee who participates in a legal strike or who refuses to perform the duties of another employee who is on a legal strike is prohibited. Services essential to protect public health and safety must be maintained.

These are key parts of the labour code.

As I said earlier, there has been absolutely no agreement with respect to the replacement worker side. This issue continues to be debated, as we are doing yet again tonight.

I also wanted to take a comparative look at the Quebec experience and the Canada Labour Code experience in the last little while. In Quebec the average duration of work stoppage from 2005 to 2007 was about 43.8 days. Under the labour code, the average duration was 41 days. They are not that far apart in terms of work stoppage.

Again in Quebec, there was a total of 25 complaints to the labour relations board regarding the unfair use of replacement workers of which 10 were upheld. Again, it seems that replacement workers are still being used despite the amendments. I know that is causing some problems. Still under the Canada Labour Code there have been a total of 23 complaints since 1999, none of which have been upheld and one decision is pending.

I compared these two models, and listened to some of the arguments that we have been receiving on both sides. One that I get quite frequently from the business side is that if there was no replacement worker legislation, there would be more strikes, that is, the unions would feel more comfortable about having strikes and would hold more power over their workers and the employer. This seems not to have happened in Quebec.

When I looked at the two models, there is no comparable difference in the average duration of work stoppage under the current Canada Labour Code and in Quebec. There is no appreciable difference in the wage settlements and replacement workers are still used notwithstanding the legislative ban. It remains to be a contentious issue between the unions and management. It continues to be a contentious issue.

The issue of strikes being a way out for unions does not seem to be the experience in Quebec. That does not seem to be a contentious area or a concern. However, I suspect that this issue will never be resolved 100% one way or the other. There will continue to be discussions. Nonetheless, consultation on both sides is critical.

It is clear that the union's right to strike versus the employer's right to run a business is the discussion that we continuously have in the House. There is a need to clearly define essential services. If legislation were introduced, we would need to define essential services very clearly. That is where there are some differences of opinion. There is some discussion that even if we defined essential services, it would not necessarily solve the problem and it would still continue to create difficulties in some businesses.

One example that was given to me recently by an employer who was concerned about the essential services was if CN were to strike, the delivery of grain would be considered an essential service, that the movement of grain would have to be maintained across the country. We could order the trains to run across the country, but they would not be able to carry anything but grain and that would affect other businesses. I am not sure I buy that. I just put it out as an argument that is being made. Other concerns have to do with airports. We are not talking about government regulated bodies. It is a very broad area, ports, airports, transportation and so on, so it does have a major impact on employees.

With respect to a union's right to strike toward achieving a fair settlement, many unions feel that their power to negotiate is undermined by not having the replacement worker legislation in place. I understand their arguments very well. As I said, at the same time employers have had their issues as well.

It is important to keep in mind that the government can always legislate people back to work if that replacement legislation is introduced at some point in the future. The importance is that it is a balance of power and it is essential to make that balance as fair as possible. That is the crux of it.

We must ensure that whatever happens in the workplace there is a balance, that it is fair for both sides. Making sure that we have a fair system in place is what is important.

We need to ensure in any legislation that is brought forward that it is clear, that there is proper consultation and that there is proper designation of essential services.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to support motion M-294, which has been introduced by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. There is absolutely no doubt that Canada's federal Labour Code needs to be amended to include a ban on replacement workers or scabs during strikes and lockouts. In fact, it is way past due.

Let me deal with the substantive part of the motion first. The use of scabs and replacement workers breeds anger on picket lines, and that anger can lead to violence, including damage to property, injury to workers and even death. Labour disputes are prolonged by the practice, with a lingering animosity that can infect a workplace for years. The Canada Labour Code governs important elements of our economy that can ill afford the threat of prolonged labour disputes, vandalism or violence. Every extra day lost through labour disputes that disrupt or slow the flow of goods across our borders hurts us all.

The same is true when important services such as passports, employment insurance or food inspection are interrupted or when transportation is delayed. Removing the ability to use scabs and replacement workers results in smoother labour relations and shorter labour disputes, with less risk to everyone involved. Quebec and British Columbia have anti-scab laws in effect today, and the results are clear. The year after B.C. changed its labour code, the province realized a 50% drop in the amount of work time lost to strikes.

Under the Quebec labour code, the average number of work days lost each year to labour disputes is about 15, compared to an average of 31 days lost each year under the Canada Labour Code. I had the great privilege of working at Queen's Park when Ontario's first minister for labour, Bob Mackenzie, banned the use of replacement workers in 1992. Unfortunately, the ban was lifted by none other than Mike Harris, who never let good public policy stand in the way of his ideological agenda.

However, the reality was that despite the rhetoric used by opponents of the law, the period during which the law was in place was characterized by fewer work stoppages, moderate union demands and picket line peace. Furthermore, in the first year following its passage, Ontario's economic growth was the highest in the entire G7.

Now we find ourselves in the midst of the great recession. One would think that even government MPs would agree that the need for labour and management to work together in a spirit of cooperation, involvement and trust is greater now than at any other time in our country's history. It is absolutely the right thing to do. That is why, just this afternoon, I tabled legislation in the House that will give effect to the motion that is before us here tonight.

People who are watching this debate at home tonight might well be wondering why we did not move straight to debating the legislation itself. As partisan as this place can occasionally get, let me say at the outset that it is not because the Bloc lacks commitment to this issue. It is quite the opposite. Members of the NDP and members of the BQ have consistently supported anti-scab legislation.

Shamefully, but equally consistently, the majority of Conservatives have opposed such legislation. The history of the Parliament's abysmal record has therefore been written by the flip-flopping Liberals, who say they support workers in this country but will not stand up for them when it counts. Three times now, a large number of Liberals voted with the majority of Conservative MPs to defeat bills that sought to outlaw the use of scabs at the federal level.

I was not in the House when the first two votes happened, but I was certainly here in the last Parliament when Bill C-257 passed at second reading. I remember the optimism in the labour movement and in the House about the possibility of anti-scab legislation finally passing. Of course, that was a vote that did not matter in the end. When push came to shove and it was time to stand up and be counted on the third and final vote, enough Liberals flip-flopped again to defeat the bill in the House.

I think we need to remind ourselves who some of those members were. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca voted yes on second reading and no on third. The member for Winnipeg South Centre voted yes on second reading and no on third. So did the members for Miramichi, Halifax West, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Mississauga—Brampton South, Brampton West, St. Paul's, Nipissing—Timiskaming, Davenport, Eglinton—Lawrence, Etobicoke Centre, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lac-Saint-Louis, Wascana and York South—Weston. They all voted yes on second reading and no on third.

Most shamefully of all, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, now the leader of the Liberal Party, voted yes on second reading and flip-flopped on third, when it counted.

All of these members are still in the House today, and I would bet that all of them will support the motion that is before us here today, but what will they do when they are asked to support more than a statement of principles, when they actually have to stand up for those principles, when they have the opportunity to vote in favour of my bill on the exact same subject?

I would bet that they will once again revert to form and defeat what just weeks earlier they said they supported. I wish every Canadian voter understood how often the Liberals have betrayed their own words as they betrayed workers over and over again.

Labour rights are human rights, and human rights are sacrosanct. They must be inviolable and should never be subject to compromise based on political opportunity. Let us be clear. For us in the NDP, these rights are absolute. We understand and believe that freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike are fundamental labour rights.

As a result, workers have the right to withhold their services if collective bargaining fails. Fair wages, a safe workplace, pay equity, health care and pensions are all hard-fought achievements of the labour movement and collective bargaining.

The one glaring omission is the one before us today. There is still no federal provision to ensure that the use of replacement workers or strikebreakers is banned in this country, and that makes absolutely no sense. If the right to strike is a labour right, then it cannot be allowed to be undermined by the use of replacement workers when a union has legally gone on strike. It is absolute hypocrisy to demand that unions bargain in good faith when companies can break the faith by hiring scabs.

The government members talk about fairness and balance, but there is absolutely nothing fair or balanced in that. It is quite the opposite.

I know what the argument is on the government side. It usually goes something like this: if workers can withhold their labour, then the company should have the right to bring someone else in to do the work, and somehow that would then be fair.

But there is no fairness in it. The company does not have to go home and face hungry children and mortgage payments they cannot meet.

If we want to make it fair, then we need to make sure that the economic pain is shared equally by both sides. We need to make sure that the company--or the government, for that matter--has no more ability to generate revenue than the workers. That is how we get close to a fair fight, and that is how we provide an incentive to both sides to get back to the bargaining table, where the emphasis is on negotiations and settlements.

That is why the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed in June 2007 that collective bargaining is a fundamental human right. The court observed three things. First, the right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work. Second, the court said collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends; rather, it is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government. Third, collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace. Workers gain a voice to influence the establishment of rules that control a major aspect of their lives.

The Supreme Court has been unequivocal in its support for labour rights. It is time that all Liberal and Conservative members in the House did the same, and not just by supporting today's motion, but by committing publicly now that they will support the actual legislation when it next comes to the House.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Motion M-294, tabled by my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges, which reads as follows. It is important to read it:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should introduce in the House, no later than October 15, 2009, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers in labour disputes falling under the jurisdiction of the federal government while at the same time ensuring that essential services are maintained.

It is worth reminding hon. members that Quebec and British Columbia have legislative measures which ban the use of scabs. Work is already underway in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to develop this type of legislation, with the hope of eventually having a similar law.

In Quebec, the adoption of anti-scab legislation in December 1977 and its implementation under the René Lévesque government in 1978, to all reports constituted an impressive leap forward in terms of the respect of workers' rights. Coming as it did on the heels of a particularly long and tumultuous strike at United Aircraft , now Pratt & Whitney, this legislation seriously hindered the possibilities open to employers to restrict the rights of unionized workers and placed Quebec in the vanguard in North America in this area.

For 30 years, in Quebec, an employer has not had the right to hire replacement workers for employees on strike or locked out. This prohibition, included in Quebec's labour code, prevents the employer from hiring, after the start of negotiations, management or workers to perform the work of an employee on strike or locked out. When a strike is called, it also prevents the use of staff of another employer. The employer is also prohibited from using the services of workers from other establishments in companies affected by the strike or lockout.

In an effort to have true respect for the rights of employees on strike, only management of the establishments on strike and workers not part of the bargaining unit on strike can continue to work during a strike or lockout on condition that they were hired prior to the start of negotiations. Only management can carry out the duties of employees on strike.

These are the provisions that the Bloc Québécois would like to see in the Canada Labour Code.

The following examples, and others, clearly demonstrate the need for urgent action.

First of all, there is the case of Vidéotron. After obtaining the approval of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in May 2001, Quebecor acquired the cable operator Vidéotron with the help of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. In order to clear up some financial problems related to the acquisition, Quebecor undertook a significant downsizing process that was supposed to produce annual savings of $35 to $40 million. Everyone knew that Quebecor was looking for a confrontation with the 2,200 employees and technicians of the cable company. Some thought that this was the last major step by Vidéotron in the downsizing. The 2,200 Vidéotron employees were on strike and locked out from May 8, 2002 until March 2003. Many acts of vandalism were committed during this conflict. It was a lengthy dispute.

In the case of Radio Nord Communications, the union members, who were governed by the federal code, represented the employees of three television stations—TVA, TQS and Radio-Canada—and two radio stations in northwestern Quebec. These unionized workers went on strike on October 25, 2002. Even before the strike began, Radio Nord had eliminated almost 50 positions in Abitibi.

Since the last labour contract, 10 other unionized jobs were abolished, including two journalist positions covered by the CSN. Centralization was the main objective of Radio-Nord, and to achieve that, strike action and lockouts were used. There again, it lasted a very long time. Scabs were used to ensure that the workers were tossed onto the scrap heap, since the work was being done by replacement workers, by scabs. The strike lasted more than 20 months.

These disputes have several common features. In all cases, they were long disputes in sectors where the workers come under the Canada Labour Code and where the use of strikebreakers is permitted.

These disputes were all marked by significant provocation, violence and vandalism. The feeling of being powerless—this is important—and of not seeing the end of the strike or lockout inevitably drives some workers to reprehensible and illegal acts, and the families end up suffering considerably.

For the Bloc Québécois, this is a worrisome situation which finds its solution in the measure proposed today. Despite the negative effects of the Canada Labour Code, which tends to exacerbate labour disputes and make them last longer, Ottawa has always refused to correct the situation through anti-scab provisions. When I say “Ottawa”, of course I am referring to the Conservatives and the Liberals.

The Bloc Québécois is the party that defends the interests of those workers in Quebec who are governed by the Canada Labour Code, who live in Quebec and who are being seriously discriminated against when it comes to the application of Quebec's anti-scab legislation, which does not apply to federal employees.

The best way to acknowledge the exceptional contribution of all those who are involved every day in building our societies is to provide them with the guarantee that everything possible will be done to pass a bill that would eliminate the outmoded practice of using strikebreakers during strikes or lockouts. There are numerous advantages to anti-scab measures. For one, they foster industrial peace by avoiding confrontation between striking and replacement workers. As well, they help employers realize that there are advantages to settling disputes by negotiation rather than suffering through a strike or lockout.

These measures are the cornerstone that ensure a level playing field for employers and employees. They will make it possible to eliminate the existence of two categories of workers in Quebec, as I mentioned earlier: those under the provincial code and those under the federal code. The Canada Labour Code includes the necessary measures to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. The Canada Labour Code calls these essential services.

To finish, I would like to list the advantages of anti-scab legislation: reducing violence on the picket lines, fostering a fair balance in the negotiations between employers and employees, civilizing labour relations and the bargaining process, and mitigating the bitterness felt by all when employees return to work. There is also a very broad consensus among different unions about the importance of anti-scab legislation. It is essential in the current workplace because it provides greater transparency in case of labour disputes.

Bloc Québécois motion M-294, which would prohibit the use of strikebreakers, is one solution to the problem. Quebec passed this type of legislation more than 30 years ago and has since seen a reduction in the number and length of conflicts. As well, violence on picket lines has been drastically reduced. As well, labour relations between employers and workers have improved. Today there are no large conflicts, as happens in the federal sector. A fair balance of power is beneficial to everyone.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate this evening on Motion No. 294. We are being asked to amend the Canada Labour Code as it relates to the use of replacement workers.

Anyone who has followed this policy matter with regard to labour issues over the last few years knows that the issue of replacement workers is a very contentious issue, to which previous speakers have alluded. It has been discussed in the House on many occasions. As we are hearing today, and we have heard many times in the past, there are opposing views on this issue.

There are those, like the member opposite who presented this motion, who advocate a ban on the use of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage. I had the opportunity to own my own business and managed a unionized operation. I experienced a unionized strike in the mid-1990s and replacement workers were brought in. I understand first-hand the sensitivity of the issue of replacement workers and how it can affect family life and the employer's situation.

As I said, there are people on both sides of the situation and I understand those who believe it is imperative for an organization to keep goods and services moving during a work stoppage.

Typically, it is unions that support the ban, while usually it is employers that argue in favour of having access to replacement workers. As is often the case, in debates like this both sides can make a good case for their position. However, the motion supports only one of the two sides in this debate.

We should ask ourselves if it is appropriate for the changes to the Canada Labour Code to favour one side against the other, or should the code work in the best interests of all stakeholders in the labour relations environment? To me the answer is very clear. The purpose of the Canada Labour Code should be to balance, and the key word is “balance”, and help reconcile competing interests in labour management disputes in a way that is fair and neutral. The issue of replacement workers is a good case in point.

When part I of the code was amended 10 years ago, the House supported finding some middle ground between those who wanted a complete ban and those who wanted a free hand to use replacement workers. The code achieves this middle ground by allowing employers access to replacement workers, but prohibiting their use to undermine a union's bargaining position.

It is very important to realize the fact that, under the existing provisions of the Canada Labour Code, using replacement workers to undermine a union's bargaining position is considered an unfair labour practice, and I agree.

If a union feels an employer is engaging in an unfair labour practice, it can bring the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board for a decision. This approach balances the competing interests of unions and employers locked in a labour dispute. This balanced approach has been in place for some time and has worked well. Nine out of ten labour disputes in companies covered by the code are resolved without a strike or lockout. Introducing the amendment proposed in the motion would disrupt the practical compromise that has been achieved on this issue. It would be a counterproductive move, especially at a time of this economic crisis within our country when Canada needs to maximize stability in labour relations.

There is also the question of the impact of replacement workers on the duration of a work stoppage. Some say that banning replacement workers would encourage speedier resolution of industrial relations disputes. They argue that denying employers access to replacement workers would motivate them to settle more quickly. However, there is evidence to the contrary.

The member opposite has argued this point. Independent studies by experts suggest that jurisdictions like British Columbia, where I represent the Okanagan Valley, and Quebec that prohibit the use of replacement workers continue to experience lengthy strikes. This evidence does not indicate that workers and employers in these jurisdictions are better off because replacement workers are banned.

Moreover, despite having legislation that prohibits the use of replacement workers, each year Quebec and British Columbia receive a number of complaints relating to the use of replacement workers. In other words, enacting legislation in these jurisdictions has not eliminated the sensitivity of the issue.

It is also interesting to note that another province, Ontario, once had legislation banning the use of replacement workers but repealed it.

This is a very complex issue. The existing provisions of the Canada Labour Code recognize its complexity by balancing the interests of employers and unions. The code includes protection for employees who exercise their right to strike. It ensures the right of striking employees to return to their employment at the end of a work stoppage. The code also prohibits an employer from disciplining or imposing a penalty on employees who refuse to perform the duties of other employees who are locked out or on strike.

The bottom line is the current law gives something to each side. It protects the rights of employees to strike and return to their jobs and allows employers to continue to operate and provide needed goods and services during work stoppages.

This approach represents a reasonable compromise in the best tradition of Canadian problem-solving. Introducing the kind of change proposed in Motion No. 294 would disrupt the delicate balance that has been achieved on this contentious issue. We do not need such a disruption at this difficult economic time we are experiencing in our country.

I ask the House not to support the motion.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country will have about four minutes when this debate resumes.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, on February 2, I asked the Prime Minister a question about equalization transfers to Quebec. The Minister of Finance was the one who failed to answer, even though he stood up and talked for a while.

I had asked the Prime Minister to explain his actions with respect to his handling of changes to Quebec's equalization payments. Instead of addressing the question, the Minister of Finance decided to speak about other matters.

The issue I was addressing was the manner in which the Conservatives decided to alter the equalization program without consulting the Quebec government. It seemed as though the Quebec government was only informed of the changes as an afterthought, long after they were made and with much obfuscation of the facts.

In fact, the Quebec minister of finance, Madame Jérôme-Forget, felt so maltreated by the Conservative government that she had to resort to sending a letter to the Minister of Finance outlining the misinformation being provided to the public on this issue.

I am not at all surprised. We have seen time after time the Conservative government give out misinformation. We saw it today in the House during question period, for instance, when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance rose and said that the opposition was holding up the stimulus package, which is patently untrue. Anyone who understands how things operate in the House knows it is not true.

It was not surprising therefore to see the Conservative government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance attempt to obfuscate the whole issue of the changes they brought to the equalization payments.

Madame Jérôme-Forget, in her January 21 letter to the Minister of Finance, states this on page 3:

This is what she said in the letter:

In a letter sent to the Premier of Quebec on March 19, 2007, the Prime Minister of Canada stated that the 2007 federal budget marked—and she quoted the Prime Minister of Canada—"a fundamental return to fiscal balance in Canada" and that "henceforth all governments will receive resources in a way that is based on principles, predictable and defined over a long-term basis to carry out their responsibilities."

She added:

However, barely 18 months later, we are forced to conclude that the federal government has broken its word—

Does that not sound like income trusts?

She went on:

—regarding the equalization program. Quebec is of the view that the federal government cannot change the rules of the game as it sees fit, in particular when we face an economic downturn.

We now know that this is worse than an economic downturn; even the Prime Minister has acknowledged that this is a recession, if one can believe anything he says. He claims to be an economist, but nobody else thinks highly of his university education because he got the numbers all wrong. He was wrong about Canada's economic situation on several fronts, and now, as a result, Canadians are paying the price.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, let us be very clear. Recent changes to the equalization formula will ensure that transfers to provinces like Quebec will be predictable and long term.

Equalization costs have grown by 56% from 2003-04 to 2008-09. They were set to rise another 15% next year and even more over the near term, growth due to unprecedented resource price volatility and continued weakening in the Ontario economy. This would clearly not be sustainable.

In the words of the Quebec finance minister, Monique Jérôme-Forget, “I can be sympathetic that a growth of 15% a year is unsustainable.”

Indeed, our changes are reasonable and will simply ensure equalization can grow at a sustainable rate in line with the growth in the economy.

To ensure fairness, we put a floor in at the same time so the overall size of the program will not contract, and we offered transitional protection for receiving provinces. What is more, these changes will in no way reduce transfers.

For example, Quebec's equalization and overall transfers are at an all-time high and growing. In 2009-10, Quebec will receive over $8.3 billion from equalization, a massive 70% increase since 2005-06 under the former Liberal government, I might at. Moreover, at more than $17.6 billion, overall federal support for Quebec is now at an all-time high.

With respect to the question of consultation, the aforementioned changes were in fact discussed at length with all provinces on November 3, 2008, at the finance ministers' meeting. The provinces were also given at that same meeting extraordinary early notice of the 2009-10 equalization amounts to provide them further certainty in terms of future budget planning.

Furthermore, a news release and backgrounder were issued and posted online that same day to outline the changes to all Canadians. Clearly, open, early and positive consultation was demonstrated.

If the member does not want to take my word for it, I ask her to listen to the words of the provincial finance minister from Prince Edward Island, Wes Sheridan.

As stated in the Journal Pioneer newspaper on November 3:

I was pleased that [the] federal minister...was able to share next year's equalization figures with provinces in advance of the normal release...This meeting was a positive one, with everyone agreeing to work together.

Furthermore, details on these changes were also provided to provincial officials involved at the technical level on November 13, and the November 27 economic and fiscal statement outlined the nature of the changes and explained why they were necessary.

Without a doubt, that represents an adequate flow of information to the provinces. For this reason, we are standing by the changes we have made to make equalization sustainable, and we are standing by the manner in which we introduced such changes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is another example of disinformation.

In her January 21, 2009 letter to the Conservative Minister of Finance, Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, had this to say:

You provided this information five minutes before the end of the meeting. You did not accept any questions and it was not possible to have any discussion whatsoever despite the importance of the subject.

Accordingly, when we left the November 3 meeting, we did not know the details of the changes you wanted to impose on the equalization program as well as the impact of those changes on Quebec's equalization entitlements in subsequent years.

On the issue of equalization going up 15%, may I say that the Quebec minister also deals with that issue and says quite clearly—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am afraid I have to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her strong and continued support of this Conservative government's economic action plan outlined in budget 2009—a budget, I note, that has been met with strong enthusiasm in the Montreal area.

Listen to what the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal said:

[Budget 2009] is on target with measures designed to support companies, including easier access to credit, tax breaks, and tariff relief to stimulate investment...We also welcome the government's plan to devote $2 billion to upgrading facilities at colleges and universities...this measure will directly benefit Montréal, one of whose primary strengths is its first-class higher education system.

I agree, and I agree with this hon. member's support of budget 2009.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank the parliamentary secretary for appearing to answer a follow-up question to the one I posed to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on February 3.

Just before our country's economy was thrown into tumult because of out-of-control financial markets, there were repeated calls for the federal government to address the housing crisis in Canada.

Too many Canadians are without basic shelter and are being condemned to live a life of extreme poverty because of a lack of adequate housing.

In 1976, Canada signed on to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, declaring to the world that we believe in a right to housing.

There is no right to housing in Canada. Further, Canada's international reputation has been tarnished, as we were singled out by the United Nations for not living up to those obligations.

Now the growing numbers of unemployed, coupled with some serious holes in our employment insurance program, will put thousands more at risk of homelessness.

The calls for a strong role for the federal government are louder than ever. They are being echoed by those who know that this investment is not just a social good, it is an economic one. Building new housing houses people, creates jobs, and if we build green houses, can actually help us keep our international climate change obligations.

The federal budget has presented some new money for housing. This is a welcome prospect, but it is narrowly targeted, and much of it is contingent on matching funds from the provinces.

The bulk of the money in the budget goes to those who already own their own homes, calling into question the government's understanding of the word “homelessness”.

The new investments fall short of what is needed to address this urgent issue. To make matters worse, the minister herself has taken great pains to remind Canadians that this is just a one-off charity investment and not a comprehensive strategy to deal with homelessness in Canada.

Without simply reiterating what we know is in the budget, could the parliamentary secretary answer this: What is the government's long-term strategy for dealing with the national housing crisis?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind comments and opening remarks. Indeed there is a strong role for the federal government in the area of housing.

Canada has one of the best housing systems in the world. It has many players working together to meet the housing needs of most Canadians across this country. The Government of Canada is working with other levels of government, private sector organizations and communities in undertaking a number of important measures to address the housing needs of Canadians.

In Canada more than 80% of Canadians are able to find a safe and affordable home using their own resources, either by obtaining a mortgage and buying a home or by renting in the marketplace. We are proud of that.

For those Canadians who need assistance to meet their housing needs, the Government of Canada is making substantial public investments to create new social housing, to renovate aging existing social housing stock and to provide support to the homeless and to those living in first nations communities.

In September 2008 our government committed $1.9 billion over the next five years to help the homeless and to improve and build new affordable housing for low-income Canadians. I can say that it was very well received by the stakeholders and those I had the opportunity to speak to.

Providing five years of funding for housing and homelessness initiatives gives us an opportunity to consider improvements, to address housing and homelessness challenges and to ensure that programs respond effectively to the needs of Canadians.

Canada's economic action plan builds on this, with a further investment of more than $2 billion over two years. Canada's social housing is a crucial part of our national social safety net. Our government spends $1.7 billion, primarily to provide affordable housing to some 630,000 Canadian households.

We recognize that some housing needs to be repaired and upgraded. Canada's economic action plan will provide $1 billion to renovate some of these older projects and upgrade them to meet modern energy efficiency and accessibility standards. This will help improve the quality of life for residents of these communities and ensure that their homes will continue to be available and affordable for future generations.

We will also be investing $475 million in new housing for low-income seniors and people with disabilities. This funding will help Canadians on fixed incomes to continue to live independently and remain in their communities.

Our government also recognizes the special needs of first nations and first nations communities. Housing in first nations communities and in the three territories must be improved. That is why we are investing $600 million to build new social housing and to repair and modernize existing social housing in first nations communities and in Canada's far north.

Remarkably, overall Canada's economic action plan provides $7.8 billion to build high-quality housing, stimulate construction activity, support home ownership and enhance energy efficiency, thus providing new jobs and renovated houses for Canadians in communities across this country.

I assure my hon. colleague that the Government of Canada is taking meaningful action to address the needs of affordable housing.

Before I conclude, I must point out that I find it quite difficult to understand how it is that this member's party has voted against every single measure we have put forward, as I have just mentioned, to improve the lot of vulnerable Canadians who need our assistance in regard to housing and homelessness.

They may disagree with some parts of the plan, but there were portions in there addressed directly to some of the issues raised by this hon. member. How is it that one would oppose the budget without having read it or without understanding what was in it? I find that very difficult to accept.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer.

It is my responsibility as an opposition member to make sure the government is acting in the best interests of Canadians. One-off investments will not get the job done when it comes to providing safe, adequate and affordable housing for those who need it. The U.N. committee has all but said so. Especially during a recession, we have to make sure that our investments are made in the right places.

I hope the member would agree that basic shelter trumps repaving the driveway right now. Basic shelter trumps building backyard decks. We need a government that understands the current situation in Canada and is prepared to act in a serious way.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain exactly what provisions are made in the budget, which I have read, for those who are in precarious housing situations and not living in social housing, for aboriginal people living in cities, and for those who are currently on the street?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have outlined the specific provisions in the budget that relate to homelessness, to those living on the street and to those who are living on and off reserve.

If the member has read the budget, why did the member and her party vote against every measure that was put toward these very issues that she raised: $475 million in new housing for seniors and people with disabilities and $600 million toward new social housing and repairing and modernizing existing social housing in first nations communities and in Canada's far north? They also voted against the budget implementation bill that has $1 billion to repair and modernize existing social housing, money that will help renovate and put new roofs over the heads of thousands upon thousands of families who need it.

Our government is making historic and record investments to address the housing and homelessness needs of Canadians. The NDP member and her party voted against these measures, which is hard to understand in light of the fact that the member says that she is concerned about those who are most vulnerable in the areas she mentioned.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to address an issue I raised in the House that is actually turning out to be one of the most critical issues facing the life of this Parliament and facing the pursuit of equality in this country for many decades.

It will come as no surprise to many members that I rise again in the House on the issue of pay equity because it was on March 4, just last week, as a result of legislation presented to this chamber by the Conservatives and supported by the Liberals. that saw the death of pay equity in this country.

It is now up to the Senate to try to reverse the damage that has been done. I hope somehow that the folks in the Senate will see the wisdom of reversing the decision around pay equity and return to the women of this country their right to pursue equal pay for work of equal value through the courts.

I have the following questions today for the parliamentary secretary. Why kill something that is so important to the economic situation facing women in this country? Why cause a national embarrassment, which has been the case now with the Public Service Alliance of Canada raising a complaint with the United Nations? Why do something that will cost the government even more, because, if the Senate does not reverse the damage done, the women and the labour movement in this country will not stop? We will join them in helping them pursue a court challenge, which will cost the government incredible amounts of money.

I want to tell the House about the kind of correspondence we have received from individuals on this issue. I want to refer to Paul Durber, the former director of pay equity for the Government of Canada, who said, “I read part II of Bill C-10 with interest and great disappointment. Not only does it do away with pay equity, it even deprives people in the public service with pay equity of the right to have it maintained. The whole thing, quite frankly, is a smokescreen to mask the taking away of any obligation to compare the work of men and women”.

I want to reference the good work of Ruth Walden. She was part of a group of nurses called Medical Adjudicators who took their complaint for lack of equal pay for work of equal value to the Human Rights Commission beginning in 2004 and finally won that case just last year. If that case today were put to the government on a complaint basis it is likely it would be turned down and rejected because of Bill C-10.

Finally, I want to refer to Jennifer Meunier, a young woman who wrote to me and said:

You are not alone in fighting this. I may young but I am old enough to know that women have died fighting to protect our rights as equal citizens in this country. I certainly will not stand by the wayside and watch a lifetime of many women's hard work go to waste with the stroke of a pen.

I am here to tell Jennifer and others that we will not stop fighting this battle on winning equality.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for giving me the opportunity to give some background and speak in support of the public sector equitable compensation act. This act was tabled as part of the government's budget implementation act on February 6. This act replaces an adversarial complaints-based system with a collaborative one as part of the collective bargaining process.

Our current pay equity system for federal government employees is broken. Complaints are made year after year. This is because pay equity issues are raised after compensation decisions are already made. Today, public service employers and unions are not required to take pay equity issues into account when wage setting. The issues are raised only when complaints are made. Pay equity complaints can take up to 15 or more years of gruelling and divisive court proceedings to be resolved. In fact, many employees have already left the public service by the time their complaints are settled.

This is clearly a case of justice delayed being justice denied and that is no longer acceptable. The new system will address any unfairness in women's wages and will deal with it straight up instead of allowing a settlement to drag on in the courts for many years. It will also make employers and bargaining agents jointly accountable for setting fair wages. It will ensure these decisions are made at the time of the collective bargaining for unionized employees and will impose a rigorous process to ensure employers address pay equity in a timely way for non-unionized employees.

In addition, it maintains women's right to file complaints with an independent watchdog, the Public Service Labour Relations Board, which is well equipped to act in that capacity.

Equitable compensation can only be ensured through a proactive, timely and fair system, a system in which employers and bargaining agents work together rather than as adversaries. That is what we are putting in place. This legislation respects the principle of equal pay for work of equal value by integrating pay equity into normal collective bargaining.

It closes the book on costly, adversarial legal contests which benefit lawyers more than women and it opens a new chapter on women's equality in the workplace.

It makes for a faster, more proactive approach and enables us to replace the current system, which is archaic, expensive and inequitable for employees.

Most important, it would ensure that women and men continue to benefit from quality working conditions in Canada's public service. This legislation moves us forward, not backward. It is important for women in the public service and in the wider workforce and I encourage every member of the Senate to support it.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is this legislation closes the door completely on pay equity. It is absolute nonsense for the member to stand in the House and pretend otherwise. It eliminates the right for anyone to take a complaint pertaining to pay equity to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Why else would the pay equity commissioner say that he is absolutely disappointed and shocked that the government would actually deny women this right?

The government has made something called “equitable compensation” a negotiable right in terms of collective bargaining. Since when is a human right something that is negotiated at the bargaining table? We are talking about a basic human right that is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government has decided that these rights are expendable, they are negotiable, they are something that can be dismissed because the Conservatives do not believe in true equality. The government can be sure that no one on this side of the House, at least among the NDP, will stand idly by and let the government get away with that kind of disregard of human rights--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is about doing the right thing finally for Canadian women. Our government makes no apologies for taking long-overdue steps to protect the rights of women to fair and equitable pay.

In 2004, a Liberal appointed task force concluded that proactive pay equity legislation is a more effective way of protecting the rights of women. The first proactive pay equity legislation was introduced in Manitoba in 1986, followed by Ontario and Quebec thereafter. Our new federal model will improve upon these existing models while incorporating provisions that have worked well.

The existing pay equity regime is a lengthy and costly adversarial process which does not serve employees or employers well. The last court case cost millions of dollars in legal fees and took a gruelling 15 years to settle. This is about ensuring that women receive fair pay up front, in a timely and proactive way rather than having to engage in expensive, decades long legal battles to enforce their rights.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:04 p.m.)