HUMA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 8, 2003

1520

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.))

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Lordon (Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Lordon

1525

The Chair

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay (Vice-Chairperson, Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal)

1530

1535

The Chair

Mr. Len Hong (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety)

1540

1545

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

1550

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

Ms. Josée Dubois (Executive Director and General Counsel, Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal)

Mr. Roy Bailey

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. Roy Bailey

1555

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.)

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Len Hong

1600

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ)

Mr. Paul Lordon

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Paul Lordon

1605

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Paul Lordon

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Paul Lordon

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Paul Lorden

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Paul Lordon

Mr. Akivah Starkman (Executive Director, Canada Industrial Relations Board)

1610

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Akivah Starkman

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mr. Len Hong

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Len Hong

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Len Hong

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

1615

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

Ms. Josée Dubois

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

1620

Mr. Paul Lordon

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Paul Lordon

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Paul Lordon

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Paul Lordon

Ms. Libby Davies

1625

Mr. Len Hong

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Len Hong

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Len Hong

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Len Hong

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mme Josée Dubois

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

1630

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

M. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Paul Lordon

1635

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Roy Bailey

1640

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. Len Hong

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

1645

Mr. Paul Lordon

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. Len Hong

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. Len Hong

1650

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Josée Dubois

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Josée Dubois

1655

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Paul Lordon

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Paul Lordon

Mr. Akivah Starkman

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

1700

Ms. Josée Dubois

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Josée Dubois

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Josée Dubois

The Chair

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

The Chair

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay

Ms. Josée Dubois

The Chair

1705

Mr. Paul Lordon

The Chair

Mr. Paul Lordon

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Bonnie Easterbrook (Comptroller, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Bonnie Easterbrook

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

1710

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

NUMBER 029

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1520)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I call to order the 29th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We're going to hear from witnesses in a very few seconds. First, I have an order of business I would like to deal with. Our subcommittee, the subcommittee dealing with the status of persons with disabilities, has a budget that requires ratification by the main committee. This is a budget, actually, about $29,300. It's to continue with our witnesses.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): I approve.

The Chair: You approve. That's nice to see you approve. You'll make the motion.

Do I have any comments or concerns from anyone?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair:Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Now we will move to our witnesses. We're dealing with the estimates of the Department of Human Resources Development. We have with us a number of folks from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, from the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, and from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.

I'm going to call on representatives from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, if you could introduce those who are with you and begin your presentation. I'm certain the clerk gave you some pretty stringent timelines. I would like you to follow them as much as you can. We have a number of members on the committee who will be anxious to ask questions.

Mr. Paul Lordon (Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board): We would be happy, Madam Chairman, to follow the instructions.

I'm the chairperson of the Industrial Relations Board, Paul Lordon. With me at the table is Mr. Akivah Starkman, who is the executive director of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Our counsel is with us in the audience today. She is Madame Pascale-Sonia Roy.

The Chair: Welcome. You may begin your presentation, Mr. Lordon.

Mr. Paul Lordon: In keeping with the notion that we're here to really respond to your questions, we're going to be very brief.

Here is a little background. On January 1, 1999, significant changes to the Canada Labour Code were introduced to change the formerly neutral Canada Labour Relations Board to a representational Canada Industrial Relations Board, to make certain important amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Principal among those were streamlining of our processes to allow hearings on documentation alone, an expanded jurisdiction over mergers and the taking of strike votes, and such issues as that.

Parliament proved quite prescient in respect of mergers, because since that time we've basically undergone some 14 or 15 major mergers in the large federal industries, and the board has been very heavily involved in those. We've been able to deal with the caseload pressure and the hearing pressure from having to hear these merger issues and expanded issues, which were not formerly within the board's jurisdiction under the code, using the streamlined powers to do a lot more paper hearings. That's the way we've gone. We've also noticed quite an increase in caseload from what was typical under the CLRB. That peaked about two years ago. Now it seems to be levelling off with a bit of an increase.

In order to address our caseload, we've revised our case processing systems and our case management information and retrieval system. We've engaged in a concerted effort to update our information technology. We've expanded our mediation and conciliation services, and we've set careful priorities in terms of what the board does regarding its caseload. We try to deal with urgent matters on an urgent basis, and other matters as soon as we possibly can.

Essentially, that's where we are. We've now been under way as a new representational board for about four years. I think we're settling into a very efficient and very sustainable pace, which would see the board becoming a very important and continuing component in the Canadian industrial relations world.

¹ (1525)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we will hear from the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal.

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay (Vice-Chairperson, Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal): Good afternoon.

[Translation]

My name is Marie Sénécal-Tremblay and I am Vice-Chair of the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. With me are Josée Dubois, our Executive Director, and Lorraine Farkas, our Research Director, who is in the room.

Madame la présidente et honorables membres du comité, Madam Chair and honourable Members, allow me to introduce myself. I am the part-time Vice-Chair of the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. I have been appointed in March 2001 and I was given the Vice-Chair position in April 2002. I live in Montreal and I speak to you on behalf of Mr. David Silcox, the part-time Chair of the Tribunal who could not attend today and who asked me to express his regrets.

[English]

First, thank you for inviting our tribunal to appear before this committee. The tribunal administers part II of the Status of the Artist Act and reports to Parliament through the Minister of Labour. Part II of the Status of the Artist Act establishes a regime for collective bargaining between self-employed artists and producers within federal jurisdiction.

The artists covered by the act include authors, directors, performers, designers, and others who contribute to the creative aspects of a production. Among the producers are broadcasters, federal government departments, and federal agencies such as the National Film Board, the National Capital Commission, the National Arts Centre, and national museums. In all, there are some 100,000 Canadian artists, 165 federal government institutions, and 1,200 broadcasters falling under the jurisdiction of the Status of the Artist Act.

The tribunal's responsibilities are defined in the act as threefold: to define the sectors of cultural activity subject to federal jurisdiction that are suitable for collective bargaining; to certify artists' associations to represent independent entrepreneurs working in these sectors; and to hear and decide complaints of unfair practices filed by artists, artists' associations, and producers, and to prescribe appropriate remedy.

¹ (1530)

[Translation]

In carrying out its work, the Tribunal wants to promote good labour relations between independent artists and the producers who hire them. To date, the Tribunal has determined that 24 cultural fields are appropriate for collective bargaining, and it has certified 22 artists' associations to represent those sectors. After being certified, the associations can start collective bargaining with federal producers.

The first priority of the tribunal is to deal with each case promptly and efficiently. Of course, this is sometimes a challenge because we set very tight schedules for ourselves to produce our decisions, and the certification applications are increasingly complex. However, because the Tribunal is relatively young and small, it has been able to adapt to the situation and to set up efficient systems. Furthermore, the experience obtained over eight years of operations allows us to deal with more complex issues, and the fact that the six present members are able to deal with cases in both official languages while representing the various parts of the country allows for better planning and sharing of the caseload. All the members of the Tribunal are part-time members and work only when it is necessary.

[English]

The tribunal's report on plans and priorities for 2003-04 mentions the mandatory review of the Status of the Artist Act carried out by the Department of Canadian Heritage in consultation with the Department of Human Resources Development Canada. The Department of Canadian Heritage tabled the report on the independent review in Parliament on April 1 of this year.

The review confirms the value and ongoing relevance of the Status of the Artist Act. The review notes that the act's ability to improve the socio-economic circumstances of self-employed artists is limited by a few factors, including its restriction to federal producers. The province of Quebec is the only province where a similar regime exists.

In this regard, last year the Saskatchewan government adopted status of the artist legislation, which mandates advisory committees to study social equity and other issues important to artists with a view to introducing concrete changes, which will raise artists' status and economic standing in that province. As we reported before, the tribunal has provided, and will continue to provide, information to parties in various provinces, including Saskatchewan, where there is interest in how the federal regime functions.

The independent review of the act also recommended some amendments to the act with a view to clarifying its application and improving its operations, including the successful negotiation of scale agreements. The review noted that some parties surveyed perceived a conflict between the Copyright Act and the tribunal's interpretation of the Status of the Artist Act. As the tribunal has stated in several of its decisions, it believes that the Status of the Artist Act provides artists with another avenue to receive copyright benefits in addition to those established by the Copyright Act.

In its response to the independent review, the Department of Canadian Heritage indicated that it will be studying matters raised in the review and that amendments to the legislation may be developed as a result. The tribunal looks forward to any changes which will help it promote constructive, professional relations between self-employed artists and producers in the federal jurisdiction.

[Translation]

Apart from dealing with issues under its jurisdiction, the Tribunal tries to help parties to resolve disputes among themselves when it is possible, in order to avoid formal hearings.

The Tribunal's Secretariat tries to ensure that artists associations and producers understand fully their rights and responsibilities under the Status of the Artist Act. Two years ago, we held a series of information meetings with artists' associations and producers in various cities. Those meetings were well received by the participants and we will organize new ones in the near future.

In the meantime, the members of the Secretariat continue to meet with various client groups on request. The Status of the Artist Act and its implementation by the Tribunal have fostered good labour relations between artists and producers. Eighteen new framework agreements have been negotiated and numerous existing agreements have been renewed with the Act coming into force. Several series of negotiations are going on at this time and we have received 25 notices of bargaining indicating that some parties want to start bargaining for the first time.

Very recently, Heritage Canada signed a first framework agreement with the Union des écrivains et des écrivaines québécois, and we hope that this will lead to other fruitful negotiations with federal departments and that other agreements will be added with new federal agencies. In the future, the Tribunal will continue to operate as efficiently as possible. In areas where full-time services are not required, for instance in finance, human resources, library services and information technology, the Tribunal signs service contracts with other departments or suppliers.

Furthermore, we have been sharing our offices and some administrative services for the past two years with Environmental Protection Review Canada, a tribunal of Environment Canada. We hope that you will support our operations and we are fully prepared to answer your questions.

Thank you.

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Now, from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, Len Hong.

Mr. Len Hong (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety): Good afternoon, and thank you very much for inviting me to address this committee.

Beside me is Bonnie Easterbrook, our comptroller. She'll be here to help me out if I lose track of finances. Finances are very important to us.

I'm glad to have this opportunity to provide the committee with an update of our recent initiatives and achievements, as well as outline our plans for renewing the services that the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety--and for brevity I'll refer to our place as “the centre” or “CCOHS”--provides to Canadians.

The year 2003 marks the 25th anniversary of the founding of the centre. The vision of the Government of Canada in creating a unique service to promote the fundamental rights of Canadians to have a healthy and safe working environment has proven to be successful. The centre has worked under the direction of its tripartite council of governors to create a national service that is used throughout the land.

Our mandate remains as important and as relevant today as it was 25 years ago. We continue to focus on acquiring, selecting, and providing the best and most reliable information and knowledge, supplying resources and expertise, and creating programs to help Canadians prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.

Let me highlight some of the recent achievements of the eventful and successful past few years.

In 2001 Treasury Board financed a review of the centre's programs and service delivery. The review noted that the centre had succeeded in providing needed public and cost-recovery services to Canadians. However, it was emphasized that the Internet has created an environment for a large number of private sector providers of occupational health and safety information. It also supported a huge increase to the volume of globally accessible health and safety information.

To stay current with these emerging technologies, the centre required additional financial resources to acquire hardware and software, and more importantly, retain and develop knowledgeable staff to use the new technologies for developing and delivering effective and efficient services.

The overall conclusion of the review was that the centre needed additional resources to address the stagnated revenue levels by improving products, mounting more effective marketing, being more responsive to changes in the marketplace, modernizing technological capabilities, and expanding its customer base. As a result of these findings, CCOHS was provided a $2 million increase in core appropriations to make these upgrades starting in 2002-03.

With this funding in place, we have implemented plans to upgrade and improve the infrastructure, technological, and information underpinnings of the centre. Our multi-year improvement plans are based on our mandate to provide for ongoing excellence in the delivery of public and cost-recovery programs and services. This requires the complex redesign of entire databases and product features to take advantage of the capabilities of the latest and most appropriate hardware and software. The major phases of this upgrade will take three years to four years to complete.

Today we are preparing to vastly improve our website search software, acquire and set up more hardware, and of course continue to deliver the services Canadians expect from us. Some of the new improvements and enhanced services will be provided in the fiscal year 2003-04.

We have just emerged from an exciting year of successful accomplishments. We have improved some of the centre's search-and-find features of our website so that users are now provided with much easier access and display of information. Most importantly, the volume of free accessible information has increased threefold.

¹ (1540)

A strategic partnership with the World Health Organization's chemical information program has resulted in the free provision of a major international authoritative chemical review database called INCHEM, which is delivered globally from the centre's website.

We have enhanced four major cost-recovery services and made them easier to access and use via the Internet. Specialized information collection services supported through partnerships with the respective provincial ministries of labour and workers compensation boards are now developed and maintained specifically for the citizens of Saskatchewan, Ontario, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. They are known as the “OSH for everyone” program. Citizens now can freely obtain an instant library of useful and appropriate health and safety resources for their personal and workplace use via the Internet.

Workplace health information provided from the Canadian Health Network portal is a major initiative led by the centre and funded by Health Canada. We have successfully led the creation of the national partnership of organizations involved in workplace health, assisted the development and provision of reliable health information for this portal, resulting in the sharing of high-quality information with Canadians to promote improvements in the health of working Canadians.

Lastly, I wish to share the news of an exciting completed collaborative initiative with the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation, called CAALL, deputy ministers. These represent all the provincial, territorial, and federal ministries of labour.

Youth occupational health and safety was a key focus of the CAALL deputy ministers. We worked with CAALL and produced a new web portal called Job One.ca, which delivers health and safety information for the youth of Canada to prepare them to become safe and healthy workers. One of the significant achievements was the process to develop the content of this portal. Focus groups of youth from all parts of Canada and representatives from many provincial ministries of labour, workers compensation boards, and the centre all worked together to develop and select youth-focused resources from Canadian government sources, workers compensation boards, and the centre for this portal.

Additional new resources were developed and selected for parents to assist them in their important role in guiding their children to safe and healthy work. Safety and health information was provided about volunteer jobs and activities, since some of these experiences are young Canadians' first exposure to work outside the home.

As we move into 2003-2004 the centre will focus on five strategic directions. For public services we have developed very accessible and useful Internet-based information services. We have involved many partnerships and collaborations with Canadian and international partners. We have increased the volume of French content and have started a Spanish-language service in support of Canada's focus in participation in many regions of the Americas. This year we will work towards increased awareness of all these public services throughout Canada.

In addition, we will continue to refine and enhance the presentation, search features, and delivery of information primarily through the Internet. We believe in providing accessible and complete service to all Canadians. We will continue to provide telephone service as well as deliver information using various formats, such as paper copies, fax, e-mail, CD-ROM, and DVDs.

In the cost-recovery service we'll make improvements and expansion in the legislation service, chemical databases, and Internet database. Improved Internet speed of access, reduced down time, and improved presentation of information will be provided. Cost-recovery programs are planned to maintain the $4 million income line, as required by Treasury Board.

Our focus remains on enhancing existing Canadian partnerships to provide both regional and national appropriate programs and services. Our partnership and collaborative efforts promote and encourage the free provision of occupational health and safety information.

¹ (1545)

Our efforts in furthering this focus with global agencies such as the International Labour Organization, World Health Organization, and European Agency for Safety have resulted in agreements to increase the production and release of occupational safety and health information for global public use.

CCOHS is well known for its leadership in publicly available information, for its ability to foster positive relationships, and its ability to efficiently develop and complete major programs. As a result of this recognition, CCOHS has been requested to be the developer of the new global occupational health and safety portals in collaboration with these international agencies.

This new global portal will provide standardized organization and presentation of information. Contributors and users will be able to easily find similar categories of occupational health and safety information from all around the world. The portal will enable governments, research agencies, and academia to contribute their best occupational health and safety information for global use. Most importantly, Canadians will receive the benefits of a global safety and health information, knowledge, and best practice resource annually worth hundreds of millions of dollars through the efforts of CCOHS's international collaborations.

Lastly, CCOHS will continue in this year to promote and support initiatives to integrate the teaching of occupational health and safety in the Canadian school systems by working with like-minded organizations, citizens, and governments. It is expected that young Canadians who learn the concepts of proper health and safety in school as part of their formal education will become a major force in creating a Canadian society where injuries and illnesses arising from work are not acceptable. It is envisioned that they will be able to use their education to assist in creating safer and healthier workplaces and ultimately a safer, healthier, and more productive Canada.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before I turn it over to my committee, I'm going to make a comment that's a little late for probably this year, but in terms of your making deputations before standing committees in the future, it would be extremely helpful for members of the committee if we had your speaking notes to distribute to our committee so that they could make notes. When we're listening to presentations it's very difficult to be making the kinds of notes we need. And I would remind you that when you're doing that they should come in both official languages. And even if you don't have enough copies to distribute, if you can get them to the clerk, we can make copies. I'm just making that as a general comment, and I will continue to make that comment when others--particularly those who are as closely affiliated with government, as you are--are making deputations to our committee.

With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Bailey, who told me some time ago he was ready, so I'm going to start calling him “ever-ready Bailey”.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentations. They were very interesting and very well done.

I would like to start with some questions for Madame Marie Sénécal-Tremblay. Something that ran through my mind, which I'll mention for the benefit of the members of the committee, was that you mentioned all of the variety of people who your professional relations tribunal covers, and you mentioned performers. I was wondering if that could include members of Parliament, because we're at risk all the time and we do perform quite well, I think, at times, and we're subjected to all kinds of verbal abuse. It's just a thought.

My question to you is why is it necessary, in your opinion, to have a separate labour relations tribunal for the Canadian artists and producers and so on? And don't ever put the members of Parliament in this group. That's my lead-off question.

¹ (1550)

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: I don't think you'd meet the test under the legislation, sadly, but it's possible. It would have to be looked at very closely.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: There's a good actress over there.

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: That's very true.

In answer to your question, I think the essential element is the very different nature of the constituent body or the audience, if you will, for whom this tribunal exists, which, as I'm sure you know, has its origins in a UNESCO resolution back in 1980 to which Canada was a signatory. Effectively, signatory nations undertook to explore ways in which they could both recognize the importance of the cultural sector in their society and at the same time redress the recognized imbalance between the socio-economic status of that group and its relative importance; i.e., culture is universally recognized as being very important, and yet the socio-economic standing of people working in the cultural sector full-time is usually at the low end of the spectrum.

I think that both the nature of the certifications, the elements that have to be considered in arriving at those decisions, and the groups with whom you're dealing are very different from the groups that typically will work in a labour relations regime for many years with well-established collective bargaining.

Really, here you're dealing essentially with associations that in some cases have been existing on a voluntary basis for many years and are shifting or acquiring a legal framework that they didn't possess otherwise. Again, they are very heavily couched in the cultural sector.

My executive director might have some comments to add.

Ms. Josée Dubois (Executive Director and General Counsel, Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal): In addition, I think one of the main differences is that in all the traditional labour relations boards that exist throughout Canada you are dealing with employees, whereas here the people who are subject to our act are self-employed, which means they don't just work for one employer, but they have a whole number of employers.

Also, the legislation came about following intense lobbying by the artists themselves in the 1980s and the early 1990s.

Mr. Roy Bailey: The answer was not unexpected. I wanted to hear you say that it would be a bad mix to put it all together, because it may be more cost-efficient but it would be a bad mix to put you with the employer-employee relationship.

In the year 2003 you received $45,000 additional funding through the main estimates. What was this supplementary estimate? What was the requirement for this supplementary estimate?

Ms. Josée Dubois: If I can answer that question, there was no supplementary. Treasury Board just established that amount, but it wasn't us who requested those additional funds. I believe that those additional funds are given to cover the extra cost of the benefits in the collective agreements of the employees.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I think I've used enough time.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: We'll give you a second round.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. What is the volume of the complaints the tribunal dealt with last year, and what is estimated for the next year? What are the common complaints?

Ms. Josée Dubois: I'll answer that question. I'll put the complaints and the requests together, and I'll answer your question about the complaints and what kinds of complaints we get.

There are usually about eight to ten cases every year for this tribunal. The kinds of complaints we get are complaints about unfair labour practices. In the same way as they're found in the Canada Labour Code, we have similar kinds of complaints, such as when an artists' association alleges that a producer has engaged in unfair labour practices.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: How does the tribunal's cost per case, per application, or per complaint compare with that of the Canada Industrial Relations Board?

Ms. Josée Dubois: I don't have the numbers for the Canada Industrial Relations Board. In terms of the cost for each complaint, we track the cost of each case. I don't have the cost for each case with me now. I can't make a comparison because I don't know what the cost is for each complaint or matter the board hears. It varies. To give you an idea, some cases, when they're dealt with, for example, on a paper basis, end up being less expensive than when you have a five-day hearing that includes translators, stenographers, and travel fees for the members. It depends on the case. Also, the more complex a case is, of course the more expensive it becomes.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: How does the tribunal determine if they're providing fair, timely, or cost-effective services to their clients?

Ms. Josée Dubois: How do we...?

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: How do you determine that the tribunal is providing fair, timely, or cost-effective services?

Ms. Josée Dubois: In our performance report, we've set performance measures. Based on the performance measures we've set, that's how we try to gauge whether or not we've met those objectives.

For example, if you look at last year's performance report, we had a target date of, I can't remember, 38 days for issuing a decision. But we had decisions that were more complex last year and that were much longer. The translation period was twice as long as it usually was. So we were not able to meet those targets.

We've set some fairly strict targets ourselves. Some years it's difficult to achieve them, and other years, not.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: My next question is for the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. With the expansion of Internet technology and effectiveness of this communication tool, can you briefly explain how your organization uses this technology and how effective it has become in the workplace? Do you still promote and distribute communication material to the workers who may have limited Internet access? Does your organization reach those Canadians who are employed but have low literacy rates?

Mr. Len Hong: Thank you very much. I will try to cover all of those questions.

With respect to the Internet, in the inception of the centre we had to be extremely efficient. Our service is based on providing the most up-to-date and accurate information that we can. That necessarily comes from national and international sources.

Right since 1980 we created a technological electronic delivery of information service. We had one of the first 17,000 websites, compared to the millions out there right now. We produced the first CD-ROMs of health and safety information as the first service in the world.

Today, in regard to the Internet, I briefly alluded to the fact that we're developing Internet-based delivery of information. Our information is written for literacy levels according to Frontier College guidelines, recognizing that reading levels of Canadians range from grade five up to grade nine, perhaps, in terms of literacy rates in some of our workplace sectors. We very carefully write in short one-sentence forms, point forms, and with lots of pictures and graphics.

To deliver this information, we maintain a phone service that is confidential. People can phone free with the 1-800 number, and they have been doing so. We will send the information right to their house or to their friend's house, or to people who would translate for them. We offer this, of course, in both French and English.

Increasingly, because workers can go to libraries in community centres and get information, rather than only talking to and helping out 15,000 Canadians each year on the telephone, additionally we have an Internet service that last year answered, combined French and English, 3.5 million inquiries. We've answered approximately a million different people's inquiries. They pull all of this off our website for free, use it in schools and in their workplace.

The interesting note is that actually the percentage of French usage is far higher than English off our website, which is good. It reaches out, actually, to more than 100 countries too. Other countries want to use our Canadian questions and answers for their own nation.

Did I miss any other parts?

º (1600)

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Just about those Canadians who are employed but have low literacy rates.

Mr. Len Hong: Right. And this is the situation where we write for that level of literacy. So as I mentioned, we have to get our PhD-type people to write at a grade-five level.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: And you had mentioned the rates of French and English. Is one of them more than 50%?

Mr. Len Hong: At least off the website, the requests in Canada are about 290,000 inquiries in French and 719,000 in English. Now, that's throughout the world; that's not all Canadians. But we think in Canada it's about 50% more French users than English.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: May I have another question?

The Chair: No. You'll get a second round.

Ms. Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome. I would like to ask a few questions about the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Could you please clarify your role? Are you the organization that people apply to when they want to complain about bad labour relations or disputes?

[English]

Mr. Paul Lordon: Generally speaking, the large bulk of the matters that come before us are complaints by employers or by unions, and the act is structured so they may make complaints. But there is one important provision in the Canada Labour Code, section 37, which deals with complaints by individual employees that the union has not represented their interests in an appropriate way, to summarize it in very straightforward and simple terms. And under that provision we do receive a large number of complaints from individual employees.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Then, can you start procedures to represent those people?

[English]

Mr. Paul Lordon: Generally speaking, the board allows complaints under that provision by a simple letter to the board setting out the nature of the complaint. And we provide whatever assistance the worker who is not represented or does not have the sophisticated counsel might need in order to assist them to prepare the complaint and ensure that it complies with the procedural requirements of our regulations.

º (1605)

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Can unions also apply to the Board if an employer does not meet the standards?

Mr. Paul Lordon: Yes, that is always the case. When an employer does not meet some standards of the Canada Labour Code, we are the body that gets involved.

Ms. Monique Guay: I have been told that some cases take quite a long time. Is it true? Is it difficult for you to resolve cases quickly? I am asking this because I see that you are going to cut your expenses and your staff. However, some people say that you might need more resources because some cases take far too much time.

[English]

Mr. Paul Lordon:

Generally speaking, we have been active now for four years. The history of the legislation is that the legislation was new at its inception, so we did not have a history of experience to judge what we would have, and we were essentially resourced at the level of the old board, with some new jurisdictions and a significantly increased power to dispose of matters in a summary or written fashion. So we started out, and the caseload went from about a 600 yearly average up to about 1,085. Our capacity to deal with it trailed up as the caseload increased, and eventually the caseloads started to decline. This year and last we seem to be falling around the 800 and 900 mark.

Because we trailed up, and because frankly we were a little inexperienced in the first two or three years and the adjudicative staff were new, we had to do a certain amount of catch-up. What we're doing now, as we're into that catch-up phase, is we've had to set some priorities. We've identified in the regulations the things we can expedite. The more serious matters and the things that are likely to cause serious labour disruption we proceed with forthwith. Our usual standard for an illegal strike or an illegal lockout of employees is that we will proceed within 24 hours, no matter where it happens in the country. The issue of what employees are included in a bargaining unit--for instance, if there's a bargaining unit of 1,000 and there are disputes over 15 or 20 employees--is the kind of thing we tend to defer until we can slot it into the hearing schedule.

Generally, I would say all serious matters are now processed and dealt with quite rapidly, and we are catching up on our overall caseload.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Is that the reason used to justify a reduction in your staff and your budget for next year?

Mr. Paul Lorden: I am sorry, I did not get the question.

Ms. Monique Guay: Is it for that reason that your staff and your budget will be cut in 2003-2004? You said that you have been able to catch up on your caseload.

Mr. Paul Lordon: I will ask my Executive Director to answer your question.

Mr. Akivah Starkman (Executive Director, Canada Industrial Relations Board): I can answer part of the last question. We have not really reduced our staff complement. Two years ago, we received additional funds from Treasury Board to correct two specific operational problems. We wanted to use mediation in order to reduce the number of cases without holding formal hearings, which would streamline the process and reduce the costs.

Treasury Board gave us additional funds for staff and training. We also received additional funds to improve our information technology, specifically to be able to hold hearings through video-conferences and tele-conferences.

That amount was given for a specific period of time and included salaries, since we needed more staff for a short period. That period is now over and the corresponding staff will not be needed in the future. It is not really a staff cut.

º (1610)

Ms. Monique Guay: If you were to go through another difficult period, would you be able to make another application for additional funds, to deal with specific or more complex cases?

Mr. Akivah Starkman: That is a magnificent idea.

Ms. Monique Guay: Indeed, and I suppose one has to adapt to circumstances.

[English]

The Chair: You'll have to wait until your second round.

Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Hong. I see in your estimates that your financial situation has been difficult for ten years. I did not read the full document but I would like to know what steps you are going to take to get rid of your deficit without cutting your services.

[English]

Mr. Len Hong: Thank you very much.

In the study that was financed by Treasury Board in 2001, the independent external evaluator made some recommendations back to Treasury Board. The recommendations essentially said we needed more money to improve some deficit situations--$1 million annually to do that--so that stabilizes what we are at. An additional $1 million was to say we need to be competitive with the international and national marketplace, so we're using that money for information and technological upgrades.

But our key strategy, actually, is to work with the national and global partners to encourage them to adopt the Canadian way, and that is to provide free information to their citizens, and of course the global citizens. When I talk about that as a strategy, it goes far beyond a slight $1 million or $2 million, because we're essentially convincing them to provide everyone hundreds of millions of dollars of their resources that we can all use and benefit from in Canada. That's one of our key focuses.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: We have been working on a report on literacy and I wonder if you are aware of studies demonstrating that low levels of literacy can cause problems to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Do you have any statistics on that?

[English]

Mr. Len Hong: Personally, no, we've not researched that subject. We're aware it is an issue. We would have the capabilities of researching the Canadian literature and engaging the specialists to do such an analysis.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I do not understand your answer. You would be able to do it but, so far, you have not done it. Is that your answer?

[English]

Mr. Len Hong: We work on providing information services, but we don't conduct research because there are many research organizations in Canada. If we were requested to do a search of the existing information to see if this was a problem and how much of a problem it was, we could engage our staff and researchers to do such a study, but we don't have such a study today.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I have a question for Ms. Sénécal. What are the most common types of complaints? How does your Tribunal operate, exactly?

º (1615)

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: We have been in existence for seven years. At the beginning, we received many certification requests. Some organizations working in the cultural sector on a voluntary basis wanted to be recognized. Some had already negotiated framework agreements and others wanted to do so. It is all a matter of recognition, in order to be protected by the Act, but we have to make sure that the organization really comes under the Act.

There is a recognition process that is not over, even though a large part of the work has been done. In other words, the various cultural sectors had been identified and recognized.

For several years, we have been receiving complaints relating to unfair labour practices in the context of bargaining. Some organizations negotiate a first framework agreement, which may take a long time and be very difficult for the parties. Things are generally easier the second time around.

We also receive individual complaints about associations, somewhat like those referred to by Mr. Lordon, that is when someone complains that his or her cultural association did not deal properly with an internal matter.

However, the Act does not allow us to be involved in those issues. We also deal with many cases that are resolved before a hearing. Those are mainly information issues and, in those cases, the matter can often be resolved by our Secretariat providing proper information.

Apart from cases dealt with at a hearing, an important part of our activities consists of providing information to members of a cultural sector, whether it be individuals or associations. Those cases do not always have to go to a hearing, they can often be resolved before reaching that step.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Are there any sectors that are involved with more complaints or requests than others?

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: Some sectors are more active as far as negotiations are concerned. Ms. Dubois could provide you with more information on this.

Ms. Josée Dubois: Since there has been a long tradition of bargaining in the fields of theatre, television and show business, people in those sectors are better organized and are used to negotiating framework agreements. When they face issues in bargaining, they may lay a complaint before the tribunal alleging that the producer is not bargaining in good faith.

Furthermore, as mentioned by Ms. Sénécal-Tremblay, artists can lay a complaint individually. For example, an artist can allege that his association has discriminated against him. Since the Canada Labour Code requires that artists' associations provide good representation to their members, an artist believing that he has not been properly represented in a grievance can complain to the Tribunal alleging that he did not get proper representation.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming today.

I have a couple of questions, first on the Industrial Relations Board, and then concerning occupational health and safety.

Concerning the Industrial Relations Board, our main sort of contact with it is when we're raising issues in the House, when there's a dispute and we're bugging the labour minister about what's going on. I'm interested to know more about the scope of the board's work.

To give you an example, there is the recent lockout of the grain handlers in Vancouver, which is partly in my riding of Vancouver East, because it's in the port. I visited the locked-out workers a couple of times and went up and down the line and talked to people. That had gone on for a very long time. And I'm not raising this to go into the case, but I had a sense of frustration from people that the board was not able to respond in a way that was looking for resolution. It raised questions for me.

Do you need to have a broader mandate? Is what you can actually do very limited when a serious dispute is taking place, or was that more because there was a lockout? I don't know, but I know it involved Prince Rupert and it went on for months and months. It wasn't clear to me.... What could the board have done? Or were you very limited?

º (1620)

Mr. Paul Lordon: First of all, we would always say we are limited by the Canada Labour Code; we're limited by the jurisdictions it grants to us. We respond to applications by the parties. If the parties don't apply, we don't become involved.

In respect of the grain case, I personally was the adjudicator who was involved in the matter, together with a panel of the board. Just to give you a sense of the nature of the processes before us, the initial application we received was an application alleging that there had been an illegal strike. That was occurring in Prince Rupert at the time. There was no complaint with respect to the lockout that had occurred in the Port of Vancouver. Nobody had complained to the board that the lockout there was illegal, so it didn't come before us. We didn't have jurisdiction.

There was a complaint of an illegal strike in Prince Rupert, and a panel and I went. Basically, what happened in that case is that we heard the matter over two days. We heard it all through Friday, and about four in the morning on the Saturday the parties reached an agreement in respect of that dispute: the employees would go back to work, and the matter was settled.

Part of the settlement was the employees were claiming there was a single-employer linkage between the Prince Rupert group and the group in the Vancouver port, and that matter is still pending before the board. We initially indicated to the parties that we would expedite it, and we took steps to expedite it. We were actually going to hear it in the two weeks before Christmas of last year. Because of the seriousness of that matter, we had given it priority in the manner I indicated we do.

In that case, the contract in respect of the locked-out employees in Vancouver was settled by agreement between the parties to refer it to private arbitration to set the terms of the contract, and they went back to work before Christmas. The remainder of the hearing that is still scheduled before the board has been given a lower priority, and we'll hear it before the—

Ms. Libby Davies: So it actually isn't concluded yet?

Mr. Paul Lordon: It's not concluded. It will be resumed; that's its status.

Ms. Libby Davies: Basically, you're saying the mandate of the board was adequate or sufficient to actually deal with the various issues.

Mr. Paul Lordon: Yes, I think that's fair. In this case we do have jurisdiction to deal with all the issues.

I would say, just looking at the matters that have been resolved, they've been resolved in a timely way, and basically all the employees are back at work at this point.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, I know that.

Mr. Paul Lordon: Prior to the time when the contract expires, the more protracted and detailed hearings on the broader issue of whether the two groups of employers should be linked as a single employer—our act does provide for that to be considered—will be considered in an appropriate way.

So that's the history of that matter.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay, thank you.

I want to follow up with a question about the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. I didn't even know this service existed.

In B.C. we've had cutbacks in employment standards offices, and I know it's actually much harder than it was for people to get information about health and safety, or practices of employers, and so on. How aware would people be of your service? How do you get it out there that you're available to people? It sounds as though it could be a really important resource for people, but I don't know how many people know about it.

º (1625)

Mr. Len Hong: The level of awareness of our services in British Columbia I suspect is quite low. That's for a historical reason. Because we were told to “go and make money”, we reduced the budgets for promoting public service: the money just wasn't there.

Fortunately, two of the members of our council of governors come from B.C. The vice-president of prevention for the Workers' Compensation Board is on our council, and also a representative from the Public Service Employees Union of the B.C. government is on our council. Both of them eagerly wish to promote our services and get us into B.C. to promote our services as an additional resource for the citizens of British Columbia.

Ms. Libby Davies: I would really wish it too.

Mr. Len Hong: And we've been doing it. I was just out there in February to do that. We held our council meeting in Richmond, and people came from across Canada to do it.

Ms. Libby Davies: Maybe you should think of sending information to B.C. MPs, because we put out information to our constituents quite often in householders. I get complaints about employment standards and so on, and because the B.C. situation is really deteriorating—they've closed many offices—it's much harder to get info and to get resolution. This would actually be a really important service.

Mr. Len Hong: May I make a point there?

We would give health and safety information, but not advice on employment standards.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, that's true. But sometimes they're related, aren't they?

Mr. Len Hong: And yes, we would gladly do so.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Davies.

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: You have seven minutes, and the clock is ticking.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You stated that you had improved your French services. What exactly did you improve?

[English]

Mr. Len Hong: What we improved on was ensuring that our collection of questions and answers in the French language was complete and up to date. We had been using not publicly available moneys but our cost-recovery moneys to fund public services. In the past, this restricted our abilities. We didn't have enough money to continue building this. But we have recently made a huge commitment to ensure that both French and English language services are equal and complete, and we've done so.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You are all representing federal agencies which, if I am not mistaken, do not come under the Official Languages Act. However, the relevant Committee has requested that that be changed. Do you come under the Act?

Mme Josée Dubois: Absolutely.

[English]

Mr. Len Hong: Yes, to some degree, but—

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You are contradicting each other. It's 4 to 1.

[English]

Ms. Josée Dubois: It's because we said yes, and you said “to some degree”.

Mr. Len Hong: No. May I explain?

It's “to some degree” because we are scheduled under part II of the Financial Administration Act, and for the way it does its services, CCOHS was told: for the French language services, ensure that your public telephone inquiry services are completely bilingual.

They always have been.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: When you talk of telephone service, do you refer to the “press 1, and if you are interested, press 2; if you don't like 2, go for the 3, and then go back to 1”, and by that time it's 5 o'clock and everyone's gone?

Mr. Len Hong: I would hope—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Do they go through a telephone system, or is there someone at the end of the telephone?

Mr. Len Hong: That's what we're so proud of. Yes, we have people at the end of the telephone who answer in real language. They answer your questions, and they will talk to you and try to assist in whichever language you ask of them.

º (1630)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: “Try to assist”, or assist?

Mr. Len Hong: They do assist, because—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Excuse me, you have here “Number of employees”. You're going up from 87—

The Chair: Through the chair, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madame.... Yes, dear.

Mr. Roy Bailey: You'll never get into the artists' guild.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: She craves attention.

The Chair: That's true.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I think it's my attention.

The Chair: That's it.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Oh, good. Madame, I see you're blushing. I'm happy.

Madame Chair, their agency has moved from 87 employees--or is about to move now--to 96 employees. That's quite an increase compared with this agency, the Tribunal canadien des relations professionelles artistes-producteurs. They only have nine employees, and they're going up 10% to ten employees.

In your case, going from 87 employees to 96 employees all of a sudden—whack—that's a big number. Compared with National Defence and Human Resources, it's not a big number, but it's 10%. Why all of a sudden you need all those new employees should be a question from the Alliance, but I think he's asleep at the switch.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Never.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Who are they? What are they? What are these jobs—not the people, the jobs?

Mr. Len Hong: As mentioned in the Treasury Board report, we were reduced from 140 employees in about 1989 down to the lower 80s number of employees about five or six years ago.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You're giving me the history; you're not giving me the reason. What are these people now going to do?

Mr. Len Hong: Because of that situation, we have not been able to provide the level of service that was requested of us.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Which is...?

Mr. Len Hong: Which is more information in health and safety.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: They're your information officers?

Mr. Len Hong: They're information officers, but to do this, we also have the people behind the scenes—the librarians, the scientists, the information specialists, the software specialists—so that we could develop these things in a very efficient manner and deliver them very efficiently.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Okay.

What are your priorities this year?

Mr. Len Hong: Our priorities this year are to ensure that we build more programs with the provinces to deliver information that they ask us to work with them on. The second priority is to update our chemical information, as our council of governors asked, to ensure we have the right toxicology and other information so workplaces don't poison their people. They noted that we needed to improve that. A third one is to get our technology up to date. A fourth one is to improve our marketing of public services and our cost recovery throughout Canada.

[Translation]

M. Eugène Bellemare: The estimates for 2002 were $13.5 million. For 2003-2004, it's $12 million, then it drops to $11.9 million. That is a steady decline.

[English]

Mr. Len Hong: No. Excuse me, that is not our report.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'm sorry, Mr. Hong.

Mr. Lordon, I look at your program costs: $13.5 million last year, $12.4 million this year, then $11.2 million. Is that your disappearing act?

[English]

Mr. Paul Lordon: No, sir, we hope not. And we don't intend to disappear.

There are really two components to that. One was that we found that in order to be modern in the way adjudicative boards like our board should be modern, we had to increase our mediation function. So we had additional funding from the Treasury Board for a year, to permanently increase mediation staff. But we had to go through a training exercise and literally train the whole board on how to do it. So we spent all that money in one year, and then the costs went down.

The other thing was that when I arrived at the board in 1998-99, the information technology and its support systems had become totally ancient. I know it sounds strange to talk about information technology and to use the word “ancient”, but we received special one-time funding to do that, so our funding went up when that was in the budget and being expended to modernize our information technology and case management systems—which are all electronic.

Those people have now left the board, because we had undertaken to Treasury Board to get in and do it, and once it was done, we were going to let those people move on. We've been able to do that. They're in the stages of winding up the project. So from now on we're going to work with the levels the public gives us, which will be a little less than what we needed that year.

º (1635)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: May I ask another question if I have unanimous approval?

The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?

Okay, very briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would not want to forget my good friends the artists because I used to be a visual arts teacher.

You say that the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal implements Part II of the Status of the Artist Act, regulating labour relations between independent artists and producers under federal jurisdiction. What does that mean?

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: We provide legal status to cultural associations in order to allow them to bargain on behalf of their members, which they could not do as voluntary cultural associations. Our legislation applies only to the federal sector but it allows them to bargain. For example, the Canadian Union of Writers can bargain with a federal producer such as the National Arts Centre and tell them that, when they hire a member of the union, those are the working conditions that will apply. In the past, people had to bargain individually and were obviously not in a very strong bargaining position. The aim of the Act is to establish some balance between consumers and producers of cultural activities in the fields of writing, theatre, music and so on.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you for educating me.

[English]

The Chair: We all learned more.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to direct a question to Mr. Hong. I find your report very interesting, and I have the distinct idea that you really enjoy what you're doing. That's why I want to get back to the question.

To answer part of the question of my colleague Mr. Bellemare, I believe that for the year 2003-04, your full-time-equivalent staff are going to rise by about 10%. Is that correct?

Mr. Len Hong: It's allocated so. I don't expect we'll get up to that full number. We've had trouble finding toxicologists, for example.

Mr. Roy Bailey: In that respect, I was excited when you mentioned the possibility of taking your program into the schools. Now, that's always a dangerous topic, because each province hangs on to section 93 of the BNA Act like fools. I didn't say that.

I can see a real role for you to play in that area, in that I am sure you'd get full cooperation from the various departments of education, at the various grade levels, to include some of that information you have. It's lacking. I was there in my past life, and it was very definitely lacking.

I was interested in the results of the Internet and the information that is shared. Because of the Internet, it now becomes international; that's correct. From that, then, any worker, on his own time, can get the information on a relative topic in any country in the world at the present time.

Having said that, do you believe this has improved labour relations, in particular safety--I'm interested in that--in Canada and around the world?

º (1640)

Mr. Len Hong: I can't speak about around the world, but what I do know is in the surveys that were conducted two years ago, the question was asked how Canadians use the information they take from CCOHS. That was for us a very key question.

The answer was that 82% say they're satisfied with what they received, in quality and quantity, but the one we cared about was that 72% or 75% said they were going to take the information into the workplace to try to make improvements. To us that's the key. That's the closest I can answer.

The other one that's so scary for me, because as you noted, my profession is health and safety, is what information out there on the Internet is of dubious versus authoritative quality? The wisdom, as I said, of the Government of Canada when they formed us was to make sure we provided information we could back up that wouldn't cause labour disputes or disputes among employers--it wouldn't become a bargaining chip. They use the information. If they don't trust it, they get the lawyers to bug us to say why we said it--which happens. Then they work on it to try to make the appropriate changes in Canada.

This is as close as I can get, sir.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Each province has its own safety boards, and so on. I represent a constituency where the main employees are on the oil rigs at the oil patch, and the rest are on the huge machinery the farms now have. The farm implement dealers.... The whole act provides all kinds of safety regulations on the size of the combines and so on, yet we still have accidents.

My concern is, what correlation do you have with the provinces in the safety networks they have? Are you tuned in to each province, and are they tuned in to you, so you can share this information?

Mr. Len Hong: The short answer is yes.

I just arrived here from the sunny city of Edmonton yesterday, where we hosted--

Mr. Roy Bailey: Six feet of snow.

Mr. Len Hong: --the inauguration of North American occupational health and safety week. I was with the Alberta government representatives, talking to them about what they're doing. The day before that, I met with the upstream petroleum producing association, because they're on our council of governors, to talk about integrating.

As you mentioned regarding young people's education, I talked to a member of Parliament about this idea of youth education, and he's going to phone me up to say let's continue to work on this idea, knowing that we had assisted the Ontario government to deliver such a program in Ontario high schools.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Len Hong: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

It's been very interesting. I think I have one question for each group.

I was looking at some comments here on the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution strategies, which you say have proven to be beneficial in dealing with the board's workload issues. In what I've been reading, it indicates you have quite a backlog, or did have quite a backlog, of case work at the CIRB.

I wonder whether you would comment on that. Is that coming down this year? Will it be manageable by 2003-04? What effect has the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution had on that problem?

º (1645)

Mr. Paul Lordon: That's a very interesting question, because you're essentially directing your question to what is a central concern of the board. We resolve cases in a number of ways. We receive applications and complaints. Sometimes we process them to completion and decide them and certify somebody, or we resolve the matter, but a good portion of the board's caseload represents serious disputes between parties.

In the workplace, we have found out that the best resolution of a matter between parties is one in which they have a role in working it out themselves. They are going to continue to live with one another for a long time. We're not like a court that decides a matter and then the parties never see one another again.

So we put a pretty heavy emphasis on this, and we did get additional funds from Treasury Board to do it. We have been able to gradually increase the number of cases we're resolving by mediation where the parties agree and we incorporate it in a board order or otherwise resolve the matter.

The other thing we wanted was to have the adjudicative staff of the board fully appointed. We had one of our very senior vice-chairs die about two years ago, and then we had to find a replacement for him. We had to do that, plus the caseload increase.

We've found that we can process about 900 to 1,000 cases a year. The case volume is now at about 850 to 900. So each month we keep statistics we find we're clearing the backlog at a rate of about 15 cases every month, about 120 a year, but that means it's going to take us a couple of years.

We are considering at this point whether we can find a further way to expedite the process so we can do it even faster. We're working on that, and we have several ideas, which basically don't consist of beating the willing horses even harder, I guess is the way I would put it.

We're making progress. I think the progress is satisfactory. I sure wish it could be better, and we're going to keep working at it.

Mr. John Finlay: That's good to hear.

With respect to the Canadian Centre for Health and Safety, I read that parliamentary appropriations were increased following a recent evaluation and cost-recovery report. Could you elaborate on the findings in that report? Has the CCOHS accumulated debt in recent years?

What proportion of program costs are you now expected to cover? Apparently, in your mandate there was some expectation at one time that you might operate without parliamentary appropriations. I'm not sure how it was possible, but your chance to comment is here. Can you enlighten me?

Mr. Len Hong: Yes, I'll try to.

What was your last question again, if I may ask?

Mr. John Finlay: What proportion of your costs are you expected to cover by fee-for-service or in some other way?

Mr. Len Hong: I'll go backwards.

The Treasury Board expects us to earn 50% of our overall budget through cost-recovery services. It used to be 60%. They recognized that in this world it was going to be very hard. Actually, we were hampered by it. At 60% cost recovery, we didn't have the resources to compete in the open marketplace. So the additional funding is to allow us to better compete, to upgrade our products and services.

We never incurred an annual debt. According to the way our finances were run, we made sure we were never in the red.

º (1650)

Mr. John Finlay: To the Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, part III on page 5 indicated that you will “realise...strategic outcome and priorities by providing fair, prompt, professional and cost-effective adjudicative services”. Does this suggest you also have a fee-for-service mechanism in your operations? What measures do you use to determine if you are providing fair, timely, and/or cost-effective services?

Ms. Josée Dubois: We do not have a mechanism for any kind of cost recovery, to answer the first part of your question. To answer the second part, basically the measures are that we examine how much time it takes to deal with a case, and we often try to get feedback through surveys from our clients to find out if they have any ways to suggest to us how we could improve our services.

One of the measures we look at to see if a case might have been dealt with fairly is whether or not there's a request for judicial review. If one of the parties is not satisfied with the decision, they can go to the Federal Court of Appeal and ask for a judicial review. For example, in the seven years that we've been in operation there has been one application for judicial review that has been dismissed by the court, one that was withdrawn, and one that is pending. So there have been three cases in seven years of operation.

Mr. John Finlay: Do you consider you've been fairly successful then?

Ms. Josée Dubois: Well, we hope.

Mr. John Finlay: Was there ever any thought of cost recovery, of charging for your services? There must be people in the industry, like agents, who would surely claim that they could look after some artists or some performers.

Ms. Josée Dubois: Many of the people who appear before the tribunal come unrepresented because they cannot afford to have legal representation, so having an additional cost would be very onerous on them. We do have lawyers who appear, but oftentimes the lawyers represent the producers, who would be, for example, like the CBC or another kind of broadcaster, a federal government department, or the National Capital Commission. Oftentimes the smaller artist associations just have someone from their own staff come and argue a case or make a presentation because they cannot afford to have legal representation.

Mr. John Finlay: Okay, so you really stand at the tribunal stage. You make the judgment call.

Ms. Josée Dubois: That is correct.

Mr. John Finlay: You don't support the case of the artist?

Ms. Josée Dubois: No, not at all. The members are appointed to hear the cases and, based on the evidence they hear, to adjudicate on the case they've heard.

Mr. John Finlay: So you don't supply some part-time help or some legal person to work with a group?

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: Unrepresented parties might have access to information and communications from the secretariat to help them, to guide them through the process, but the tribunal doesn't have a role, nor is it provided in the legislation, where it actually provides, say, a representational....

Mr. John Finlay: A sort of intervener status.

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: No, there's none of that. Given the intent of the legislation as being to some extent remedial or to focus on this socio-economic discrepancy, it really doesn't lend itself to the cost-recovery model in that sense. The only people you could conceive of charging would be the producers. I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy to be the only ones being asked to pay.

Mr. John Finlay: It's their industry. They're getting the big bucks.

Ms. Josée Dubois: We get a lot of phone calls from artists thinking that we're there to give them legal advice, and we have to explain to them that unfortunately, although we sympathize with whatever problem they may have.... For example, the lawyers who work for the tribunal are actually counsel to the tribunal members and not to the public, per se.

º (1655)

Mr. John Finlay: All right. That's very interesting; I didn't realize that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

As a mother of one of those artists, I know we can afford it.

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Your organization exists because those people are often not able to fight for themselves and need the essential services that you provide.

I would like to come back to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Since I am the Labour critic, I am extremely interested in this organization. I would like to know if you have the power to appoint mediators in cases of disputes?

You said a while ago that you are dealing with about 800 to 900 cases each year. Is that because many people withdraw their complaint if they cannot come to an agreement with their employer?

[English]

Mr. Paul Lordon: The answer to that is we have quite a few withdrawals, because we can't really hear all the complaints, and withdrawals come in a variety of forms. Sometimes a withdrawal is just because a person loses interest in pursuing a complaint for one reason or another. But more commonly, a withdrawal is accompanied by an agreement between the parties as a result of mediation or as a result sometimes of proceedings before the board. Sometimes we have a withdrawal in the face of the board, once the proceedings have commenced. That is probably the most common situation. Sometimes once they start to present their cases, parties perceive their difficulties with it or discussions break out and we never hear any more about it. And sometimes the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which also provides mediation for many of the kinds of disputes we get involved in, which is a part of the Department of Human Resources Development, intervenes and their mediation resolves the matter.

So we do get withdrawals.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: What is the percentage?

[English]

Mr. Paul Lordon: I would say that withdrawals probably comprise about one-third to 40% of the caseload. We have the precise statistics.

Mr. Starkman.

[Translation]

Mr. Akivah Starkman: We receive complaints dealing with unfair labour practices, as well as certification applications. There cannot be any mediation for a certification application. The Board just has to make a decision. As far as complaints are concerned, 66 to 70 per cent are resolved without a hearing, through mediation. As far as the total caseload is concerned, the proportion is between 40 and 50 per cent. However, there can not be any mediation for a certification application but only in cases of complaints.

Ms. Monique Guay: Ms. Sénécal, you stated that all your members were part-time people and only worked when necessary. I find it difficult to understand how that can work, because it is complex.

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: The Tribunal has six members representing all regions of the country, from Nova Scotia to B.C. We have an annual meeting in the fall. In the meantime, for our hearings, we are appointed to three-member panels. Documents are sent to the members and we do lots of work through e-mail and through conference calls to prepare the hearings, to resolve preliminary issues and also to follow up on hearings.

I agree with you that before electronic communications it would have been difficult to operate in this manner but it is now rather efficient. It all depends on the number of cases we have to deal with each year. Of course, it would be easy to break this balance but, to date, our system has proven efficient.

» (1700)

Ms. Josée Dubois: Under the Act, the Governor in Council can appoint full-time or part-time members. Considering the caseload, we decided to start with part-time members who are compensated on a per diem basis. They invoice us for the days they work, at home or in the Tribunal's offices. Since they have no administrative responsibilities, they only deal with cases. They invoice us and we pay them for the days they work.

Ms. Monique Guay: It is less costly.

Ms. Josée Dubois: Absolutely. In summer, for example, when there is less work, we do not receive any invoices from the members, unless they happen to work on a decision or some similar matter.

Ms. Monique Guay: This allows you to control your expenses. You only pay for the services you need. This is interesting.

Mr. Hong, I would like to make a brief comment and say that I think that the work of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is extremely important. In Quebec, we have the CSST, which is extremely efficient. If it did not exist, we would have to invent it. You are doing very good work.

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: I have a question for the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. You said you use e-mail, you use teleconferencing. How about video conferencing?

Ms. Josée Dubois: It's too expensive.

The Chair: It's more expensive than the travel?

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: At this stage, we only travel when we're actually going to an actual hearing.

The Chair: Okay, but having the hearing by video conferencing wouldn't work?

Ms. Marie Sénécal-Tremblay: Well, I wouldn't be able to speak to the costs associated with that, but typically we travel, I suppose, to the group that would be most inconvenienced. So we would go, say, if the artist association is based in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, or Ottawa. By and large, the audiences have been in that quadrant, to date.

Madame Dubois might know more about the ins and outs of that.

Ms. Josée Dubois: I'm planning to go now and visit our friends upstairs at the board, because I've heard very good things about their video conferencing. And I've been meaning to do it and I haven't done it yet.

The Chair: Well, I was going to relate that, because they seem to be having a great deal of success with theirs, so perhaps you might want to do it.

My final question is actually to all of you. This committee has been doing a fairly lengthy study of literacy in the workplace. We are hearing some rather disturbing information about the low levels of literacy. Seeing as all three of you are dealing with employees in the broad labour force, I'm wondering how sensitive you are and what kinds of efforts you're making to ensure that all of the materials you are producing and preparing for those who'll be using them are taking this into consideration.

We're finding that there are a number of people who seem to be functioning reasonably well. If you ask them if they're literate, they say yes, but at greater examination you find they're going through the motions. They find that as technology and the complexity of their work increase, they can't read the training manuals. They can't really get a full meaning of the wonderful work, Mr. Hong, you're disseminating.

I want to feel assured that if you haven't, you're going to make a conscious effort to make certain that the information you're producing is in plain language and it can be easily understood by a wide range of people. So it's a comment, but if there's anybody who wants to respond, I'd be pleased to hear that as well.

» (1705)

Mr. Paul Lordon: I would like to respond to that.

We are very concerned about that, but we have some things that help us. Usually the shop steward or the union officials in charge of the bargaining unit have less difficulty with literacy issues and more familiarity with the process.

We have manuals that tell our labour relations officers how to deal with people. One of the things they stress is that people must be sent to assist the party who is trying to put a complaint before the board. And when an individual, in particular, is putting a complaint before the board, we ask that they take special care to make sure everything is understood and that every bit of assistance that can possibly be provided to the person is given.

And then, if they actually do appear in an adjudicative setting, the adjudicative people and the board generally lean over backwards to make sure that the process is understood and that they are fairly represented.

So it's a constant concern with us, but I would be very interested to know what the statistics are going to tell us and what information is available to allow us to be even more sensitive in what we do, because we're committed to it.

The Chair: My goal is to ensure that we empower people by giving them the tools they need. I take your point about the shop stewards having a higher level, but I also want to empower those below that level to understand what their rights are and to be able to access them as fully as possible.

Mr. Paul Lordon: We will take a look at that in an active way.

The Chair: Thank you—and particularly, I think, in terms of occupational health and safety. You're talking about trying to find the toxicologist, and that's at the very highest level, but all the good work he or she may produce or may have available has to be of use and value and clearly understood by those at the very lower levels. I'm hoping that as you're doing this, you take that into consideration.

Monsieur Bellemare, against my better judgment I'm going to give you one final question, because you begged.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madam Chair, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has provided us with the net cost of its programs, in the usual manner. The Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal has done the same. I congratulate them. However, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has not provided any information about what happened in 2002-2003 or what it will do in 2004-2005. There is only one column indicating the net cost of the program for the fiscal year. Could Controller Bonnie Easterbrook explain why the Centre did that?

[English]

Ms. Bonnie Easterbrook (Comptroller, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety): It is included in table 1, “Departmental Planned Spending”, in our report—section 4, table 1.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Furthermore, the Centre did not number the pages, contrary to the other organizations. That would be Section 5, Annex 2.

[English]

Ms. Bonnie Easterbrook: Section 4, table 1; it's outlined before capped spending, the planned spending for the—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What happened to the column that would represent 2002-2003?

The Chair: It's the first column.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Where?

A voice: It's the previous page.

The Chair: Table 1. Go back.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Where it says “annex”...?

The Chair: It's done before.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Oh. Yes, it's done properly. I appreciate the enlightenment from the researcher. Merci.

» (1710)

The Chair: Perhaps I should have exercised my better judgment and not let you.... I'll remember that at the next meeting.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It's getting late.

The Chair: I want to thank all of you for coming. I know that a Thursday afternoon in Ottawa is perhaps not your favourite place to be, but we truly appreciate the information you have shared with us. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.