HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 22, 2001

• 1108

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Welcome, everyone. I particularly would like to welcome our guest for our fortieth meeting.

Minister Bradshaw, it's wonderful to see you at committee. I see you've brought two of your best-looking and most well-informed members, Gerry Blanchard and Warren Edmondson. I know you will bring us some interesting updates on the labour ministry. I'm also noting that you have to be gone by noon, so we will try to expedite things for you, minister.

The floor is yours.

[Translation]

Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

Honourable members, the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States were attacks on humanity that targeted people at work. They took the lives of thousands of working people of many nationalities, including Canadians. They caused the deaths of hundreds of rescue workers who went to the aid of others in danger. In a very real sense, the attack on the World Trade Center was a workplace tragedy.

• 1110

More than two months after the assault, workers throughout the world continue to have deep feelings of anxiety and insecurity.

[Translation]

Not only do they worry that their workplaces may not be safe, they also fear that they may become the next victims of the economic consequences of September 11.

[English]

My colleagues and I are very aware that Canadian workers and employers share these uncomfortable feelings. We are determined to do everything in our power to restore people's confidence in the safety of their workplaces, in the soundness of their economy, and in the values of their society. We cannot let terrorists cause us to go about our business in fear.

Since September 11, we have been monitoring federally regulated workplaces more than ever. We have been talking to our managers and labour leaders. We have also been reviewing our legislation, our programs, our practices, and our spending, to determine how the labour program can respond to terrorist attacks. I can tell you the structures and processes governing and helping workers and employers in the federal jurisdiction have generally been adequate to the task so far, but the need for additional resources is becoming evident.

For instance, although many significant collective agreements were being renegotiated, labour-management relations in the federal jurisdictions were relatively stable during the period. Since the beginning of the year, few work stoppages have occurred, and wage settlements have averaged 3%. However, September 11 and the slowdown in the economy have created difficulties for a number of collective bargaining relationships, especially those in the railway, airline, and air navigation industries. The volume and complexity of these bargaining situations are taxing the resources and ingenuity of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

I am pleased to report that, in most cases, the parties are taking their responsibilities to the Canadian public seriously.

[Translation]

In addition to meeting their statutory obligation to maintain any activities and services required to protect public health and safety, some parties are also voluntarily agreeing to continue activities critical to national security in the event of a legal work stoppage. To those parties, I want to convey the gratitude of the Government of Canada.

[English]

The slowdown in the economy not only means difficulty at the collective bargaining table, it also means layoffs. Already, we have noted a marked increased in the number of group terminations. Part III of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with labour standards, contains provisions to mitigate the effects of bankruptcies and layoffs. When an employer terminates the employment of fifty or more employees within a four-week period, the employer must give notice to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Human Resources Development, and the affected employees sixteen weeks before the date of termination. During that period, employer and employee representatives are required to establish a joint planning committee to develop an adjustment plan. The plan may contain elements that eliminate the necessity for the terminations, or it may contain elements that minimize the negative impacts on affected employees.

[Translation]

When a group termination occurs, officials from the Labour Program meet with employers to ensure that they understand their obligations under the Code, and that all affected employees receive what they are entitled to receive.

I should also mention that, if the employer and affected employees cannot come up with an adjustment plan, I have the authority to appoint an arbitrator who then hears the arguments of both sides and decides on an adjustment package.

[English]

With respect to occupational health and safety, part II of the Canada Labour Code sets out the rules and regulations employers and employees must follow. Among other things, it provides workers with certain rights, including the right to refuse to do dangerous work. Since September 11, the number of work refusals has increased. Not surprisingly, the number has increased the most among mail handlers and among workers at Canada's airports.

• 1115

Recently, our amendments to part II came into effect. These changes strengthen the workplace health and safety committees and representatives, establish an internal complaint resolution process, and require companies with 300 or more employees to establish joint health and safety policy committees at the corporate level. They also enable the Minister of Labour to develop regulations pertaining to workplace violence. These regulations are currently being worked on.

[Translation]

I believe the legislation gives government, employers and employees important tools to deal with health and safety hazards. I also think the amendments heightened people's awareness of health and safety. However, new hazards that were pretty much unthinkable at the time we passed the amendments may emerge. In addition, workplace stress, which was already at a fairly high level, may increase. Because of these possibilities, and because the Labour Program's resources have been stretched very thinly in recent years, it may become necessary to revisit the legislation and to increase the financial and human resources that we allocate to our health and safety work.

A labour minister has no more important priority than to promote health and safety at work. It is very disturbing to me to hear of workers' fears about their workplace and to learn of increases in work refusals. Be assured that I will do all I can to alleviate the concern and unease.

[English]

September 11 has increased concerns about safety in federal buildings. In turn, this has highlighted the importance of my department's fire protection program. This program enforces the fire safety regulations and fire protection requirements of the National Building Code of Canada and the National Fire Code of Canada. The program delivers fire protection, engineering, fire inspections, and fire investigation services for federal properties both in Canada and abroad. The service is provided to federal departments and agencies, first nations, and certain crown corporations.

As you know, the Employment Equity Act is the responsibility of the labour program. It is currently under review, as the law requires. Its fundamental objective is to remove the barriers that hinder the progress of aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, and women, when it comes to good jobs. The act clearly demonstrates our aspiration to be not just a country of tolerance, but a country of acceptance. Canada's policies to promote fairness and acceptance are among the most progressive and advanced in the world. Indeed, in 1998, the Government of South Africa used Canada's Employment Equity Act as a model for its own legislation.

A government that embraces employment equity and all the other policies I just mentioned, removes the causes of extremist, hate-filled acts. Because Canada embraces those policies, we can say to the world, with both credibility and conviction, that the fight against terrorism is not a fight against a people or a religion. It is a fight against evil in human behaviour.

One of the outcomes of September 11 has been the extent to which governments have united to fight against terrorism. This was demonstrated very recently in this city at the XII Inter-American Conference of Ministers of Labour, which I had the privilege of chairing. A statement unequivocally condemning the barbarism of terrorism was issued by 34 ministers from the Americas. Despite our different perspectives, our different views, and our very different backgrounds, we came together to express our outrage and to commit ourselves to the eradication of terrorist activities in every state.

• 1120

We also agreed to work cooperatively to help to build the capacity of labour ministries, to promote the International Labour Organization's historic Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and to share information and build partnerships to address the special needs of workers. In addition—and this is very important—we pledged to continue our efforts to promote social dialogue, to achieve equity in the multilateral trading system, and to address the labour dimensions of globalization.

The benefits of globalization must reach everyone. Through our labour cooperation agreements, we can promote respect for workers' rights. In so doing, we can help to foster stability in the world. In a world of stability and social justice, the ruinous and anti-human ideas of terrorists will find no place to take root.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

Because our time is somewhat limited, I'm going to suggest that we have four-minute rounds.

Mr. Gouk, we'll start with you.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you, Minister. I have more than enough stuff to spend an afternoon with you one and one, and we still wouldn't begin to cover it all.

I'd like to concentrate on the area of collective bargaining. It happens to be an area of particular interest to my colleague Dale Johnston and me.

First of all, just so we understand whether we're coming from the same place or not, do you accept the premise that strikes and lockouts are not part of the collective bargaining system, but are in fact examples of the failure of the collective bargaining system as a dispute settlement mechanism? When collective bargaining fails, you have to have some method of settling the dispute. A strike or a lockout is just that, rather than part of collective bargaining.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: On that issue, Madame Chair, I would love to spend a day with the honourable member. He and I would have a very interesting day of discussion, I can assure you.

To answer your question, we believe—and we have proof.... It took us eight years to put in place part I of the Canada Labour Code, which works on collective agreements. Why? We had the employee groups and the employer groups sitting together. We felt very strongly in Labour that in order for it to work, it had to belong to both employee and employer groups.

As of next week, I will have been Minister of Labour for three years. Last year, 90% of our labour disputes were settled without a strike or a lockout. The employees and the employers worked together. They were able to work out their problems; they were able to talk about their problems. It wasn't the Government of Canada that decided what was right and what was wrong, and it wasn't a person who decided that this group was right and that group was wrong. They took their issues and sat at the table together. Our mediators and conciliators were available to them at all times in their disputes. They sat down, made their arguments, and came to agreements. The agreements are their collective agreements.

In this country, employees have a right to strike. I would hate to see us ever remove that right from any Canadian employees.

Mr. Jim Gouk: When we talk in terms of rights, I'm not suggesting that we arbitrarily take away something from them and not replace it with something that is wholly workable. I think the onus is on all of us collectively, as parliamentarians, to find alternatives. I think we have a hell of a system when the winner is the person who loses the least, and that's what we often have.

• 1125

The minister said 90% are settled without strikes or lockouts. That means 10%, one-tenth of contracts, result in a strike or a lockout. And I would suggest damage is done even by the ones that are settled. Canada Post is an example. When a strike is even threatened at Canada Post—or a lockout; let's place this on the employer, too—then people who use Canada Post—which is almost everyone in Canada—start looking for alternatives. Some of them find alternatives and they don't come back. As a result, Canada Post handles less volume, which means less work for those same workers we're out to protect. That's not doing them any good either, so we need to come up with an alternative.

We happen to very strongly favour final offer arbitration as one way to look at it, but we're not locked into it. I've talked to labour groups across this country. They're often a little hostile when I walk in with this concept. By the time I leave, a lot them are saying it makes a lot of sense.

Can we not come up with something? Or, first of all, can you tell us if you are working on or looking toward something to replace labour disruption as a dispute settlement mechanism? I realize you have conciliators and arbitrators, but do you have a specific plan to eliminate labour disruption in this country?

The Chair: Minister, you have a very short period in which to answer.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I'm glad you used Canada Post as an example. I don't have enough time for you and I to have a discussion on that, but I hope you and I can sit down to have it later.

As you know, Madam Chair, only once in the history of the Department of Labour did we use final offer selection. But everything is there for us. If the employee and the employer want to have binding arbitration, they can have binding arbitration. If they both want to look at final offer selection, we can look at final offer selection. That's why we made sure the Canada Labour Code belonged to them. When they're in a dispute, our staff works very closely with all of them.

The chair is telling me to hurry up, Mr. Gouk, so you and I might want to sit down together some time to have a discussion on this subject. I'm very open to doing so.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. St-Jacques.

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

Welcome, Ms. Bradshaw. We're delighted you could be here today. It's a pleasure, as always, to welcome you.

I have a two-part question for you, primarily concerning the events of this past September. I don't know whether you are in a position today to assess the impact of the attacks on Canada's federally regulated workforce.

Furthermore, a kind of paranoia has set in about anthrax. We've had a few problems here at home. Do you intend to take any special steps to continue protecting federal employees?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you for your question. As you know, I served on this committee before a became a minister and I'm always delighted to pay you a visit.

Since we were anticipating a large number of calls, which is exactly what happened, because everyone was scared, we took steps immediately to have staff available around the clock. We made certain our officials had everyone's phone number and that everyone, within 24 hours, was able to get to their place of work.

Further to amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code, health and safety committees were established. We knew this was a successful initiative, but we didn't realize how successful. When tragedy strikes, everyone panics. In the first two weeks following the attacks, our officials were constantly out in the field working to alleviate people's fears. Over time, we realized that these committees were doing extremely good work. We observed the end result of the amendments adopted by this committee and we observed the actions of employees and employers in an emergency situation. As a government, we enact many laws, but we don't often get the chance to see what effect these laws have in a crisis situation.

Yesterday, we were saying how pleased we were to see these committee operating successfully. We had no choice but to initiate certain procedures. Different things can happen - you mentioned anthrax - and when they do, departmental employees must initiate these procedures immediately. The employer and the joint committee keep employees informed of the situation. Therefore, the fear of not knowing that certain measures have been taken has been eliminated. Obviously, we have been asking a great deal more of our employees since September 11.

• 1130

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: If employees are afraid to go to work, do you take any action?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Pursuant to Part II of the Labour Code, if an employee has some concerns, he can certainly stop working and one of our officers will inspect the workplace. I'm happy you asked this question because often, the Minister of Labour is not familiar with the work employees may be doing. I deal with occupational health and safety issues.

I have here a document that I could leave with you. I could also read it to you, but I won't because I do want to get to your questions. It provides answers to the following questions: Who has the right to refuse to work? What steps should an employee follow when refusing to perform dangerous work? What happens when an occupational health and safety officer finds that the work does not pose any kind of risk? How does one go about appealing a decision? What happens when an occupation health and safety officer finds that a danger does in fact exist? How does one determine if the health and safety officer is qualified? Can an employer take action against an employee for refusing to do dangerous work?

I'll leave this information with you. If you don't have enough copies, I can get more for you. I encourage you to review this material closely and if you need more information, don't hesitate to contact my office. To our minds, Part II of the Labour Code is extremely important because last year in Canada, our private companies lost $10 billion. That's a problem and that's why these measures were brought in. Therefore, I'll leave this with you in the hope that it will provide answers to all of your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Good afternoon, Madam Minister. It is a pleasure for me to welcome you to our committee.

I'd like to restate something you said earlier that touched me deeply: “A labour minister has no more important priority than to promote health and safety at work”. That's says a great deal.

As you know, I was and continue to be a staunch supporter of the preventive withdrawal of pregnant and nursing women from the workplace. We have been battling for 10 years now to ensure that federally regulated female employees have the same rights as provincially regulated employees.

You claimed to have made some progress. I beg to differ with you. I'm sorry, but the problem has yet to be resolved. According to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the amendments do not go far enough in terms of protecting female employees from a health and safety standpoint. The CSN holds the same view on the subject. It argues that far from establishing rights, these changes create problems for pregnant women.

Even after Part II of the Labour Code was reviewed, I continued to receive visits from women, as was the case recently. One young woman is in the process of forming a coalition of young women who work in correctional facilities. They cannot avail themselves of the preventive withdrawal provisions and are in direct contact with inmates. Working in this environment is not without some complications.

Madam Minister, I have a very simple question for you. When we discussed Part II of the Canada Labour Code, you promised me that once the review of this part was completed, you would then turn your attention to reviewing Part III of the Labour Code. Does that promise still hold?

My second question is as follows: When will we in fact begin reviewing Part III of the Canada Labour Code, since this is long overdue? I would appreciate a firm date.

Thirdly, shouldn't a working committee, or sub-committee, be struck, given the situation in the wake of September 11? I think we need a committee, or sub-committee, that would meet on a regular basis to consider ways of resolving the problems that have arisen and that will continue to arise in the years ahead. Some matters need to be clarified and members and the public need to be kept informed. Your department cannot be alone in making these kinds of decisions.

• 1135

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I'd like to make a few comments. Madam Chair, first let me say that there have been some amendments to Part II of the Labour Code. Have we made enough changes? We can never make enough changes.

Secondly, as an Acadian, I am keenly aware of Quebec's provincial laws. I've often praised Quebeckers for their sound laws which protect youth, children and workers.

When I pledged to you, as Labour Minister, that I would take your recommendations very seriously when reviewing Part III of the Labour Code, I was not speaking lightly. I was serious then, and I'm serious now. When I'm confronted with a proposal aimed at protecting employees and employers governed by the Canada Labour Code, I always take it very seriously. As you know, some discussions have taken place. Some of the proposed changes may be included in Part III of the Labour Code.

Our officials are busy meeting with groups of employees and employers in advance of the review of Part III. As we explained to you, it took eight years to overhaul Part I and six years to review Part II. The jury isn't in yet on Part III. However, the process has been an extremely open one. When it comes to protecting Canadian workers, my philosophy has always been to ensure the broadest possible consultations.

Madam Chair, I'd like to assure Ms. Guay that her comments will be taken seriously and that my promise to her will be taken into account when we proceed to examine Part III of the Labour Code.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame.

Mr. Malhi.

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

Madam Minister, how will the labour program protect employees and employers in terms of a response to the terrorist attacks?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Basically, two issues came to us after the September 11 attack. One issue that came to us was that of health and safety, and I believe I answered that in response to a previous question.

The other issue that came to us—and it was also a bit disheartening—was that of group terminations, given the amount of people involved. An example we can think of now is the group termination at Canada 3000. Under part III of the Canada Labour Code, the employees are protected. They will get their termination pay, they will get their severance pay, they will get their vacation pay, and anything else owed to them. The other thing they will get is what was in their collective bargaining agreement.

Very often, Canadians are not aware of the difference between a layoff and a termination. With Air Canada, they had both. They had layoffs, which are not under our code because we expect Air Canada to have those employees come back to work. Under “termination”, though, it means employees will not be returning. With Canada 3000, it has been a bit different. It has also been a bit more difficult for me personally, as Minister of Labour, because the company has gone bankrupt. I would like to assure all members—and I'm glad you asked me this question—that our officials are working very closely with the bank trustees on this issue, and that it's an issue that concerns me very much.

So we were hit on the two fronts. We were hit with the group terminations, but we were also hit in terms of the health and safety of our Canadian employees under our code.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Davies.

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

Thank you, Madame Bradshaw, for coming today to speak to the committee. I want to say right off that I entirely agree with your characterization of what happened September 11 at the World Trade Center as workplace tragedy. Not enough attention has been paid to the fact that many of the victims were workers. They were janitors, they were people who worked in the restaurants, and they were elevator operators. Many of them were probably the single income earner for their families. We can only begin to have an understanding of the magnitude of the impact on those working people.

• 1140

Secondly, I also agree that real stability and social justice are the things we have to strive for in terms of dealing with the social and economic conditions that often foster an environment in which people feel desperate and driven to appalling acts.

I'll go to what I want to get to today. I've talked to many groups across the country since September 11. There is very serious concern and anxiety amongst Canadian groups and organizations on the front lines of our social services and programs. They're concerned that the emphasis of the federal government has been on security that's focused on legislative measures and security measures, and that these measures will have a very detrimental impact on the support of our social programs.

This morning, I was at an event at Ottawa City Hall because, as you probably know, this is the National Day of Housing Action. Municipalities across the country are trying to get the attention of the federal government in terms of what we need to do, because security is also about having food, about decent housing, and about not feeling threatened that you're going to be laid off from your job. People are suffering from real anxiety about that.

What kinds of assurances can you provide that the commitments made around, say, the homelessness initiative or housing generally, are not now going to slide off the agenda?

In terms of the security of workers, you've mentioned this in your comments, but it seems to me that we have not seen anything specific to help the thousands of workers in the airline industry specifically who, as a result of bankruptcy or, now, layoffs at Air Canada, are facing a huge amount of uncertainty. What kind of adjustment program is the federal government going to put forward to help these people and to increase their sense of security in their daily lives?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you very much for your question. You're making me wear my other hat, which I also like to wear.

As you know, when I was asked to look at homelessness, housing wasn't even on the radar screen federally. I'm not going to go through the process we undertook, because you were there with me many times throughout that process—I want to thank you for that—and you were there with your different groups.

We received funding, and I'll tell you that the funding we received for homelessness will not be touched. That funding is in place, and I would not like to see anybody even consider touching that funding. It's in place for three years; I still have the funding.

I will say to you that I've been doing some travelling since September 11, and I'm going to be in your riding in Vancouver tomorrow, and in Victoria. One of our biggest concerns since September 11, because of the layoffs and because of what has happened, has been a fear that we'll see more families on the street. I have therefore asked my staff—and I've been looking into this—what's going to happen when we do see more families on the street. People think that if you work with the homeless, it's to bring people from the street to a shelter. As you know, homelessness goes beyond that.

Many families are in church basements. Many families are in rooms that are ten feet by ten feet. So I've asked my staff to make sure we are also able to look at family situations when we start looking at what we are going to do on homelessness, because I believe you're right. I believe we're going to start seeing a lot more families on the street.

As for housing, I'm seeing a light. I'm seeing that municipalities can apply to the infrastructure program for housing. That was something we fought for, because I had many mayors asking me about housing. I wondered about making it part of the infrastructure program. My understanding is that we don't have a lot of mayors who have asked, but the funding is available to them if they do, and it would be split three ways, on an equal basis. I also understand the Minister Gagliano is working with the provinces, and we should have an announcement shortly on housing.

• 1145

After my 33 years of community work, I'm a big believer in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maslow says you need food and you need housing. More than that, though, you need secure housing. I've always said my dream—and it has been an even bigger dream since I became a politician—is that if I can do one thing for this country, we will get rid of every slum landlord in the country.

So housing is an issue. I agree with you. As the minister responsible for the issue of homelessness, I am looking at families, and my officials are looking at what we could possibly do in that area.

On the other issue of—

The Chair: I'm going to have to—

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I'll be fast.

The Chair: Very quickly.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Very quickly, I'm also concerned about all the layoffs. We're getting them, and we're the ones dealing with them. You had the Minister of HRD at committee. My understanding is that she's working very closely with the people who have been laid off. Her staff is working very closely with them, and with all the joint committees pulling together, I hope they're going to be able to find some solutions for them. The jobs being lost are pretty good jobs a lot of the time.

Sorry, Madame Chair.

The Chair: Maslow should have added time as well.

Serge Marcil, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Madam Minister, I'm delighted to see you here. I share Ms. Guay's sentiments when it comes to the safety of women in the workplace.

Earlier, you talked about Quebec. What you said is true. I had the privilege of serving as Quebec's Minister of Labour and of having a hand in reforming many laws. One issue that touched me deeply was in fact the preventive withdrawal of women from the workplace. In my opinion, the Government of Canada could go a step further. The situation is serious, particularly in the case of female prison workers. This is a big problem, one that I'm certain you are more attuned to than I am.

I have the following question for you. Obviously, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, a certain paranoia has set in among members of the public. The airline industry has been hit with massive layoffs, while the tourism industry is experiencing similar problems. Do you have any figures comparing job losses or the unemployment rates in September and October of this year with last year? Is the figures up sharply compared to last year?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I think that the Minister, Ms. Stewart, could answer that question better than I could. Her department has these kinds of statistics. They'll be passed on to us when... [Editor's note: inaudible] I encourage you to write to Minister Stewart to get the answer to your question. This is not my jurisdiction.

To answer your other question, as I said to Ms. Guay, it will be interesting to review Part III of the Labour Code respecting labour standards, as there is much work to be done on that front. We've completed our work on parts I and II and now we will turn out attention to Part III which deals with labour standards. The issues of homelessness and employment are closely linked. When I was preparing my files on the homeless, I observed many links with labour standards. To my way of thinking, it's important for us to strike a good committee and for the government to keep an open mind when it undertakes this task.

This subject will be on my agenda when I meet with provincial government officials. We have a great deal to learn because we don't know everything. One of the things I'm concerned about is the fact that many youths want careers and not necessarily children. Are their needs being met by today's work environment? Today, young people are working virtually around the clock.

These are all issues that will need to be taken into consideration when Part III of the Labour Code is reviewed.

• 1150

The experience will be an interesting one. I have a great deal of faith in the committee process and I have a great deal of faith in this committee for having once been a member. I know the kind of work that this committee is capable of doing and I hope that you will play an important role in the process of reviewing Part III of the Labour Code.

Mr. Serge Marcil: I have another quick question for you, Madam Minister.

[English]

The Chair: We're out of time, Monsieur Marcil, I'm sorry. We have to move on.

Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC/DR): Minister, I just want to thank you for your presentation today. It was a very good presentation that has answered a number of the questions I had. Of course, the disadvantage of being last on the list is that most of the questions you have get answered.

I want to ask you, Minister—or your deputy—about the seniority issue between Air Canada and the former Canadian Airlines pilots. As you are aware, an arbitration award came down heavily in favour of the Air Canada pilots, and now the issue has gone to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. Can you indicate the current status of that matter, and maybe comment on the role of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board in these kinds of issues and matters?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I can answer. I don't have to give it to my deputy, but I thank you for the offer.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I only posed it to you and your deputy just in case.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: We did receive a lot of calls on that. What happened was that both groups decided to go to arbitration. As much as it was binding arbitration, it left the door open that if either group was not happy with the decision that was made, it could be brought in front of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. As you know, one group was not happy, so it's now in front of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. Again, that shows you a little bit that, when you do something with both groups and it's not a government-made code, these things are open. We don't want decisions to come down with the idea, “This is what it is.” So the board is looking at it now. What I have to say to you now, though, is that because it's a quasi-judicial board, I cannot answer you any further than that.

Mr. Norman Doyle: The board will eventually report to the minister, but is there a time limit for the board to report?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Maybe I need to come back to committee, because I've had questions that didn't relate to September 11, although I was very nice and answered them anyway. Maybe I need to spend a little bit more time with the committee on several of these issues.

When we say it's quasi-judicial, it is. Therefore, no time limit is placed on the board and the board does not answer to the minister. The board answers to both the employee and employer groups.

Maybe I should come back sometime and spend some time with you on the Canada Labour Code and on what committees we have under the Canada Labour Code. I'm sorry, I wish I could give you another answer, but the board has no time limit and doesn't answer to the minister.

The Chair: You'll have to be very brief, Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Maybe the minister could make a comment on the ILO meetings that she had in November in Geneva. Part of the agenda, of course, dealt with the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, especially in regard to children, child labour, forced labour, and that kind of thing. Can the minister tell the committee when Canada will ratify ILO Convention No. 138 on the rights of children and child labour?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: The child labour one has been ratified.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Oh, that has been ratified, has it?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Yes, that has been ratified. I had a meeting with the Ministers of Labour not last February, but the one before. Quebec had already signed, but I needed all provinces to sign by April. After our February meeting, all ministers went to their legislatures, and I was a happy camper because it was signed in June.

We still have others that we need to ratify but that have not been ratified. I can tell you that as the federal Minister of Labour who will now be chairing the meeting of the labour ministers of the Americas, I would love to see the provinces ratify the ones that are not ratified. I'm hoping to put that on the agenda of the next meeting of the Ministers of Labour.

• 1155

I will be meeting the ministers in February so that we can go to the ILO as a country, as Canada. We can't keep having these meetings if we can't work in conjunction with our provinces and not have things ratified. I'm a believer in walking the walk if we talk the talk—and I hope I don't get that from one of you at Question Period, but I'm sure you'll use that one. I do believe in that, so it's important to me that we ratify those items. But thank you for your question. The child labour one has been ratified.

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going into our final round, and I'm watching the clock very carefully, Minister.

Mr. McGuire, Ms. Skelton, and Mr. Crête, you have about two minutes each.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): I'd like to ask another non-September 11 question. Employers expressed some concern when the extended maternity leave was instituted last January. I'm just wondering how the program is working out. Are there problems with employers? Are women and men taking advantage of it? Basically, has the workplace been disrupted, or are things going tickety-boo?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Again, I believe I'll have to come back on that topic.

When decisions such as that one are made.... When I travel, I don't just meet the employee groups, I like to meet the chambers of commerce and the employer groups to see what reaction they're getting. I believe the best example I have is my husband. In his place of work, his co-workers are all female. At this time, he has two out on pregnancy leave, and he has two who are now pregnant. They're all taking the year. When I come home and speak with him.... The bottom line is that they're home with their children for the first year, away from their employment.

The reaction of employers at first was one of wondering what they would to do because this would affect the workplace. I don't believe we're hearing very much on that from the employer groups. I think everybody has now bought into the importance of early childhood. We all know, especially as government officials, that the first year of a child's life is the most important year, so we're getting pretty good responses on that.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Have all provinces amended their legislation?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Yes, all provinces have also amended their legislation.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Skelton.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Minister, for being here today. Do you promise you will come back?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: If you need me, I'll be here.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I'd like to really ask you questions about the homeless, too, but after hearing your comment about September 11, I'd better ask you a question on that.

You stated in your presentation that there had been marked increases in group layoffs. Can you tell me how many people have been laid off to date?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Again, this is why it's so important to come to committee. We don't get the layoffs, because “layoff” means the people will go back to work. The Canada Labour Code does not protect the people who are under layoff. That would fall under HRDC. What we deal with under the Canada Labour Code is an employer laying off more than fifty people. If they're going to do that, they have to give us sixteen weeks' notice. We deal with the group terminations.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I was wondering if you had numbers for those group terminations?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Presently, we have two. One was before September 11—that being Air Canada—and the other one is Canada 3000.

Ms. Carol Skelton: God forbid that we have a terrorist attack in Canada, but do you feel you're going to have to broaden your federal labour power, and do you have a plan in place to do that if it's necessary?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: The plan we have in place is in the Canada Labour Code, under part II, which deals with health and safety. We're responsible for the employees under us.

Ms. Carol Skelton: That's all I have, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. We're going to give Mr. Spencer the other portion of your time.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): This also relates to the group layoffs. It may not specifically be your area, but we'd like to hear from you anyway.

The sixteen-week period is not yet up. For those group layoffs that are yet to come, what impact do you expect them to have, one, on EI payments, and two, on job training initiatives in HRDC?

• 1200

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: One of the things you realize when you're a minister—and when you're one, you will also realize this—is that you don't very often answer on behalf of another minister. I would therefore encourage you to have the Minister of Human Resources Development come to committee if you need more data from her.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Crête, you'll be our last questioner.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

At the 12th Inter-American Conference of Ministers of Labour which you co-chaired, the Director General of the International Labour Organization called on you to strengthen the country's social safety net. As a minister from the Maritimes, do you intend to press the Minister of Human Resources Development to amend her response to the unanimous report tabled by the members of this committee recommending 17 reforms to employment insurance?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: You've been in politics long enough Mr. Crête, and you've known me for quite some time as well. Surely you know that I always work along with my ministers to further the cause of EI recipients, the poor and children.

One of my responsibilities is to act as a regional minister. I spend a considerable amount of time working with employment insurance officials in certain parts of the province of New Brunswick. This is important to me. I look at what this committee is doing and I try to speak on their behalf. I pass along their concerns to the appropriate ministers and I try to do my job to the best of my ability.

Mr. Paul Crête: More specifically though, do you intend to revisit the 17 recommendations that the Minister does not plan to follow up on at all? Do you intend to press the point with your colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, or with Cabinet, in the hopes that some improvements will be made to the EI system, particularly in light of the current economic crisis?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: One of your colleagues on the committee was Mr. Castonguay. You may or may not realize that we have done a great deal to help the unemployed in his riding. Perhaps you should talk to him about the initiatives that have been undertaken in his riding which may tie in with the committee's 17 recommendations.

[English]

Madam Chair, before I leave, I would like to leave you a message.

First of all, thank you very much. I will come any time I can, because I think it's important that you and the Canadian people know what the Canada Labour Code is and who is under the Canada Labour Code.

I'm a big believer in committees. I've sat on committees, so I know what they're like. As a member, I would hate to think I sit on a committee and am not taken seriously. I've sat on a couple and wondered about that sometimes—not here; when I was in community work, but never here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: What I would like to say to you is that, as you know, we're reviewing the Employment Equity Act. I'm wishing and hoping it will be done through this committee. I hope you will take it as seriously as we do. I believe we have a lot of work to do on employment equity, and I believe a lot of Canadian people have a lot to say.

[Translation]

I urge you to take our request seriously and to make it a priority of yours. Because I would really like to work with you, I hope you will say yes and not send me off to another committee. I hope we can work together and get the job done right.

Again, Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me here today. I do hope that you will work very closely with departmental officials in the days ahead.

[English]

The Chair: Minister, you're one of the few ministers who volunteers to come back to the committee, so I can't imagine why we wouldn't gladly accept the Employment Equity Act when it's referred to us. We look forward to seeing you in the very near future.

We will go in camera after the witnesses leave. Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]