:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
First of all, although I am busy, I do not consider that I am granting you a privilege by appearing before you today. On the contrary, that is part of my responsibilities. And for you, as parliamentarians, it is perfectly natural that we come before you to answer your questions about what we are doing at the Department of Labour.
The Deputy Minister of Labour is Mr. Munir Sheikh, and he is with me today. There are also a number of other officials who will be able to provide assistance, as required.
If you don't mind, I would just like to move directly to my opening remarks.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to address you again during this fall session of Parliament. You may recall that the first time, I was with my colleague, Ms. Finley. This time, you asked that I appear alone to discuss in detail the work of the Department of Labour.
As Minister of Labour, I look after the workplace and my responsibilities include labour-management relations and workplace conditions for the federally-regulated enterprises. These enterprises are largely in the communications, transportation and banking sectors.
[English]
Canada's workplace is where our nation's wealth is generated. It's also where many working-age Canadians spend a significant part of their lives. It follows that the quality of that workplace has important implications for our economy and the society that we shape together.
[Translation]
With these considerations in mind, here is what I will be covering in my remarks to you today.
First, I will talk briefly about the Labour Program at the Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada. I will talk about its mandate, structure, operations and the laws it administers.
Second, I will update you on the priorities and the decisive action we have taken on key workplace issues.
Next, I will share with you upcoming initiatives under the Labour Program, each with a focus on improving the quality of Canada's federally-regulated workplaces.
[English]
As you will see, the steps we are taking in these areas will go a long way to ensuring that we meet the needs of Canadian workers and employers.
[Translation]
I would like now to briefly discuss our mandate.
The Labour Program focusses on two principal areas: worker-management relations and workplace conditions.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Directorate administers the dispute resolution provisions of Part I—Industrial Relations—of the Canada Labour Code. This includes mediation and conciliation assistance in settling collective bargaining and other industrial disputes.
The National Labour Operations Directorate is responsible for delivering a law enforcement and regulatory program under Part II—Occupational Health and Safety—and Part III—Labour Standards—of the Canada Labour Code, as well as the Employment Equity Act.
[English]
One of the primary goals of the code is to prevent workplace accidents and injuries that could affect the health of employees. In addition, the Employment Equity Act ensures fairness and an inclusive workplace for designated groups, including women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples, and members of visible minorities.
[Translation]
The International and Intergovernmental Labour Affairs Directorate monitors labour-related developments in all jurisdictions. It also provides advice on exchanges with my provincial and territorial counterparts. On the international front, the Program represents the view of Canada abroad on policy matters concerning working conditions, labour relations and occupational health and safety.
The Labour Program is also supported by the Research Policy Directorate.
These directorates comprise 289 employees at headquarters and 386 employees in regions across Canada, for a total of 675.
[English]
Let me turn to the five key areas of recent activity within the labour program.
[Translation]
First, the Employment Equity Act. This year marks the 20th anniversary since the passage of the original Act, and my department is very pleased to celebrate the many achievements of individuals and organizations who promote a productive and inclusive working environment for all Canadians.
Let me draw your attention to the Employment Equity Annual Report, which I was pleased to table in the House of Commons this past June.
Its findings were rather encouraging. It showed how, since 1987, the employment situation of all designated groups has improved in the workforce under the Employment Equity Act.
[English]
There are almost 40% more members of designated groups employed in workplaces covered by the act. This means that our efforts to address discrimination and promote fairness in the workplace are making a difference.
[Translation]
We are pleased with these findings. But our government also recognizes that targeted employment equity measures continue to be needed to close the gap—in particular with respect to the situation faced by Aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities, so that representation better reflects availability in the labour market.
Our second area of progress in the Labour Program is the Racism-Free Workplace Strategy. This strategy is vital to Canada's continued success, because in facing world markets, it ensures we are able to count on a highly competitive workforce that is uniquely rooted in diversity and inclusiveness.
[English]
But let's be clear, this is the shared responsibility of employers, employees, government, business, and labour organizations. That's why this strategy is key.
[Translation]
I recently completed a five-city tour to promote racism-free workplaces and the removal of barriers to employment and upward mobility for visible minorities and Aboriginal peoples.
I announced our plan to hire nine anti-racism officers, whose mandate will be to work in the following three areas: to promote workplace integration of racial minorities—in other words, to be inclusive; to build a network between community resources and employers; and to provide tools and assistance to employers working toward equitable representation in their workforce.
Our progress on federal pay equity is the third area of recent activity within the Labour Program. Just weeks ago, I announced new measures to ensure that workplace partners are fully informed of their obligations and responsibilities under pay equity—and are provided with the necessary tools and assistance to ensure full compliance with their statutory responsibilities. Working women deserve immediate, meaningful results on this.
Turning now to our fourth area of activity—at the international level—the Labour Program continues to help Canada play a leadership role in promoting and protecting workers' rights around the world.
[English]
As Prime Minister Harper indicated in a recent speech, proud citizens don't want a Canada that just goes along; they want a Canada that leads.
[Translation]
That is precisely what we intend to do. And this includes sharing best practices with other countries. In this context, let me mention that my counterparts, Mr. Tian Chengpine, from China, and Mr. Osvaldo Andrade, from Chili, came to visit to learn about the Canadian government's workplace policies. That meeting took place several weeks ago.
There is one more area of activity that I would like to discuss, and that is healthy workplaces. I am taking action on the Joint Statement on Healthy Workplaces, which I signed in March with my fellow Ministers of Labour from across Canada.
This statement emphasizes the importance and benefits that healthy workplaces bring to Canadian society. We have demonstrated our commitment to supporting this Joint Statement through our recent contribution to the Canadian Labour Congress AIDS Workplace Initiative, and also with our ongoing promotion of the concept of healthy workplaces at public events.
[English]
I have shared with you an update on the labour program's key activities to date. I am pleased to highlight for you initiatives that will be undertaken in the coming months.
[Translation]
First, our government welcomes the upcoming parliamentary review of the Employment Equity Act. As mandated by law, this will be the second five-year review of this Act. It is my understanding that the Standing Committee will begin that work this year. I would like to remind Committee members that our government looks forward to working with you.
The second upcoming activity of the Labour Program is to examine the results of the report of the Arthurs Commission on Labour Standards—the first major review of federal employment and labour standards in over four decades. Headed by Professor Harry Arthurs of York University, the Commission considered carefully the views of citizens as it has looked at such issues as new employment relationships, work-life balance, and the impact of labour standards on productivity.
I am looking forward to receiving this report.
[English]
I am looking forward to receiving this report. I will be interested in hearing the views of employers, unions, and employees, and their recommendations on such topics as overtime, hours of work, vacations, and wage recovery.
[Translation]
Furthermore, work is well underway on the Wage Earner Protection Program. You will certainly have questions in this regard a little later. This important program aims to protect workers who are the most vulnerable in a bankruptcy.
As part of the reform of insolvency legislation, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act was passed earlier by Parliament. Implementing this Act will involve a considerable amount of effort.
In conclusion, as you can see, both our current and upcoming efforts are important. It is vital that management and workers work together collaboratively. Canada has a winning formula—an economy and society that both continue to thrive. And one of the key reasons for that is that we work together to ensure safe, healthy and productive workplaces.
Working together implies not only a commitment, but that there is an intermediary between both parties. Ensuring that this happens is the role I see for myself as Minister of Labour. I will continue to work hard to bridge differences between management and workers. I will not choose sides.
[English]
What I want is a workforce where industrial relations are strong, durable, and supported by meaningful relationships among its stakeholders. That's my vision.
[Translation]
Canadians have every right to expect that their government will work continually to improve the quality of the workplace for workers and employers alike.
Not only does this help to ensure a workplace that strives to be fair, safe and inclusive, but Canada wins too by offering a world-class competitive labour force.
As always, I am very pleased to work with the Committee to meet the challenges of this dynamic, ever-changing market place.
I want to thank you for your kind attention, and I look forward to your questions now.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blackburn, I want to begin by thanking you for appearing before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I believe your presence here today is significant, particularly since the last time you appeared, we really didn't have enough time for our discussions. I have the feeling it will be the same story today.
Something very important is going on in Parliament these days. A vote is coming up; it will take place next Wednesday and will deal with the legislation regarding replacement workers.
I would like to remind you that on November 5, 1990, when you were the Member of Parliament for Jonquière, again for the Conservative Party, you voted in favour of anti-scab legislation—specifically, Bill C-201 tabled by your Conservative colleague, the member for the riding of Richelieu at the time. I want to remind you of that fact because it is clear that something inspired you at the time. Surely you did not just vote mechanically back then, without believing that anti-scab legislation would be helpful, not only in Quebec, as you have already said publicly in the House of Commons, but also for all workers in Canada.
So, I would just like you to take a few moments to think about this and try and recall the reasons that prompted you at the time to vote in favour of this Bill. You still represent the riding of Jonquière—Alma, which is one of the most unionized ridings in Quebec, if not in Canada.
I find this change of opinion very surprising. You told us there is less investment in provinces where anti-scab legislation is in effect. Yet the Bloc Québécois demolished that argument, which comes from the Montreal Economic Institute and the Fraser Institute, two right-wing think tanks which, as you well know, play with the numbers until they end up saying what people want to hear, which is always favourable to employers. In any case, these figures covered the period from 1967 to 1993. So, they are not very recent and had been provided by very large corporations, when in fact, as you well know, the Quebec economy is based more on SMEs.
The second time you came, you said that anti-scab legislation offered no benefit whatsoever. That is what you said on September 22, when our NPD colleagues tabled a bill similar to Bill C-257. At the time, you said, and I quote:
There is no evidence to show that prohibiting the use of replacement workers would actually bring workers even one of the benefits that are claimed [...]
As you know, everyone in the world of work is saying that it does have benefits. People say that labour disputes don't last as long, that they are less violent, and that the return to work and the workplace atmosphere are far better. They also say that it ensures a more appropriate balance between job action by workers and pressure tactics used by employers.
Let's come back to this notion of “balance”, because we heard that term used yesterday and today in the House. That is your new argument. I heard you say that balance—and again, I am going to quote you—“[...] is the right of the employer to continue to operate his business [...]”
Minister, that is not what balance is. Balance means that the employer and the employee have the same rights. When there is a labour dispute, the employer goes without his production revenues, and the employee goes without his work income. Indeed, there is less production, and the worker has no work. That's why there is in fact a balance. Balance does not mean that the employer fills his pockets during the labour dispute while the workers go into debt and suffer psychological distress when they see other workers putting on their uniforms, going to their locker, to their workbench, doing their work and receiving a salary which is often lower than what they would receive. That is not balance, Mr. Blackburn. You used to know what it was, and I suspect you still do. I think I know why you voiced opposition to it today, but I would prefer to have you tell us yourself or let the people who are hearing us today arrive at their own conclusions.
Having said that, I would like to give you a few minutes to respond, because I really would like to know why you changed your mind. You have already changed your mind, because you once believed in this.
At one time, you made similar comments to the ones I'm making today. However, as Minister, rather than defending ideas that have stood the test of time in Quebec in your caucus and in Cabinet, it would seem that if the Conservative Party tells you it doesn't like something, you turn around and say: that's okay and that is what I'll say.
That's exactly how you are currently perceived by people all across Quebec and workers in your own riding of Jonquière. It's not very pleasant for anyone.
Perhaps you could respond to my comments.
During a recent trip across Canada, I did indeed have a chance to promote racism-free workplaces. I want you to know that I heard some very interesting things during that trip, which I would like to share with Committee members, if you don't mind.
According to a Statistics Canada survey, 1.8 million Canadians say they have been subject to racism during their lives, and most said that it occurred in their workplace. In addition, seven years from now, half the population of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, which are the three largest cities in Canada, will be made up of members of visible minorities. That is the new reality in Canada.
Given that new reality, racism in the workplace should be of concern to us. It is with that in mind that my first stop was Vancouver, where I went to promote racism-free workplaces.
In the different cities we visited, we explained that we will be hiring nine new staff members to go into businesses to talk about racism-free workplaces and try to promote workplaces that are both healthy and inclusive. In so doing, the debate on these issues will become public. It's important that the debate about racism not only be between two people having a chat in a corner. We have to have this debate publicly, because Canada's diversity is now a reality that we have to deal with.
When I was in Vancouver, not only did I hear about racism in the workplace and the practices put in place to try and eliminate it, but I was also told about the need to recognize immigrants' foreign credentials here in Canada. It's a serious problem for them—and that is understandable—that we don't recognize diplomas they have received abroad as engineers, doctors or skilled workers who emigrated to Canada.
What are they going to do to earn a living? Let's try and put ourselves in their position. If we emigrated to another country where our skills, our training and our diplomas were not recognized, what would we do to develop as individuals? This is a reality that our government is currently trying to address, in cooperation with the provinces, so that a solution can be found that allows immigrant workers who come to Canada to have their skills recognized.
When I got to Calgary, I saw quite a different reality. As well as talking about racism and promoting racism-free and healthy workplaces, we were looking at a situation where this city is currently experiencing an economic boom. Thirty billion dollars are going to be invested in the few years, and yet they don't have enough labour available to perform the work that needs to be done, including building new municipal infrastructure.
As Minister of Labour, I told them that the solution was not to fill airplanes with workers selected in other regions and bring them to Alberta. That just creates a problem somewhere else, which is no better. Mayor Bronconnier mentioned that what the major cities in Alberta need to deal with the economic boom there are things that might be produced in certain regions of Quebec or other regions of Canada.
The third reality I came face to face with in terms of the labour market is the current situation in Montreal. For example, at the Michelin plant, company representatives told me that 40% of their workforce will be eligible for retirement in next five years.
What are you supposed to do when 40% of the people working for a business are set to retire in the next five years or at least will be eligible to retire in the next five years? That new reality gives us food for thought: we certainly can't keep going in the same direction. At some point, we will have to allow people working for businesses to stay in the labour market longer. We'll have to take another look at the way we do things.
Finally, when I got to Halifax, I faced yet another reality. Of course, in addition to racism in the workplace, the Minister of Labour told me that contractors had come to tell him they have lost employees. One of them had told him the week before that he had lost 36 workers who had all moved to Alberta for work. As a result, he was unable to fulfill his contract, because he had lost his workforce to another province.
Just to conclude, I want to say that the world of work is ready for change. In the very near future, we will have to look at these realities and adjust our way of doing things to reflect those realities.
Mr. Blackburn, I had promised myself that I wouldn't come back to the figures you quoted earlier. I don't really want to do that, and I'm sure you understand that people probably don't want to hear me do it either. However, I feel an obligation to do it, because you have given people the figures that suit you. In fact, you quoted figures that support your own arguments, even though they are not accurate.
You talk about the length of labour disputes, but that is not what we should be talking about. We should really be talking about the number of person-days that have been lost. And, of course, we need to distinguish between workers who fall under the Quebec Labour Code and those who fall under the Canada Labour Code. That way, you'll be looking at figures that really reflect reality.
I don't want to come back to your numbers, but I do want to cite a few that are from 2002. My figures are from the Quebec Ministry of Labour. Although 7.3% of workers in Quebec worked for federally regulated employers, they were responsible for 48% of the work days lost as a result of labour disputes. That is what we should be talking about. If you want to talk about figures, those are the ones we should be talking about.
On the other hand, if you want to talk about the frequency of strike action, you may want to know about an analysis prepared by J.W. Budd in 1993, some 15 years after anti-scab legislation was passed in Quebec. After looking at more than 2,000 collective agreements in Canada, Mr. Budd concluded that there is little evidence that anti-scab legislation increases the frequency of strikes. Mr. Budd is a professor at the University of Minnesota.
I don't want to go back over everything that you said earlier. I don't even want to go back over the 1999 consensus on the Canadian replacement workers legislation that you referred to. The fact is, there was no consensus; that is not correct. A professor at Laval University actually tabled a minority report.
I also would like to talk about the Canada Labour Code. You raised a new, convoluted argument to the effect that Canada doesn't want to impose legislation on the provinces. But we are not asking you to impose legislation on the provinces; we're simply asking you to look after workers who fall within the federal government's jurisdiction. That's all. That is what showing leadership is all about, Minister. And that is what you should do.
In fact, you should be saying that federally regulated workers should take advantage of this. That is the whole purpose behind the Canada Labour Code. It is not there for workers in the provinces. Part III of the Canada Labour Code deals solely with labour standards. It states that the minimum wage is the one set by the provinces.
But I want to ask you think about something. In terms of the Labour Code, why not simply decide that the code that applies is whatever code the provinces see fit to adopt? Why don't you do that?
In Quebec, we would be very happy with this kind of development, because that would resolve our problem and all workers would be subject to anti-scab legislation. And you would continue not to demonstrate leadership. Do you really need a labour code?
Mr. Harry Arthurs has spent the last two years trying to overhaul Part III of the Canada Labour Code. On June 6, Minister, you told us that his report would be tabled in June. Now you are telling us that you haven't received it yet. Perhaps Mr. Arthurs' problem is the fact that labour is more of a responsibility of the provinces and Quebec. Perhaps that is Mr. Arthurs' problem. Why is he having trouble producing a meaningful report?
You talked about self-employed workers. They come within the purview of the provinces; so, don't get involved. I realize you're having trouble modernizing your labour standards, but there may be two issues there.
First of all, part of the problem is that it has three parts to it: Part I, Part II, and Part III. Minister, some things have to be changed at the same time. For example, federally-regulated female workers should be entitled to protective re-assignment when pregnant women find themselves working in an unhealthy environment. That involves changing Part II, with respect to health and safety, and Part III, which relates to labour standards. Both of these parts of the Code have to be worked on at the same time.
I realize that Mr. Arthurs is extremely competent and I have a lot of admiration for the work he is doing and has done in the past. However, you have essentially put blinkers on him by asking him to modernize only Part III of the Canada Labour Code.
Having said that, I would like you to think about the possibility of the federal government no longer having a labour code and your leaving this responsibility to the provinces.
:
First of all, our government recognizes the principles of pay equity, as laid out in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Furthermore, I was a government member of Parliament at the time, back in 1986, when our government enacted certain regulations. Following that, in 1995, the Liberal government decided to cut off funding, in order to promote pay equity in the workplace. I should also point out that the Canadian Human Rights Act sets out the principle of equal wages for work of equal value.
When we met with the various unions, women's groups and employer representatives, we realized that there was no consensus among them—not even among the unions. No two groups were in favour of the same approach in terms of the means of achieving pay equity. Some wanted us to adopt the Quebec model; others, the Ontario model; and still others, the model proposed in the Bilson Report, the 113 recommendations of which were recently tabled.
Also, because we are a minority government—we are aware of that reality, seeing as how the Opposition reminds us of that fact every day in the House of Commons—we wondered about the best course of action: even if we were to pass new legislation, it wouldn't take us very far, because we would always have to ensure that the legislation was enforced. So, we opted for enforcement of section 8 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. But how would we actually accomplish that?
The Department of Labour has 90 inspectors that regularly visit corporate workplaces to ensure that contractors and others are complying with the Canada Labour Code legislation. Having said that, those 90 inspectors receive special training with respect to pay equity. As a result, when they visit corporate workplaces, they ask employers whether they are applying the principle of pay equity and whether they are moving forward in that regard. They attempt to educate and inform employers, so that they can actually make progress in applying principles of pay equity to their own employees.
The Department of Labour also has 15 mediators, and there will soon be a sixteenth. One of these mediators has special skills in the area of mediation counseling as it relates to negotiations on pay equity. The others will also be receiving additional training on this. After a few meetings, if we realize that the employer is not willing to take action and is not acting in good faith, these mediators are authorized to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, so that it can investigate the situation and act accordingly.
This is our vision: by proceeding in this manner, in a way we are forcing employers to move forward, but not in a negative way. In fact, we are taking a proactive stance, explaining that the legislation exists and that employers have to apply the principle of pay equity. In my opinion, this will allow the two parties to move forward together.
So, that is what we have decided to do, because even if we had passed more legislation, we would still have had to ensure that it is enforced.
Let's take Quebec, for example—it is another good example. Indeed, in 1995 or 1997—I don't remember exactly—Quebec passed pay equity legislation. All business corporations had until 2001 to be compliant. And yet we are now in 2006, and some 60% of business corporations have not yet achieved pay equity.
In my opinion, we are still moving in the right direction, because what we are doing is both proactive and positive.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I was a Minister. I was the Minister responsible for Sport, I was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, where I managed more than 75,000 employees and a budget of $1.3 billion, and with great pride, I worked closely with people. I was also President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, so I am well aware of what a minister's job entails.
The role of a minister is not to be a member of Parliament with convictions or a minister responsible only for his own turf; the role of a minister is not to be constantly tagging along behind someone else. The role of a minister is also to be a source of inspiration. When you are aiming to work towards equity and for the environment, when social peace is challenged, when you are seeking a balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers, the role of a minister—in other words, your role, Minister—is to bridge the gap between the two.
So, you can forget about coming here this morning and telling us all kinds of stories about not wanting to force the hand of the provinces. You have legislation called the Canada Labour Code. In Quebec, the strikes that lasted the longest occurred in companies that are subject to the Canada Labour Code, as opposed to the Quebec Labour Code. That creates problems in families, it creates significant social problems, and you know as well as I do that I could cite the Vidéotron example. So don't bother coming to tell us this kind of thing, because we're not suitcases; we don't have a handle on our back.
Minister, I'm going to give you one last chance before moving on to another matter. At the time, you quite rightly demonstrated a certain amount of conviction as a member of Parliament. I don't even want to give the impression of having doubts about that; I believe you. You are a kind hearted man and you are capable of making decisions. So, please tell me why you were in favour of anti-scab legislation back then, but now you are against it.
Was it the Department that told you—just as they told the former Minister of Labour—not to get involved in this and not to support it? Is it the Prime Minister's Office, which seems to control every member of Parliament and Minister, telling you that? What is your answer?
:
Before answering that question, I want to point out that the information presented by the member who questioned us earlier is not correct: there have been no cuts. I think it's important to point that out. The fact is that something didn't jibe with the information I had.
Furthermore, even though we're talking about healthy private sector workplaces, we also have to address this issue within the business environment and in our own personal life—in other words, at home. Last spring, all the provincial and territorial Ministers of Labour gathered in Whistler. We signed a joint agreement that talked about promoting healthy workplaces. Of course, that means avoiding workplace accidents. And I just want to remind you how important this is, because in fact, four people die every day in Canada as a result of accidents in the workplace. That's a lot of people. There are also a lot of people who injure themselves in the workplace.
Given that reality, we have mutually pledged, every time we have a chance to do so publicly, to address problem situations in the private sector that appear dangerous. We're not talking about just making observations and then going about our business; rather, we're talking about documenting the facts, standing back and taking the time to say that the situation is dangerous, and advising the individuals concerned, so that steps can be taken to avoid potential accidents, injuries or fatalities.
Similarly, Mr. Storseth, we must be aware of the dangers that can affect us in our own homes and everyday life. When we become aware of a dangerous situation, it is up to us, as individuals, to intervene and try to avoid this kind of situation. For example, often a member of the family will stand on a chair to change a light bulb. But we need to adopt safe practices; otherwise, we risk suffering serious consequences. We all do certain things mechanically. It's really just a matter of being aware of that. Once we have that awareness, we see things differently.
Now, every time I walk into a private business as the Minister of Labour, or the Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec, I see things from a different perspective. I look at the workers and try to identify dangerous situations. I'm concerned about that. All the provincial Ministers of Labour and myself are trying to promote safe workplaces where safety is omnipresent. Every workplace fatality is a tragedy. Both co-workers and families are severely affected over the long term. And, of course, accident victims also suffer long-term consequences.
I have criss-crossed the country promoting racism-free workplaces. I have also talked about safe workplaces that are free of sexual or psychological harassment. We also have to promote what we call work-life balance. For example, if an employee's child is sick, someone obviously has to be at home. In such cases, the boss has to be conciliatory and promote quality of life. An employee who enjoys good quality of work life is more productive. And the employer benefits as well. It's the same thing when there are no workplace accidents. It's a win-win situation. Reconciling a healthy workplace and family life, while ensuring that employees are happy in their line of work, is a good way of doing business.