Jean-Pierre Blackburn

[Social development, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments of the opposition members and I feel that they should be more respectful of the work that we do in terms of economic development.

In recent months, with a budget of $200 million, we have examined what we can do for companies, for regions with declining populations, to help them increase economic activity. To this end, we have four specific measures to spur regional economic development and we will continue—

[Textile Industry, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, like many departments, we must do our fair share in terms of the cutbacks we were asked to make.

We examined the situation carefully and looked at all the programs. As for the CANtex program to help the textile industry, approximately $5 million will be cut this year and $11 million next year.

This still leaves nearly $6 million for each of the next two years and the records show that only $4 million was used in the past, which means that this is more than enough.

[Regional Development, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as a member from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region who is quite familiar with economic difficulty, it was important to me that the tools provided by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec be responsive to business people's needs. It should not be up to business people to jump through hoops to use these tools.

We have already launched three programs, and I can confirm that they are being very well received in the regions of Quebec. We have covered regions with declining demographics, and I have also gone, on my government's behalf, to the other regions to find groups facing difficulties and give them access to—

[Regional Development, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, since I began serving in government, I have worked for months to prepare a plan to really help the regions: resource regions, regions in difficulty and especially regions with declining populations.

We are announcing three programs. There is a venture capital start-up fund, where we are partnering with Desjardins Venture Capital. With $5 million, we are generating $20 million.

There is a second fund, the fund for business succession. With $8 million, we are generating an additional $30 million.

Lastly, yesterday I announced $85 million for another program called—

[Canada Labour Code, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver Island North for becoming involved in the democratic process and for making the effort to introduce a bill. However, I do not share her opinion, and I will explain why.

The Government of Canada carefully examined Bill C-295 and determined that we cannot support this bill, which amends the Canada Labour Code to prohibit the use of replacement workers in sectors under federal jurisdiction.

The Government of Canada reached this conclusion after taking a careful look at the bill and in light of two very basic principles. First, does the proposed legislation maintain the fragile balance needed in labour-management relations, which are so vital to Canada's economic and social performance? Second, is there evidence to support the idea that such a law would benefit workers? The answer to these two questions is no.

Labour-management relations have repercussions on both management and unions, and any law that concerns those relations must take both parties' aspirations into account. I would just like to mention that the repercussions of labour-management relations go far beyond the two parties' concerns. I will explain.

Labour-management relations affect Canada's economic and social performance. They affect production, employment, salary gains, profits, individual incomes, productivity and competitiveness, to name just a few of the main aspects of an economic and social system. A government must keep this broader picture in mind when making appropriate laws in the area of labour-management relations. There is a basic principle that should always be taken into account. This principle calls for a balance between the aspirations of unions and those of management and requires that the greater national interest always be kept in mind.

The second principle—the principle of evidence—is equally important. Before a law is amended, there should be clear evidence that the change will be beneficial. What is important here is balance. The current system is in line with the two principles I have described.

The Canada Labour Code was amended in 1999, barely seven years ago, in an attempt to modernize our legislation and improve collective bargaining. During consultations, balance was achieved, and it was approved by unions and employers alike.

In fact, both sides presented legitimate arguments regarding the issue to be considered and, in a fair and transparent manner, the government took the time to examine all arguments before enacting the legislation, which, still to this day, respects the interests of both parties as well as national interests.

The provisions regarding replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code that were enacted in 1999 are balanced, work well, and do not need to be amended. The current provisions reflect the approach agreed upon by stakeholders within the unions following extensive consultation when Part I of the Canada Labour Code was amended in 1999. The current provisions take into account not only the interests of those two sides, but also national interests.

Bear in mind that this legislation regulates the federal private sector, which includes all the main industries of the infrastructure that ensures the proper functioning of our economy, such as air, rail, sea and ground transportation, to name a few. For those who may not be familiar with the details of the current system, allow me to explain how the existing legislation brings a balanced approach to the issue of replacement workers.

Current provisions do not impose a general prohibition on replacement workers, but they do ban the use of replacement workers if the intent is to undermine a union's representational capacity.

The employees in a union or an employee association, if they feel wronged, can file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board if they believe the employer is indeed using an unfair labour practice.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board has the mandate and expertise to resolve such problems, which they review quite quickly.

What are the problems with this bill? Allow me to explain how the situation would change if this bill were enacted. If passed, this bill would disrupt the balance of the interests, a disruption that would hinder the effectiveness and efficiency of the collective bargaining process.

The main economic leverage of the unions during the collective bargaining process is their right to strike. The employer's countervailing power is not the right to a lockout; it is the right to try for a short period to continue to operate its business with a certain limited capacity during a work stoppage until the problems are resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Such is the true test of the economic force that stems from the results of the appropriate collective bargaining for the economic situation of the day.

A total ban on the use of replacement workers would paralyze the economic right of employers to operate in a slow economy and could lead them, unfortunately, to structure their business so as to reduce their dependence on permanent employees for fear of being vulnerable.

This would be inconsistent with the workers' interests and would undermine the fragile balance currently contained in our labour legislation.

The other principle is that of evidence. As I mentioned earlier, there is absolutely no evidence that the proposed change in the bill would help workers.

Allow me to address some essential variables that are clearly important for the workers.

First, there is no evidence that legislation on replacement workers reduces the number of work stoppages. In fact, Quebec continues to have many more work stoppages than Ontario, which does not ban the use of replacement workers. For example, in 2005, Quebec had twice as many work stoppages as Ontario and four times as many as in the federal sector.

Second, there is no evidence that legislation on replacement workers means work stoppages are shorter. For example, the average duration of work stoppages in Quebec was 47 days compared to 38 in Ontario, between 2003 and 2005.

Third, there is no proof that legislation governing replacement workers would reduce the average duration of work stoppages. For example, despite Quebec legislation to that effect, the average work stoppage in that province rose from an average length of 37 days, for the 1975-1977 period, to an average of 47 days for the 2003-2005 period.

Fourth, there is no proof that legislation governing replacement workers reduces the number of days of work lost. For example, Quebec lost 1.5 times the number of working days lost in Ontario, on a comparable basis, during the same period of 2003 to 2005.

Finally, there is no proof that replacement worker legislation has any effect on salaries. For example, Ontario does not have such legislation and British Columbia does; in both provinces, wage settlements in 2005 were marginally lower than in Quebec.

Thus, there is no evidence indicating that prohibiting the use of replacement workers has any of the alleged benefits for workers. First, there are no fewer work stoppages; second, work stoppages that do occur are not any shorter; and third, it has no visible effect on the number of days lost or the amount of salary increases.

To conclude, I would like to reaffirm that principles should dictate our strategic response: the principles of national interests and evidence that justifies the amendment being sought. In both cases, there is no justification for amending the law.

Today, union relations in the federal private sector are the best they have ever been. Last year, over 95% of conflicts governed by the Canada Labour Code were resolved without work stoppages.

Most federally-regulated employers do not hire replacement workers. In many cases, managers or other employees excluded from negotiations are reassigned in order to maintain operations.

Consequently, the Government of Canada cannot support this bill as it does not respect the two major principles for legislative reform: it is not based on evidence and it has no benefit to the national economy.

[Pay Equity, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will say again to the hon. member that the interdepartmental committee looking at this issue is composed of representatives from the Department of Justice, Status of Women, Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat.

We are reviewing various proposals, including the one in the Bilson report, what is currently being done in Quebec and Ontario. In the fall we hope to be able to make proposals in this House.

[Regional Economic Development, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that a promoter chooses to invest so much money in a project such as the Massif. In this House, government members have tremendous respect for promoters who wish to contribute to economic development.

This is why we reviewed this file three times, in order to make the best possible offer to the promoter, Daniel Gauthier, to help him go ahead with this project.

We did the best we possibly could within the budget constraints of Infrastructure Canada and within Economic Development Canada regulations.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this courtesy.

First of all, I would like to tell my colleague that I am convinced her French has improved. Indeed you cannot attend the Centre linguistique du Cégep de Jonquière, in a region where 99.9% of the people speak French, without acquiring some very good knowledge of this second language.

I wish to tell my colleague that I too intend to try and improve my second language by going to Toronto in early August. I will have the opportunity to spend two weeks there in immersion to try and improve, too.

That said, it is impossible to put everything into one bill. The priority of this one was to deal with transparency. It was also aimed at better management of public funds so that Canadians can see what is being done with their money. It also limits election contributions by setting a maximum for such amounts at $1,000 for all citizens and also by not accepting donations from unions and other organizations.

The spirit of the law is good and this is the spirit in which the Prime Minister wished to table this bill, so that Canadians can see what is being done with their money and what politicians are doing in terms of accountability.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's comments, I would like to say that the Prime Minister made an excellent decision. It is important for the Montreal region to have a representative who can defend its interests and who can also carry out an important responsibility in Parliament.

Our colleague was appointed to the Senate. He himself made a very clear promise to Montrealers that he will step down as a senator as soon as the next election is announced and run for office. It seems to me this is not only a very responsible thing to do, but also very useful for stakeholders in the Montreal region.

I should add that we are not well represented in Quebec. We are only ten or so. We have to send a clear message that we want representation in each one of the province's large regions.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of our colleagues, from all political parties, who are here this evening to deal with this important subject.

On January 23, Canadians sent the government a message. The message was about change. They expressed a desire for the government to be accountable and worthy of the trust they place in it to spend their hard-earned money, and for the government to work with them effectively and efficiently.

As well, today, may I say that all members from all political parties have clearly shown, certainly in some cases with difficulty, that they are determined to move this bill forward.

The commitment of committee members has taken many forms. They heard more than 70 important witnesses; they answered their thoughtful questions; they tripled their workload in recent weeks to complete the laborious process of clause by clause consideration; in short, they pulled out all the stops to give this House and the people of Canada the best bill possible.

This act deals with 13 separate areas, and so the committee members had to become true specialists in each of those areas, to give it the level of attention it required and to pay particular attention to every detail, effectively, openly and carefully.

The committee members considered hundreds of provisions and a varied lot of amendments, and analyzed them in depth. They spent no less than 90 hours over the last six weeks on this, in addition to doing their everyday work as parliamentarians, to be sure that we are on the right track and that the Federal Accountability Act will enable the government to honour its commitment to accountability and openness, while ensuring oversight and flexibility.

New legislation of course requires a joint effort. This act shows that the idea that we should act in the interests of Canadians crosses party lines, rallies many representatives of every stripe and calls for genuine determination.

As a result of the process followed by the committee, this bill is now a solid piece of legislation. As well, we have worked with all parties to improve it. For example, eliminating the provision for a secret vote for the appointment of officers of Parliament will be more consistent with the autonomy of this House in making its own rules of conduct and protecting its commitment to maintaining transparency.

Something else to note: the act provides that drafts of internal annual reports be disclosed under the Access to Information Act, once the final report has been published.

I am also happy to be able to tell the House that this wider scope has been provided for in the amended act. At the same time the act ensures a fair balance between greater transparency and the protection of sensitive information such as the Auditor General’s working papers.

Furthermore, thanks to the process the committee followed, the bill now requires all ministers to publish an annual report of all their office expenses that have been charged to the public purse. By thus increasing transparency, we will help to restore Canadians’ trust in their government.

This act is not the only way of demonstrating that the new Government of Canada is keeping its promise to make the government more responsible and more effective.

The federal accountability action plan also plays a key role in this regard. I pointed out a number of reviews contained in the plan that will reduce the host of rules that paralyze the work of public servants, as they do the work of organizations and individuals dealing with the government.

On June 6, the government announced the creation of a group of experts responsible for reviewing the policy respecting grants and contributions.

In December, the group will present its recommendations on how to better manage programs pertaining to grants and contributions, which total close to $26 billion and under which we provide important services to all Canadians.

Besides creating this group, the government will soon announce the details of two other reviews of all the rules put in place by the previous government and the government’s procurement policy.

These three reviews represent a major part of our commitment to make government more accountable and to assure that all programs are delivered effectively and efficiently, and always transparently. We must restore the public’s trust in government and leave behind us the scandal everyone has been hearing about in recent months.

Together, and together as well with the action plan and the federal accountability act, they will enhance accountability. This will enable us to institute a culture of accountability that will forever change the way in which business is done here in Ottawa. It will no longer be possible to influence politicians through large political donations. Lobbying will be done openly and in an ethical way. The prohibition for five years on the exercise of political influence will be a way to ensure that no organization is advantaged in comparison with others. Whistleblowers will know that not only are they protected but their vigilance is appreciated. Officers of Parliament will also have the tools they need to better hold the government to account.

These measures and those in the bill are necessary to restore trust in parliamentary institutions and government. Our goal is to ensure that the government embodies the best of what Canada has to offer Canadians.

This entire process has to do with accountability. It is what the Prime Minister asked for. Most of all, it is what Canadians asked for in the last election. Our legislative committee was up to the task. It carefully vetted legislation to raise the ethical standard to which politicians and their senior officials must adhere.

By increasing the extent to which everyone is accountable, the federal accountability act will restore Canadians’ trust in their government and ensure that it works better for all Canadians.

We promised that this would be the first bill we brought before the House of Commons. Our Prime Minister and our government have kept their word, and this evening, we are going to deliver this first bill on accountability. When it comes into force, this bill will improve transparency and accountability, for the benefit of all Canadians.