Jean-Pierre Blackburn

[Employment Equity Act, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, Madam Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, sole commissioner and author of the 1984 Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, paved the way for workplace equality. Her theories on equality and discrimination served as the basis for jurisprudence concerning human rights in Canada. They also had repercussions in several other countries, including New Zealand and Northern Ireland.

In January 1985, in response to the Abella report, the federal government of the day, of which I was a member, adopted Bill C-62, an act respecting employment equity. The purpose of the act was to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

Employers subject to the legislation have four obligations: first, to collect information on the presence of members of designated groups in their workforce; second, to analyze underrepresentation of designated groups in each occupational group in their workforce; third, to review their employment systems, policies and practices to identify employment barriers; and last, to prepare a plan describing how they intend to eliminate barriers and adopt positive policies and practices for hiring, training and promoting persons in designated groups.

As well, in relation to the obligations of employers who are subject to this act, and in relation to the consolidation of the information received, I had the honour, a few minutes ago, of tabling the 2005 annual report on employment equity, in both official languages, pursuant to section 20 of the Employment Equity Act. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Employment Equity Act. Here in this very chamber, as a member, I spoke in favour of the Employment Equity Act when it came into force in 1986. I was proud to be part of the team in the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, which was going to be an historic turning point in the development of the labour market and the Canadian employment mosaic. I continue to strongly support the full participation of all Canadians in our economy and in the advancement of our society, working together with my prime minister.

The findings in this most recent report, which I tabled a few minutes ago, show that there has been undeniable progress, since the four designated groups—women, members of visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities—are now better represented in the labour market.

If we compare the findings in this report and the figures for this year with the figures for 1987, we see that there has been progress in the representation of members of the four designated groups. It has grown by 38.3%. Women’s share has risen from 40.9% to 43.4%; for members of visible minorities, the numbers rose from 5% to 13.3%; for aboriginal people, from 0.7% to 1.7%; and for people with disabilities, from 1.6% to 2.5%.

Clearly, we have made progress in the area of employment equity since this act came into force 20 years ago. At first, some employers were afraid that the strategy was hard to define and complex to implement, but over the last 20 years we have succeeded in making workplaces responsive to the needs and concerns of all employees, women or men, regardless of their culture or physical characteristics, and we continue to make progress in that direction.

We know that if we give women, members of visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities equal opportunities in the labour market, we can not only strengthen Canada by achieving the objectives set out in the Employment Equity Act, but also take measures that are in fact sound management practices, and make the workforce more productive and more competitive.

As well, we have learned that diversity in our workplaces makes us strong. This means that our work on eliminating discrimination and promoting equity in employment has borne fruit.

At this point, I would like to salute the ongoing effort and commitment of employers to guaranteeing equity, inclusion and equality in the workplace in all federally regulated sectors. The numbers show that we, government and employers, have made consistent progress. But we still have challenges to meet. We recognize that we have to continue working to bridge the gaps that exist in respect of the four designated groups.

We are determined to stay the course, our objective being to reach a level of representation that reflects the available workforce in those groups. We will therefore continue to ensure that Canadian workers have equitable access to job opportunities, based on their skills and their representation in the Canadian population.

In recent years, the Employment Equity Act has also facilitated the realization of many other goals aimed at making workplaces fair, equitable and accessible for all Canadians. However, workplaces are evolving and we must ensure that they adequately meet current needs. Hence the importance of the five-year review of the act, which will take place shortly, and the review by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

As Minister of Labour, I can certainly promote equity in the workplace through legislation, but I am convinced that changes in workplaces really happen when we pool our efforts. Although legislation is important, it is employers who can make the most effective changes. They are dedicated to employment equity and can make things happen. I therefore encourage employers to continue their efforts in this direction.

We know that by promoting diversity and inclusion in our workplaces, we are creating not only better workplaces but also a better Canada. This is why the government is so firmly committed to the principles of employment equity.

In closing, as Minister of Labour and a member of the government that passed this act 20 years ago, I would like to assure the House that I am determined to advance the cause of equity so that all Canadians may actively contribute to their workplace. If I were to sum up the past 20 years of employment equity, I would say that there were some shortcomings, but that we have made real progress, we are heading in the right direction and, together, we must continue to meet the challenge of employment equity for women, visible minorities, aboriginals and people with disabilities. I thank all employers for their efforts to that end.

[Employment Equity Act, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, allow me, as Minister of Labour, to table the 2005 annual report of the Employment Equity Act.

[Regional Economic Development, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is an important file. We have indicated to Mr. Gauthier, the project promoter, our interest in supporting it.

However, we cannot always give away sums of money just like that, as much as we would like to. Economic Development Canada has rules that I must follow.

Nevertheless, in the next few hours, we will make a formal offer to the promoter. We hope that he will consider it, bearing in mind the budget constraints facing us, as well as the criteria concerning regional economic development and the infrastructure program.

[Child Labour, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has not ratified “article” 138 of the international labour convention concerning the minimum age for children. And the reason is very simple: we must take what the provinces want into account.

At present, we have examples of what the member is talking about. For example, in some provinces, McDonald's hires young people 12 to 14 years old to work in their restaurants. In my opinion, many parents would be very disappointed if that were prohibited. When we talk about the abuse and exploitation of children in employment the situation is very different in Canada.

[Child Labour, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague’s question, I admit that I am always surprised to see how much interest the Bloc Québécois members can take in everything that Canada does on the international scene. I appreciate that.

With respect to this day, the World Day Against Child Labour, our country, Canada, is a world leader. Other countries very often follow our lead. We have adopted Convention 82, and we ratified it at the International Labour Organization in 2000. What the member is talking about is another convention that we have not signed. However, if she asks me a supplementary question, I will answer.

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to my colleague's question, I would say that employees of Parliament Hill do not fall under the Canada Labour Code in this matter, but are governed by another law which does not touch on the issue raised by the member's question.

[Labour Unions, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my hon. colleague to exercise caution in her comments. In fact, the United Steelworkers of Canada believes that the Mexican government's action, when it relieved Mr. Gomez of his duties, was contrary to NAFTA under the International Labour Organization.

We in the Department of Labour are gathering information because we do not take such allegations lightly. We are in the process of confirming these pieces of information, which are completely contradictory depending on the sources. I would also encourage the member to be cautious since there will soon be an election in Mexico.

[Canada Labour Code, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to be able to make my presentation without hearing all sorts of comments. I respected the hon. members earlier, and I would also like to be able to provide explanations to those listening to us on television. This debate is important, and it is important that people be familiar with the issues.

So, lengthy strikes and lockouts can do enormous damage to Canadian workers, their families and communities. When they happen, the economy of the country suffers.

Hardworking Canadians want a context in which the rules are fair when a dispute arises with their employer. That is why we have to find the balance—I return to this idea of balance between the rights and responsibilities of employers, unions and employees.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code offers a solid system of checks and balances which permits all the parties to resolve their disputes in the context they require. It deals with this matter of antiscab legislation. The Labour Code has three parts, with Part II devoted to occupational health and safety and Part III to labour standards.

Banning the use of replacement workers would make the rules of the game unequal.

Bill C-257 would amend the Canada Labour Code by prohibiting all use of replacement workers anywhere in Canada. Prohibiting their use is not the solution.

I have at hand examples of places in Canada where there is antiscab legislation and where disputes have gone on a very long time. I give you the example of the Syndicat des travailleurs de Mine Noranda and the Noranda-Horne smelter, where 500 employees went on strike in June 2002 and stayed on strike for 11 months, despite the antiscab legislation.

The strike at the Société des alcools du Québec, affecting 3,800 employees, began in November 2004 and lasted three months, despite said legislation.

More recently, the strike involving the workers at Laurenco, Moulins Maple Leaf Ltée and the Syndicat des Métallos has gone on for over a year, since March 2, 2005, despite said legislation.

The lockout involving the Lallemand employees and the CSN, which began three months ago, is also still going on.

So I repeat that Bill C-257, which would prevent the use of replacement workers, is not the solution since it would upset the balance.

Moreover, I would like to dispel today the myth that the use of replacement workers prolongs labour disputes. In fact, a recent independent study refuted the idea that the use of replacement workers prolongs disputes or creates violence on the picket lines. The study clearly shows that the fact of prohibiting the use of replacement workers leads to longer labour disputes that are increasingly destabilizing.

These observations discredit the theory that the use of replacement workers gives rise to more frequent and longer strikes in Canada. The opposite is true. Recent studies show that, where there is anti-scab legislation, disputes last 32 days longer than where there is no such legislation.

As the members know, labour legislation in Canada was amended not too long ago. The Canada Labour Code was amended in 1999, just seven years ago, in order to modernize our legislation and improve collective bargaining. Every day we can see the advantages of the amendments and improvements made. Furthermore, these amendments were the result of lengthy consultations among stakeholders in the labour world. The exercise included a study conducted by Andy Sims, a former labour board chair.

The question of replacement workers was studied at length and with care at the time of the consultations and the debate in the House of Commons. During the consultations, the workers’ and employers’ representatives were able to reach agreement on a number of reforms when the legislation was amended. Still, it quickly became clear that there were two opposing camps on the issue of replacement workers. The members of the Sims task force were also unsuccessful in reaching a consensus on this thorny issue.

The current provisions respecting replacement workers in part I of the Labour Code in a way implement the recommendations that were supported by the majority of the members of the Sims task force. These provisions prohibit the use of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage if such use undermines the union’s ability to represent its members. This is regarded as an unfair labour practice. When a representative, employee or member of the union finds that replacement workers were used to undermine their representational capacity, they can file a complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Then the complaint is analysed immediately by the CIRB.

The current provision is relatively new—it is only seven years old. We are still monitoring its effectiveness. That said, I can assure you that parties undertaking collective bargaining in Canada under part I of the Canada Labour Code have accepted this approach as a reasonable compromise.

We must consider another important principle. Let us go back to the negotiations I mentioned earlier. Some say that the employer's right to lock out employees offsets the union's right to strike, but that is not the case. The employer's right to continue operating during a strike corresponds to the employees' right not to go to work. The current provision in the code aims to balance the interests of both parties.

With respect to strikes, about 97% of all collective agreements under federal jurisdiction renewed in 2005-06 were signed without a work stoppage. This is a clear indicator of the health of our economy and the effectiveness of the code.

In closing, I would like to remind the members that since this legislative provision was adopted by this House in 1999, 18 grievances have been submitted to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Thirteen were withdrawn, three were rejected, and two are still being examined. This sounds like balance to me.

Although unions are exerting a lot of pressure, I do not think we should respond immediately. We have to consider both sides. That is what happens now under the act adopted in 1999, which creates the best balance between workers, employers and employees.

[Canada Labour Code, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau and the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for their commitment in this discussion and in the matter of the antiscab legislation.

This is my first opportunity as Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec to speak on a private member’s bill concerning the department I represent, namely the antiscab legislation we are discussing this evening.

So I am pleased today to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on this important labour policy issue.

Anyone familiar with labour relations in Canada knows how devastating a labour dispute can be, both for the employer and employees and for their families.

It is in that context that we must examine this issue as a whole. Is it better, in fact, to have anti-scab legislation in Canada, or not?

We have to look at things from the national perspective. I remind my colleagues that such a law has existed in Quebec since 1977, and also in British Columbia since 1993. In 29 years, however, only two provinces in Canada have seen fit to bring in antiscab legislation—only two provinces in 29 years.

There is a reason for that. Provinces have considered this unhealthy; they have felt that introducing such a legislation did not create balance in the workplace. Lengthy strikes and lockouts can damage—

[Economic Development, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is not really a question for the minister responsible for the regional economic development of Quebec but for the minister of national defence.