House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 70% of the vote.
Museums October 22nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is a legal work stoppage. A federal mediator has been working with the parties since before the strike even began. The mediator will continue working with those parties to find a solution. The mediator cannot impose a settlement on the parties. That would be up to an arbitrator accaptable to both parties.
Labour October 22nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, my office and I are meeting with Madam Landry today to ensure that we understand her concerns.
My priority is to ensure that she knows her rights under the Canada Labour Code, and she does. If she feels at any point that her job is unsafe or her pregnancy or unborn child are unsafe due to any health risk, including the H1N1 virus, she has the right to refuse to work and she will continue to be paid.
Labour October 22nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, we will meet with Ms. Landry today to assure her that we are aware of her concerns. However, as I have already said, if, at any time, a woman feels that her health or the health of her unborn child is in danger because of health issues, including the H1N1 virus, she has the legal right to refuse to work, and she will continue to be paid until a decision has been made.
Labour Relations October 2nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, this is a legal work stoppage. It is the responsibility of the parties to work together to find a solution to the issues and to negotiate a collective agreement. My officials are monitoring the situation closely and our mediator remains in contact with both parties.
Labour October 2nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear.
If the health and safety of a woman's unborn child is at risk because of a health issue, including H1N1, under the law she has the right to refuse to go to work and she will continue to be paid until a decision is made.
Labour October 1st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear again.
If a woman at any time feels that her health and safety or the health and safety of her unborn child is at risk due to any health issue including the H1N1 virus, she has the right under the law to refuse to go to work and continue to be paid until a determination is made.
The labour program is working with the Public Health Agency and the provinces, including the province of Quebec, to examine this issue.
Labour October 1st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I made it clear yesterday that, when a woman feels, whatever the point, that her health and safety or that of her fetus are at risk because of a health problem, including the H1N1 virus, she is entitled under the law to refuse to go to work. She will continue to be paid until a decision is taken.
Labour September 30th, 2009
Again, Mr. Speaker, it is important for all women who work in the federal jurisdiction, particularly pregnant women who are concerned about their own health and safety and the health and safety of their fetuses, to know that they do have rights. If they feel in any way any risk to their safety or the safety of their fetuses, they are able to discontinue work. They can refuse to work and will continue to be paid.
Labour September 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the member is spreading erroneous and false information about the rights of pregnant women who are in the federal jurisdiction workforce.
The reality and the truth of the matter is that if a woman at any time feels that her health and safety or the health and safety of her fetus is at risk due to any health issue, including the H1N1 virus, she has the right, under the law, to refuse to go to work and continue to be paid.
Questions on the Order Paper September 14th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the effectiveness of section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code regarding replacement workers has been continually reviewed by the government.
In addition, the replacement worker issue was recently considered in Peter Annis’ 2008 independent report to the Minister of Labour, entitled “Work Stoppages in the Federal Private Sector: Innovative Solutions”. Mr. Annis found that there is no conclusive evidence that banning replacement workers or modifying section 94(2.1) would lead to a decrease in the incidence or duration of work stoppages.
Finally, the government tracks the number of complaints filed with the Canada Industrial Relations Board, CIRB, alleging a violation of section 94(2.1). Since the provision was enacted in 1999, only 23 complaints have been filed alleging unfair use of replacement workers. Of these, 18 were eventually withdrawn by the union, four were dismissed and one is pending. These statistics suggest that the use of replacement workers to undermine a union’ bargaining ability is not a pressing problem in the federal jurisdiction.
In response to (b), to date, the use of replacement workers has not been prohibited under section 94(2.1). It only prohibits the use of replacement workers where their presence in the workplace is intended to undermine a union’s representational capacity.
In response to (c), only two provinces have labour legislation which restricts the right of employers to use the services of replacement workers during work stoppages. Such restrictions have been in force in Quebec since 1977 and in British Columbia since 1993. While Ontario enacted similar provisions in 1993, they were repealed in 1995.
Despite this kind of legislation, a number of complaints concerning the use of replacement workers during work stoppages are filed each year in both Quebec and British Columbia. In 2007-08, 25 complaints were filed in each province respectively. Of the 25 complaints filed in Quebec, 10 were upheld by the provincial labour board. In British Columbia, 5 of the 25 complaints were upheld.
Peter Annis’ 2008 independent report to the Minister of Labour, “Work Stoppages in the Federal Private Sector: Innovative Solutions”, found that there is no conclusive evidence that banning replacement workers would lead to a decrease in the incidence and duration of work stoppages.
In response to (d), the code does not deal with “essential services”; rather, it includes a requirement, under section 87.4, that, in the event of a work stoppage, goods and services continue to be supplied to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious threat to public safety or health. Currently, if the parties cannot reach an agreement on maintenance of activities, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, CIRB, will decide what services must be maintained.
There have been no consultations on what services would need to be maintained in the event of a labour dispute specifically in the context of a replacement worker ban.
In response to (e), the government does not intend to make any changes to the labour relations provisions of the Canada Labour Code without broad agreement among stakeholders.
In response to (f), no. Data suggests that there is no significant difference in the number or duration of work stoppages whether or not there is a replacement worker ban in place. For the period 2006 to 2008, data indicates that the average duration of a work stoppage in Quebec was 52 days and in British Columbia 55.4 days, while in the federal jurisdiction, the average duration of a work stoppage was 49.2 days.