HUMA Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 17, 2000

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin?

Before I introduce and welcome our witnesses, let me try to explain what we are hoping to achieve today.

First of all, we're here in response to a motion by Dale Johnston, who is here today. The motion was that we invite the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw, Minister of Labour, and senior officials from the department, as well as senior officials from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal to appear before the committee. So we're doing that.

Our order of the day is as you see it on our agenda: (a) the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, under Human Resources Development, laid upon the table on February 29, 2000; then (b) pursuant to Standing Order 81(7), consideration of the 2000-2001 estimates, part III, report on plans and priorities, Human Resources Development Canada, sessional paper number...and you see the information there.

I would point out to you that the nature of this is that votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 refer to the Minister of Labour, who is with us today as requested under Dale's motion, and to the boards referred to in Dale's motion. Votes 1 and 5 are the votes that pertain specifically to the Minister of Labour, and votes 10, 15, and 20 are those that refer to the Industrial Relations Board, the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.

It is my suggestion that we proceed now with the minister, therefore largely with votes 1 and 5, and that we then proceed—simply given the numbers and the diversity involved—to the boards.

Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Chairperson, I certainly don't want us to detract from the minister and the guests who are here, but it was my understanding from our last meeting that we would be dealing with the motions from the last committee. I thought we were going to deal with that at the beginning of the meeting.

The Chair: When we get to a point where we can, I would be glad.... Do we have a voting quorum now?

A voice: Yes, we do.

The Chair: We do, okay.

By the way, I did say that, and I understand that a moment ago we had a quorum only for receiving witnesses.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would suggest we proceed with the minister, as she is here, while waiting for—

The Chair: Rey, no—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman; I haven't finished yet.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put on record that we had motions before from the same member, and she was not here on several occasions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Rey, I did say, though, at the end of the last meeting, that if we had the numbers here we would proceed with those votes.

Colleagues, if you look at other business, we have notices of motion from Libby Davies. The first one is that the deputy secretary to cabinet, Ian Green, a former associate deputy minister of HRDC, be invited to appear before the standing committee in its study on grants and contributions.

• 1540

Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: I think this witness would be a very important witness for the committee to hear on the whole issue of the grants and contributions, because Mr. Green was the associate deputy minister at a very critical time, when audits were going on, and would have been very involved. We've obviously heard from a number of people in the department, but I think Mr. Green, in particular, who we have not heard from, would be someone we could question, hear his perspective and point of view. So I think he would be a very valuable witness.

The Chair: Libby, as chair, I would simply point out to you that tomorrow is supposed to be the last of our public hearings on this matter. We have to table the report by June 1.

Is there any other discussion of this motion? Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, the opposition demanded that we ought to have a deadline for our report on grants and contributions. As you said, Mr. Chair, we cannot in perpetuity continue to seek witnesses we would like to have. I have several witnesses I would like to appear before us as well, but time is of the essence. If we are to do our duty faithfully to that motion, which was the request of the opposition, then we cannot, with deep regret, accept another witness at this late time.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

The Chair: The second motion in Libby Davies' name is that the standing committee on HRDC and the status of persons with disabilities examine the impact of the banking sector's retreat from Canada student loans and review the federal government's plan for implementing new bureaucratic controls scheduled to come into effect in August 2000, paying specific attention to new student loan policies governing administration, accountability, interest rates, default procedures, and loan eligibility guidelines.

Ms. Libby Davies: I think this is an issue that is of interest to the committee. We haven't dealt with this subject for a very long time, and I think most members are aware that because the banks have now withdrawn from the Canada student loans program, the government is considering service contracts that will be set up. I've had extensive discussion with student organizations, and, as I think other members know, there is a lot of real concern from students about the interest rates, about what policies are going to be set.

I think this would be a very useful thing. We have a very small window of opportunity here before the service contracts come in. I think we could do it in one meeting, have a round table and hopefully make some very pragmatic recommendations. So I hope the members will support the motion.

The Chair: As chair, I agree. Larry McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think it's an excellent motion, and it's an item of considerable interest. The one meeting will be a great start toward where we should look at it more.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There is a timeline here of August 20. We will be recessing in June and we have a report to complete. I do not like to place on us an imposition that we know we may fail to do. Part of good management is planning. It is a fundamental asset. If we will have a request for a given study from time to time, not knowing an overall plan, and there is a committee on agenda and procedure, to which such a request ought to be made, Mr. Chair, this would be bad management. I suggest with all respect, and I like the issue, that I don't think we can finish this in one meeting alone. Therefore, with deep regret, I thought we should not allow this motion to prosper.

The Chair: Colleagues, I read this motion as indicating one meeting. I really did. Those in favour of the motion so indicate.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: The meeting carries. It's my intention to make maximum possible use of the time we have in June, once our report has been tabled on June 1, and this will be one of those possibilities.

I want to welcome the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw and her colleagues, Susan Scotti—Susan, you have been before our committee before, welcome—Warren Edmondson, and Carole Chauvin. We are most grateful.

Minister, we appreciate your being here. You heard my outline at the beginning. We do have the boards here today; it's my intention that there will be your presentation, of course, and we will then proceed appropriately, quickly, I hope, through questions and responses in order that we can deal with the boards this afternoon.

• 1545

Minister, we're in your hands.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): A point of order.

The Chair: A point of order, Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Could you identify what the cause of the bells is?

The Chair: I'll work on that and I'll let you know.

A voice: Quorum.

The Chair: Is it a quorum? Are we sure it's a quorum? Okay. It's a quorum call.

Minister.

The Honourable Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm very pleased to meet with you today.

Before I continue, allow me to introduce my senior officials. Mr. Chair, you have introduced our members. The only one you didn't introduce was Guy Tremblay, director general, financial and administrative services.

Mr. Chairman, I will set out the general direction of our plans and priorities and both my officials and I will be pleased to answer questions and to provide clarification following my remarks.

I would like to begin by noting that this year marks the hundredth anniversary of Canada's labour program. The Department of Labour was established under the Conciliation Act of 1900. Certain core beliefs that directed federal labour policy in the department's early years still serve as guiding principles for the labour program today.

Over the last 100 years, Canada's labour program has played a key role in fostering a productive labour relations environment in the federal jurisdiction and in helping to build a prosperous Canadian society.

The world of work has gone through many significant changes in the last century, especially in the last 10 to 15 years. These changes have had an impact on the nature of work and on the concerns of employers and employees. In fact, many of the issues the labour program deals with today were not even imagined at the turn of the last century.

This means we have to make sure that the programs, policies, and legislation we have in place to carry out our mandate meet the needs of today's labour environment. We have to continually evolve in order to adapt to the changing work environment and the way we work with our partners and other players in the Canadian workplace. In that context, a core function is to make sure that the Canada Labour Code continues to reflect the needs of workers and employers in today's workplace.

Last year, for example, I updated the committee on the changes we were making to part I of the Canada Labour Code, the part dealing with the collective bargaining process. To quickly summarize, I noted the following: an ongoing commitment to achieving a balance in the rights and obligations of labour and management in the collective bargaining process; establishment of a representative Canada Industrial Relations Board to interpret and administer the legislation governing collective bargaining; provisions in the new legislation for the requirement to maintain essential services to protect public health and safety during labour disputes.

These legislative changes to part I of the code are now fully in place.

[Translation]

I am also pleased to report that the collective bargaining process is working well in Canada. In the 1990s, strikes and lockouts have been at their lowest levels in 20 years. The majority of collective agreements in the federal sector are settled without a work stoppage.

I want to acknowledge the important role of the federal mediation and conciliation service in contributing to this very positive situation in Canada.

This year, I also have new developments to report on Part II of the Canada Labour Code—the part that deals with occupational safety and health.

We have worked hard with our partners to educate and raise awareness about safety and health issues under Part II, and are having measurable success in reducing the incidence of accidents in workplaces under federal jurisdiction.

Fatality rates fell from 7.9 per 100,000 workers in 1987 to 6.6 in 1997. Overall, injuries per 100 workers fell from 9.6 to 6.4 over the 10-year period. We are encouraged by this downward trend, but much more could be done.

Each year in the federal jurisdiction, some 40 workers die on the job, and another 60,000 workers suffer occupational injury or illness. This translates to a loss of over one million person-days of work, and over $370 million in lost wages, medical assistance, rehabilitation and pension payments.

• 1550

Awareness and education help, but we also need to strengthen the legislation on workplace health and safety. That is why I introduced Bill C-12, amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code.

Bill C-12 provides for greater accountability and expands the role of workplace safety and health committees. These amendments are based on extensive consultations with labour and management. The evidence is that workers and their employers are the best ones to deal with workplace safety issues, and Bill C-12 gives them the latitude to do that. The bill passed second reading and is now before committee for review.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, we are also working on updating part III of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with workplace standards, particularly with respect to making the workplace more family-friendly.

The labour program is committed to policies and practices that reflect the changing nature of work and help workers to have a better balance between work and family life.

More specifically, part III of the Canada Labour Code is being amended to increase the length of parental leave up to a total maximum of 52 weeks, in line with the extension of employment insurance benefits from 10 to 35 weeks, plus the two-week waiting period.

The changes to both employment insurance parental benefits and part III parental leave are part of the Budget Implementation Act, 2000, which is currently before the House of Commons at second reading. We expect that these changes will come into effect on December 31, 2000.

I believe that the extension of EI parental benefits and part III parental leave is an effective way of helping parents balance work and family obligations.

Not only are we looking at short-term amendments to labour standards for parental leave, but we are also looking at short- and long-term amendments to labour standards under part III of the code. These include changing forms of work, developments in compensation, hours of work, workplace harassment, child labour, severance pay, and definition of wages.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, one of my first moves as Minister of Labour was to re-establish the fair wage schedules covering construction workers in the federal jurisdiction. I am pleased with the progress made to date. We will continue working with our industry partners and with Statistics Canada to ensure that the process of implementing the schedule is done properly.

[Translation]

On the matter of employment equity, the annual report I submitted to Parliament notes that representation of Aboriginal peoples and members of visible minorities continued to increase in the workforce under federal jurisdiction.

Preparations for consultations to review the Employment Equity Act will begin next year. The Government of Canada remains committed to both the principles and practice of employment equity throughout the federal public service and in workplaces under federal jurisdiction.

On the international front, Canada has taken a leadership role in the development and promotion of key labour standards. We are working with our provincial partners toward Canadian ratification of the International Labour Organization Convention on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. We are also involved in international labour initiatives linked to trade agreements, particularly the North American and Canada-Chile agreements on labour co-operation.

[English]

Last February I was pleased to co-host a federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers responsible for labour, which was held in Winnipeg. It was the first such meeting in three years, and it occurred in the true spirit of partnership. These meetings are extremely productive and valuable, and we plan to meet again next February in Newfoundland. They provide a forum for creative interaction and valuable information-sharing. They also signal to Canadians that their representatives are working together on workplace issues that affect their lives directly and deeply.

• 1555

We may not always agree on all the issues, but if we are all pushing in the same direction, we can do much to ease the concerns of Canadian workers, to promote healthy relations between labour and management, and to promote better workplaces around the globe.

I want to turn now to an issue that is of particular concern to me, the issue of homelessness.

In March 1999 the Prime Minister asked me to coordinate the Government of Canada's activities and response to homelessness. In my more than 30 years as a community worker in my hometown of Moncton, I saw first-hand the effects that poverty and homelessness can have on people, especially children. So this was a task I was eager to take on.

I knew that to do the job the Prime Minister had asked me to do—coordinate what the Government of Canada was doing to help address homelessness—I would need to go and speak to people in communities across the country.

As you know, I travelled across the country last summer. I spoke with many individuals who work with homeless people every day, as well as homeless people themselves. In addition to seeing what community groups were doing, I wanted to know how well Government of Canada programs help homeless people, and how the Government of Canada could coordinate what we are doing with the other levels of government, provincial and municipal, as well as with community groups.

The National Secretariat on Homelessness was formed to work with 19 federal departments that have programs and services that could have an impact on homeless people. We worked to find the best way to respond to the needs of communities across Canada. I heard over and over again from communities that they want the Government of Canada to work in partnership with community agencies and the voluntary sector, with municipal governments and provincial governments, to coordinate what we are all doing to address homelessness.

The Government of Canada heard that message from communities. In December, Minister Gagliano and I announced how we can take a first step toward addressing homelessness. Our response addresses the problems of homelessness through a partnership approach. It includes a commitment of $753 million over the next three to four years to invest in community-based solutions.

[Translation]

There are two major components to this approach: enhancement to existing programs and a new initiative—the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative.

Under the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative, the Government of Canada will help communities respond to homelessness issues. They will develop a community plan that will identify priorities for short term and longer term needs. Homeless people will be able to benefit from better-harmonized services.

The Government of Canada will be able to fund up to 50% of eligible projects under the community plan, with the other 50% coming from the community. Eighty percent of the funding for the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative is focussed on 10 cities: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax. These are cities where a significant absolute homelessness problem has been identified., Twenty percent of this fund is also available to other communities with a significant, demonstrable need.

In addition, funding is available to help communities develop their variety of support plans—that is, to bring together community stakeholders and determine what their needs are and how they can be met. Planning in several communities is already under way. We know that no single level of government, single agency or community group can, by itself, solve the problems of homelessness.

We know that there is not one solution to homelessness. The Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative allows us to be flexible and support the work going on in communities.

SCPI will help communities bring resources and partners together from many sources to provide the supports that are needed to help people build more secure and healthy lives.

[English]

The Government of Canada is committed to this partnership with community agencies and the voluntary sector, and with municipal and provincial governments. We are currently working with the provinces on the best way to put SCPI into place. This issue deserves the continuing dedicated attention of the Government of Canada, other levels of government, communities, the private sector and community partners who play a hands-on role in dealing with homelessness.

• 1600

I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe our work on the homelessness file, as well as our plans and priorities for the labour program.

That concludes my remarks. Your questions and comments are welcome. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, in trying to deal with the motion we have, bear in mind that we have another complete set of witnesses. I'm going to do my very best to keep the thing moving. We won't be able to go through our normal procedure with one group of witnesses if we are to give justice to the tribunal, the centre, and the board that are waiting here to appear.

Dale Johnston is followed by Rey Pagtakhan, Monique Guay, Judy Sgro, Libby Davies, Larry McCormick, and Garry Breitkreuz. But we're going to have to move it, colleagues.

Dale.

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

Thank you, Madam Minister, for your presentation.

I note that on page three you mention the re-establishment of fair wage schedules covering construction workers in the federal jurisdiction. It's my opinion that the information that was collected during a survey was less than accurate, for lack of a better term, and that in December the minister was warned that these construction wage schedules were going to add $150 million to the cost of federal construction projects. Why wasn't immediate action taken to rectify this error six months ago, and why has action not been taken to correct these schedules?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Dale, we've received two letters of complaints, one from a company in Alberta and another from a company in Newfoundland. We have not received any other complaints on the fair wage schedule across the country.

We have taken those two complaints very seriously. Statistics Canada is now looking at the methodology they used in these two provinces. The fair wage schedule has not been placed this year in those two provinces because of the requests we received, and we are now awaiting word from Statistics Canada.

The other thing you should be aware of is that when we put the fair wages in place—and I believe if you read the letter we received, the party acknowledges that—we went through severe consultation with all parties, provincial, the business sector, and the union sector.

But to answer you on the two letters we received from across the country, one from Alberta and one from Newfoundland, we took them seriously enough that we did not post the fair wage schedule. We are waiting for word from Statistics Canada, and we hope to have that very soon.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I wonder if the minister could tell us how many contracts were awarded using these flawed schedules, and how much it will actually cost the taxpayers as a result of the flawed schedules. Further to that, how much will it cost taxpayers to have all this corrected?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Public Works certainly would have for you a list of all the contracts that have been approved under the fair wage schedule.

One of the things when we put the fair wages in place was that it might cost us a little bit more on the contracts on which people were going to bid, but we wanted to do what was right by our Canadian employees. We wanted to make sure that any Canadian employees who worked on any federal jobs were paid what they rightly should be paid and that the work schedule for that particular job would be placed so that the workers could see it.

So yes, it might cost us a little bit more, but we wanted to make sure the Canadian employer and the Canadian employee would know what the schedule was and that the employees on that job would be paid what they should be paid.

The Chair: Dale Johnston, a short question and a short answer.

• 1605

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I could go along with that rationale, provided that the fair wages were set on sound surveying, and it's pretty obvious that they weren't. When I hear the minister talking about being fair to Canadian workers and so forth, I think it's also extremely important that we be fair to Canadian taxpayers.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: There are two things on that issue. One is that we purposely used Statistics Canada because they are recognized worldwide for their expertise in this field. Two, no provinces have come back to us on the fair wage schedule. Only two independent companies across the country have come to us questioning our methodology. As I stated to you, Statistics Canada is looking at that situation.

The Chair: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presence here this afternoon.

I have three questions for the minister, on safety, employment equity, and homelessness. Madam Minister, of the magnitude of people who died, 40, and the 60,000 workers who suffered occupational injury, how many of them could have been prevented?

Two, with regard to employment equity, what is the approach being taken with regard to entry at the non-executive and executive levels of visible minorities and people of first nations?

The last question, Madam Minister: Is the $753 million over the next three to four years a sufficient budget for the magnitude of homelessness in the country?

The Chair: Thank you, Rey.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: To answer your first question, as to how many we could have prevented, I wish I could say probably all of them, and I wish we could prevent all of them. You have to know that with part II of the Canada Labour Code, it's certainly something we've worked very hard on with both the employees and the employers.

I think there's an encouraging part here, which we often forget. When we look at health and safety in the workplace, we must remember that last year we lost $10 billion in this country. The employers want us to go in and work with the employees. It's not only an employee issue. We worked very closely with both the employees and the employers on part II of our Canada Labour Code, and it's something we're very proud of. I hope that through the work they've done and when part II is implemented and with the openness of the employer, one day we'll be able to say that we're one of the safest countries in the world. I can assure you of that.

On employment equity, our report has come out, as you know. When I received the first report when I became a minister, we had lengthy discussions on this. We are making improvements, but we still have a lot of improvements to make. It's one issue I'm watching very carefully. It's one of my main priorities, along with health and safety, as Minister of Labour.

On the homelessness file, ask the question again, Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The magnitude of the problem versus the budget you have—is that sufficient?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Our own members are shaking their heads.

I believe it's more than we thought we were going to get when I first started. When I first started, I was a junior minister, and we were told that we wouldn't get anything at all. We had to really make an effort to say “I'm working on homelessness. I'm not the housing minister; I'm the homelessness minister.”

The amount is $753 million in three years. We are starting now to work with communities. We're starting to see what communities are coming to us with. We're going to see how far that goes for the absolute homelessness and also into the transitional housing part of that funding.

• 1610

That's why I wanted to make sure I kept the portfolio, and I was quite happy when it did stay with me. It has taken a little bit longer for the cheques to get out because of that. But I'm quite pleased that it's going to be staying with me. I can assure you and all committee members that I will be using a hands-on approach to this file, and I will certainly be observing who's coming and what their needs are. You will be informed as a caucus on my every move.

The Chair: Thank you both for the short questions and short answers.

Next is Monique Guay, and then Judy Sgro.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Ms. Bradshaw, we are very pleased to have you with us. It would have been better if you had come to our meetings last week, when we were considering Part II of the Canada Labour Code. However, we do understand that anyone can have something unforeseen crop up unexpectedly.

My first question actually is about Part II of the Canada Labour Code. I would like to know why its provisions do not apply to people working on Parliament Hill. Since I am the Bloc Québécois's labour critic, many of these employees have contacted me and asked me why they cannot benefit from the protection that is provided for in Part II of the Labour Code. Will they be able to enjoy this protection at some point, and if your answer is no, why?

My second question has to do with precautionary cessation of work for pregnant women and nursing mothers, an issue that is very dear to my heart. Ms. Bradshaw, as you know, Quebec has worked on this issue for a very long time to ensure that these women are properly protected. We focus a great deal on prevention, and we have succeeded in minimizing the risks to the health of the mother and the health of the foetus or child. It is very rare for a female employee to lose her child because she continued to carry out duties at her workplace that could be dangerous to her health. Unfortunately, the national statistics are not nearly as good.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code hardly contains any provisions about nursing mothers or precautionary cessation of work, and in all sincerity, I must say that this disappoints me greatly. Of course, we still have time before the bill is passed. Of course, we will be lobbying to get a number of amendments passed. I would like to hear your opinion on this matter, Ms. Bradshaw.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: In response to your first question, I must point out that passing an amendment could not make the provisions of Part II of the Canada Labour Code apply to people working on Parliament Hill. The bill would have to go back to our legislative services.

Ms. Monique Guay: I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your answer. Did you say that we would have to open up the Act and just include them within this legislation?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: As the Minister of Labour, I make sure that the Canada Labour Code continues to respond to the needs of workers and employers, even though it does not apply to workers on Parliament Hill.

Ms. Monique Guay: For the time being.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: We cannot solve this problem just by passing an amendment to Part II.

Ms. Monique Guay: So what would have to be done to include these workers?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: That is not my area of responsibility.

Ms. Monique Guay: If your department has any information on this matter, I would be grateful if you could forward it to me because I would like to be able to give these workers an answer. Right now we don't know what to tell them.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Please send us your request in writing, and we will respond in writing.

[English]

The Chair: We would be grateful if you could send it to the committee.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We'll do that.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the Hill regarding that matter.

Ms. Monique Guay: These workers are worried, and they would like to enjoy the same protection that all other workers enjoy, which I think is a completely legitimate demand.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Warren could provide you with more information on that. I must admit that I've asked myself the same question.

[English]

Mr. Warren Edmondson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development): I'll simply add that there is other legislation that protects the rights and guarantees certain rights, such as industrial relations, collective bargaining rights, and other rights for public service employees.

• 1615

In order to have the Hill employees covered by part II of the Canada Labour Code, other legislation would have to be changed, or at least proclaimed legislation, which is currently on the books and which has not been proclaimed. That legislation is not the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

We can send you the details as we've—

[Translation]

The Chair: Please ask a brief question.

Ms. Monique Guay: I already asked my second question about precautionary cessation of work.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I can see that you are extremely interested in this issue. When we drafted amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code, we had several discussions with workers and employers. As you can see, we have improved the Act in many ways, as workers and employers recognize. Soon we will begin working on amendments to Part III of the code, which will allow us to add a number of items to the Act.

Given the long discussions we had regarding proposed section 132, I can tell you that workers and employers found these provisions to be satisfactory. We will continue the discussions that we started earlier once we begin drafting amendments to Part III of the code and look at many family-related issues.

Ms. Monique Guay: Ms. Bradshaw, I would just like to make the following comment. The members of our committee have heard from many witnesses, and we can say that there is no consensus regarding proposed section 132. We heard from union representatives, including the CSN and the FTQ, we heard from preventative health specialists who deal with the whole issue of precautionary cessation of work, as well as from a scientist and teacher at the Université de Montréal who works in this field. We were really taken aback by their testimony. I just want you to know that we will be working to amend this bill. I do hope that you take our reservations into account and that you look very closely at the amendments we will be moving before the bill is passed.

The Chair: Thank you, Monique.

[English]

Judy Sgro, followed by Libby Davies and Pat Martin.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): On the issue of the $753 million for homelessness, can you give me an update on where you are on the issue of criteria, the amount of interest you've had, the response from the community groups? Do you have any comments in regard to provincial support, specifically in Ontario?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Sure. Where do I begin, Judy?

We have been putting a process in place since December. The funding could have gone to a department, either HRD or CMHC, but it was decided that it would stay within the secretariat. Because it was staying within the secretariat, it was almost like putting a department together.

We knew a lot of community groups were already meeting, so we had to put the process in place. We also had to get ready because we knew we would have to make a presentation to Treasury Board. Also, we knew we had to work with the provinces.

What we did with the provinces is that the staff was meeting with the provinces on a regular basis on the partnership aspect of it. When the provinces were ready, I would go in.

I've done all out west. I have Quebec, Ontario, P.E.I., and New Brunswick left, where our staff is still meeting with the provincial counterparts. The discussion are going very well, which is very encouraging for me. The provinces I have worked with up to now have all come in and want to work in partnership with us.

Having said this, I would add that all the city facilitators are in place. We've given some planning funding to some of the communities. If you'd like a list, I have a list here. We have some ongoing funding that has already been put in place. I'll give you an example. With the funding we already have in place, Toronto received $18 million last year. Montreal received $4 million with the existing funding. So the projects that were there are continuing and nothing has stopped, because we're coming in with new funding.

• 1620

We're going to Treasury Board on June 1, and I believe we're going to be okay with Treasury Board. They're going to be okay with the process, they're going to be okay with our negotiations with the provinces. We wanted to make sure that the work we had done would be fine when we went to Treasury Board.

We tell the communities to continue meeting and to decide what their priorities are so that when our money starts rolling, they've already determined what funding they want within their own communities. I have to tell you that some communities have gone beyond any expectations I ever had. They're getting organized and coming out with really good ideas. I can say to you now that Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Toronto, and Vancouver have already gotten some planning funding from us. The planning is in place and the cheques will be going as early as June.

The Chair: Can we have the list, if there is one?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Sure.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Yes. If you can get us the list, I can ensure that people know there's money flowing and get some answers.

This is strictly planning. Any idea...?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Beginning after we go to Treasury Board, the cheques will be ready to flow later in June to the groups that have met and agreed that this is what they want for their community.

The Chair: Libby Davies and Pat Martin.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you, Chairperson. We're sharing our time and I'd like to thank the minister and her staff for coming.

I wanted to address a question on the housing and homelessness issue. I know the minister was in east Vancouver, the downtown east side, and I know people very much appreciated that. You've expressed your concern again today and your interest in this issue. In fact, your HRDC report here says the Government of Canada is working to address the causes of homelessness.

I have to say, though, that I think there was huge disappointment in the announcement. When you look at what really is available, the $753 million over four years, it's everything but housing itself. Anyone who's involved in the housing field knows the primary cause of homelessness is a lack of safe, affordable, appropriate housing.

I wanted to ask the minister, first of all, if she agrees with the report that was put together by her colleague, Mr. Martin, a decade ago on behalf of the Liberal caucus at the time. The report identified the real causes of homelessness and the need to address a housing strategy. How do you reconcile the fact that the initiative that was brought forward actually won't construct new housing?

There are other initiatives there to deal with youths, aboriginals, life skills. I don't want to diminish those; they are very important. But the reality is, as I know from talking with local HRDC officials, that this program is actually not going to get the federal government back into construction of housing. We will still have a homelessness problem in this country.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: As you know, Libby, when the Prime Minister asked me to coordinate the homelessness issue, at that time homelessness was a big issue. Homelessness is an issue. I was asked to look at the whole issue of homelessness in the country.

As I've said, we will do two things with our funding. One will be the absolute homeless and the other one will be transitional housing. We found out that a lot of people were caught between jobs and so on and so forth. You know the situation as well as I do, so you know what we want to do with transitional housing.

I believe we did manage to open up.... If you look at the infrastructure program, municipalities are able to ask for infrastructure funding for affordable housing. We had worked very closely with FCM throughout this process. We opened up the door for FCM so that when the five-year infrastructure program was announced, there was a clause in the budget that said that municipalities and provinces could use some of that funding on affordable housing.

• 1625

That was something I wanted to make sure was there. I wanted to make sure also that we worked very closely not only with the communities and the volunteer sector, but also with municipalities. We managed to do that through this process. But as I've said many times, I'm not the Minister of Housing; I was asked to do a job, and I was asked to look at the homelessness issue.

The other thing we did, Libby, when we started putting this process in place.... And I like to show it like this; I am caught right between the sandwich. I have homelessness. And that's why it was important when we started speaking with the provinces that we said we have facilitators, so why don't you come in with us and give us a provincial facilitator so that when we work with our communities we have a federal facilitator who will know where all the funding is, but we'll also have a provincial facilitator there so that if we need to look at the prevention of homelessness, and the health issue of homelessness, which are provincial jurisdictions, the community groups won't have to go all over the place.

Some provinces have said yes, we will give you a provincial facilitator. And when we see that happening, we can see these communities way ahead of the game, because we're really working in partnership with each other.

On the FCM, there's a meeting in September with the provinces and there's a meeting in September with the Minister of Housing. I'm anxious to see what's going to happen at that meeting in September.

Libby, I did nine months on the housing task force in New Brunswick.

The Chair: Are there any comments? Libby, comments, and then we'll go to Pat.

Ms. Libby Davies: I'd like to make one point. I don't think we can address homelessness unless the federal government is seriously involved in a social housing program. The FCM money is a drop in the bucket. It was very ambiguous in the budget speech, and I think there's a contradiction there. But I'll turn it over to my colleague.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: But Libby, I want to say something. The FCM succeeded in two areas. One, they succeeded in an amount of money for the quality of life, but also they succeeded in that the municipality and the provinces can request from the infrastructure funding for social housing.

The Chair: Pat Martin. Pat, we welcome you to our committee.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister.

I think everybody's pleased to see Bill C-12 getting close, and I know we've all worked very hard for years and years to get it there. I think it's a very good bill. But the best bill in the world is no good without good enforcement of it, and we know that since 1993 the number of inspections is way down, some say as much as 50%. That can be verified, maybe. We know that the number of directives and work orders is way down, the number of prosecutions is way down, and the number of voluntary compliances issued is way up. That just tells us that there are not enough enforcement officers out there to handle the federal jurisdiction.

Are there plans to put more federal regional health and safety officers in the field, and is there a budget to do this? How do you plan to address the statistics, which, if put on a graph, would look pretty bad in terms of enforcement?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We're aware of the situation, and in the last budget we made a request to Treasury Board for $6 million for hiring more inspectors in the field.

Mr. Pat Martin: How many bodies would that represent, Madam Minister? Do you have any idea? It depends on how much you pay them, I suppose. Maybe six. Six very well paid guys.

The Chair: I heard about 100.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It would give us 50 to 60. But we're working on that, and it was a step for us to get our 50 or 60.

Mr. Pat Martin: I have one more issue. My understanding is that parts I and II of the Public Service Staff Relations Act got royal assent and part III was never proclaimed. That simple signature would in fact give health and safety coverage to all the Hill employees. How do we motivate this government to simply—it wouldn't even have to come back to cabinet or to the House of Commons—sign and give royal assent to part III of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and these people have the basic health and safety coverage that other workers have?

The Chair: Minister, briefly if you could.

Ms. Libby Davies: Just say yes.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Briefly, I will—

The Chair: I hate to push you, but I think—

• 1630

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Chair, I would like to spend a day with this group.

The Chair: We would love to have you for a day.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I will bring your concern to the proper minister and proper channel.

The Chair: Yes. Minister, I would like to say, I think you know the committee is seized with the HRDC hearings, and we would sooner have more time to deal with this matter, to deal with your estimates, and so on. We simply don't at this time, under the circumstances.

I'm going to go to Larry McCormick, and then I'm going to go to Garry Breitkreuz and Dale Johnston. And Dale, as it's his motion, will end the proceedings.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Madam Minister, and your people, for being here. Time flies when you're having fun. We all suffered a loss when you were made minister, because you were here with us, as one of us and growing to be one of our most valuable members. So we are glad that we've invested you this way.

I understand that there's approximately a 12% increase in additional funding to your ministry. It sounds like a great investment, but I would like to give you the opportunity to share how that will be allotted.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Some of the funding will be allotted, as we said, for the inspectors on the integrity program. Also, there's $3 million allotted to CIDA for the ILO, for ratification of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention. And the last one is on the compensation. But the majority of it will go to the issue of our inspectors, because we were quite concerned with that also.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

I have one other short question—as I look at the clock, Mr. Chair.

Statistics show us—and we applaud the success of Canada's collective bargaining process—that in the nineties, strikes and walkouts were at their lowest level in twenty years. The nineties versus the eighties—I'm not sure how great a claim to victory that is. We're early in the year 2000. What are the prospects for this year? We're a third of the way through. It will soon be halfway through the year.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Larry, let me put it this way: as a first-year minister last year, it can't be any worse than it was last year.

Mr. Larry McCormick: On the grain issue, under the agreement we were supposed to revisit the fact about how grain is treated differently from other commodities. I wonder whether that's been revisited and studied and whether you might extend that remedy to other commodities, Madam Minister. Dale Johnston asked me to ask that question. It's about part I of the Canada Labour Code and the grain issue.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Yes, part I, and part I has only been in place now for a year. We want to wait and see. It's gone well this year.

Mr. Larry McCormick: There's supposed to be a review, though, after one year, I understand, if I recall.

The Chair: How many questions, Larry?

Mr. Larry McCormick: One. Thank you. Food is very important in rural Canada.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We're monitoring it, Larry. We know that it's there.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Larry. I appreciate it.

Garry Breitkreuz and Dale Johnston.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Minister, for coming before the committee.

I would like to make a comment on one of your comments. You said you'd love to come and be with us all day. That would really set a healthy precedent. I've been sitting on the agriculture committee with Mr. McCormick, and it's very difficult to get ministers to spend much time with us. So we appreciate it.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: You see, I was on this committee before. I like this group.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you. I think that would be a health precedent.

Larry has actually asked the question I was going to ask, but I didn't think you really answered it. What is the status of the review of that section on final offer arbitration? As you know, it applies only to the grain industry and only a narrow segment. If the railroads go on strike, farmers are left high and dry on the prairies. This issue is a huge concern to the people in my area. You're monitoring it, but, in all fairness, we've heard that before. And then when the crisis comes, an innocent third party gets hurt.

• 1635

The Chair: Mr. Edmondson.

Mr. Warren Edmondson: There's a long history, as you're aware, to the discussions that led to the current part I of the Canada Labour Code and the special provision for grain. Certainly the undertaking was there to review the provisions, which are very unique, in that they require, as you know, that grain would continue to move in a longshoring strike.

In fact there was a short strike at the west coast port late in 1999 that could have potentially impacted on the movement of grain. The fact of the matter was that notwithstanding the strike, grain did continue to move. Therefore our review indicated that the intention of the provisions of that section of part I of the code were in fact working.

There's currently bargaining going on with the Waterfront Foremen Employers Association on behalf of the foremen on the west coast port. We're hoping that once again an agreement will be reached without a work stoppage, but should a work stoppage occur, we're hoping the grain would continue to move and farmers and their commodity would continue to be protected.

As the minister said, it's really very early days. We've really had limited experience with the new amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think I'll leave it there.

I just want to register my concern that there's a lot more to the grain movement industry than just at the port. Because so many millions of dollars were lost, farmers are very nervous. They're really feeling the pinch right now. So I alert you to that great concern.

The Chair: We'll go to Dale Johnston to conclude.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.

Since the minister appeared before us the last time, we had a crippling lockout at the port of Vancouver and then we had the NAV CANADA air traffic controllers dispute that was only resolved at the very last minute. Now we are faced in Canada with what is very close to a monopoly in the airline industry. I'm wondering what measures the minister plans to put in place to protect the public and the economy from work stoppages in these areas where there is a monopoly or very near to it.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: If you look at the port of Vancouver and if you look at NAV CANADA, you can imagine there's pressure for back-to-work legislation. Let's thank our lucky stars that everybody worked together on this one and we didn't have to do that.

We went through the process the Department of Labour has in place. In these two incidents the process worked and worked very well. Yes, I know, I got the fax at three in the afternoon for NAV CANADA. But imagine that the employees and the employers with our staff were able to sit down and come up with a good collective agreement.

I want to make it very clear, as Minister of Labour, that we want to do the same thing with the airline industry. We have a good process. We have one of the best ones in the world. If NAV CANADA and the Vancouver ports could sit together with our people.... We have some of the best people in the world working in our department.

So for me the process is there. I believe in that process. We have to let it work. If we've done it with NAV CANADA and we've done it with the port of Vancouver, I don't know why we can't do it with the airlines.

The Chair: Dale, thank you very much.

Colleagues, I'm going to conclude at that point. I'd like to say to you, first of all, that after some slight translation we will circulate the list the minister provided to all members of the committee.

Minister, can you confirm that the infrastructure program you referred to was the infrastructure program that is now before the provinces and it was in this year's budget? That's the one we're discussing.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: That's right.

The Chair: And we're awaiting the results of those discussions.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: The provinces have also had discussions with the minister responsible for Treasury Board. Our minister has had discussions not only with the provinces but also with the FCM.

• 1640

The Chair: Minister, I appreciate your accommodating us. We are glad to have you back at our committee. We would have had you for longer, but I don't think that at the moment we could have had a longer meeting with you. The motion, as you know, dealt with the centre and the board and the tribunal at the same time, so it's not out of lack of interest. We greatly appreciate you and your officials being here. Thank you very much.

If I could call the other witnesses forward, I'd be most grateful.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Colleagues, I welcome our witnesses.

For the witnesses, before we begin, you heard my previous explanation. I think you all know we're involved in the public hearings. They conclude tomorrow and we have to produce a report by June 1, so the committee's time has been very constrained. It's not out of lack of interest that we are having to move this thing along fairly quickly.

Colleagues, from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety we have Len Hong, who is the president and CEO. For the Canada Industrial Relations Board, we have Akivah Starkman, executive director. Thank you, Akivah; we appreciate your being here. From the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, we have David Silcox and Josée Dubois. We welcome you both.

If you'd like to proceed with short opening statements, we will hear them all together and then we will proceed to general questions and answers. If you want to proceed as we are in the agenda, that's fine. We'll proceed then with the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Akivah, you're the presenter.

Mr. Akivah L. Starkman (Executive Director, Canada Industrial Relations Board): First I'll say that I have been here for the last hour and a bit, so I've heard your rejoinders about being brief and I'll take them to heart.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Akivah Starkman: First of all I would just like to express the regrets of the chairman of the board, Mr. Paul Lordon, who would very much have liked to have been here himself personally, but he's currently in Toronto conducting a hearing, actually two hearings, from which he could not extricate himself. I'm here in his stead.

As you know, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has been in existence for just over a year, about a year and a quarter now, pursuant to the passage of the amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code. I just wanted to communicate that it's been a very challenging, a very demanding, but I think ultimately a very rewarding year for the board. We have seen in the space of a year the level of work, the level of applications being brought to the board, go up by some 20%.

The demand is enormous and yet we have been able so far, while setting up a new board and doing a transition from the old board to the new board, to maintain service to clients, which is our primary focus, and indeed to improve. In almost every aspect of the board's activity, we have managed to achieve a significant improvement in the time in which we process cases over that which was experienced by the predecessor board.

• 1645

We are, however, a little concerned about the workload level. We thought maybe it was an initial reaction to some of the new aspects of the legislation, but indeed, it shows no sign of abating. Our most recent statistics for last month show almost record levels of cases being brought to the board. We are again examining all of our processes and practices and seeing ways that we might be able to yet further refine our processes to make sure that we can deal with things as expeditiously as possible.

The only other point I'll make is that over the past year, we have taken the opportunity to consult extensively with our client group, particularly around the development of regulations pursuant to the new code, the new Part I of the code. Those consultations have been extremely positive. The fact that we are now a representational board has aided us in having a good contact with our client community. We're working on developing regulations and we've had extensive input from the labour community, from the employer community, and also from the legal community on how we can build those regulations to continue to provide an expedited service to our clients. I'll leave it at that and I'd be pleased to answer any questions you have.

The Chair: We appreciate those comments. Thank you very much.

Now, from the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, David Silcox.

Mr. David Silcox (Chairperson, Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here.

The tribunal is a relatively new federal agency, which administers the Status of the Artist Act and reports to Parliament through the Minister of Labour.

[Translation]

The Status of the Artist Act recognizes the important contribution that artists make to the cultural, social, economic and political enrichment of Canada. The Act establishes a regime for the conduct of professional relations between self-employed artists, such as authors, directors and performers, and broadcasters, federal government departments and federal agencies such as the National Film Board and National Museums.

[English]

In all, there are some 100,000 Canadian artists, 165 federal government institutions, and about 1,200 broadcasters that come under the jurisdiction of the Status of the Artist Act.

I've been a member of the tribunal since 1995 and was appointed to the chair in March 1998. This is a part-time appointment and I continue also in an appointment as a fellow at Massey College in Toronto.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the Status of the Artist Act, it came into being as a consequence of some great concern in the artistic community and the government acting on a 1980 recommendation of UNESCO to establish a status of the artist legislation. It was passed in 1992 and it came into force in 1995. Quebec is the only province that has a parallel or comparable legislation at the provincial level.

The tribunal is very mindful of the economic conditions that exist in the community it was designed to serve. Although Canada's cultural industries account for about 5% of Canada's gross domestic product, the income of individual artists averages about $23,000 a year for individuals. That includes income from non-artistic work.

Artists and their associations don't have the financial resources to become involved in lengthy and litigious proceedings in front of quasi-judicial agencies like ours. With this in mind, we make every effort to provide services to the community in a way that's simple and fair and cost-effective. Our operating budget, as you can see from the estimates, is approximately $1.7 million, and we have a complement of five part-time members and a staff of ten.

We keep costs down by making arrangements with larger government departments for support services, informatics, human resources, finance, and so on. The CIRB, which is in the same building as we are, provides access to their law library and their hearing rooms.

• 1650

The process we're involved in can sometimes be quite a lengthy one. Although we have now dealt with about twenty certifications that cover most of the country and most of the groups of self-employed artists in Canada, there are a couple of interesting problems coming before us now. One of them has to to with the Internet and how it may impact on the jurisdiction we have. As you know, the CRTC recently determined that some Internet transmissions constitute broadcasting, under the meaning of the Broadcasting Act. Broadcasting is under the CRTC; it automatically comes under the jurisdiction of our tribunal. So we're interested in seeing what new media is going to mean for us and for the artists who may contribute to producers who produce works in new media.

The other thing of interest to this committee and to a sister committee on heritage is that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage said it would be difficult to make improvements in the status of Canadian artists without cooperation and participation of the provincial governments. I quote from their recent report:

Existing federal status of the artist legislation will fulfil its purposes only if it is accompanied by complementary provincial legislation.

We are quite interested in seeing how this may work out in the course of the year. British Columbia recently commissioned a report on the status of artists' issues, and made recommendations that the government is now considering. The Government of Newfoundland has also funded a research project on the same subject.

So those are a couple of things that are of interest to us at the moment. We're here to answer any questions members may have.

The Chair: Is that it? Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Josée, would you like to add something?

Ms. Josée Dubois (Executive Director and General Counsel, Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal): No, I think that Mr. Silcox did a very good job with his presentation.

[English]

The Chair: Next, for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, is Len Hong.

Mr. Len Hong (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety): Thank you very much for inviting me to attend this committee hearing. It's my pleasure to represent the staff at the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, and to express to you what they've been up to and what the future lays before us.

This past year has been very challenging in the positive sense. Many opportunities have opened up. Our stakeholder support has never been stronger, that being governments, employers, and labour throughout Canada. Throughout Canada we are now seen as a very active organization contributing to the public service, and contributing to supporting health and safety initiatives.

We are being called upon more and more to participate in local, regional, and national initiatives. Although I would love to say that's a wonderful opportunity, unfortunately we still retain the same staffing levels. Our staff is very diverse, and has been occupied full-time, working on its task to support the activities, be they public sector work or revenue-generating, to keep the CCOHS moving forward.

• 1655

Secondly, our stakeholders, the council of governors, conducted a retreat last summer. Arising out of that retreat, they voiced very clearly that they saw that the Canadian centre could be a very strong unifying organization to look at immediate and future problems in the nation, so there could be voluntary coordinated efforts to jointly move on national or regional directions that sometimes are not doable by individual jurisdictions. That's a very welcome challenge placed before us. The downside, of course, is then they say “Go find the money to do this”. But we'll look forward to that.

I'll think I'll just be brief at this stage. It's my pleasure to try to answer your questions.

The Chair: Len, thank you very much for that, and thank you all. The list I have is Dale Johnston, Rey Pagtakhan, and Monique Guay.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, folks, for your presentations.

The Auditor General has in the past made several recommendations about how to improve operations of the old Canada Industrial Relations Board. Now that the new CIRB is in place, what recommendations or suggestions for improvement, as put forward by the Auditor General, has the new board adopted?

Mr. Akivah Starkman: This is actually a timely question because the Auditor General is working with us even as we speak, and has been following up on exactly this topic over the past few weeks, in terms of the recommendations they put forward. I think it's safe to say that the Canada Industrial Relations Board has adopted all of the recommendations that were put forward by the Auditor General.

The final aspect of the recommendation we're in the process of doing is to implement a code of conduct for our members. This has now been discussed by the senior management group of the board and is on the verge of being implemented. When that is done it will complete our work, with regard to the Auditor General's recommendations.

Perhaps I could just flag one significant change we made that sort of set the stage for a lot of the other recommendations to come into place. We have entered into a shared financial services agreement with the Public Service Staff Relations Board, whereby we've established a joint team that provides financial services to both the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the Canada Industrial Relations Board. That team is headed by an accountant, a senior financial officer, who works technically for the Public Service Staff Relations Board. So currently, at the Canada Industrial Relations Board, all of our financial practices and policies are overseen ultimately by the chairman and myself, but are reviewed by someone who's not even a board employee.

So we think we've managed to implement lots of good safeguards and practices, and indeed have followed the recommendations the Auditor General put forward.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also with the CIRB, we're just dealing with Bill C-12, which comes up in report stage in the House on Friday. One of the things we debated here in committee was that both employees and employers in groups testified that they would like to see a two-stage appeal process, or if it had to be a one-stage appeal process, it would simply be the CIRB. It was either two-stage, including the CIRB, or one-stage, with only the CIRB.

Would you like to comment on whether you think the CIRB should remain part of that process or be part of that process?

Mr. Akivah Starkman: In all honesty, at the policy level that is something I would defer to this committee and Parliament, to decide which would be the most appropriate way to structure the legislation.

We are still actively handling cases. We handled approximately 34 or 35 cases, pursuant to part II of the code last year. When called upon to do so, we are trying to do it in as expeditious a manner as possible. But as to the future role of the CIRB with respect to part II, we're prepared to serve in whatever capacity Parliament requests of us.

• 1700

Mr. Dale Johnston: That's fair enough.

Can I have another round?

The Chair: Very quickly.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Well, perhaps I'll change gears and ask a question of Mr. Silcox or someone from the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal.

According to part III of the estimates, your budgetary expenditures are expected to rise by about 30%—30.5%, to be exact. Could you tell us what these funds are allocated for, and why the tribunal should require such a large increase?

Mr. David Silcox: I would be glad to answer that. In fact there is no increase in the budgetary allocation. The difference is between what we had last year and what we returned to the consolidated revenue fund. Our planned spending for next year is exactly what it was last year. We had a shortfall and returned money last year.

The Chair: David, do you want to say that again, because I would have asked the same question. Just explain it.

Mr. David Silcox: We didn't spend our whole budget last year. We gave $397,000 back, and that represents the difference Mr. Johnston is referring to.

Mr. Dale Johnston: It's certainly a novel approach in government. I hope it catches on.

Mr. David Silcox: We try to be efficient, and if we can save money, we do.

The Chair: Okay.

Rey Pagtakhan, and then Monique Guay.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That brings me to the question, how do you see the caseload before your tribunal? Is it increasing, the same, or what?

Mr. David Silcox: It's been quite slow this past year. We certainly had a much busier time the first two to three years the tribunal was set up. It hasn't been as heavy now, but we have no way of predicting exactly what we're likely to get in the year ahead. We have some cases that are in the works at the moment. It doesn't look as if it's going to be an exceptionally busy year, but it's possible that it may pick up quite a lot in the fall.

If we don't have a high caseload, then we don't have hearings, the members don't meet, and that money gets returned to the consolidated revenue fund. I think it will probably be a relatively modest year in terms of actual hearings.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I would like the other two tribunal representatives to also respond to the question of workload. Mr. Starkman, and Mr. Hong.

Mr. Akivah Starkman: Sure.

Our workload in the first year of the board's full operations was tremendously increased from what had been experienced by the predecessor board over a number of years. Last year, for example, we received 845 applications and files, and the average over a five-year period for the former board was more in the range of 735. At the same time, the level of staffing of our board members has gone down by 25% over the previous board.

So the workload is high, and as Mr. Silcox said, it's very difficult to predict where it's going to go except that now that we have a year of experience, we see that it hasn't been diminishing. I, like you, read the papers about what is taking place in terms of corporate mergers, in terms of a lot of issues that ultimately can come to the attention of the Canada Industrial Relations Board in the federal jurisdiction, and I would anticipate that the workload will be sustained at a very high level.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Hong.

Mr. Len Hong: The workload at CCOHS has also increased, and I expect it to continue to increase over the next few years because of demands for participation across Canada to support other activities. That's a good opportunity, but we have to put that workload onto the workload of the existing staff.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My next question to all of you is what percentage of the cases are won by the employees and what percentage are won by the employers? Is that a legitimate question?

How many of the representations before the tribunal are done with the necessity of having a lawyer and what proportion are done without the necessity of having a lawyer, they being quasi-judicial tribunals?

• 1705

Mr. David Silcox: If you'd like me to answer first, I would say with respect to the first question that we deal not with employees and employers but with freelance independent artists and producers' groups. So there isn't the same sort of relation exactly. Our experience thus far has been primarily that of certifying bargaining units, and we get producers' groups appearing at the certification process to make their views known.

In terms of the complaints we've dealt with, there have been relatively few so far, and I think all of them came from the artist side except one, which came from the producer side. But there were only six altogether.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Starkman.

Mr. Akivah Starkman: It's difficult to answer the question precisely in terms of employers versus employees, because again, the nature of the applications we deal with is not necessarily employees or unions against employers, with one winning and one losing. We deal, for example, with certifications, which are just the wishes of the employees themselves, and we deal with issues where an employee, a union member, may feel that his or her union did not adequately represent them, so that's an employee and the union. It's quite a mixture, and it doesn't break out into employer-employee.

One figure I will give you in terms of winning and losing—or not in terms of winning or losing—which I'm proud of and which we are trying to strengthen, is that two-thirds of the cases that come to us are resolved without the need for a board decision. We work very closely with the parties to try to help them reach resolutions. As I said, two-thirds of the complaints that come to us now are resolved in that way, and it's our desire to strengthen that.

With regard to the question about representation, I don't have figures on that. Most of the parties that appear before us do have legal representation, but not all. We are a quasi-judicial tribunal, and as such we try, when parties do not have representation, to operate in a way that is not intimidating, that includes them in the process. But that would be the minority of cases.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Hong, does the question apply to your centre?

Mr. Len Hong: It applies if the question is what the division or the reflection is of those who use our services to do their health and safety work.

About 38% are employees, be they CEOs or frontline workers, but in their capacity as employees; 38% or 37% are as manager-supervisors in their administrative roles; another 9% are for educational activities seeking information; 15% are from libraries and other service providers who also help circulate information; and about 8% are from the various health care professionals who serve Canadians to ameliorate the injuries they've produced or to do background checks as to why they've become sick and what they can do to help the situation.

The Chair: Let's move on if we can.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have one last question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Rey, be very, very short, because you're already a minute and a half over Dale, and he's going to be demanding extra time. Very briefly, if you could, Rey. It's an interesting line of questioning.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I can yield.

The Chair: You yield. Okay.

Monique Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: That was very interesting, but I have several questions.

My first is for Mr. Starkman and Mr. Hong. I think it concerns them more. Under Part II of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with health and safety, committees are now set up in companies to ensure that the rules are being followed or to deal with complaints, if there are any. Are these committees helpful to you in your areas of concern? Do these committees make life easier for you? In the final analysis, if there is a dispute, they will report to you.

[English]

Mr. Len Hong: This will make things easier to an extent, in that health and safety committees will be able to get free confidential information to help them work in their workplaces and hopefully help others to become safe. We've already been anticipating that move by producing documents to support the committee members' work.

• 1710

Mr. Akivah Starkman: We deal with two very specific and circumscribed aspects of part II of the code. The first is that when a safety officer from the minister's program issues an order, that can be appealed to us in certain circumstances. The second is dealing with issues of discipline, where an employee feels they have been disciplined for exercising their rights under part II of the code.

Just to set the background, my answer would be that with regard to either of those, if committees in the workplace can help employers and their employees work together to avoid issues and disputes around safety and health, that's going to mean that we don't get the cases. As much as we like work, the fewer cases we deal with, the better, from our perspective.

It's rather indirect, but if that environment in the workplace helps the parties work out their disputes, that will affect us positively.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, gentlemen.

I now have some questions for Mr. Silcox. You said that the National Museums come under the new Tribunal.

Mr. David Silcox: Yes.

Ms. Monique Guay: Do you take care of the museum employees?

Mr. David Silcox: Not exactly. If the museums produce an event, a play or something like that, we do not take care of these employees, but we do take care of the self-employed artists.

Ms. Monique Guay: I see. You do not take care of the permanent employees. I just wanted to understand the nuance between the two.

In Quebec, we have an organization called the Union des artistes. Do you work together with them? I don't know how the agreement between you and the Union des artistes works, because as you pointed out, Quebec is the only province that has such an organization.

Mr. David Silcox: The Union des artistes asked our Tribunal for the necessary accreditation to represent a number of artists in the province of Quebec, and we gave them the accreditation three years ago.

Ms. Monique Guay: What would happen if someone filed a complaint with the Union des artistes? That's basically what I'd like to know.

Mr. David Silcox: If it is within the federal realm, yes. If it is a provincial area of responsibility, that's another jurisdiction. The National Arts Centre, for example, comes under our jurisdiction.

Ms. Monique Guay: That is what I wanted to know. Listen. You haven't understood my question. If someone complains to the Union des artistes and is not satisfied with their decision, can that person then turn to you and go to another level, such as the Canada Industrial Relations Board?

Mr. David Silcox: That depends on whether the complaint is...

Ms. Monique Guay: That would be like our judicial system.

Mr. David Silcox: In a way you're right, but to be perfectly accurate, if the complaint had to do with a theatre in Montreal or if it came from a performer in Montreal, that isn't our area of jurisdiction. If the complaint came from someone performing at the National Arts Centre, that would be our jurisdiction.

Ms. Monique Guay: Should there be an agreement, not only for Quebec—let's hope that the other provinces follow our example to some extent—but an agreement that would ensure that if things don't work out with the Union des artistes, if the person loses an application or whatever, he could appeal to another level?

Mr. David Silcox: It doesn't work exactly that way, but perhaps Josée could add something.

Ms. Monique Guay: Josée, I'd just like to hear your opinion. I'm asking the question out of curiosity.

Ms. Josée Dubois: Are you talking about a complaint about the Union des artistes because the Union des artistes did not represent the artist properly?

Ms. Monique Guay: No, not at all.

Ms. Josée Dubois: When a member of the Union des artistes files a complaint...

Ms. Monique Guay: The Union des artistes defends the person. That's what I mean.

• 1715

Ms. Josée Dubois: It all depends on the kind of complaint. Let's assume that a collective agreement is violated and the artist files a complaint with the Union des artistes, who represents him. If he is not satisfied with the way the Union des artistes has represented him, he can look to the Quebec legislation if it is a problem that comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. If the problem comes under federal jurisdiction, then our legislation provides for a mechanism for such a complaint.

If the Tribunal's decision is not satisfactory to the person, there is what we call a judicial review, which is not exactly the same thing as an appeal.

Ms. Monique Guay: That can go on for a long time.

Ms. Josée Dubois: Things rarely go that far. There often is a process of mediation between the various stages, and we hope that the complaint can be settled even before the Tribunal is asked to rule.

Ms. Monique Guay: I see. Congratulations on making a profit last year, but don't do that too often, or else we will cut your funding. No, I'm just joking. I think it's great that you were able to return money back to the government. I think that's an example that many other agencies should follow.

[English]

Mr. David Silcox: We should get commissions when money is returned. We'd maybe get more of it.

The Chair: Sure. That's right.

Larry McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I detect a trend developing here.

I'm addressing this question to the CIRB, I'm sure with the support of my colleague, Dale Johnston.

Mr. Starkman, you shared with us that your workload is very high, and I'm sure it is, yet net planned spending by the board this year is expected to be 32% below forecast. This gives you an opportunity to explain how you can do such a phenomenally great job.

Mr. Akivah Starkman: I'm afraid the build-up may be a bit more exciting than the answer.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It's your opportunity.

Mr. Akivah Starkman: A couple of factors come to bear on this. The first is that last year's spending reflected some additional costs that were incurred in the transition from the Canada Labour Relations Board to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. They included, for example, the relocation costs for the new board members as per the Treasury Board directives, and they included consultations with clients around the development of regulations as well as some payments to former board members for finishing off cases. Those will not be repeated.

We're also saving some money this year because we've totally renovated our headquarters facilities and reduced our space, which de facto saves—because they're services we're not charged for—the taxpayers, through Public Works, about $300,000 a year for the reduced space. And there are some other operating efficiencies.

That's the good news side of it. The bad news side of it...well, it's not bad news, but the workload is an issue. For us to be able to achieve the types of efficiencies that were anticipated in the code, things like video conferencing, things like being able to communicate with us electronically.... We don't even have e-mail yet. There has been a significant underinvestment in the sort of telecommunications capacity we have, and we're discussing with Treasury Board a business plan to correct that. But that explains the difference between last year and this year, as it stands.

Mr. Larry McCormick: We certainly hope and wish you well with Treasury Board. It's important work that you do.

Mr. Hong, your projections for revenue are very high. It makes a person wonder what would happen if sales slowed down and what alternatives you would have and where you would go to get this operating money.

The Chair: Len, could I interject here? If you can describe these products, I guess the informational products, and give us some sense of what they are, that would be good.

Mr. Len Hong: The Canadian centre was a world pioneer in the creation of CD-ROMs back in 1985 for the distribution of occupational health and safety information to occupational health and safety professionals.

We were fortunate, in that in 1985 we went to the American government, pried loose a proprietary U.S. government database, and said “If you're using this, other governments around the world would love to use it, so let's share in it.” We showed them that actually we could make their data more useful. They liked what we did to it so much that their scientists decided to use what the Canadians produced rather than their own data.

• 1720

We gain reputations for doing things, working with governments, making information widely accessible and knowledgeable, from the U.K., from the United Nations, from the U.S.A., and of course from throughout Canada.

So in the CD-ROM era, plus the whole era of creating information for Canadian workplaces, things not written for scientists and documents written in a common language that could be read in English and French was our major preoccupation. Some of those activities had to cease in about 1989 to focus on revenue-generating activities.

It should be known that more than half our revenues are generated outside of Canada. Canadians have tended not to value what we've done because it was free in the first ten years. Americans tend not to buy our stuff because it's too cheap—I'll say that. But once they see it, they realize that it's higher quality than they can get in the United States.

We're now in the era of being or trying to be the leading Internet provider of health and safety information. We have moved onto the web quickly. We are now earning about 8% of our revenues from the Internet after one year. However, we don't have the opportunities to invest, and we can't keep up with Bill Gates. We don't have venture capital; we don't have banking arrangements; we can't roll over our funds. We can only do one-year planning. We're a government department. We returned $25,000 to the treasury last year.

The Chair: Len, if I could interrupt, the questioning was that your projections rely on increases in revenue.

Mr. Len Hong: Yes.

The Chair: Could you comment on that?

Mr. Len Hong: There's a two-part answer to that. Yes, we rely on increased revenue. We dearly hope we're going to make it. To be blunt, we don't know if we will, but we've changed around our sales approach, our customization approach. We are now seen probably as one of the leaders in the Internet dissemination of OHS information.

As for the fallback position, Treasury Board provides supplementaries, and we hope they continue to do so for those fallbacks that we need.

Secondarily, the labour program itself has also been generous to us in the past in supporting our work, because it has been recognized that any moneys we earn, we turn back into Canadian public service.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Congratulations, and thanks for sharing another Canadian success story.

The Chair: Len, do you want to give us a website, for the record?

Mr. Len Hong: Yes, it's www.ccohs.ca. I'd love to give you the French equivalent, but it's in my binder. But you can switch to the French side of our website quite easily.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Rey, would you like a brief question? Then I'm going to go to Dale Johnston, as it is his motion to conclude.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I heard what you said, that you're not allowed to roll over; it's only one-year planning.

In fact, my last question, which I would have asked earlier of all of you, I will ask specifically to you because of time constraints. Is that the message you would like the committee to hear, that in fact consideration be given that you should be able to have, say, five-year planning?

Mr. Len Hong: Yes. The answer is we've asked Treasury Board for many of the freedoms offered to the private sector. We can't compete for government funding for grants that are given to the private sector, we can't get bank loans, we can't run a three-year plan or a five-year plan, so we can't compete fairly. There is no level playing field for us.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Could you provide the committee with a proposal to that effect, and the rationale, the goals and objectives, and the business plan for such a proposal?

Mr. Len Hong: Yes, I will. I would be very glad to do so. Thank you.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Chair: If you could send that to me, I would be grateful.

Rey, thank you very much.

Dale Johnston, a brief wrap-up.

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

• 1725

Mr. Starkman, as you know, the issue of the merging of the seniority lists in the airlines has been a real challenge—I guess that's a good word to use. How does the board plan to deal with challenges presented as a result of the amalgamation of the airlines and the ultimate melding of the seniority lists? Do you have a plan for that?

Mr. Akivah Starkman: Obviously we're following the developments very closely. I'm aware, having read as recently as today, that the parties, the unions, are in discussions themselves with regard to the seniority, and we're hearing that the discussions are proceeding in a positive manner.

Clearly, the ideal scenario would be that the parties would be able to resolve this between themselves and the board would be prepared to offer whatever assistance it is requested to offer, whether it be through alternative dispute resolution, facilitating those discussions, or ultimately having to hear the cases and render decisions.

We are monitoring it very closely. Our belief is that with the powers that have been given to the board in this regard with the recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code, part I, we would be able to handle any issues that come out of this in a timely manner. But clearly the first and preferred route would be for the parties themselves to be able to resolve these issues, and I understand they're working very hard toward that end.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Certainly I agree that the best way for it to be resolved is by the parties themselves. But given that the other hearing, the one that took so long—I think it was about four years before the board—was not a favourable one in this regard, would that be considered, if not a precedent, at least sort of a roadblock? These groups can look at the decision that was eventually handed down by the CIRB and say here's a quasi-judicial board that said the melding of these seniority tables isn't going to be looked at, so what hope do we have?

Mr. Akivah Starkman: I take it you're referring to the case between Air Canada and the regional connectors. The nub of the issue that the board dealt with was whether or not in fact that constituted a common employer.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes.

Mr. Akivah Starkman: That was really what the board was addressing, as opposed to how the seniority lists should be merged. The predecessor board has dealt on a number of occasions with cases where there has been a merger and it's recognized that there is a common employer, and the seniority issues fall out of that.

I would say the board's approach to anything that comes out of the current mergers would be rooted in the facts of this situation, which may well be different from the facts the board has dealt with previously.

Mr. Dale Johnston: So you're saying this wouldn't be viewed as a precedent.

Mr. Akivah Starkman: It would really depend on the facts that are presented in any case that comes to us.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Fair enough.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have a question for David Silcox. I'm very interested in support and services for artists. As you know, it's a very complex business—you know, how do you encourage creativity? But I was struck by the fact that you said the average income of your clients, including non-artistic income, is $23,000. This is an extraordinary thing. Again, they're obviously not functioning as Supreme Court judges and playing guitar at night. Would you care to comment on that? Do you have an idea what proportion of that $23,000 would be artistic?

Mr. David Silcox: Those are mostly the creative artists, as opposed to those who are employed in libraries or museums or institutions in the cultural field or working in printing establishments for publishers. But it is a little distressing that the average wage is so low. It's true that dancers' incomes are among the worst, as it turns out.

I simply hope that in time the situation will change so that the infrastructure that's put around the cultural life of the country will in fact make this somewhat better.

• 1730

It's also perhaps a factor of so many of the creative artists in Canada being self-employed. These statistics are all from Stats Canada, by the way. The increase from the 1991 census to the 1996 census puts the percentage of the total artists in the country from 31% to 42%. So it's actually gone up quite substantially, even in five years. That's a very large percentage of the cultural workforce to be self-employed.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. David Silcox: It's interesting, I think, that this tribunal is a kind of model that may be looked at when you look at the fact that the self-employment movement is happening not just in the cultural area, but in many other areas as well. When we talk with our colleagues in other tribunals, we find this is a growing issue that has to be dealt with somehow within the framework of the labour laws of the land.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we have about 13 minutes before a vote.

I want to thank the representatives of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. We greatly appreciate it. Again, you heard my remarks about the constraints we worked under. I think it was a very productive meeting. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we adjourn until our regular meeting tomorrow, when our principal witness is the Honourable Jane Stewart, the Minister of HRDC.