Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 18 - Evidence for June 21, 2000
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 21, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-12, 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; and Bill S-5, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate), met this day at 3:40 p.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Michael Kirby (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are here to continue consideration of Bill C-12, to amend Part II of the Canada Labour Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
We have a panel of witnesses from both the labour union movement and from Federally Regulated Employers -- Transportation and Communications.
The initial opening statement will be made by Mr. Hassan Yussuff, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress.
We have Mr. Jeff Bennie from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and Mr. Denis St-Jean from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. We also have Mr. Don Brazier, Executive Director of Federally Regulated Employers -- Transportation and Communications.
Mr. Hassan Yussuff, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress: I want to thank honourable senators for allowing us the opportunity to come here to speak to this issue.
As you know, the Canadian Labour Congress represents about 2.3 million workers across the country. There are 1.1 million workers within the federal public sector. It is the fourth largest work-based jurisdiction in the country. This piece of proposed legislation will, of course, affect many workers across the country.
We want to congratulate the minister responsible for the file for moving this through the House and bringing it before the Senate.
In addition, we also want to state that we are hoping that, as a result of our appearance, and the minister's yesterday, the Senate will make this a priority and that the bill will be passed as quickly as possible.
This bill certainly does not make the federal government a leader, but it brings them close to being a leader in health and safety protection for workers on the job.
We have been engaged in a long and exhaustive process. There have been over six years of tripartite work with the labour movement, the employer, and of course the government through HRDC, to try to reach consensus on many items.
The vast majority of items laid out in this bill have been agreed to through a consensus process.
Where there was no consensus, the government made the unilateral decision to put forth positions with which we concur and that both parties support.
We support the bill. As we said before the Commons committee, and are saying again here, we do have concerns in a number of areas, including the appeals procedure, reassignment of pregnant workers, and extended rights of parliamentary workers. Despite those concerns, we want to say categorically that we support the quick passage of this bill.
This bill will bring protection for workers within the federal sector up to the appropriate standard, but most importantly, it will provide regulations in certain necessary areas on which we will comment a little later. The minister commented on the bill yesterday, and we will certainly respond to senators' questions after our presentation.
On behalf of the congress and our colleagues, we thank you for the opportunity to present our views. We look forward to your questions.
Mr. Don Brazier, Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers -- Transportation and Communications: I notice that Mr. Yussuff did not read his brief. Mine is about the same length. If it has been distributed to the senators, I will not go through the whole thing. I will leave it up to you. I can read it, or make some opening, off-the-cuff remarks.
The Chairman: Why do you not simply hit the highlights of your brief?
Mr. Brazier: This proposed legislation was developed through a tripartite consensus process. That actually transpired over a seven-year period, because the initial efforts to get amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code unfortunately ran afoul of the House of Commons being dissolved for a federal election.
If the reports in the papers are correct, there may be another federal election in the offing. I know I can speak on behalf of the CLC, Mr. Yussuff, and the HRDC, when I say that we do not want this bill to suffer the same fate as its predecessor.
We urge you to pass the proposed legislation.
There were some areas that had been agreed to in a consensus process that never found their way into the bill. We requested jointly with the unions that these amendments be made and a number of them were.
Other suggested amendments were not made. Neither we nor the unions are requesting additional amendments, because at this juncture the process will simply be delayed.
Having reviewed the union's brief -- I just received a copy before the hearing started -- I see that we have both identified what we believe to be a glaring problem with the bill. The government did not see fit to include in the bill the appeal process that both labour and management believe is necessary for proper due process.
We agreed upon a two-tier appeal process during the consultations, but it never appeared in the bill.
I go into some detail about this, and I notice that the CLC brief does too. I will not say anything further.
We did discuss this matter jointly. We and the CLC met with HRDC to discuss this. Unfortunately, we could not get a resolution.
They have suggested as a partial resolution -- and it certainly does not resolve the basic problem -- that the appeal officer mechanism in the bill be moved administratively from HRDC to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. That would get around one of the problems associated with the appeal process. The way the bill is worded right now, the appeal procedure and the enforcement of the proposed legislation are within the same organization. We are uncomfortable with the same boss directing both the enforcement of the bill and the appeal procedure.
Certainly, moving it to another agency like the CIRB would address a certain aspect of the problem, but not all of it.
We reluctantly accepted the government's proposal, on the understanding that we will revisit the appeal procedure at a later date. Perhaps at some later point, when the Canada Labour Code is opened up for enactment, we can see whether we should be making further amendments to Part II.
That constitutes the essence of my comments, Mr. Chairman, and honourable senators.
I would conclude, as I did in my written comments, that we request that this bill be passed by your chamber as expeditiously as possible.
The Chairman: I was going to enquire about the appeals procedure just as a matter of interest.
Is it fair to say that the two of you developed an appeals procedure by consensus? This is what I get from both of your briefs.
Labour and management developed a consensus appeals procedure that the government did not accept. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Yussuff: That would be a fair statement, yes.
The Chairman: Why was it not accepted?
Mr. Yussuff: The advice we were given when we raised it earlier, when the bill was before the House committee, was that enactment would be delayed. It would not make it through the spring session of the House and would be further delayed.
The Chairman: In other words, the consensus appeals process was rejected not on the grounds that it was unacceptable public policy, but simply because drafting the required amendments and getting them through would delay the process. Is that correct?
Mr. Yussuff: That is not exactly clear. There was a consensus between labour and the employers on the appeal process that was not initially included in the bill. We continued to raise it when the bill was put back into the parliamentary process. We thought we could have worked it out before it got to second and third reading. We could not do that. However, we did have a consensus process prior to second and third reading, but it was not included because HRDC unilaterally inserted a single process of appeal with which we did not agree.
The Chairman: Mr. Brazier, is that a fair summary of your position?
Mr. Brazier: Yes. Unfortunately, I do not have quite the background on the bill as some of the union officers, especially Mr. Bennie. This was all developed prior to my getting involved.
That is as I understand it. I did attend a tripartite meeting, as I mentioned, with the unions and HRDC. Certainly they seemed to be concerned about the dual or two-stage appeal procedure.
They seemed to have some concern about what they believe are two quasi-judicial appeal procedures. We do not have the same problem because we believe that the two-stage appeal procedure is necessary if we are to have fairness and due process in the administration of health and safety.
The other issue was timeliness, as Mr. Yussuff mentioned. If we have to go back to the Department of Justice and draft these consequential amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and to the Canada Labour Code, et cetera, we will not be able to get the bill through Parliament before the summer recess.
There was a problem both with the two-stage process and with the delay, so there were substantive as well as procedural concerns.
Senator Robertson: Coming back to your tripartite committee, did you make other recommendations regarding this bill that were not accepted, besides the appeals process? Did you have any other ideas on the table that were left aside or not accepted?
Mr. Brazier: I would turn that question over to CLC, because they raised some consensus issues before the House of Commons committee with which we did not agree.
I cannot give you details because I do not have the same intimate background as some of the others. We supported them because they were part of the consensus process. Not everything that the CLC raised before the House of Commons committee, and to which we agreed, ended up in the bill. Some did; some did not.
Mr. Yussuff: The appeal process certainly was a tripartite proposal with which we agreed. Other suggested amendments and issues that we have raised and highlighted here are not a representation of the tripartite process, even though we have some agreement that they should be included in the proposed legislation.
Senator Robertson: When the minister was here yesterday, we talked about violence in the workplace. That seems to be omitted in the bill. We had some assurance from the minister that they are looking at methods of dealing with violence in the workplace through amendments.
It seemed to me that that should be in the next round of study. Hopefully it does not take so many years to open it up again. It is a slow process, as we know. There should almost be a standing tripartite committee to keep mopping up things that arise in something as important as a labour code.
Will there be a continuation of this committee, or is your work over now?
Mr. Yussuff: I wish it were that simple. The work is never over, of course. I will let me colleagues comment specifically, but to respond to your inquiry about workplace violence, there is ongoing work on regulations to deal with that, both external and internal. My colleague, Mr. Bennie, will respond specifically.
We are very close to finalizing those regulations because we feel they are of the utmost importance.
We have just had a tripartite meeting with HRDC, labour, and the CLC to discuss the OC Transpo recommendations, the whole question of workplace violence, how to get the regulations moving, and where we have consensus.
Senator Robertson: Do you see tackling the violence issue in the regulations as a trial period, and if they seem to be satisfactory, that they will perhaps be placed in a firmer position through legislative amendments?
Mr. Jeff Bennie, National Union Representative, Canadian Union of Postal Workers: We have established -- again through a consensus agreement -- that there will now be an employer duty under the legislation in section 125 to take prescribed steps to prevent, and protect against, violence in the workplace.
Two working groups have been established. One deals with violence in the workplace from external sources; that is, people who are coming in from outside the workplace. We are also developing prevention program regulation to deal with internal sources of violence; that is, other employees or supervisors, et cetera.
We think that those two regulations, when adopted, should put good tools into the hands of workplace parties to deal with this issue.
I smiled when you suggested an ongoing standing committee to look at such issues, because that was one of the recommendations on which both labour and management agreed, but it was rejected by the government.
Senator Robertson: What a shame. You win some and you lose some.
Mr. Bennie: That is right.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: As far as pregnant or nursing workers are concerned, on page 3 of your brief, it says that there is a difference between what the Quebec workers get and what the Public Service Alliance of Canada is offering. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Denis St-Jean, Health and Safety Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada: Indeed, the precautionary cessation of work included in the bill has nothing to do with the provincial system of protective reassignment. The difference lies in the period between the start of the pregnancy and the issuance of a medical certificate. During that time, there is a precautionary cessation of work with full compensation. As soon as the medical certificate has been delivered, the worker is no longer protected by Part II of the Code. She is then covered by Part III which, to be very clear, allows for a precautionary cessation of work only, without financial compensation, thus without pay. This is the first aspect which is giving us problems.
Moreover, Part III of the Code does not apply to federal public servants. We had to negotiate with the employer a policy offering a coverage similar to what you will find in Part III of the Code, that is a precautionary cessation of work without financial compensation. We feel this is unfair and our position is to get a precautionary cessation of work system that applies coast-to-coast to all Canadian women workers.
Senator Pépin: If I understand you correctly, the worker who cannot work during the last three months of her pregnancy has no revenue?
Mr. St-Jean: Unless her workstation can be adapted and she can be assigned to other duties for which she has the necessary skills. But, yes, she will have no financial compensation for the precautionary cessation of work.
Senator Pépin: I am reading the brochure entitled "It's time to enact health and safety legislation for Parliament Hill workers." If I understand this correctly, there is also a difference there. It says that employees who work on Parliament Hill do not have exactly the same coverage.
Mr. St-Jean: Indeed, Parliament Hill workers are not covered by a health and safety act such as Part II of the Canada Labour Code. When the Alliance attempted to unionize Parliament Hill employees, some 13 years ago, a specific act was passed, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, to give them rights as workers. This Act was divided into three chapters, the first covering staff relations and the whole certification process. The third chapter refers to Parliament Hill workers' rights in the area of health and safety. Unfortunately, that part of the Act was never proclaimed. We are therefore in a position where parliamentary workers are amongst the only ones in all of Canada who are not legally protected by health and safety standards. This is a bit contradictory since, during our research leading to the document you mentioned earlier, we realized that all provincial legislatures were offering a health and safety protection identical to what the province's workers were getting.
In addition, the U.S. Congress employees faced this same situation some years ago. You will in fact find quotations in the brochure we distributed today by which we recognized that this situation was totally unfair. We passed a specific law ensuring the existence of health and safety rights for employees. Even more ironical, the British Parliament also has a specific law applying to British Parliament employees who are therefore covered by health and safety standards in the workplace.
In conclusion, for some unknown reason -- even if we knocked on all doors to get answers -- the Canadian Parliament employees are totally excluded and have no fundamental rights in the area of health and safety, which goes against all international conventions on health and safety.
Senator Gill: What do they get in return? What are you proposing? What should they have? What is replacing this protection?
Mr. St-Jean: The are not covered by any law. The only answer they have got is that the employer will voluntarily follow regulations and legislation. Unfortunately, this seems unacceptable to us. There should be a minimum of legislation in respect of these employees.
In answer to your question, no, there is no health and safety act in relation to Parliament Hill employees. They therefore have no legal right to be informed of and take part in the consultation process related to health and safety, much less the right to refuse dangerous work.
Senator Gill: What is your impression? Why is it such?
Mr. St-Jean: When we asked the people implicated in this issue, we observed that they are greatly concerned by the right to refuse dangerous work for Parliament employees. They fear that such a right will lead to the closing down of parliamentary operations. This is a myth since in the last years, there has been almost no history of a federally regulated business closing because of the right to refuse. The bill allows for a consultation process to try and resolve conflicts. There's a chapter in the bill which even allows for the workers' participation in order to resolve health and safety problems. The only answer we were able to get in those 13 years, in spite of what was sent to the Prime Minister, to the House Speaker and others, is very simply that they will continue to consider the proclamation of Part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.
[English]
Senator Cohen: Bill C-12 speaks to the Coal Mining Safety Commission because of the specific dangers that exist in that particular industry.
In the opinion of the Canadian Labour Congress, are there any other occupations or fields that you feel might benefit from being named in Bill C-12? I am looking at proposed subsection 137.1.
Mr. Bennie: The interesting thing about clause 137 is that it applies to the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which as we know, has ceased to exist as an entity. The Coal Mining Safety Commission was established for one particular mine that no longer exists.
Generally, Part II applies to all workers in the federal jurisdiction, whether you are talking about workers on trains, flight attendants, postal workers, or workers for the federal government, et cetera. They are all covered by Part II.
We are currently in the midst of trying to develop some specific regulatory standards on violence affecting workers in the armoured-car industry, because of some particular staffing problems and in getting protective equipment for armoured-car workers. We tried to examine and develop those specific issues more within regulations than in the act itself.
Mr. Yussuff: I want to thank the senators for their inquiries into the specific areas that we have highlighted. To close, this is likely our last opportunity, in this long, seemingly endless process, of getting this bill into the law of this country.
I thank the minister for moving this bill forward, but I would also thank you in advance for hopefully getting this bill adopted as soon as possible. When Mr. Bennie started out on this, he was a young man with no grey hair. He has aged after seven years of exhaustive work and somebody is responsible for this. One way to reward him is by passing this bill and making it the law of this country.
The Chairman: I do not detect any suggestions around the table for amendments. If I am correct, then I would be happy to accept a motion that we dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-12.
Senator LeBreton: I so move.
The Chairman: Can I have a motion that Bill C-12 be reported to the Senate without amendment?
Senator LeBreton: I so move.
The Chairman: I will then do that tomorrow.
Thank you for coming, gentlemen.
Honourable senators, we have another item before us, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to deal with the Parliamentary Poet Laureate. I again understand from informal consultations that nobody is looking to introduce an amendment. Could I have a motion to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration?
Senator Carstairs: I so move.
The Chairman: Could I have a motion to report Bill S-5 without amendment?
Senator Fairbairn: I so move.
Senator Grafstein: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, honourable senators, for coming. You will be receiving a draft report on phase 1 of the medical study during the summer.
The committee adjourned.