NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 9, 2000

• 1104

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order, please.

I wonder if we can have the people from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec and from CSN come to the table, please.

Madame Guay.

• 1105

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Chairman, we received an invitation telling us that we would meet with the Minister. We then received an amended invitation telling us that we would be meeting with the union and the CLC.

Mr. Chairman, it is an absolutely absurd practice. Normally, the Minister should have come to present the Bill, which is very important since it proposes amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code. I do not understand what is going on. How can we study a bill if the Minister does not come to tell us its aims and her point of view and tell us exactly what she wants to achieve?

I want to know what is going on and I want to know when the Minister will come before this committee to express her views and present her Bill.

The Chairman: Mr. St-Julien, do you wish to express the same point of view?

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): I believe we are studying Part I.

Ms. Monique Guay: No, it's Part II, which deals with occupational health and safety.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Very well. That is what I wanted clarified.

[English]

The Chair: Direct all questions to the chair, please.

Madame Guay, I would have been able to answer that question simply, had I continued. You're absolutely right; the minister was scheduled to be the first person up this morning. There's been an emergency in her riding so she had to leave and attend to that. Our decision was either to tell everybody late yesterday afternoon not to come or to keep on our schedule and see if they wanted to come up a little earlier because they had already committed to coming here.

This does not absolve the minister of the opportunity or of the responsibility of coming before the committee. I've been in contact with her office and we may have her here as early as tomorrow.

Madame Guay, there's absolutely nothing nefarious to that. We just want to make sure we get the points of view of people who have a special interest in this legislation. I don't think their view is going to change substantively if they come up second or if they come up first.

The bill is before us. I've read it through thoroughly, as I'm sure everybody else on the committee has, and I think all committee members will be interested in hearing from the organizations present how they can improve the bill, if in fact that is their intent, or how they would change the bill if that too is their intent, or finally, if they are here simply to support the bill as it exists. None of those three conditions would change if Madame Bradshaw were here first or not. In fact, she asked to be the first one, but you understand how sometimes these emergencies do occur.

That having been said, Madame, I hope that satisfies your concern. I propose to carry on.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Do you think it would be possible to get a bigger pen to write their names on those pieces of paper so we can read them?

The Chair: You're right. Sometimes there's a direct correlation between the size of the pen and the size of the letters on the name tags. I'm going to ask our assistants here if they would mind making up new name designations, so that our members here can see them.

For the record, let me just begin and I'll make the introductions so that we can have everybody identified for the proposes of our transmissions.

This committee is charged by the House to deal with the issue of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, part II, in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code, part I, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today we have a round table. The Canadian Labour Congress is represented by Mr. David Bennett, the director of the health and safety department; Mr. Hassan Yussuff, the executive vice-president; and Mr. Jeff Bennie, the national representative.

• 1110

[Translation]

We will also be hearing from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, represented by Mr. Émile Vallée, Political Advisor, and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, represented by Ms. Claudette Carbonneau.

Are there other people with you?

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau (Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux): Yes, other people will be joining me. Unfortunately, they are looking for a parking space. So there will be Chantal Piau and Yvan Malo, our union advisors on health and safety.

The Chairman: So, Ms. Chantal Piau, Vice-President of the Fédération nationale des communications, and Mr. Yvan Malo. Where is Mr. Malo?

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: Here he is.

The Chairman: That's him? Very well.

I propose that we start by brief statements by the witnesses. Normally, we give each organization 10 minutes, but I don't know if it is appropriate to use the entire 10 minutes.

Second, for the members of the committee that are sitting on this committee for the first time, I remind you that the presentations by the witnesses will be followed by interventions from colleagues, starting with the opposition MPS. Each MP has five minutes only to ask questions. Agreed?

[English]

Is it Mr. Yussuff who's going to be speaking?

I know there are three organizations here. Our intent is to look at the ways in which this particular bill can or ought to be amended. If you feel it's in your interest to highlight some cases that are significant for support, that's fine too. Please be judicious in the use of your time. All comments will be addressed to the chair. Thank you very much.

Mr. Yussuff.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present here this morning.

In light of the comment that was made earlier by members of the opposition in regard to the minister's absence, I think it would be useful for me to outline the process that led up to the legislation that's before this committee at the present time. I will make some remarks and specifically refer to some sections of the bill that we would like the committee to look at in regard to some amendments.

The Canadian Labour Congress represents 2.3 million workers in both public and private sectors across Canada. Part II of the Canada Labour Code is important for two reasons. First, the Canada Labour Code covers 1.1 million Canadian workers. The federal workplace jurisdiction is the fourth largest in the country after Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. Second, many parties, including the CLC, have regarded the federal code as the proper flagship or national leader in industrial relations and labour standards.

The CLC congratulates the government in introducing Bill C-12 and hopes the bill will pass into law with maximum speed and a minimum of modification. The bill does not establish the federal government as a national leader in health and safety, but it does come close in several ways. The bill also represents six years of constructive work between the labour movement, business, and the human resources department, HRDC.

Many of the items in the bill are the result of a tripartite consensus. Where no consensus was reached, the government made unilateral moves on the so-called non-consensus items. Most of these non-consensus items are acceptable to labour and we believe to business as well. However, we do have some concerns about the bill, and these are set down below.

We believe virtually all of the items are the result of the tripartite consensus being misunderstood by the government lawyers who drafted the bill, of the government not proceeding according to its publicly announced intentions in regard to non-consensus items, or of the insertion of provisions that fly in the face of established rules of employment equity and human rights. Further, while we welcome the bill, we have to appreciate the way in which health and safety operate in the federal jurisdiction. Here we believe there is discrepancy between the progressive nature of Bill C-12 and the administration of federal health and safety laws. We have set down these concerns at the conclusion of the submission.

• 1115

One point I would like to refer the committee to specifically is the appeals procedure. Originally both employers and workers agreed that there should be a two-tier appeals system in any case, including discipline cases and appeals against health and safety officers' directions. The first tier would be the regional safety officer, RSO, or the equivalent, and the second would be the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This procedure would allow easily resolved issues to be dealt with at the first level without the quasi-judicial procedure of the CIRB. The latter is necessary, however, so that all issues can be dealt with impartially and effectively by a body external to HRD. We envision a CIRB procedure similar to that laid down in the revised part I of the code. Cases would be handled by CIRB members, with two part-time “wing” people to hear cases, or a series of cases, on health and safety.

Rather than go into the rest of our submission, we just want to highlight specifically the recommendations.

Recommendation 1 is that we substitute CIRB for appeals officer in 145.1(1) to 146.5, the essential change.

Recommendation 2 is to restore the two-tier appeal system by inserting a further stage at the level of RSO and before the appeal to the CIRB.

Secondly, we'd like to—

The Chair: Excuse me a moment. That's your recommendation. Did you also prepare an amendment to that effect?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: That's in the recommendations.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: The second item we would like to highlight in our submission is the definition of health, which is subsection 2(5) of the Canada Labour Code, part I. Originally there was a tripartite agreement to adopt a modified WHO-ILO definition of health, but this was unilaterally changed by HRD.

Recommendation 3 is that the definition of health should be changed to:

“Health”, in relation to work, indicates not merely the absence of disease or infirmity; it also includes the physical and mental elements affecting health which are directly related to safety and [occupational] hygiene at work.

The third point we would like to raise in our brief is the reporting of contraventions. Originally there was an agreement to add reporting to the employer of contraventions of the act and regulations to 126.1(g). This has been changed without the government announcing its intention.

Recommendation 4 is to delete 126.1(j) and add the reporting to the employer of contraventions of the act and regulations to the reporting of hazardous circumstances in 126(1)(g).

Point number four is medical examinations and tests. Mandatory examinations and tests are now illegal under human rights law and international practice. Ontario has changed its law in this direction. In addition to the detailed obligation of the employer found in section 26 of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, the following is a worker right found in subsection 28(3)...

Recommendation 5 is to delete paragraph 136(1)(k) and subsection 139(1) and make equivalent changes in the regulations. An example is part X, hazardous substances, 10.7.

The fifth point we would like to highlight in our submission is the whole area of discipline, which is subsection 147.1(1). Again, it's a misinterpretation of a consensus item. It should be reworded according to the original consensus.

We make the following recommendation. This section should be reworded as follows:

147.1(1) An employer may, only after all of the investigations and appeals have been exhausted by the employee under Sections 128 and 129, take disciplinary action against any employee who the employer can demonstrate has willfully abused his/her right to refuse.

• 1120

Next we would like to highlight item 7, the consensus agreement on new regulations. There was a consensus agreement to inaugurate new regulations on ergonomics, prevention programs, and violence in the workplace. Work has begun on the latter two of these regulations. However, these new regulations are referred to only implicitly under the duties of the employer. There needs to be an explicit commitment in a new section to these three regulations and also an explicit clarification of the duties of the employer over health and safety of employees working alone. The hazards of working alone are not only from violence. Many workers, for example, become injured from a fall. A prohibition on working alone would be the best solution. At a minimum, however, there must be requirements for the employer to establish a means for checking on workers who work alone and a means for workers to summon help.

Recommendation 8 is a new section:

In consultation with workers and employers, the government shall develop and implement, as soon as practicable, regulations on ergonomics, prevention programs in the workplace, and violence in the workplace.

Recommendation 9 is to add a new paragraph 125.(1)(z20):

The employer shall make special provisions for the protection of the health and safety of employees working alone.

On behalf of the CLC, we respectfully submit the brief in its entirety, which specifically will focus the committee on the recommendations we've made.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Yussuff.

I'm not sure everybody has a copy of that, but if you don't have one, just indicate so to the clerk and you'll get one.

Thank you for being succinct and to the point, Mr. Yussuff.

I'm going to go to Monsieur Émile Vallée, political adviser to la Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

Monsieur Vallée.

[Translation]

Mr. Émile Vallée (Political Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Émile Vallée and I am the Political Advisor to the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

In Quebec the FTQ represents the union members affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress. In all, it has about 500,000 members in Quebec, including about 60,000 who come under the Canada Labour Code and 30,000 others who come under the Public Service Staff Relations Act of the federal government.

My presentation will be brief. I am here for two reasons. First, we want to support the general orientation of Bill C-12. As we mentioned earlier, this bill is the result of lengthy discussions, over almost six years, between union and management representatives. Having participated in such discussions myself in the past, I believe that the agreements reached in this manner are often the best. Somewhat like the case of collective agreements, They are agreements whose terms have been agreed to by both parties. Things are easier then, both for employers and employees.

Obviously, such bills do not reflect everything the union or even the management representatives would have liked to see included, but it is the law of compromise, the one that allows us to agree on what is possible.

The second goal of our presence here, Mr. Chairman, is to recommend that you reinforce the section on women who are pregnant or who are nursing, starting from the proposed section 132.

Section 132, Mr. Chairman, covers the specific period of time in the pregnancy very well, that is the period from when a pregnant woman believes that her work becomes dangerous to her or to the foetus, to the time the doctor decides that the work is indeed dangerous to her. That is what is covered by section 132. It stipulates that the employer may give the employee another assignment and that during that period, as long as the doctor has not taken a decision, the employee shall be paid.

• 1125

Unfortunately, section 132 stops there. It does not go any further. Obviously, the question that we need to ask is the following: what happens once the doctor has made a decision? What happens to the employee? Can she take leave? Will she be reassigned? Unfortunately, to get an answer to that, we have to read Division VII of Part III of the Code, that talks about precautionary cessation of work, maternity leave and, further on, parental leave.

I will not go into the details but the problem is essentially that in terms of precautionary cessation of work, the law seems to insist on the employee's right to try and keep her job instead of talking about prevention so that women and their employers can try to agree.

There are no ways to challenge the employer's decision, i.e. can he find a comparable position or a new assignment. There are also no measures to encourage employers to keep employees at work. Especially, Mr. Chairman, the big problem that concerns us, particularly in Quebec, is that the act provides no compensation in the case of precautionary cessation of work, whereas Quebec legislation provides that the compensation during this period be covered under the Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles for up to 90 per cent of the net income. Those are the rates covered under the CSST in Quebec.

Given that there is no such coverage under the Canadian Code, a woman who has to leave work because she is pregnant or is nursing must ask for employment insurance benefits or use her accumulated sick leave or other means of indemnity in case of illness that are usually much lower.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we are telling you that the Bill is a step in the right direction and seems, in general, to be well received by the organizations and the people who negotiated it, but we are asking you to go in the direction we indicated. I assume that the employers will also be asking for amendments. In terms of precautionary cessation of work for pregnant women, or who are nursing, we are asking you to go further, to make the jump and fill in the gaps so that women who work under federal jurisdiction, employees of the federal government, can have the same rights, especially in Quebec, as the women who work under Quebec jurisdiction.

As I said, we estimate that the number of members of the FTQ is 90,000. At least half are women, and they do not have the same protection as their sisters who are covered under the Quebec code.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Vallée.

[English]

Nicely put.

Colleagues, we don't have a presentation from Mr. Vallée's organization, but obviously everything is on the record and we can access that quickly enough in both languages.

[Translation]

Thank you. I will now yield the floor to Ms. Carbonneau from the CSN.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: Mr. Chairman, thank you for hearing us. The CSN is a union with 235,000 members, concentrated mostly in Quebec. Our members work in all economic sectors, including those under federal jurisdiction.

• 1130

We have also chosen to emphasize, in our comments, the provisions dealing with the protection of pregnant women. I will tell you that since the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bell in Quebec in 1988, pregnant women under federal jurisdiction are in a particularly dramatic situation since this Court decision has deprived them of the protection previously provided by the CSST.

In that sense, the CSN salutes the federal government's will to legislate coverage for pregnant women. However, it seems clear to us that the proposed text falls short in many ways and, in the end, gets us further away from the major protections that a pregnant woman should have. I will quickly go over each of those elements.

In subsection 132(1) of the Bill, on the issue of right of refusal, there is a reference to section 128 that limits the right of refusal if “the danger referred to in subsection (1) is a normal condition of employment”. I firmly believe that this needs to be reworded. We are trivializing the risk. We are raising it to the same level as a normal working condition. That is completely unacceptable.

On the other hand, in the same section, we refer to a very specific concept of health—and I heard the CLC make exactly the same criticisms in regard to other sections—that is light years away from those formulated by the World Health Organization and the one on which the International Labour Office rests its entire regulations. We are bringing the question of health back to the absence of illness, whereas the WHO talks about optimal well-being and establishes links with the environment.

In brief, we believe that this reference should be removed and that we should adjust the definition of health to the broader concept accepted by the WHO and the ILO.

There is also, somewhere in subsection (1), an expressed wish to refer some decisions to the local parties. Up to then, it is perfectly normal and quite correct. However, the weakness in the text is that it does not talk about the agreements that could be reached between salaried worker representatives and the employer. That makes these clauses completely useless. It seems to us that it is absolutely essential to fill this gap.

I now move on to subsection (2) of the proposed section 132, where the employee is asked to have her doctor determine the wether continuing her job functions poses a risk to her. I will tell you that under Quebec legislation, in terms of protection, that doctor does not have technical support and does not necessarily have access to the work environment to check on its condition. And the law does not allow him to obtain additional information from the employer to make a satisfactory diagnosis under the circumstances.

The other flaw is related to costs. I think that a conscientious doctor must investigate beyond what is covered by a medical visit. I remind you that that is not covered by the medical insurance plan. Therefore, significant costs are incurred by the pregnant worker, which seems totally unacceptable to us.

I now move to proposed subsection (3) related to which is related to the right to cease work. I will not belabor this point. I fully agree with the remarks made by my colleague from the FTQ. It is too restrictive; it does not cover the period waiting for a medical decision.

Proposed subsection (4) deals with reassignment. I think there are many deficiencies and that in certain respects it solves nothing. I believe that in this matter we must look at not only the risks related to the employee's regular job, but also to which she is to assigned. That job may entail different risks than those of her initial position but that are nevertheless real. The law does not cover this. We are in favour of reassignment, but the new position must. We are in favour of reassignment, but the new position must meet the specific needs of the particular pregnant employee.

• 1135

I remind you that it would be better to be more explicit in terms of respecting practices related to assignment to positions, in terms of collective agreements and staffing of vacant and surplus positions.

I will make another comment about proposed subsection 132(5), which deals with employee wages and benefits. There again, there are too may limitations. The employee's wages are covered only during the waiting period before the evaluation report. We must also be conscious of the employer's expenses when he or she reassigns an employee to a position that is less well paid and that he continues to pay the salary of the permanent position. Only the employer has to assume the costs. I underline once more that there is a significant difference between that and the international regulations adopted by the IFL.

In 1952 and in the current revision of the convention on the protection pf maternity, it was clearly stated that any discriminatory practices related to maternity must be avoided. Therefore, when the costs incur to a single employer, it is inclined mot to hire women. That is why we support a collective approach in terms of compensation. I would point out that in this matter I am in agreement with the FTQ's stated point of view on reassignment. It is absurd to ask a single employer to assume all the expenses related to reassignment. This proposal is clearly inferior to the provisions in all the international regulations, to the protection measures in all industrial societies and to the treatment that all pregnant women in Quebec should be entitled to.

We have proposed a compensation mechanism that has a more collective scope. We believe that the costs of compensation for pregnant employees should be assumed by all the employers regulated by the federal code. That would allow us to avoid discrimination. However, we recognize that this proposal will raise a great debate regarding the means to achieve such an end. We have looked at two possibilities. Although the employment insurance fund was a possibility, we quickly rejected it. We believe that this fund was created for a completely different end and that, in any case, it would create problems in terms of treatment because it holds the contributions of Quebec employers that already contribute to the CSST for such benefits. We therefore rejected that option.

Instead, we have supported a recommendation in the Sims report that dealt with a delegation to the provincial organization responsible for such matters. If we take this provincial route, will the working conditions of women vary significantly depending on the province in which they are located? I will answer clearly, yes, and I will underline the fact that since 1988, the women who are regulated by the federal code are in a most disadvantageous position. Our proposal would have the merit of ensuring that on the same territory, there would be equitable treatment for all women that are in the same situation and that, on the other hand, on an economic level there would be a more equitable division of costs between a greater number of employers.

I will stop here. I end my presentation by telling you that although the Bill you are debating is well along, it needs significant corrections if we want to meet the protections ensured by international regulations and especially by the protections implemented in certain Canadian provinces.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Carbonneau.

I immediately yield the floor to members of the opposition, who have presented incisive, direct and informative question You have the floor, Mr. Johnston.

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

When we're suggesting that workers' compensation should somehow be addressed in this bill... I was wondering if perhaps someone could explain to me... Workers' compensation is a provincial thing. How are we going to address that in a federal bill?

• 1140

The Chair: You directed that specifically to...

Mr. Dale Johnston: To the last speaker, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Carbonneau.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: We believe that there have to be federal laws and that the Canada Labour Code must have provisions regarding the precautionary cessation of work and the reassignment of workers. We would not want to withdraw the federal government's capacity to legislate in this matter. My reference to the CSST could extend to equivalent institutions in other provinces. It is applied solely in terms of compensation. In our opinion, the federal government could make agreements and delegate the administration of such cases to the CSST, sp that the costs incurred would be assumed by all the employers under federal jurisdiction in Quebec.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: But I'm still not clear, Mr. Chairman. Workers' compensation is administered by a provincial act. How do we write federal legislation that compels provincial governments to pay workers' compensation? That's what I'm getting at. If the provinces want to introduce legislation that covers these instances through workers' compensation, that's all well and good, but how does a federal statute compel the provinces to oblige?

The Chair: Perhaps, Madame Carbonneau, while you're reflecting on that, we'll go to Mr. Vallée. I'll come back to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Émile Vallée: I am not sure that I have understood your question, but it seems to me that that already exists. I believe that companies that are regulated by the Canada Labour Code do not participate in the CSST plan or in any other plan that would cover only federal employees. For example, the Bell Canada who work in Quebec are under Quebec legislation, whereas those who work in Ontario are under Ontario legislation. The workers who were covered by the gamut of occupational and safety laws up to 1988, when the Supreme Court decided that prevention was linked to staff relations and should not be regulated by the Canada Labour Code. All the other aspects, including the compensation of Bell's permanent employees in Quebec, are under Quebec legislation; in the other provinces, it is according to provincial law.

So, in practice, the Canadian Code already foresees that occupational health and safety varies from one province to the next.

The Chairman: Ms. Carbonneau, did you want to add anything else?

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I would like to add a little detail. It would not be a precedent since there was a similar situation in Quebec between 1979 and 1988. There are also other precedents, especially in the regulation of hazardous material, that were the subject of an agreement between the federal and Quebec governments. We could therefore refer to many precedents and I do not believe that there would be any obstacles to legislation in this matter. On the other hand, I would like you t be in a position to weigh the other side of the issue. If we do not solve this issue of women who are not reassigned, we will simply be asking these Canadians to be deprived of their salaries and be penalized because they are pregnant and their work environment puts them at risk. It is unacceptable that we cannot resolve this jurisdictional problem because over the years we have found a number of compromises.

• 1145

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Carbonneau. Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: As former president of the Syndicat des métallos, I will not argue with the FTQ or the CSN, especially since I have RRSPs with both. The RRSPs are important since they allow us tax deductions.

My question is for our two witnesses. How many provinces and territories have implemented legislation to protect pregnant and nursing workers?

Mr. Émile Vallée: To my knowledge, only Quebec has done so.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I must admit I already knew the answer. Have you already checked, in the National Assembly, the provincial legislatures and the House of Commons, the employees can benefit from preventative cessation of work?

Mr. Émile Vallée: I do not understand your question.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: We know that the National Assembly, the provincial legislatures and the House of Commons are independent entities. Are there preventative cessation of work plans?

Ms. Carbonneau, On page 9 of your brief, you say that

between 19998 and today, the women workers in federal jurisdictions are on their own.

We know very well that you are talking about women who work n radio, banks and institutions under federal charter, in trucking and telephony. But since the 23rd or 24th of June 1993, if I recall correctly, Part III of the Canada Labour Code has provisions related to preventative cessation of work. In Quebec, an employee on preventative cessation can get 90 per cent of her salary.

We are discriminating against some of our women workers, like those who work in my office, who then get employment insurance benefits equivalent to 52, 53 or 55 per cent of their salary, whereas in Quebec a woman would get 90 per cent of her salary. All provinces have to offer equally advantageous provisions because no pregnant woman should have money problems, before or after birth. According to you, we should use the formula developed in Quebec because no other province has a similar plan.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: We hope that in Canada we can have protection equivalent to that of other industrialized countries. I keep referring you to numerous international regulations that could inspire us. At the beginning of the year 2000, it is abnormal that a woman be deprived of her salary simply because of maternity or that she have to do so prematurely because of risks related to her work environment. It is inadmissible.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I am asking a last question to our last two witnesses from the FTQ and the CSN. Bill C-12 will give pregnant or nursing women the right to cessation of employment if they believe that their workplace presents a danger to themselves or to the foetus. Part III of the Canada Labour Code already has provisions regarding reassignment related to maternity. How do the proposed provisions related to reassignments differ from those in Part III of the Code? Is it necessary to put such provisions in both Part II and Part III of the code?

Mr. Émile Vallée: The provisions in Part II cease to apply when the doctor issues a certificate, whereas Part III covers the entire pregnancy.

[English]

Mr. Jeff Bennie (National Representative, Canadian Labour Congress): I participated in the original consultations between labour and management at HRDC on this.

Part III of the code deals with protective reassignment after the medical certificate has been obtained by the employee.

• 1150

What we wanted to cover in part II was the period of time, and it should be only a short period of time, between the worker deciding they have a concern and being able to get the actual medical documentation. So they would have a special right to refuse, and until such time as they have the medical documentation, that right to refuse would exist. Once they have the medical documentation, then part III would take over.

If you look at the CLC brief, we're trying to clarify that within our submission. We feel it should be clarified in the bill. So the provisions in part II would cover up until the provisions in part III kick in.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: I would like to thank all the witnesses, Ms. Carbonneau, Mr. Vallée and Mr. Yussuff, for having taking the trouble to come. I have a question for the CLC.

You have made a presentation on the amendments that you would like to the Bill, but you have not talked about pregnant or nursing women. Is that just an error or does this amendment still hold?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: It's referred to in our brief, but again, we know others will come here and elaborate more on that specific point.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Agreed. I would only like to clarify that to be sure, but I think we have some consensus on proposed section 132 of the Bill. I have a question for the FTQ or the CSN, for whoever will answer.

It is already possible for the federal and Quebec governments, and even for the CSST, to reach an agreement so that Quebec, through the CSST, can mange claims related to work injuries affecting federal employees. I would like to know if in the case of preventative cessation of work for pregnant or nursing women and who work for a federal body it would be possible to have this kind of agreement. And how much you think it would cost the government to reach such a new agreement?

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: It is true that it existed in the past.

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: It even existed for many years. Your question meets one of the recommendations we made explicitly. As for costs, it currently costs Quebec employers 13 « of the total salary Bill for preventative cessation of work.

On the other hand, the cost of the plan offered is close to $100 million for the year 2000 in Quebec. The target population, the workers under federal jurisdiction, is 20 times less. That gives you an idea of the costs. We are not talking about enormous amounts.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Vallée.

Mr. Émile Vallée: I have nothing to add.

Ms. Monique Guay: You have nothing to add. We will not wonder why the birthrate has decreased so much in the country.

I have here an analysis of the employment insurance coverage for women. It says that:

almost 80 per cent of women between 25 and 44 ans are part of the paid work force. However, only 49 per cent who gave birth in 1998 received maternity benefits. The proportion of eligible women who asked for parental benefits is even lower, 44 per cent, and even less in the case of the youngest women and those who earn the lest.

I might be interesting to look at this analysis and come to certain conclusions.

I would like us to look at your amendments seriously. If we review Bill C-12 seriously and we revise all of Part II of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with occupational health and safety, we have to do it right. If we think that we wont get back to this issue for the next 10 to 15 years, we have to be in the vanguard at the federal level and respect the standards that Quebec has already set for itself in terms of pregnant or nursing women. I hope the committee will be very responsive to that and that your recommendations will be reflected in the amendments we will make to the Bill. Thank you.

The Chairman: No answer is necessary. It was a comment, was it not, Ms.?

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes.

The Chairman: Agreed. Thank you.

Mr. St-Julien, you have the floor again.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: earlier in your statement you talked about the Sims report. Do you have a copy?

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I will check to see if the people with me have one.

• 1155

Mr. Émile Vallée: I don't have one with me, but the Sims report was produced by a working group that was set up by the Department of Labour. I believe that at the time Mr. Gagliano was the Minister. He had asked three experts to make a study he had asked them to study the issue, meet the union and management organizations across Canada and report on Part I, which deals with industrial relations. After the report was presented, the new minister, Mr. MacAulay, I believe, amended Part I of the Canada Labour Code. That is what we have now. For the most part, it is the result of the Sims working group.

The Chairman: Ms. Carbonneau.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: Since I cannot give you a copy of that report, I will ask you to refer to page 18 of our brief where we have the relevant quotation. It is a full quotation from the Sims report for the provisions we are talking about.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I had just made notes on page 18. I want to thank you all. I had read your brief quickly, but I thank all of you. It will be very helpful. Maternity is important. For women, there must be no obstacles in the workplace and especially not financial ones. We should adapt. I want to tell you that we are looking at employment insurance. I also want to tell you, Mr. Chairman—and my assistant is having her second child; I believe it will be today, this afternoon—that it is often a monetary issue. We go to employment insurance and so forth, whereas in Quebec it's 90 per cent of your salary. That's important. I want to thank you for having come here.

[English]

The Chair: I think you were dividing your time with Mr. Bélair.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélair.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—Baie-James, Lib.): Reading the notes from our researchers, I was considerably intrigued by the definition of “ordinary workplace stress” In subsection 2(5) of the Bill, which amends subsection 122(1) of the Code, du code, gives us a definition of normal professional stress. It can lead to a lot of confusion. So I am asking the witnesses where the line should be drawn according to them. Do we stop when a doctor says makes a diagnosis that indicates that in fact the work environment can be stressful to the point where a person has to stop working?

We also have a problem with stress at work. We have to admit that we are all, in one way or another, stressed at work. What I am getting at is the definition of the word “normal”, ordinary. In English, we say “ordinary workplace stress”. I would like your opinion about that. Should the definition be strengthened, amended or changed to be more precise?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think that's a good point. We just had this discussion last week with HRDC and FETCO.

I think if the intended language in the draft were to remain as is, we'd be in the courts for the next hundred years trying to define what it actually means. In our brief we have made some submissions that it should be clarified, because that language is not very helpful. It's great for lawyers, if you want to spend time in a court defining what exactly that means, but I think in the practical world we live in, it's not useful and it should be changed.

[Translation]

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Mr. Vallée, do you have an opinion about this?

Mr. Émile Vallée: No.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Ms. Carbonneau, do you have an opinion on this subject?

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: No.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: I imagine that with your work experience with the union movement, you have surely seen cases where issues of stress and work-related stress evaluation, caused by the work, colleagues or by other parties. We are excluding mental health here. Mental health is set is set aside. We are only talking about occupational stress.

The Chairman: Mr. Malo.

• 1200

Mr. Yvan Malo (Servicing Representative, Health and Security, Confédération des syndicats nationaux): In terms of normal work, even the Loi sur la santé et la sécurité du travail has a certain vocabulary. A while ago, in the memorandum, we mentioned a hazardous work. It is sometimes an unfortunate choice of words. Canada tolerates, as normal work, dangerous work. We have a problem with the terms. But here we are not dealing with work. It is the illness that is considered normal. We consider stress, which is a disease for many, We have a problem with these terms. But here we are not talking about work. It is the illness that is considered normal. We assume that stress, that for many is considered an illness, is work.

In the case of a person who works as an air traffic comptroller, that is equivalent to admitting that the level of stress that would, if medically documented, be an illness in an ordinary individual but is part of the dy for a comptroller. It is not a health problem even if he or she has to leave the job because of medically recognized stress. From our point of view, we have difficulty with the terminology that is included, even though it is recognized by the authors of the Bill.

[English]

The Chair: I'll let you pursue this a little bit further in a moment, Mr. Bélair.

[Translation]

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): First, I would like to welcome you to the committee. Firs, it is obvious that the House will adjourn towards the middle of June, but the message that you are sending us is that you want Bill C-12 be finalized and that Parliamentarians can vote on it. However, things must be done properly. Sometimes, in a negotiation, it is in the last hours that we miss the boat. Sometimes it happens on both sides.

That being said, I understand your concern, especially when we look at the employment insurance side. The government says we have to adapt to the employment market, but only 30 per cent of women benefit from it. That is not rally true, adapting to the job market. We can say that.

When we look at young people, we can say the same thing. Only 15 per cent of them qualify for employment insurance.

In the year 2000, there are many more women in the marketplace than there were in the 30s and 50s. So I understand what you are saying. If we want to accept that the marketplace has changed in the year 2000, and that we do not want to punish women who work, we need a law that really supports pregnant women so that there is no discrimination against them as compared to men. Men do not get pregnant; women do. If we want to support women and we have some respect for our mother, who gave us birth, the government has to take the lead in Canada and send a message to employers and make them understand that we are in the year 2000. It is time to put the past behind us. And to respect women, by adopting a law that will protect them and ensure they are not penalized because they are pregnant.

Could you comment on that? Is that where we are?

[English]

The Chair: Who wants to go first?

[Translation]

Mr. Vallée.

Mr. Émile Vallée: I do not want to disagree with what you are saying. On the contrary, I think that in reality that is where we are. It is said that currently women who have to fall back on employment insurance have difficulty in qualifying for it and that the amount of money they receive as benefits is much too low. Fifty-five per cent of their income at most, which is not enough to maintain their lifestyle. The replacement level is much too low.

The Chairman: Ms. Carbonneau.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I would like t make a small comment. re. Of course I agree with the MP's analysis. Yes, it is true that in terms of employment insurance, there are problems, especially in terms of maternity, but the first one is flagrant: it is accessibility. Not only are there flaws in the law, but the government's announcement that it will improve employment insurance benefits and maternity leave by prolonging it, a target, that in my opinion, is not the primary problem. I hope that the leave will be as long as possible. However, what is the point of a long leave if that leave is not accessible? There is a major problem there that we have to solve. It seems to me that the recent orientations that we have taken are going in the opposite direction of a satisfactory resolution to this problem.

• 1205

There is also the problem of the level of compensation. What is the point of a long leave if women can't take it because they do not have the means to go one for one with only 50 or 55 per cent of their salary? There is a lot of thinking to do about that.

I will close by saying that in Quebec there is a consensus among employers, unions, women's groups and family groups to ask the federal government, among others, to agree to negotiate repatriation of that aspect of the employment insurance fund to allow Quebec, to build a plan adapted to its realities and would be more advantageous to it in all respects.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff, did your group want to add something?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I just want to focus again on the legislation. I think the amendment that's been discussed is how we provide greater protection, in the confines of work, for women who might become pregnant and what form of compensation they would be covered under.

The discussion about greater protection under the unemployment insurance scheme or other schemes I think is a debate we can have. There is also a proposal under the Labour Code, part III, that is going to cover some of these points that are being discussed here today.

So while I support most of the arguments my colleagues are making, I just want to focus specifically on where we are in terms of the amendments to the legislation.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Yussuff.

[Translation]

A supplementary question?

[English]

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's not what I was getting at. I said we had better not get to EI because that will not resolve the problem we're looking at today.

[Translation]

I would like to ask a fairly quick question about a topic that my colleague Réginald Bélair talked about, namely stress. I think we can talk about stress at work, but I believe there is a difference between normal stress and that of say an overworked nurse because there are not enough nurses in the hospital. We could pretend and tell her that her stress is normal.

What we would need is a real definition of stress. When is it normal and when is it higher than normal? I would like your opinion on that based on the simple example I have given. It could become a rel problem when we talk about compensation. Te federal government should be the body that explores the rel nature of stress in the workplace today. The pressure on people today practically forces them to do the work of three people. That is one of the problems.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Godin, I appreciate that you wanted to make a comment, and for you and for all colleagues it's a great way to end your intervention, but that doesn't leave the witnesses enough opportunity to respond, because we're over the time.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It's up to you, Mr. Chairman, to let them answer.

The Chair: Okay. I'm glad I'm in a generous mood. I'll go back to the government side.

Mr. Bélair.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to pursue again...

[Translation]

I will continue in French and ask the question again to Mr. A while ago, you came close to recommending that the committee that it amend the Bill, in subsection (5) of section 2 that defines health. At that time, you linked it to a doctor's diagnosis. Should the consultative committee that will be set up with people working in the plant, in the workplace, make a recommendation that will be approved by a doctor to give the employee and the employer a rational basis for a judgment?

In my opinion, the way the text is worded, it could be interpreted many ways; its values are not yours and my stress tolerance level may be higher than yours. According to you, who should draw the line or decide where it is between a normal level of stress and occupational stress.

• 1210

The Chairman: Mr. Malo.

Mr. Yvan Malo: In the definition of“health” in the Bill...

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That is what I am looking at.

Mr. Yvan Malo: ...it is not a layman's stress that is at issue. I am under stress now. That is my perception, but I am not a doctor.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That's it.

Mr. Yvan Malo: It is necessarily a stress that is medically diagnosed. The Bill says that this medically verifiable stress is excluded from the definition of health and cannot be defined as a health problem

We integrate this stress in the context of health. We obviously appeal to a specific area of expertise. We exclude part of the area of the field of medicine, the diagnostic area, since stress can cause various states. Mundane stress is defined in various ways.

The ILO has done a number of different studies in the last few years on...

Mr. Réginald Bélair: The ILO?

Mr. Yvan Malo: The International Labour Organization. I say the ILO, but I think it is...

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Well, we understand each other.

Mr. Yvan Malo: The World Health Organization published an impressive number of studies in the last two years ago that confirmed that there were problems of stress at work. The definition of stress must vary from one state to the other, but its exclusion creates a problem and that is what its definition included here establishes.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Bélair, but Mr. Bennie wanted to make a comment on that.

Mr. Jeff Bennie: Although this is an interesting debate, and we can probably debate what is ordinary workplace stress versus what is not ordinary workplace stress, I want to point out that we wouldn't have this issue before us if the drafters had not changed what was a tripartite consensus agreement in the original consultative process. In the original consultative process, labour, government, and employers agreed on a modified version of the World Health Organization/International Labour Organization definition of health. It was the drafters of the legislation that introduced this concept of excluding ordinary workplace stress. As we point out in our brief, what we are suggesting to committee members is that they instruct the drafters of the legislation to bring forward an amendment to reflect the original tripartite consensus agreement.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bennie.

Mr. Bélair.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: I would like to ask Mr. Yussuff, have you ever encountered any cases with—and this is the one I know better—the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario, whereby a stress case went through an arbitrator... Have they ever put in a statute any case that you are aware of? Where could we find more information on this?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: My colleague will answer.

The Chair: Mr. Bennett.

Mr. David Bennett (Director, Health and Safety Department, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you. The situation in Ontario is that the government made an amendment to the Ontario Workers' Compensation Act, and that act specifically excluded claims for chronic stress. But let's be clear. Stress-related cases still come under the Workers' Compensation Board, but there must be an incident or a series of incidents that cause the stress for this stress case to be compensable.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Is there an existing definition of work-related stress causing, let's say, mental illness, depression?

Mr. David Bennett: I don't know whether the Ontario act puts the thing in the form of a definition, but it makes a distinction between stress that's due to an incident or a series of incidents at work and stress that is the result of an ongoing situation at work, and it's the latter that has been excluded from compensation claims. But let's again be clear that this is the result of a policy decision on the part of the Ontario government.

If we're asked the question, is it the case that chronic stress causes disease, that conditions arise out of working conditions, the answer is quite definitely that they do. In other jurisdictions, such as the U.K., such cases are compensable, and they've also given rise to very large awards to the employees concerned.

• 1215

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for being here and giving us your definitions.

I have a very interesting set of comments about the subject we've just been speaking about, this stress-related thing.

I wonder if we could ask the researchers, Mr. Chairman, to tell us exactly why the drafters put that particular clause in there. If there was tripartite agreement on the earlier part, why was this specifically exempted? It's the exemption part that is the issue here.

The Chair: Mr. Schmidt, maybe we can turn disadvantage to advantage. The minister wasn't here to start it off. Maybe that's a question we can ask her as soon as she comes. The researcher doesn't have the answer at his disposal. I think the minister might be the appropriate person to respond to that.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay. Enough said.

Obviously, there has been a feeling of cooperation among the three parties to get this bill to where it is today, and I think that's highly commendable.

I'm still a little bit intrigued about your comments, Ms. Carbonneau, about the Workers' Compensation Board. I'd like to ask you if you could clarify this for me. Was it the Workers' Compensation Board you used as the vehicle to provide compensation? Is that what you were after? It's a matter of clarifying information.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: To our way of thinking, the CSST becomes the vehicle, the means. Obviously, that means a financial contribution from the employers under federal jurisdiction. That is the other side. We could not ask the to cover these workers if the employers did not contribute to the fund. There has to be a way to achieve a societal objective that is incontrovertible, in my opinion, that of offering some compensation to a woman who have to stop working because of imminent risk. I think we to see it as a means to get what is needed. Of course, that assumes a financial contribution by the employers.

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I understand the rationale. I just wanted to clarify that that was the vehicle used. It was your contention, then, that the bill should be amended in such a way that it would say that would be the case.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I think that in the Bill we should stipulate that there is a desire for an administrative agreement with a provincial organization like the CSST. I think we should formulate it along those lines.

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay.

The other question I have has to do with provincial jurisdiction. I think the point was made by someone else that this is a direct intrusion on the part of the federal government into provincial jurisdiction, telling them exactly what should happen. The Workers' Compensation Board is under the direct jurisdiction of the provinces. Is it the request to ask the provinces to include this as one of the elements or characteristics of the Workers' Compensation Board?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Carbonneau.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I believe we are putting it badly when we phrase the question in terms of interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction or not. I recall another Canadian federal code that deals with a matter that, in other categories dealing with salaried employees, dealt with by the provinces. There is a first reality, and the absence of provisions regarding compensation, in the federal case, is in a way also meddling. It creates distortions in the way women citizens are treated in a given territory, depending on wether they are under federal or Quebec jurisdiction.

So, in that sense, I do not see any reason for scandal nor any matter for a jurisdictional invasion of rights. On the contrary, I think that the situation is currently disadvantageous to workers, and especially to women workers. That is because of the federal code, which is a form of meddling.

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's exactly the point. That's exactly where I was leading, Mr. Chairman. Why in the world—

The Chair: Glad you had help.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The important thing here, it seems to me, is exactly this. I'd like to ask the other labour organizations to comment on this as well. Is this a serious problem? We have the Canada Labour Code, and we also have provincial labour legislation. How serious is this conflict between the two levels of government on the issues of labour?

• 1220

The Chair: It's a generic question, I guess.

Mr. Émile Vallée: I don't think there is a conflict there. We need a federal code in that the minute we say we have industries that go beyond one province, the question is which provincial code would apply. Take, for instance, transportation, which is the most obvious one, or communications. We say—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Let me ask you a specific question, then. What about Bell telephone, which has employees in various provinces? Which labour code operates with regard to Bell employees?

Mr. Émile Vallée: It's under the Canadian code. Bell is under federal jurisdiction because of the transport between the two provinces—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Perhaps I used the wrong example. There are other corporations that operate across Canada. They're not registered as national corporations. They're registered in a province, but they operate in other provinces. What happens?

Mr. Émile Vallée: Take a steel company, for instance. Stelco has plants in Hamilton and in the Montreal area. Both plants are under provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Exactly.

Mr. Émile Vallée: It's because the operations are deemed to be self-contained and they work on their own. But if you tried to do that with the railway, I think you'd have a problem.

The Chair: Mr. Bennie.

Mr. Jeff Bennie: Just for clarification, there is going to be another bill with amendments possibly later on in the year, which is known as the Government Employees Compensation Act. That act covers federal workers and postal workers for workers' compensation. But this bill is a very small bill. Basically what it says is that workers in those specific areas of federal jurisdiction will be granted the same rights and benefits for workers' compensation as would be applicable if they worked as provincial workers in the provinces where they work. So there's already a bill that basically directs provincial compensation boards to provide benefits to federal workers under their compensation scheme.

There is a section of HRDC known as the Federal Workers' Compensation Service, which contracts or draws up memorandums of agreement on behalf of HRDC with each provincial compensation board, and then those memorandums of agreement rule. For example, if a postal worker working in Calgary is injured on the job, the post office files an employer's report of accident to the Alberta compensation board, and that board treats that worker as they do any other provincial worker under the provincial compensation scheme because of that memorandum of agreement between the federal government and the Alberta compensation board.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: If that's the case, then Ms. Carbonneau's amendment isn't necessary. It's already covered.

Mr. Jeff Bennie: It is covered for some workers under federal jurisdiction.

The Chair: I'll let you come back, Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here. You've helped us enormously.

I have a fairly brief question. One of the subthemes I see in this legislation has to do with empowering workers a bit more in their workplace. If I understand correctly, Bill C-12 enhances the powers of workplace health and safety committees to better identify and resolve problems before requiring government level intervention. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but that's my perception of it. I understand that provincial legislation in many cases already provides for such committees. To what extent has Bill C-12 either met or maybe raised the bar in support of worker involvement in these issues, compared with what we see provincially?

I noticed in the comments of the Labour Congress that in your view Bill C-12 does not make the federal government a leader. But in some respects it may be a leader. In the area of empowering workers in their workplace, something has been done there that we can all appreciate. I'd appreciate your comments on that.

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think the important thing is that this is legislation dealing specifically with the issue of health and safety in the workplace. On April 28 we observed a national day of mourning for workers killed or injured on the job. I think it highlights the importance of getting legislation through Parliament as quickly as possible.

• 1225

The legislation is obviously progressive. The parties have worked on it for over five years, almost six years now, and I think it reflects a lot of consensus about how this legislation can move forward in a progressive way. There are some provinces where, in specific areas, their legislation is better than the federal government's, but in many areas this legislation will be at least on par with most provincial legislation across the country.

Similarly, as we highlight in our brief, work is going on right now around the question of regulations on violence in the workplace. Hopefully, we'll put the federal government on a leading edge in regard to regulation in this particular area, and I think work will be taking place on a number of other areas shortly.

So in a number of areas, yes, it does put the federal government at par with most provinces, or above some of them.

There are areas in which we would have liked to have gone further, but again, this is a tripartite process. It took us five years to get here. By the time we get this passed through the House, we'll hopefully start the work on revising part I or part II again, because if we don't get this done soon, it's dated legislation. It would not suffice for us to say it's adequate for where we're at in the 21st century.

So in a lot of ways, I think it reflects a broad consensus as to how far we could have gone given where we're at today, and then hopefully it will be passed.

The other point I want to comment on was made earlier, about whether there is a conflict between provincial legislation and federal legislation and where we should be. Of course, there's always going to be the question of what kind of political climate we're at in the country. Where we have governments that are conscious of the importance of legislation that empowers workers in the workplace on health and safety, we will have good legislation. In places where government doesn't see it as a major concern, we will see regressive legislation or legislation that doesn't provide adequate protection.

So there is going to be that conflict on a constant basis, but given that the provincial governments have very specific requirements under their jurisdiction and the federal government has specific requirements, it's not a conflict that causes a lot of grief. We believe it has been well managed, and to the degree that we can make comments, there is no conflict between provincial and federal legislation. Where the federal legislation is clear and absolute, it helps move provincial legislation along the way it should be.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we also find stress in the illnesses included in this Bill. I think it is the disease of this century. A woman can live through stress differently if she is pregnant or in a normal situation. So I think we need to include stress in the Bill and not withdraw it. We will be proposing amendments to that end.

We have talked a lot about women who are nursing and pregnant women, but there are also other significant changes in this Bill, changes in terms of three-party committees—employees, employers and unions—that could be created for prevention in companies. It also talks about infractions and penalties that are much more severe than previously. I would like your opinion on that and I have not seen that in the memoranda. It has not been discussed. What is your position on this issue?

The Chairman: To which witness is the question addressed?

Ms. Monique Guay: it is addressed to the three witnesses.

The Chairman: To all three. Agreed.

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes, because it concerns all three.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bennett.

Mr. David Bennett: Specifically on the question of fines, what the bill does is bring the Canada Labour Code in line with most provincial acts.

I think a more important issue, and one we dealt with later in the brief but didn't go into for reasons of time, concerns the administration of health and safety in the federal jurisdiction. We'd like to make it clear that the bill itself, where it talks about the role of inspectors and the role of enforcement, is perfectly in order. The bill itself is progressive; it's useful.

We have a big problem regarding the administration of health and safety in the federal jurisdiction, and we pointed out, for example, that the federal government uniquely has a system called assurances of voluntary compliance. This is a device used by the HRD inspectors to assure compliance. It's a signed undertaking by the employer that they will bring their workplace into compliance with the law.

• 1230

One thing to be noted about that is that this procedure, while it's legal, has in fact no grounding in the statute enabling or specifically permitting the government to move in this way.

A second point to make is that these assurances of voluntary compliance are the preferred method of dealing with health and safety issues in workplaces under federal jurisdiction, at the expense of directors' orders and of prosecution.

A third point we'd like the committee to note is that both employers and workers agreed that assurances of voluntary compliance as a regulatory device should be abolished in the federal jurisdiction. It is the government, I regret to say, that has insisted on continuing with this particular form of regulatory activity.

It's not that these devices are useless; it's that, first, they are unique to the federal jurisdiction; second, they have no grounding in law; and third, they are a relatively ineffectual method of securing compliance with the law. If you look at the compliance record of the federal jurisdiction, it's found wanting compared with other jurisdictions, simply because of the huge weight that's put on this device.

So, Madame Guay, the question is a good one. It's accepted by the witnesses. It's a question we're continuously engaging in discussions with the department, occasionally with disputes as well, but we have to say, in the end, this issue does not itself concern Bill C-12.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay, have you finished?

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes, Thank you.

The Chairman: Agreed. Thank you.

[English]

I'll go back to Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: to be sure that everything is clear, I will use an example. If we say that the CSST will be responsible for payments to persons who are pregnant or who are retired, in Quebec, under the law we will pay up to 90 per cent of their salaries, whereas in New Brunswick, we will pay 75 per cent and in Alberta, 70 or 85 per cent, or whatever. What I want to illustrate is that the rate is not the same. Here, we are talking about workers that are all under federal jurisdiction. How do we reduce the problem of disparity and ensure that these people receive the same salary across the country?

The Chairman: Mr. Vallée.

Mr. Émile Vallée: I do not see how it could be done, unless the federal government set up its own health and safety commission for employees under federal jurisdiction across Canada. At this time I have not heard of any such project. It would obviously be doable, but would it be practical? I'm not sure.

The Chairman: Ms. Carbonneau.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: It is laudable to want as few disparities as possible, but the status quo generates disparities. There are currently women who get nothing. The debate is not about whether we get 90 or 85 per cent of our salary; it is about determining wether it will be 0 per cent or if it will be acceptable. I think that the status quo also has the disadvantage of that there are differences among women on the same territory, which makes this form of iniquity even more odious. There is no perfect solution.

In any case, I hope that this will generate an important debate in each province on the need to provide adequate protection. So much the better if it protects the workers better.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Carbonneau.

[English]

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I note that in your presentation you had some concerns with the one-step appeal process. I was quite surprised to hear that there was tripartite agreement to remain with the two-stage appeal process. Would you recommend, then, that the second stage be to the CIRB? Is that what I'm understanding you to say? Was that in fact the agreement that was reached by the tripartite?

• 1235

Mr. Jeff Bennie: First let me point out that it was a bipartite agreement between labour and the employee representatives. The government representatives did not agree.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I understood you to say it was a tripartite agreement and included all three.

Mr. Jeff Bennie: No. If you look at the brief under point one... When I was talking about the tripartite agreement, that was on the definition of health. If you look at the appeals procedure, it was the representatives of the workplace parties in the federal jurisdiction who agreed on this process.

You're absolutely correct that what we are suggesting is that there would be initial appeals on all issues, whether we're talking about the right to refuse or an appeal of a direction... An appeal of a direction of a safety officer would go to a national appeals officer. Subsequent to that, there could be an appeal to the CIRB, but that appeal would be restricted to situations where there were new facts, the appeals officer erred on a point of law, and so forth.

So there were going to be restrictions; it wasn't going to be an automatic appeal. We still recommend that the two-tier appeal system be maintained and the legislation be amended to reflect that.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Then I would want to know if the government was a party to those discussions and if they had any problem with it. In other words, if there were three parties in those discussions and only two of them agreed to it, what was the problem that the government had or articulated at the time with that process?

Mr. Jeff Bennie: I don't want to necessarily put words in the mouth of the government. I'm sure they can—

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, maybe that's a question I should ask the minister, when and if.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Just to elaborate, I think this is a very important point you're raising. I think it's absolutely critical. There's an absence of another two-stage appeal process, and our only option is to go to the courts. Given what we're talking about—this is health and safety legislation—that's not a way to build consensus among the parties to work issues out. So if we can get some second-stage appeal... It means that every time we have a dispute with the first stage of an appeal we would have to go to the courts to get an interpretation of law. I don't think that's a very useful process. Again, we're stressing that it should be looked at, because it really would help the parties of a joint process to try to resolve issues at a local level.

The Chair: Mr. Johnston, is that it?

Mr. Dale Johnston: I think that will do for now. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. I want to ask a question, because it was raised by one of the witnesses.

I don't mean to provoke any further discussion, nor do I have a hidden agenda, but I thought I heard there was a general feeling that the legislation was headed in the right direction. I'm trying to be as non-partisan as possible. I thought one of the witnesses said that while the discussions here touched on several principles that were worth debating, the issues really were specific and peculiar to the restricted scope of the legislation.

In that context, were you as witnesses, and others that will appear before this committee, not satisfied with or unable to secure the amendments that you think might make the legislation superior? Would your view change about the desirability of the legislation as it is proposed to us? Simply yes or no. You don't need to comment.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Mr. Chair, I think that's a good point. Some of the amendments that I think are outlined in our submission have been discussed with the department. Maybe when the minister appears she might make comments regarding those discussions.

We think the points we're trying elaborate in our brief will strengthen the legislation. It is the intent, obviously, to bring it into conformity with the present time we're living in. If it doesn't happen, I guess we can be disappointed. If it were to happen, I think we would be more than supportive, because these proposals would give clarity, not just for our sake but for the parties who have worked on a consensus basis. It would reflect values that should be in the legislation but are not currently covered, based on what the drafters recommended should be there.

I think at the end of the day we could say yes, we're satisfied. But I think the amendments would go further to make the legislation a better piece of legislation. I think it's in the interests of the government, the employers, and the unions involved in putting together this work over the last six years.

• 1240

The Chair: Thank you.

Is that your view as well, Mr. Vallée?

Mr. Émile Vallée: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Carbonneau.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: We have been limited in our comments to questions on maternity and pregnant women. I would like to tell you that I am sure that you can show enough good will to at least improve the Bill because, unfortunately, in its present form, it sucks the substance out of the objectives it pretends to achieve.

So it seems to me that it is useless to legislate if, in practice, there is no application and the real intentions of the legislator are not fulfilled. I believe that you can certainly make some effort to improve the Bill, especially on the maternity issue since it seems to have a large consensus among the Canadian population and in most advanced industrial societies. On that issue, there is a great deal of modernization to be done. I believe you can get to the end of the process. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: It's unfortunate, Madame, that we did not have television coverage of your features as you were giving me the answer, because then the audience would have understood what I meant by saying that that was the most diplomatic response without yielding any persistence in the position you started with.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: You're pretty good yourself, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I want to thank all of the witnesses. I know we started off on a not completely positive note, because the information didn't come as quickly as it should have, but—and this is a very personal reflection—now that we've gone through this exercise, I'm almost happy the minister was unavailable. I think what you have done by the discussion we've had, which was based on both principle and on specific amendments, is to equip the committee with greater information about some specific issues to address when the minister comes forward. For that, and for all of your interventions, I thank each and every one of you and your organizations.

I'm going to suspend for a moment or two. I'd ask members to stay behind for a second. I'm not going to take much more than a minute of your time.

• 1243

• 1245

The Chair: Order, please.

I want to alert members to the fact that yesterday the House referred Bill C-11 to this committee. I think we're going to be charged with considering legislation, which will probably engage most of our time.

Last week we were given approval for our travel budget, but the House leaders are meeting only today to discuss the advisability of our travel. So I had to make the decision that obviously we couldn't travel, and even if I had said yes, we can travel, if the House leaders don't say yes, we can't. But their decision will be today, and their decision will be a positive one contingent on our getting rid of the work that's on our table right now. However, with Bill C-11 coming forward yesterday, I think it would probably be very unlikely to get unanimous consent of all House leaders for us to travel next week.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, isn't that report part of our business?

The Chair: Yes, but I'm just telling you this; I'm not giving you direction. I'm just giving you an indication of where our negotiations are.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: No, no, that's right.

The Chair: Werner, just a second. We submitted our budget and a request because we wanted to be in a position where we could have choices. So far, we're moving along at that stage. But I just thought I would tell you that while we've moved up in the stage—we now have the resources, the money—we don't yet have the unanimous approval of all the House leaders. That doesn't mean we won't have it. I'm just letting you know that's the case. We've found ourselves in this position once before, for a different reason. But just be prepared for it, okay?

Secondly, because Bill C-11 is going to be coming to us, what I would like is for you and your parties to develop your lists of witnesses that you'd prefer to have before this committee. I would like to have those lists no later than Thursday, because I would like to have our clerk and our researchers get a hold of those people and give them sufficient time to prepare briefs.

You saw today—and I didn't make a big deal of it—that one of the presenters did not have a written brief. That's okay. Another one had one in only one language. That's okay too, but it puts some members at a disadvantage. In the past it's been because they've been unilingual English. This time it was unilingual French.

When that happens, the clerk does not distribute the document. It's there at the table for everyone to pick up. But I would like to be able to give everybody sufficient notice. I don't know what happened on this one, because I thought they did have sufficient notice when they were first advised they would be asked.

But be that as it may, if by Thursday at 5 p.m. you would have your lists of witnesses who you would like to see called for Bill C-11, we can proceed with the appropriate swiftness.

Finally, I hope you like this format. I think the round tables give us a certain perspective of the people who are expert in the area, and it let's them bounce some ideas off one another on specific items. I hope we will finish the witnesses we have by no later than Thursday, probably Thursday at about 1 p.m.

Now, we're going to fit the minister in. I don't know whether we'll do that tomorrow. When I get back to the office, I'll find out when she's coming back. It will be either tomorrow or Thursday.

What I'd like you to do is be flexible enough or build the flexibility into your timetable so that if we start a little earlier or go a little later, it won't be too much of a problem. I have booked tomorrow evening already, given the authorization to spend some money so that we have a light dinner. I don't intend to go way overboard, but I think we're scheduled until about 7 or 7:30 p.m. So instead of having your stomach rumble, we'll have something light. That shouldn't ruin your supper.

On Thursday, we're going to have lunch again. They say that armies travel on their stomachs, but committee members also work on their stomachs.

You look so worried. I'm just trying to take care of your health.

So please be prepared for both Wednesday and Thursday.

As soon as we finish that, I propose we go immediately into clause-by-clause. On that score as well, if you haven't started to develop your amendments, if any... I realize the government side may not have any. If you have amendments you're considering, I would like them placed with the clerk. Let's be reasonable about the time they have to have. Could you do it no later than 3 p.m. on Friday afternoon?

• 1250

So that's Thursday for witnesses for Bill C-11, and Wednesday, 3 p.m. for any amendments to Bill C-12. Is that fair enough? Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Well, I could talk to you about Bill C-11 and minister availability, if you want.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Tomorrow we'll do Bill C-12 again, at 3:30 p.m.?

The Chair: Yes, 3:30 p.m.

The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow.