Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 18 - Evidence for June 20, 2000
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 20, 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, met this day at 5:03 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Michael Kirby (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Our witness today is the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw, who has a number of officials with her.
The minister has an ear infection. Therefore, she must drive to Moncton tonight in order to meet with the Premier of New Brunswick tomorrow rather than fly. I hope we can be reasonably expeditious in our questions.
Minister, thank you for taking the time to be with us. Please proceed.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw, Minister of Labour: Before I begin, I wish to thank you for understanding the schedule and meeting tonight and not tomorrow. It is very much appreciated.
Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak to you today on Bill C-12, amending Part II of the Canada Labour Code. As we debate the amendments that will influence the safety and health of our workplaces, we should remember the old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
You are surely all aware that, in the world of medicine, for example, the philosophy of prevention is gaining ground. Through diet, exercise and other factors, physicians are seeking to prevent certain controllable diseases before they begin rather than devoting precious resources to conditions that could have been avoided in the first place. So, too, one of the main principles behind the amendments to this bill involves recognizing that prevention is the key to safety and health on the job site.
[Translation]
Now during the debate on this bill, you have heard various statistics dealing with sickness and injury in the workplace. They are worth repeating. In the federal jurisdiction, an average of 55,000 employees a year suffer job-related injuries or medical conditions. An average of 36 employees a year lose their lives in job-related accidents.
In New Brunswick, for example, an employee suffered a fatal fall from a roof he was inspecting. In Ontario, a crane operator died when the crane toppled over onto him. In Quebec, a dock employee was fatally crushed between two steel rolls during unloading operations. And the stories continue.
Of course, the stories that involve loss of life are the most tragic, but there are countless others involving injuries and illnesses. In each case, whether fatal or non-fatal, many other people are affected -- children, spouses, parents, friends and co-workers.
This is why Bill C-12 is before you today. All the changes we are proposing reflect the Government of Canada's desire to reduce and ultimately eliminate death, injury and illness in the workplace.
[English]
As you may know, this bill is the end product of countless hours of debate and discussion between government, labour and management. Hundreds of proposals were considered and consensus was reached on a substantial number of important initiatives. This speaks to the degree of cooperation brought about by the subject matter itself: When human lives are at stake, people are willing to put differences aside to work for the common good.
It is this spirit that is at the core of many of the changes we are proposing today. Prevention of accidents and illness in the workplace is best achieved through the awareness, and therefore the participation, of all employees.
There are several ways this new legislation will encourage increased awareness and participation in safety issues by employees.
First, this bill specifically states that employers must develop health and safety education and prevention programs in the workplace. As well, the existing health and safety committees will see their powers and duties greatly expanded so that, among other things, they cooperate with management to see that these programs are implemented and monitored.
Second, employers will be required to identify and assess employee exposure to hazardous substances. They will also have to share this information with the committee, who will then be able to act more quickly in assessing potential employee exposures to these substances. Similarly, the committees will be able to access all government and employer reports, studies and tests that have a bearing on workplace health and safety.
Furthermore, the creation of the new mandatory policy health and safety committees in workplaces with 300 or more employees will also emphasize prevention. This amendment will ensure that health and safety issues are addressed at the corporate level and that employers who may have job sites scattered over areas far and wide consistently deal with these issues.
[Translation]
One of the issues for which regulations may be developed -- after consulting all the affected parties -- is that of ergonomics, which is specifically listed in the amendments. We are all aware of the huge changes taking place int he world of work. The increase in automation and the use of computers had led to a greater impact on repetitive strain injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome. As a result of these injuries, the science of ergonomics has been in the spotlight as of late, even though it has existed for decades.
Another specific way in which it deals with prevention concerns the rights of pregnant and nursing mothers. The amendments will add a new section, independent of the right to refuse dangerous work, which will provide extra protection for these employees. Here is how it works.
Previously, there was no specific coverage for pregnant and nursing women under Part II of the code. When they thought that their job was dangerous to their health or to their foetus or breast-fed child, they had to wait until they could obtain a medical certificate, all the while possibly putting themselves, the foetus and their children at risk.
The current labour standard provisions of Part III of the Canada Labour Code offers a pregnant or nursing woman limited protection. She may request that her employer temporarily modify her job duties or reassign her to another job, where reasonably practicable. A physician's certificate indicating how long the risk is likely to last and what activities or conditions should be avoided, is required.
Under the proposed legislation, this woman can now withdraw from work she feels is potentially harmful -- with full pay and benefits, until she consults with here doctor, as soon as possible, and her employer can reassign her to another safe job or location until then.
[English]
These are just examples of how the amendments to Bill C-12 will help prevent illness or injury. Of course, government health and safety officers will still inspect job sites, investigate violations and write directions for remedial action and, when all else fails, recommend prosecution and fines, which the bill proposes to significantly increase.
No matter how perfect the rules or system we put into effect, humans and the world in which they operate are not. That is why we have to keep a watchful eye. We can rigorously try to prevent, educate, supervise, monitor and test and we can significantly reduce illness and accidents in the workplace, as we have over the past 20 years. However, when all else fails, then we are prepared to hold those who are irresponsible accountable, as we have in the past, by sharply increasing fines for continuing failure, for instance, to comply with a health and safety officer's written direction.
Honourable senators, we welcome continued debate but hope for swift resolution of any differences we may have in the details. I know we all agree on the overriding principles of this bill because it will protect the lives of Canadian employees -- a goal on which we all agree.
The Chairman: Before turning to Senator Kinsella to begin the questioning, I should like to ask one of your officials to deal with an issue on which there has been some confusion among members of the committee. The issue revolves around the response that your predecessor, Minister MacAulay, made on the issue of gender-neutral language in Part I at the time that the bill was before the committee some time ago. The confusion has been about whether or not that issue has been resolved. Could someone tell us the exact state with respect to that particular issue at the present time?
Ms Bradshaw: Mr. Gerry Blanchard will answer that for you, but before he does, I want to thank you for raising that Part I matter with us. As you will be able to see, the officials have done a lot of work to ensure that we remedied Part I so that you would not have it in Part II.
Mr. Gerry J. Blanchard, Director General, Labour Operations (DGO), Labour Program, National Headquarters, Human Resources Development Canada: First, Part II complies with all the gender-neutral standards. In Part I, it is true that specific language needed to be corrected to meet this objective. That was done by using the provisions included in the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. On June 17, 1999, this received Royal Assent. This was done to correct the gender neutral aspect of Part I. There was, however, a drafting error to two of the subclauses, which led to the fact that the English version of this revision did not reflect the same as the French and still needed to be corrected. That is the part that is technically corrected in Part II of the code. It is only that section that needed to be corrected.
With the technical amendments that have been included in the tail end of this section, the bill will be completely gender-neutral -- Parts I and II of the Canada Labour Code. It has been corrected.
The Chairman: Mr. MacAulay gave a commitment when he appeared before this committee on June 18, 1998, when he said, "I want to pursue this matter and I am actively exploring with my colleagues ways to accommodate these concerns without reopening discussions on the substance of Part I of the code." By "this matter," he means the gender-neutrality issue. He then went on to say, "I expect to introduce amendments to Part II of the code later this year, which could present an opportunity to address this issue." This is a couple of years later, but that is before us now. He then commented on it. You are saying that as a result of the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act that was passed into law a year ago, plus the changes that are here today, gender neutrality is in the entire act?
Mr. Blanchard: That is right. The Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act was the instrument that was found to enable this to be done. There was a minor drafting error to two of the subclauses and that drafting error was caught in the technical amendments area.
The Chairman: I was confused, because I did not pick up the changes that had been made in the Miscellaneous Statue Law Amendments Act; they are not yet rewritten into the revised version of the code.
Mr. Blanchard: That is right. If you were looking at that part of the code, it has not been revised yet.
The Chairman: That is right. That is what I was doing.
Senator Kinsella: I wish to point out that you are in good company. There are five senators from New Brunswick around the table, namely, Senators Bryden, Robertson, Cohen, De Ware and myself. We in New Brunswick are very much aware of the fact that, by coming to a committee such as the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, you are in a room where you could provide us with a great deal of leadership and instruction. We all are appreciative of the tremendous work that you have done in your community and continue to do now that you are part of the government.
I am pleased with that report from your officials. The office consolidation that I have is dated January 1, 1999.
The Chairman: That is what I had also. That is where I got confused.
Senator Kinsella: Perhaps we could be advised. Is there a new consolidation of the code? Are you telling us that the code now, throughout, is gender neutral?
Mr. Blanchard: The copies of Part II are all gender neutral. I am not a legal expert, but I understand that they will correct this. They do this periodically. However, in the meantime, Part I of the code still contains the gender reference, but it is nullified by the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act.
Senator Kinsella: One of the reasons that some of us were arguing and underscoring the importance of this code being written in gender-neutral language is that it is pedagogical. The Canada Labour Code is utilized, is it not, by every labour organization in the country under federal jurisdiction? Unlike other statutes that only lawyers look at, workers' organizations and their leadership have copies of this.
Will there be an office consolidation done that you will begin to distribute with the amendments that are contained in Bill C-12?
Ms Bradshaw: Yes. We will make sure that you get a copy as soon as it is available. Again, we want to thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Senator Kinsella: Minister, does your department also produce a digest or a version of the code that is a little more user-friendly? In other words, it is not the official legal statute but it is something that is in plain speak and in brochure form?
Senator DeWare: In layman's language?
Senator Kinsella: Does the department have that kind of thing?
Mr. Warren Edmonson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour Program, National Headquarters, Human Resources Development Canada: We do produce some more user-friendly documents to help people involved in the administration of Part II of the Canada Labour Code. With these amendments, however, we will have to revisit our tool kit to ensure that all the amendments contained in this bill would be included in a new program.
If we have the resources available -- and I hope we can find them, somewhere -- we hope to do a road show across the country for our labour-management partners out there, to explain to them the provisions of this bill and the intentions, in particular, of the amendments, so that they understand what we are trying to achieve.
Senator Kinsella: Approximately how many boards or commissions or committees do you have to appoint under the labour code? There are quite a few, are there not?
Mr. Edmonson: I would say half a dozen.
Senator Kinsella: The big one being?
Ms Bradshaw: Yes, the Canada Labour Relations Board.
Senator Kinsella: Under this proposed act, there is a board that focuses on industrial safety. Could we have sent to the committee a list of all those boards, with the names of the persons who have been appointed to those boards and the length of their tenure?
Ms Bradshaw: We can provide you with that.
Senator Robertson: Thank you, minister, for coming here this afternoon. I wish to ask you a few questions about workplace violence. As I understand it, although the parties involved in the consultation process concluded that the bill should include a regulation on a workplace violence prevention program, my colleague Senator DeWare pointed out in her speech that the bill does not explicitly do that. As well, I am informed that the bill does not go as far as provisions found in the legislation in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. All around this table, we have heard stories and read news reports about serious workplace violence; for example, the unfortunate shooting at a bus garage here in Ottawa comes to mind immediately. I call it the schoolyard bully syndrome. Every once in a while, you have someone who is continually ridiculing or being rude or mean or unkind because of race or colour or handicap. There is no teacher to advise about the pent-up tensions. As we know, sometimes, this ends up in a violent situation.
Could you help me understand the nature and the magnitude of the problem in Canada? Although this bill covers federal jurisdiction only, how serious is workplace violence in Canada?
I have several questions. Perhaps I will go through them all and then you can answer them all at once.
Minister, can you provide me with statistics to help me understand the problem? What are the most common kinds of offences in the workplace? I am sure you have statistical evidence about this sort of thing. Is it disgruntled employees going after their bosses, or the meanness to which I referred? What is it? Is any one industry more prone to workplace violence than another? How do these instances of violence in the workplace end up? Do they go before the courts? What usually happens? Is there a problem of not reporting?
Do you feel that the workplace violence provisions in the bill go far enough or are good enough to carry well into the future? We all know that the labour code is opened up infrequently. We also know that some jurisdictions are ahead of the government. Who knows when we will open it up again. I should like some answers to my concerns and to my questions, if you have that information, because I do not know how you will tighten it up unless it is put into this legislation, or when it will be tightened up. It does not happen every year or two that we upgrade this legislation. Those are my general remarks and questions and concerns.
Ms Bradshaw: You and Senator DeWare certainly know the work that I have done and the feeling that I have towards violence anywhere. Having said that, one of the unique opportunities that we have, as Minister of Labour and in the program of labour, is that almost everything we do is tripartite. It is always with the employee and the employer's group. I can assure you that we have a working group put together now on prevention and violence. They are putting regulations into place.
Normally, this process can take an average of about three years, if they have the statistics. If they do not have them, then we must find the statistics. That is why it is interesting to work with both the labour movement and the employers, because it is a real education for all of us. We sit at the table with them.
I cannot say to you that we specifically have statistics on the questions that you are asking. However, I know that CLC has done a lot of research on that. Possibly, we could get you some of their statistics. That is why we have them sitting at the table with us doing the regulations. Also, that is why we have the employer and ourselves sitting at the table for the regulations on violence and prevention. In the near future, we hope to put a working group together on the new issue of ergonomics. I can assure you that the group is already working on the regulation.
Senator Robertson: When you have those regulations, would you make copies available to us at the earliest opportunity?
Ms Bradshaw: We certainly will. The other information I can give you on health and safety is that we are celebrating our 100th anniversary this year. In September, we will have a conference with our youth. It is important for us, on this our 100th anniversary, to bring our youth together. We have done work with the unions and the employers, but we feel strongly that we should bring youth together on these issues of health and safety, their rights, violence in the workplace, and the prevention of violence in the workplace. We will also be looking at bringing youth in at that conference and discussing these issues with them.
Senator Robertson: Are those people in the workplace?
Ms Bradshaw: Yes.
Senator Robertson: Have you figured out the age group yet?
Ms Bradshaw: We are still working on it.
Mr. Edmonson: About 18 years old.
Ms Bradshaw: It is important that we start working with our young people so that they know about this. It will probably be about 18 years old.
Senator Robertson: I am glad you are doing that. I always think the federal government should lead and not be behind the provinces.
Senator DeWare: Madam Minister, I should like to compliment you on the bill. It is well done. New Brunswick had the privilege of appointing the first commission on health and safety between 1978 and 1980. At the time, we had to go through what you are going through to make sure about safety. I am familiar with what you are trying to do here. I am aware of the importance of safety in the workplace. I can remember travelling around the province when we had to check all the companies, such as Irving, the shipyards, and so on. After a while, some of them had a plaque on their wall saying, "121 accident-free days" and how proud they would be of that and how important it became to the employees in those companies to have an accident-free day. That is something you might want to try to promote some time.
First, you have committees that have been established in the workplace. You have an appeals officer, a health and safety officer, health and safety representatives, a policy committee, and a regional health and safety officer. You have given them a lot of latitude in this bill to do their job, which is important, too. You cannot do your job unless you put teeth in it and allow them to do that. Time lost is income lost, both for the employee and for the employer, and health-wise as well.
I was interested in your ergonomics as well and I wondered how far you had gone with that. The Americans established, in 1999, a wide-ranging proposal in this area. This will all come about through regulation, will it? How soon do you think you will be able to have some of that in place?
Ms Bradshaw: We are looking at a working group now. We want to do a lot of consultation on that. We know that regulations need to be put in place. Rest assured that we will be working on it.
Senator DeWare: Your medical people in workmen's compensation can certainly give you a big hand in that because it is difficult in the workplace to decide who's got a backache and who does not, and why. It is very difficult.
Ms Bradshaw: I cannot give you a timeline now because there are many consultations that we will have to make before we put the working group together. As soon as our consultations are finished, we will be putting the working group together and coming up with the regulations.
Senator DeWare: This arose from your consultation group. Was it quite highly discussed?
Ms Bradshaw: You can imagine that the labour movement is quite anxious for us to put a working group together as soon as possible.
Senator DeWare: I appreciate the effort that has gone into this. I also notice that your fines are quite hefty, but if you do that, then you will ensure that companies will comply with the safety rules.
Ms Bradshaw: When we speak about health and safety, last year in this country we lost $10 billion. Often, when we speak about health and safety, the public feels that it is another union issue. That is not the case here. Here, the employer wants to see health and safety issues in the workplace put in place as much as the employees do. In a country like ours, when you speak about $10 billion, that also affects the employer.
Senator DeWare: I appreciate the effort that you have put into this. I will look forward to you coming up with the information that the committee has requested.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: On reading the bill, we note that is provides special protection for pregnant and nursing women. It states that they must consult with their physician, who is generally an obstetrician. Who chooses the physician? The employer? The committee perhaps?
Furthermore, we know that obstetricians are knowledgeable about workplaces, but they are not experts. Will they be required to consult someone and should extensive knowledge of the workplace be a prerequisite?
Ms Bradshaw: The employee chooses the doctor, not the employer. Her doctor is familiar with her condition.
Senator Pépin: Nevertheless, the doctor needs to be familiar with the woman's workplace?
Ms Bradshaw: Her doctor can refer her to a specialist. However, it can be her own physician.
Senator Pépin: I will gladly play devil's advocate. Assuming a pregnant or nursing woman needs to consult her doctor to determine if she is at risk, what happens if she fails to do that and subsequently has a problem with her baby? Who is responsible?
Ms Bradshaw: That is one of the reasons why she may consult her own doctor. Normally, pregnant or nursing women have a doctor.
Senator Pépin: Fine. Mention is made in the bill of violence in the workplace. I believe two provinces, namely Saskatchewan and British Columbia, already have this kind of legislation on the books. The federal government is not proposing any changes in this area in Part II of the Canada Labour Code. Is this not an opportunity to try and broaden the scope of the bill and follow the lead of these two provinces?
Ms Bradshaw: Each province has its own legislation. As a federal minister, it is my responsibility to bring in legislation that applies from coast to coast.
Senator Pépin: This is a sound piece of legislation. I do have one brief comment. Earlier, someone asked for a list of the boards established under the Labour Code. All I hope is that as many women as men serve on these boards. This bill is also good for women out in the workforce. My wish is that one day, similar legislation will provide for day cares in the workplace.
Ms Bradshaw: In due time, Senator Pépin.
Senator Pépin: Yes indeed.
[English]
The Chairman: In closing, I wish to ask you one question that is not related to the bill but is an issue that has concerned me, and your officials may want to comment on it.
Particularly in the U.S., one notices a growing movement towards compulsory alcohol and drug testing for employees in positions that are regarded as dangerous. I think of the requirements that now exist in the U.S. with respect to truck drivers doing long-distance trucking, people working in nuclear power plants, and so on. To the best of my knowledge, I have not seen the development of that kind of public policy in Canada because we have had a tendency to move much more in the privacy direction and regard compulsory testing as "not acceptable in Canada." Is that an issue? Is there a policy coming down the road on that? Can you tell me roughly where that stands?
Ms Bradshaw: In Canada, you have the Charter of Rights.
The Chairman: That is right, but has there been jurisprudence that says that compulsory testing for certain occupations that were deemed to be in the interests of public safety is illegal?
Ms Bradshaw: Everything we do in the program of labour is with the employee and the employers. When the employee and the employers sit down and discuss a collective agreement, for example, if it were an issue, it certainly could be put in place.
Mr. Edmonson: I believe that the advice that we have been receiving from Justice to date is that there are Charter implications involved in this.
The Chairman: In the U.S., there has been a lot of movement in that direction. I did not understand if it was a Charter-based issue or whether there was another reason for not doing it.
Mr. Edmonson: There was an issue in Transport Canada a few years ago. Not only was there an unwillingness on the part of certain employees to engage in such practices, and even some employers, but there were Charter implications. That might be another reason the issue did not have legs.
Senator DeWare: Senator Kinsella asked me to tell you that they looked at your Web site on Part I and he feels that the old Web site is still not gender-specific-friendly and that you must change it after you get the bill in place.
Ms Bradshaw: We agree wholeheartedly. We will do that.
The Chairman: Minister, thank you and your officials for coming here.
Ms Bradshaw: I am not meeting the premier tomorrow but on Thursday. I wanted to state that on the record.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The committee adjourned.